Is Michael's Will Really Valid?

[elusive moonwalker]

who are the new executors and why havnt they come forward. and is mclain in on this aswell.

I know ON THE SURFACE, it APPEARS this set up is what Michael wanted; but I DON'T trust the executors at all. And it just burns me up that many people that post on the board (not the conspiracy section) but main general forum is so drunk with the 'John Branca and company are the good guy heros and the Jackson family are a bunch of greedy, evil monsters' propaganda, they cannot see what's going on. And I

well look at the evidence the jacksons have sold mj out and upto this time the estate have done nothing but good for mj and his heirs.ppl base their opinions on the facts as we have them now. until the estate does something to justify such worries then there is nothing else to say.ppl mj tried to reehire branca in 06-07.branca said no cause of the ppl that were around mj ie bain etc branca and mj reminded good firends branca visiting mj in vegas and brancas kids being close to mjs

considering the trust has been released and supports the will.. and one thing i dont get if the will is fake who faked it katherine and the kids? cause they are the ones who get something out of it. who was mj going ot leave everything to b4 it was faked? randy?lol now if the will left 80% to mclain id be worried and obviously it would be suspicious but this will elaves everything to katherine etc and is the same as the will written in 97. can someone explain to me why the will is so fake. whats so bad about it that makes u think mj didnt write it? and saying he didnt leave anything to other family members bar nephews/cousins is not a reason given mjs past history unless you are more a fan of jermaine and co than mj and think they were like the brady bunch.there is no logical argument to support that the will and trust are fake as the only ppl to gain from the fake will are the heirs.its a shame some fans are more intrested in supporting randy and his desire to get hold of mjs cash then they are intrested in seeing murrays locked up. i hope you are all such experts on the crim case interms of the timeline the amounts of drugs given etc as you claim to be on this otherwise you got your priorites wrong.

The way they will be hurt is by Branca and McCain signing all their rights away to Sony!
Sure they may still have some money but they won't have the catalog, or the publishing rights to Michael's songs! You may all think they are protected but mark my words folks!

they havnt signed the rights away. sony have a distrubution deal with the estate nothing else. they have the right to release mjs music nothing more. the estate owns sony.atv and mijac cats etc. for those that claim to be intrested in the truth you sure have a way of twisiting the facts in order to suit your theories. what good does that do to mj? it aint helping finding the truth about anything.guess it makes it more exciting for some of you well sorry but this aint a game.

 

[Vici]

I do think many people belive that the will from 2002 is the real deal, but many fans questiones whether there is an updated will or not. The main issue is Branca obviously, why would MJ still keep him as an executor after what happened etc? I have only seen people mentioning on various sites/forums that there is supposedly a will from 2007, but this doesnt make any sense for me, especially if people are concerned about Brancas motives. (im no way adressing anyone particualar with this post,just know what ive seen on various sites reg an updated will).

It makes more sense to me if the talks were about an updated will from 2004 and Branca being out, rather than wait to 2007 – four years after their conflict – to make a new will and boot him as an executor. MJ did go through a trial from late 2003 – 2005 and during this time he were fighting off SONY/Branca- What would a will from 2007 do for any good for MJ in regards to his relationsship with Branca, especially since MJs beef with SONY were in 2001 and with Branca in 2003? Why would he wait four years to draft a new will IF he wanted Branca out due to information he found out about him in 2003!

If the question is about Brancas loyalty, then a will from 2004 would make more sense to me rather than a will from 2007.

 

[honeysucklejasmine]

mj tried to reehire branca in 06-07.branca said no cause of the ppl that were around mj ie bain etc branca and mj reminded good firends branca visiting mj in vegas and brancas kids being close to mjs

Do you have a source for this? Would be useful as I'm having a discussion with a fan who believes that Branca is the devil incarnate. (I know it's well documented that he resigned in 06 because of the shady characters surrounding Michael). Thanks.

 

[Vici]

Do you have a source for this? Would be useful as I'm having a discussion with a fan who believes that Branca is the devil incarnate. (I know it's well documented that he resigned in 06 because of the shady characters surrounding Michael). Thanks.

I want to know one thing. We have the interview Branca made with AP after MJ passed where he said that he stopped working with MJ in 2006 due to all shady charcters. We only have his words on this.. MJ is not here to confirm this so when you say it is well documented that he resigned in 2006, do you have any other source other than that article Branca made?

