Is Michael's Will Really Valid?

[jrsfan]

yes one of the documents said "making the estate profitable for generations to come". now for a moment let's put all emotions to side and think rationally.

michael jackson's estate is not a regular estate / inheritance that consists of simply some properties and certain amount of money (for example elvis, cobain estates are quite regular). All the money and assets aside MJ's estate has 2 companies (MJJ productions and MJ Kingdom) and 2 music catalogs (SONY/ATV and Mijac). And believe me when I say this can't be managed by a regular person, you need to have professionals.

Now there's no way that we can know whether his kids will have the ability or will be willing to take on such a task. you would not want to leave this job completely to them either - how many times have we heard heirs spending all the inheritance or bankrupting the business just because they don't have the ability or knowledge (or just reckless) to run such a business. yet at the same time I agree with you and think that michael would not just give them an allowance. so I'm actually thinking about a combination scenario where the kids get to have a seat / have voting power/ become an executor when they turn 21/25 with the professional executors. when I think rationally this is the best of 2 worlds - yes you give them increased power over their fathers estate but yet keep professionals involved to ensure that this estate will indeed be able to provide for generations to come..

for the second part as far as I remember the will allows executors to determine their successors. so Mccain always do that.

I remember that the executors get to do that, but that doesn't mean that McClain gets to do that, especially if he died suddenly. I have only read in a couple of places that he was seriously ill. How ill? What does that mean? He may just always be chronically ill. I really can't tell, but I am just guessing it is serious or something that can't be hidden or it wouldn't be mentioned. As I remember, Johnny Cochran kept his brain tumor hidden, not uncommon. There haven't been any pictures of him that I recall. I could have missed them.

Has anyone seen any pics of McClain? Thanks in advance.

Perhaps noone would be required to refill McClain's position. Almost as good as owning it for Branca.

"Now there's no way that we can know whether his kids will have the
ability or will be willing to take on such a task." Now that is a valid point, but people & firms that manage those things can be hired & fired if the kids have direct control.

Merv Griffins son is having difficulty with his executors & has an allowance - his claim is that they are losing the value is my understanding from what I briefly read - & the estate's argument was the will was uncontestable.

"yet at the same time I agree with you and think that michael would not just give them an allowance. so I'm actually thinking about a combination scenario where the kids get to have a seat / have voting power/ become an executor when they turn 21/25 with the professional executors. when I think rationally this is the best of 2 worlds - yes you give them increased power over their fathers estate but yet keep professionals involved to ensure that this estate will indeed be able to provide for generations to come.."

That could be a possibility.

 

[Dangerous Incorporated]

Harvey Levine spoke to Weitzman about the Will and Harvey doesnt believe the Will was signed in Los Angeles as the Will declares.

This isnt a long video but please watch it all:
[youtube]3mZIlwd7YIA[/youtube]

 

[SexyMamaJo]

What's gonna happen if Branca and McClain dies?

 

[ivy]

Harvey Levine spoke to Weitzman about the Will and Harvey doesnt believe the Will was signed in Los Angeles as the Will declares.

yes and they have also been saying that it's a witness who put the wrong place on the will.

What's gonna happen if Branca and McClain dies?

they can determine their successors. if they don't and the kids are minor the judge most probably will assign a bank to manage the estate.

 

[Autumn II]

The kids should be in charge of the estate and they have the option to hire whoever they deem appropriate to take care of their business matters. Not give COMPLETE power to a guy Michael didnt trust and hope he doesnt screw the kids before they come of age. It's a dodgy set up atm. Which means to me that Michael didnt organise the Will.

Absolutely! No one would expect the kids, as adults, to do the hands-on business management. That would be absurd. Of COURSE they would hire the very best team for that, and a team of their own choosing. This way, they have no control over who is managing their father's estate and in what manner, and they never will. It's extremely dodgy. I can't imagine a circumstance where Michael would remove all control from his children. This, more than any other thing, makes me think this will is fraudulent. There must be a more recent will, and a reason why whoever has it does not come forward.

 

[ivy]

guys once again - we don't know whether the children will get the control of the estate or not as it is written in the trust and the trust is private.

It could be written that they get full control at 21/25 or they could get an allowance or it could be a combination - nobody knows. please just don't go around saying that it is a fact that they won't inherit the estate when you (or anybody else) have no way of knowing the specifics.

ps: what I'm trying to say is that writing your opinions is fine but just don't write them as a fact.