 

[honeysucklejasmine]

I want to know one thing. We have the interview Branca made with AP after MJ passed where he said that he stopped working with MJ in 2006 due to all shady charcters. We only have his words on this.. MJ is not here to confirm this so when you say it is well documented that he resigned in 2006, do you have any other source other than that article Branca made?

No, by well-documented I meant the quote had been extensively reproduced after June 25 rather than other people had said it too.

 

[ivy]

I don't think that we can establish whether he resigned or fired but we can establish that he worked with Michael after 2003 firing letter and stopped working sometime at 2006.

proof that he was rehired after the 2003 firing letter

January 12, 2004 :
While Jermaine gives a press conference outside Hayvenhurst to organise fans' support, Mark Geragos organises a big meeting of Michael's team at the Beverly Hills Hotel attended by Charles Koppleman, Leonard Muhammad, Al Malnik, John Branca, Alan Whitman, Zia Modabber & Kevin Mac Lin.

Branca was no longer working with Michael in 2006 by the time of the refinancing deals.

April 2006 refinancing deal - we learn 3 things
1. Branca wasn't doing the refinancing deal in 2006
2. He tried to do a deal in 2005
3. Michael bought out Branca's share in Sony/ATV in 2006 so no business contact remains

April 14 2006

Interestingly, it is almost the same deal that Jackson completely rejected a year ago. It turned out he was more comfortable making it with Arab advisers than with trusted old American friends who’d counseled and protected him through numerous self-created scandals.

The deal he’s agreed to make — and is still unsigned — was completed by two Arab lawyers in Bahrain and a mother-son team in Los Angeles. The mother is the daughter of Johnnie Cochran’s late mentor. The son is a lawyer who benefits from the mother’s status.

The mother, Gaynell Lenoir, is typical of the kind of people who’ve come and gone in Jackson’s business life over the years.

Lenoir, who is not an attorney, is the daughter of Gerald Lenoir, the late former partner and mentor of Cochran. Her son, Frank Correa, was described yesterday in the Wall Street Journal as an attorney. But there’s no listing for him on the Web site Findlaw.com, and a Sony insider who worked on the Jackson deal says he did not think Correa was a lawyer of any kind.

They also claim to have a firm called Omni Global, although there’s no record of any business like that in California.

Nevertheless, the pair, who inveigled themselves into Jackson’s business affairs last year, will pick up a fee of around $2 million just for acting as go-betweens in the process.

The Lenoir-Correas didn't have to do much except encourage Jackson to accept a deal similar to the one he was offered a year ago(2005). That group included John Branca, the lawyer who structured the Beatles deal in the first place in 1985; Charles Koppelman and Al Malnik, who saved Jackson from the chopping block several times in 2003-2004; and the bankers at Bank of America, who tried to help him even as Jackson lied to them and cut deals behind their backs.


But late yesterday, as the deal concluded, Branca's 20-year association with Jackson ended as he was bought out entirely. No numbers are available, but it's likely he walked away with anywhere between $10 and $20 million.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,191760,00.html

June 28 2006 talks about bringing in Londell McMillan

Rwaramba is credited with bringing Londell McMillan — the man who manages and counts as clients Stevie Wonder, Prince and Chaka Khan — to be Jackson’s new attorney.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,201294,00.html

Raymone Bain talking about hiring Peter Lopez in 2006

Raymone Bain, Michael Jackson's former general manager, said she hired Peter Lopez in 2006 as Jackson's entertainment attorney when she was reorganizing the singer's business affairs.

"I'd known Peter for 20 years," she said. When she was searching for a new legal team she said another of her clients, R&B singer Babyface, recommended Lopez.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2...kson_lawyer_found_dead_in_.html#ixzz0q5bjQMru

So in short we can see that Branca was rehired after the infamous 2003 firing, was working with Michael during 2004-2005, stopped working with Michael (for whatever reason) early 2006 before/during the Sony/ ATV refinancing deal and was replaced by Peter Lopez and Londell McMillan.


-------------------------
Plus you need to remember the history , a lot of people wanted Branca out of Michael's life - perhaps to take advantage of Michael

- In 1990 Geffen convinced Michael that Branca was bad, Michael fired Branca. He rehired Branca in 1993 after seeing that Geffen was lying and trying to control him.

- 2001 - 2003 period was once again the conflict of interest issues raised, Branca was investigated and fired. But as we can see he was rehired by 2004 and during the trial we have also seen that the investigator had found no proof about the claims against Branca.

- In 2006 Branca stopped working for Michael. In the same year Raymone Bain without giving any names said that former advisors didn't have Michael's best interest, they were investigating them and will open civil and criminal cases against them. No lawsuits were ever filed.

- Branca was rehired June 2009 - the court has the hiring letter.

As you can see that Branca, his actions, his motives etc has been questioned several times over the 20 year period, yes he was fired but kept being rehired as well. If any of the claims were true Michael would never rehired him - he's not stupid and we know this. So it looks like more of a case of "let's blame the other guy so that I can replace him" kinda thing- at least to me.

------------------
oh edit: as you can all see that Branca was rehired after the 2003 firing, all the claims that "Branca was fired, he shouldn't have the will" etc is invalid. Michael simply could have given Branca everything back after he rehired him. Nobody can know it for sure.

 

[Vici]

January 12, 2004 :
While Jermaine gives a press conference outside Hayvenhurst to organise fans' support, Mark Geragos organises a big meeting of Michael's team at the Beverly Hills Hotel attended by Charles Koppleman, Leonard Muhammad, Al Malnik, John Branca, Alan Whitman, Zia Modabber & Kevin Mac Lin.

The Lenoir-Correas didn't have to do much except encourage Jackson to accept a deal similar to the one he was offered a year ago(2005). That group included John Branca, the lawyer who structured the Beatles deal in the first place in 1985; Charles Koppelman and Al Malnik, who saved Jackson from the chopping block several times in 2003-2004; and the bankers at Bank of America, who tried to help him even as Jackson lied to them and cut deals behind their backs.


But late yesterday, as the deal concluded, Branca's 20-year association with Jackson ended as he was bought out entirely. No numbers are available, but it's likely he walked away with anywhere between $10 and $20 million.

Thank you.. its this kind of information ive been looking for. This is more valid proof than the interview Branca made with AP.

 

[Vici]

oops.. made two similiar posts

 

[honeysucklejasmine]

Thank you.. its this kind of information ive been looking for. This is more valid proof than the interview Branca made with AP.

Ah, I misunderstood - I thought you were after other sources confirming Branca's 2006 departure.

This is another article relating to the one Ivy posted which confirms his involvement with Michael in January 2004:

"The meeting Monday — held days before Jackson's arraignment on child molestation charges — was attended by his attorneys, managers and accountants, along with Nation of Islam leaders. They disputed reports that the religious group had assumed control of Jackson's financial matters.
"Michael is in charge," John Branca, one of the singer's business attorneys, told reporters.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2004-01-13-jackson-advisers_x.htm

 

[jrsfan]

Muzikfactory2 has tweeted this about the will & trust:

link:
http://xltweet.com/show/?id=5058595C51

I have witnessed in dismay, fans on Internet revere Alleged Michael Jackson Trust document. They praise Michael for being charitable & wise. Yet, while this Trust "generously" benefit Katherine & children, trustees & their ally companies benefit grandiosely.

Charity Trust is common is estate planning. It is a tool to reduce taxable trust property, thus, reducing hefty Federal Estate Tax. Any estate above $3.5 million is taxed %45 Federal Estate Tax. You can reduce that by donating to charities.

Charity Trusts are irrevocable & are set aside BEFORE taxes, meaning, hefty Federal, State & Inheritance taxes, fines, executors & probate fees will come out of KATHERINE & CHILDREN's shares. So they are not technically receiving %80 of the gross estate.

Gross estate-Charity-Probate & executors fees- taxes- outstanding debt=Katherine & MJ3

Alleged trust was NOT funded properly. IF we are to assume for argument sake that this Trust was by Michael, whoever advised his estate planning seem highly imcompetent. One of the advantages of Living Trusts is avoiding the Probate Court. In Michael's case, that wasn't an option because his properties were NOT transferred to the Trust, while he was alive, to be protected. Longer Probate = higher Probate & Executors fees.

Trust LIMITS pay out to children & Katherine whilst it has NO LIMIT to how much or how often trustees (John Branca & John McClain) pay themselves. They are compensated additional %10 on deals they make. Just by brokering unreleased songs to Sony, EACH executor made $12.5 million in commission.

Trustees have the power to delay pay out to beneficiaries.