 

[daisy]

guys once again - we don't know whether the children will get the control of the estate or not as it is written in the trust and the trust is private.

It could be written that they get full control at 21/25 or they could get an allowance or it could be a combination - nobody knows. please just don't go around saying that it is a fact that they won't inherit the estate when you (or anybody else) have no way of knowing the specifics.

ps: what I'm trying to say is that writing your opinions is fine but just don't write them as a fact.

I agree with you with regard to the bolded part,

HOWEVER, I thik what people here mean is that they would like to be SURE that the children inherit and that there is NO CHANCE that they wouldn´t.

If the question is: Are you 100% sure that the children inherit, what would you say?

Referring to facts/opinions - I think it is allowed here in the IU to go beyond what´s documented and known and "factual" and members do not need to write "I am speculating, This is my opinion, not fact" in each post.

 

[ivy]

daisy - I know and understand what you are saying. of course it is okay to speculate and write your opinions. I have no problem with that. but I have an issue with wording I guess. when people write things such as " they will never inherit/control the estate" it sounds more like a fact than an opinion.

I myself speculate about the provisions saying that I expect to see a combination scenario where both the children and the professionals are executors but I add " I think" to my speculations.

 

[daisy]

daisy - I know and understand what you are saying. of course it is okay to speculate and write your opinions. I have no problem with that. but I have an issue with wording I guess. when people write things such as " they will never inherit/control the estate" it sounds more like a fact than an opinion.

I myself speculate about the provisions saying that I expect to see a combination scenario where both the children and the professionals are executors but I add " I think" to my speculations.

no, in this section I would expect that such wording primarily means an opinion based on facts.

I also think that your scenario is plausible, and even if you don´t add "I think" I know it´s your opinion. but I think P) people are a bit concerned here as it is NOT clear and we don´t know things.

 

[Dangerous Incorporated]

First of all, this whole forum is about speculation. We're putting together a jigsaw puzzle here with bits and pieces. If we knew something 100% we would have shown that by now and if illegal we would have gone to the authorities and would not be discussing it here. But of course those who have something to hide, arent going to show us their hand otherwise, they're not very clever and would be caught. They're not going to let that happen. So if there is proof of what we're saying that helps build the bigger picture, we give it. Otherwise of course its speculation so there is no need to say its speculation or "I think". Let's not be pedantic.

Nobody knows what is in the trust except Branca. Branca has set himself up in a position where he is in charge, and nobody can challenge or do a thing about it. Michael already fired Branca for being dishonest and for also having too much control. So a simple question and answer is, so why would Michael give a dishonest man COMPLETE control over everything he owned to Branca and leave no provisions for his children in the Will? He wouldn't. Simple. Branca conveniently has everything tied up in the trust so nobody knows what is in it and what the provisions are. Oh and who set up the trust..........Branca!

 

[ivy]

some corrections

. Oh and who set up the trust..........Branca!

not true - a separate lawyer who specializes in wills and trusts did it (but yes some people say that this lawyer was referred by Branca)

Nobody knows what is in the trust except Branca. Branca conveniently has everything tied up in the trust so nobody knows what is in it and what the provisions are

not true- the beneficiaries are given the information about the trust. this includes Katherine, children's lawyer and attorney general that represents charities. furthermore 6 of Michael's cousins are also given notice. beneficiaries know what is in trust.

trusts are private from the public, they are not private (or kept secret) from the beneficiaries.

Branca has set himself up in a position where he is in charge, and nobody can challenge or do a thing about it.

not true - executors have to follow trust provisions and state trust laws and if they don'tbeneficiaries can ask for a record of their actions (as it recently happened in the cobain estate - when bank asked for record of love's spendings) as well as beneficiaries can sue the executors if there is any illegal action on their part (such as the martin luther king estate - when his children sued the executors for taking out (stealing) money)..

once again no contest means you cannot challenge the provisions (such as if you are left a 20% share you cannot argue that's unfair etc) but if there's fraud or any illegal activities you can always sue the executors. these are two completely different things.