Trustees have FULL POWER. If they deem it best to sell Michael's share of Sony/ATV today, they could do so LEGALLY.

Trust assigns a BANK to be the successor Trustee, NOT Michael's children when they reach of legal age. MJ estate has been hijacked from his children INDEFINITELY.

People get into petty discussions as to if MJ should or should not leave anything to Lisa Marie or his siblings. That is a moot point. If Michael decided to leave nothing to them, his alleged Will should have specified so, the way it did with Deborah Rowe.

The alleged Will eliminates Joe Jackson, alleged Trust eliminates the children. If executors transferred MJ's money and it has been earning interest in an offshore bank account to be pocketed, noone would be the wiser.

There are 2 consecutive MJ signatures in Trust document. At first I thought maybe he signed one as Trustor, one as Trustee but the line specifically reads "Trustee". BOTH signatures are %100 forged.

MJ Alleged Trust & Will are Null & Void for myriads of reasons. MOST IMPORTANT IS THAT BRANCA COULDN'T POSSIBLY HAVE A MJ WILL IN 2009 SINCE HE WAS ASKED TO RETURN ORIGINALS OF ALL DOCUMENTS IN 2003.

Please spread the facts.

 

[ivy]

I'll answer her comments and quote my previous explanations wherever possible..

Charity Trust is common is estate planning. It is a tool to reduce taxable trust property, thus, reducing hefty Federal Estate Tax. Any estate above $3.5 million is taxed %45 Federal Estate Tax. You can reduce that by donating to charities.

True. The estate taxes will be around 40-50% , giving 20% charities is greatly reduce the amount given to taxes and also benefit children.

Charity Trusts are irrevocable & are set aside BEFORE taxes, meaning, hefty Federal, State & Inheritance taxes, fines, executors & probate fees will come out of KATHERINE & CHILDREN's shares. So they are not technically receiving %80 of the gross estate.

Gross estate-Charity-Probate & executors fees- taxes- outstanding debt=Katherine & MJ3

True. The news said 20% for charities, 40% for Katherine and 40% for children. Actually they will first give 20% to the charities, reduce this from taxes and then give 50% to Katherine and 50% to children.

So there has been a confusion about the percentages but nonetheless after the taxes etc are paid Katherine and the children is getting the full amount. It's still a good high percentage.

Alleged trust was NOT funded properly. IF we are to assume for argument sake that this Trust was by Michael, whoever advised his estate planning seem highly imcompetent. One of the advantages of Living Trusts is avoiding the Probate Court. In Michael's case, that wasn't an option because his properties were NOT transferred to the Trust, while he was alive, to be protected. Longer Probate = higher Probate & Executors fees.

well I see her point. Generally speaking you do trusts to avoid the probate process however there might be several reasons why a will/trust needs to be probated. Not transferring the assets is one of them, it can also need to be probated due to contesting against the will and the trust (remember Katherine's and Joe's objections) and also in the law it says when executor and trustee is somebody other than the beneficiaries they need to file the documents with the court and give notice to the beneficiaries. I'll agree that we're not seeing the perfect scenario but still there might be several legal requirements/reasons (other than an incompetent lawyer) why the will/trust needed to be filed with the probate court.

Trust LIMITS pay out to children & Katherine whilst it has NO LIMIT to how much or how often trustees (John Branca & John McClain) pay themselves. They are compensated additional %10 on deals they make. Just by brokering unreleased songs to Sony, EACH executor made $12.5 million in commission.

Not true.

In regards to the children: they'll be getting an allowance/ income from the estate until they are 30. The amount can definitely be increased (as long as the estate is in probate they need judge's approval). executors is supposed to provide them enough money suitable for their lifestyles, cover their expenses as well.

and yes they can always ask for extra money - no age limit on that. The trust explicitly says life related expenses such as education, marriage, buying property and opening and participating in business.

Also the documents say that if the income is not enough executors can give them from the principal. so I wouldn't call it limited pay out.

In regards to the executors: The trust documents say that they give themselves reasonable compensation. the keyword being reasonable. However don't forget that they went to a judge and got him approved their compensation. So it's not additional compensation. They determined what they wanted and asked a judge to approve it. It's 5% of the money they bring in with no extraordinary income. So what they can get is determined by the court order.

Trustees have FULL POWER. If they deem it best to sell Michael's share of Sony/ATV today, they could do so LEGALLY.

Not quite true. They cannot say that "we'll sell the catalog just because we feel like it", there must be a legit reason for them to do so.

Page 12. Towards the end of the page

1. To retain any property, business (present or acquired after death) as long as it's advisable. -It means that the goal is to keep the assets as long as they are profitable and it makes sense business wise.

To sell it has to be unprofitable or not advisable (businesswise it doesn't make sense to hold on to such asset) or they are required / forced to sell it (such as there's a debt and they have to pay it) so there might be other reasons to sell an asset other than whether it is profitable or not. (Business advisable term covers a larger domain than just profits).

Perhaps Muzikfactory2 might want to stop and think if their proposed boycott against Sony becomes successful, they could be forcing the executors to sell the catalog..

Trust assigns a BANK to be the successor Trustee, NOT Michael's children when they reach of legal age. MJ estate has been hijacked from his children INDEFINITELY.

This is a clear misunderstanding.

The children is getting shares starting 30 years old. and that provision is only before the children get their shares and there's no individual remain to serve as an trustee the bank takes it over. (such as if something happens to the executors in the next 5 years and they haven't determined a successor trustee).

Furthermore page 17 item 2 allows adult beneficiaries (18 or older) to change any corporate trustee. So even if for some reason a bank has to take over the control of the estate, Michael's children has the power to determine which bank or the trust company runs the estate and change it starting they are 18 years old.

Page 10 item 1 also says that the trust cannot last longer than determined by the law and will be terminated whenever the provisions of the trust is satisfied. It means basically when every beneficiary gets their full share, the trust will be terminated and there will be no longer trustees and executors.

If executors transferred MJ's money and it has been earning interest in an offshore bank account to be pocketed, noone would be the wiser.

does this mean everyone is stupid but the executors?

Executors cannot do whatever they want with the assets. 1) they have to follow the provisions (rules) mentioned in this trust 2) they have to follow California laws related to trusts and 3) they have to report to the beneficiaries (Katherine and the MJ's kids - currently through their lawyer, directly to them after they turn 18).

If they don't follow the provisions, laws and participate in fraud or intentional wrongdoing beneficiaries can take them to court.

MOST IMPORTANT IS THAT BRANCA COULDN'T POSSIBLY HAVE A MJ WILL IN 2009 SINCE HE WAS ASKED TO RETURN ORIGINALS OF ALL DOCUMENTS IN 2003.

okay we discussed this in detail in this thread over and over again. Who knows for sure that Branca had the will in his possession between 2003 and 2009? and no Branca filing the will with the court doesn't mean that he had it for all that time. For example the will could have been in Elizabeth Taylor's possession and she could have given the will to Branca after Michael died.

Legally speaking if any individual has the will for the safe keeping they are required to give it to the executor of the will so that the executor can file it with the court.


-----------------------------
I have to add that I have a problem with stating things like "facts" when they are not necessarily the truth. I respect everyone's love, dedication and attempts to bring justice for Michael but anyone should be very careful in making statements and labeling them as facts.. Does muzikfactory an estate lawyer that she can claim that what she says is the absolute truth? I don't think so. (Honestly with the T-Mez petition I don't think she has that good legal understanding).

All of us are doing our interpretations of the documents and discuss it with other people, simply because what we think/ believe and know might not be the absolute correct information. For example with every post I do I say that it's to my best knowledge but I never claim to have full or perfect knowledge or label anything I say as an undisputed fact. I simply might be wrong and so could anyone.

 

[Ashtanga]

Does muzikfactory an estate lawyer that she can claim that what she says is the absolute truth? I don't think so. (Honestly with the T-Mez petition I don't think she has that good legal understanding).

I think for Muzikfactory, Branca and MC has unlimited power and can do whatever they want. But it is quite clear, they can not do what they want.

 

[marc_vivien]

there is a probate processing because you have creditor's claims, an appraisal (to determine death taxes, etc...) to do. A probate referee is named.

 

[jrsfan]

If they don't follow the provisions, laws and participate in fraud or intentional wrongdoing beneficiaries can take them to court.