I really think that people do not understand what a no contest clause is - it doesn't give absolute power to anybody.

ps: I have no problem with what you believe (that Branca is dishonest, your concerns about the will etc) and totally respect that but your information about the wills and trusts in general is flawed (such as points 2 and 3 above)

 

[Maria MJ]

Absolutely! No one would expect the kids, as adults, to do the hands-on business management. That would be absurd. Of COURSE they would hire the very best team for that, and a team of their own choosing. This way, they have no control over who is managing their father's estate and in what manner, and they never will. It's extremely dodgy. I can't imagine a circumstance where Michael would remove all control from his children. This, more than any other thing, makes me think this will is fraudulent. There must be a more recent will, and a reason why whoever has it does not come forward.

Do you believe that the third will still exists?
I pray you are right but so far all I've heard is that it has been destroyed.

 

[Dangerous Incorporated]

yes and they have also been saying that it's a witness who put the wrong place on the will.

Well what else would they say? Of course blame the witness, pass the buck! lol

I know not many people put a lot of faith in Levine and I understand that but he is a lawyer and after asking the estate directly about the location, a satisfactory answer was NOT given. Why? Because the Will either was not signed by Michael period and was absolutely not signed in LA.

 

[jrsfan]

Do you believe that the third will still exists?
I pray you are right but so far all I've heard is that it has been destroyed.

Well, besides the will that Malnik claimed, which he later retracted - which was wierd.

Another will might have been here at the firm run by Modabber or the Wolf firm:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,58153,00.html

Jackson also employs at least two other law firms. The second one, which handles litigation (lawsuits) is Lavely & Singer, run by the notorious celebrity-defending bulldog Martin Singer.

When Schaffel was "rubbing people the wrong way" last fall, Branca called Brian Wolf at that firm, and Wolf sicced a private eye on Schaffel to get the goods. When the P.I. turned up the news that Schaffel made adult videos, another firm stepped in. That was the one run by Zia Modabber, another celebrity defender.
Everyone in the chain has a purpose. The only one not always in lockstep, unfortunately, is Michael Jackson.




The P.I. that Wolf hired for Branca was Paul Barresi - he said so himself in the interview during the trial that he did with Diane Dimond. I still have it on tape. Branca is a man who gets revenge & is quite deceitful. He turned in Malnik.

 

[Maria MJ]

If there was a third will it was definitely not drafted nor kept by Branca.
So someone else had it...why would he destroy it? This would be a powerful tool for blackmailing,the key to paradise for a malicious keeper...

 

[jrsfan]

If there was a third will it was definitely not drafted nor kept by Branca.
So someone else had it...why would he destroy it? This would be a powerful tool for blackmailing,the key to paradise for a malicious keeper...

Someone might destroy or keep it hidden for money. These lawyers know each other, which doesn't mean anything - I think they are corrupt. Singer has connections with the National Enquirer.


This You Tube vid is really good to watch, it has Pellicano & Barresi. I tried to embed & am frustrated & failed. Maybe someone can help me. There's some other ones there too. But here is the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3vA...5B4F4BB91&index=2&playnext=2&playnext_from=PL

 

[Dangerous Incorporated]

^^
[youtube]a3vAn7p-pYI[/youtube]

 

[jrsfan]

Thanks DI.

Although the vid is about Pellicano & Barresi is at the end - the true criminals are the lawyers. Pellicano did not roll over on his lawyers. I think he should rethink that.

Branca hires surrogate firms to do the dirty work - that's why he hired Wolf (part of Singer's firm) who hired Barresi to sabotage "What More Can I Give" Sept 11 song thru destroying Schaffel. I believe Branca was the one to show MJ the evidence on Schaffel. Branca is very sneaky. That is why that song was never released. Why would Branca not want the charity song released?
Why would a friend do that? Obviously he was no friend.

The lawyers are part of a chain - like RF said "Everyone in the chain has a purpose."

 

[Dangerous Incorporated]

Michael Jackson's Estate Lawyer Interview:
http://videosearch.seesaa.jp/video/...&page=1&siteurl=www.dailymotion.com&sort=vnum

 

[Ashtanga]

Dangerous Incorporated is back! :wild: unk:

Welcome!


Thanks for the video, I try to watch it. My computer is sooooooo slow.

 

[Dangerous Incorporated]

^^ Yup cant keep a good man down! lol j/k

Anwayz...............back on topic here is a video of Bain talking to Geraldo about MJs Will in 2007:
[youtube]tyUHQqQBKHU&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

 

[Maria MJ]

Nobody has stepped in with the third will.This tells me it has been destroyed.
This is complicated to me because I don't live in the States. When a will is notarized, doesn't the notary keep an archived copy?