Yes, beneficiaries can take them to court - but by then it will be too late. Bernie Madoff's victims & the feds can take him to court all they want - but they'll get just a fraction. It is easy to say that they can do that, but judging from Merv Griffins son's case against his executors, it is not an easy thing to do. Also, Weitzman is very powerful - I think LA court system is corrupt. IMO he orchestrated the "shutdown" of the case against Pellicano- & he got Pellicano to take the fall for many powerful Hollywood elites such as Ron Meyer, Michael Ovitz, Bert Fields. Diane Dimond was so excited about the case & all the scandal - she is a true tabloid reporter. She did several pieces on CTV about the case with the "help" of Barresi. I still have them on tape. Geragos was suing Pellicano & that got shut down, very conveniently, I might add. The judge allowed delay after delay, then ruled it was too late. I suppose it's being appealed.

 

[riviera1992]

Dangerous, your post, with documents, is brilliant, and chilling. . . . . We've been "told" that the earlier will is identical. We don't actually know this. And there is so much more that is irregular.

And Ivy? An attorney's job is to see that everything in every document is exactly correct. Every "t" crossed and "i" dotted. The fact that someone signed "L.A." when in New York is incredibly sloppy. Unbelievably so. That the will of the world's most famous person would have errors is simply outrageous!

Agree 100%

I've bought and sold 2 houses, got married and divorce twice and file bankrupcy, but enough about me.

Believe you me folks, every "I"s are dotted and "T"s are crossed by lawyers and their secretaries. Even for a little old nobody like me.

So for Michael's will to have even ONE mistake is unreal.:doh:

 

[witchanna]

Ok so some of you will probably groan "oh not again", but please here me out as I try to show evidence as to why I think the will is not real or at least not valid. If you guys can debunk my points, great, another mystery is HIStory. If not, then Joe is right and John Branca does not have Michael Jackson or his Estate in Branca's best interest.

Here is a copy of the Will for you to verify the points I make:
http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_documents/0701_mj_will_wm_01.pdf

First, all 3 children's name's in the will are incorrect.

The names in the Will are:

• Prince Michael Joseph Jackson Jr
• Paris Michael Katherine Jackson
• Prince Michael Joseph Jackson II

WRONG!

The children's real name are:

• Michael Joseph Jackson Jr (no Prince)
• Paris-Michael Katherine Jackson ('-')
• Prince Michael Jackson II (no Joseph)

Prince's Birth Certificate:

Paris' Birth Certificate:

Blanket's Birth Certificate:

Any other names that are incorrect?

It states that Deborah Jean Rowe JACKSON is no longer married to Michael. Why put Jackson as her last name then? Also JEAN is NOT Debbie's middle name!

Apart from Debbie's name, you would think that Michael would see that his children's names are all incorrect. I know I would be able to tell if all 3 of my kids names are documented correctly. Especially regarding something as important as a Will. But wait, Michael didnt sign his initial next to Article I concerning his children.

Oddly enough, only the Articles pertaining to the executors and the estate giving them full power and authority have initials next to them. The initials all look like this:

except for the final initial for the witnesses which looks like this:

Speaking of witnesses, the purpose of the witnesses is to attest to the identity, date and location to that of the Will. The Will apparently was signed on July 7th 2002 in L.Al. But how could the witnesses observe MJ signing the Will in L.A. if he was actually in New York from July 6-9 2002 for a Anti-Sony/Tommy Mottola campaign?
6th July 2002:
[youtube]EzGCZUT9DG4[/youtube]
[youtube]vYTUszGjDOg[/youtube]
[youtube]2VR7LpRWw0o[/youtube]
9th July 2002:
[youtube]3UKOpQUkbMc[/youtube]

Branca's answer to this is that it was clerical error and the witness who signed it forgot where he was. I've never been unaware of my location especially when signing official legal documents and if you are not alert enough to know your own location, are you qualified to verify if Michael is of sound mind, his location and the date? What about the other witnesses, they weren't alert enough to pick up the error either.

Also no where does Michael state or sign that he is of sound mind or impaired. Only the lawyers who state, 'to the best of our knowledge', which isnt very good as they dont know the kids names or where they are.

So has Michael signed documents before while being impaired or not of sound mind? Perhaps you'll recall what is known as the 'drug deposition':
[youtube]_ssyxkxvHhE[/youtube]

So yes Michael has been under the influence of medication while signing documents before. But what about back in 2002? Well there is a letter to Michael dated July 2002 regarding Demerol from a doctor as well as pictures of prescription pills under alias' for Michael dated 2002:

So what else happened in 2002? A judge ordered Michael to undergo a physical examination due to him missing a court appearance from a spider bite:

After Michael died, these pictures resurfaced with the story attached that the marks on Michael's leg was due to needles. Why did this happen? To paint a picture of Michael as a drug abuser? That would be a good cover story for the murderous plotters. Oh and courtesy of AEG too:

[youtube]x3cP9Rm3dMc[/youtube]
How is it they have this picture?