 

[Ashtanga]

Oh God, this is sooooooo confused in my head.

 

[Dangerous Incorporated]

Wouldnt Branca have had to have had foward the ORIGINAL Will? Surely a copy would not suffice in court? And where is Michael's original?

 

[ivy]

General rule : Original will is filed with the court for the probate.

 

[Dangerous Incorporated]

^^So why did Branca have the original will when Michael's letter to Branca stated that he should return ALL ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS (not shouting lol) to Michael yet Branca had a Will?

 

[ivy]

Now that's actually a speculation (that Branca had the original will all along).

Legally speaking the person who has access to the original will has 2 options
1. he/she can file the will with the court directly (within 30 days)
2. he/she can give the will to the executors (within 30 days) and the executor files the will with the court (within 45 days).

Now Branca was not the one that prepared the will (an entertainment lawyer would not prepare trusts). It's said that he referred MJ to an estate/trust lawyer. It's legally possible that estate/trust lawyer or manager etc had the will and gave Branca the original after MJ died as he's the executor. Or Michael could have the original and gave it back to Branca after he rehired him in June.

We simply do not know for sure.

Also : if you don't have the original will, you can also file a copy with affidavits/statements from the lawyer that prepared it and the 3 witnesses. Judge decides whether or not to accept the copy.

 

[Dangerous Incorporated]

Now that's actually a speculation (that Branca had the original will all along).

Legally speaking the person who has access to the original will has 2 options
1. he/she can file the will with the court directly (within 30 days)
2. he/she can give the will to the executors (within 30 days) and the executor files the will with the court (within 45 days).

Now Branca was not the one that prepared the will (an entertainment lawyer would not prepare trusts). It's said that he referred MJ to an estate/trust lawyer. It's legally possible that estate/trust lawyer or manager etc had the will and gave Branca the original after MJ died as he's the executor. Or Michael could have the original and gave it back to Branca after he rehired him in June.

We simply do not know for sure.

Also : if you don't have the original will, you can also file a copy with affidavits/statements from the lawyer that prepared it and the 3 witnesses. Judge decides whether or not to accept the copy.

^^This did not happen. We know that Branca handed in the Will to the courts directly as he knew he was an Executor.....err Administrator of the Estate.

There is no proof that it was Michael that rehired John Branca. It could have been Dileo for all we know.

The Estate/Trust was set up by Branca's own firm.

The 3 that signed MJ's Will came from Branca's firm. (Trudy Green was questioned in 05 trial.)

Also its knowns that Barry Siegel resigned as Admin when he was fired but Branca did not. Why?

The will leaves everything to the Michael Jackson Family Trust, stating, "I give my entire estate to the Trustee or Trustees..." Well thats nice and neat......and convenient.

 

[marc_vivien]

1/ the letter about the rehiring of branca is in the Court and shared with Katerine's lawyer.
1/ Green, McClain and Siegel didn't came from Branca's firm

 

[ivy]

^^This did not happen. We know that Branca handed in the Will to the courts directly.

Yes Branca filed the Will with the court. but how can you know for sure that this "Legally speaking the person who has access to the original will can give the will to the executors (within 30 days) and the executor files the will with the court (within 45 days). " didn't happen ? Do you live with Branca 24/7 ?

The will leaves everything to the Michael Jackson Family Trust, stating, "I give my entire estate to the Trustee or Trustees..." Well thats nice and neat......and convenient.

and what's the problem with that? The trustees can be seen with the notice documentation filed with the court. They are Katherine, Prince, Paris, Blanket and the charities. 6 or 7 cousins are the contingent beneficiaries. They are the trustees.

+ Michael's will is a pour-over Will, where the trust is the main document that has all the details , provisions etc. In such cases the will just includes that sentence meaning that the trust is the main document. It's common and normal for a pour-over Will.

Also its knowns that Barry Siegel resigned as Admin when he was fired but Branca did not. Why?

executor is not a position that you are hired or need to resign. When a new executor is named the old ones become invalid. all Michael had to do was to have a document saying that these people are no longer my executors and/or name new executors.

The question becomes where are the new executors then? Nobody would leave an estate with no executors.

No will, no lawyer, no executor, no witness has come forward. For any will /change of executor you would have at least 4 to 7 people who are aware of the will/change of the executors and they should have come up with that information within 30 to 45 day after his death.