So are there any connections between John Branca and AEG?

Yes.

For one, AEG is co-partners with the Grammy Museum:
http://www.grammymuseum.org/interior.php?section=about&page=partners

John Branca is on the Board of the Grammy Museum:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Branca
http://www.grammymuseum.org/interior.php?section=support&page=soundstagesponsors

Well you may say that is a coincidence. Ok thats fair enough.

But what about when Katherine asked Branca for a copy of Michael's AEG contract? Branca refused. Katherine had to ask a judge for it. Branca's lawyer responded that Katherine's request was "voluminous and burdensome'. Why would Branca refuse Katherine's request and want to hide the AEG contract from her? That act is in AEG's best interest. Branca should have immediately agreed being that Katherine has Michael's best interest at heart. The contract has been released to the public but is blacked over in many parts. Here is the AEG contract:
http://www.radaronline.com/sites/default/files/AEG contract.pdf

Now you may say that contesting the 2002 Will is redundant as the 1997 will has the same percentages distributed and the same executors of the trust.

Not true. In 1997, Michael was a married man with 1 child. How can both Wills be identical? None of us have seen the 1997 will which is also in Branca's possession. Perhaps Katherine is a co-executor of the estate in the 97 Will. The family wants the 97 Will, the estate wants the 02 Will. There is a reason why Branca fought so hard to keep Katherine off the board. If Katherine was a co-executor, she can veto any decisions Branca makes that she doesnt like such as selling the ATV catalogue in Sept 2010 (which is what this is all about).

An interesting quote by Marty Bandier, CEO and chairman of Sony/ATV Music Publishing, called Branca the "number one music publishing lawyer in the country." Interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Branca

So apart from the ATV catalogue, why else would Branca and Co want to keep a Jackson family member from being a co-executor? Well with full power and authority, they can create a second trust. And this second trust doesnt have to have anything to do with the Jackson family at all. There is nothing in the Will that says this can't be done. Also there is nothing in the Will regarding the children inheriting the estate once they turn 18. Only while under guardianship do they retain an allowance. Once they're 18, they dont get any money from their father's estate.

If all of this doesnt make you question Branca, I'll leave you with this.

In 2003, Branca was investigated and it was discovered that Branca had an offshore account in which Sony transfered funds to Branca while Branca was representing Michael. Branca was then fired. Mesereau questioned the investigator about Branca in court in 2005.
After the investigation, Michael sent a letter to Branca firing him in February 2003 which stated:

Branca didnt follow instructions such as returning original documents including the 2002 Will. Nor did he resign as executor as Barry Siegel did.

Branca therefore didnt comply with the 2003 instructions and therefore is acting in a fraudulent manner. He should NOT have a copy of MJ's 2002 Will and should not be a co-executor per Michael's instructions of 2003.




I'd like to thank a few friends who helped me with certain points.

i don't what to think anyway?
but i do think that anyone can write a will and years later write a 2nd will
so i think this will we are talking about is fake
most wills person'sare kept private far alway from the media till the person dies
and its signed by a the person who write kept in a safe by trusted person

 

[marc_vivien]

Michael Jackson's Will Fake, Says His Former Advisor

MichaelJackson'sWillFake,SaysHisFormerAdvisor

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusiv...el-jacksons-will-fake-says-his-former-advisor

Janet Jackson hosted a two-hour meeting of her famous family during which private investigators presented explosive evidence to claim Michael's will and trust is a fake, according to one of the King of Pop's former advisors.


Leonard Rowe told RadarOnline.com that investigators — commissioned by Michael’s younger brother Randy — proved a 2002 will the singer wrote is not valid because of a string of errors and a question over his whereabouts the date it was signed.


Rowe, Jackson's longtime friend and sometime financial advisor, revealed Janet chaired the recent roundtable at her Californian home
Investigators cited incorrect names of the pop star’s children and misspellings of second wife Debbie Rowe’s middle name, as key evidence.


“Michael would never misspell his children’s names -- especially on a document that important,” Rowe told RadarOnline.com, in an exclusive interview.


In the document, daughter Paris’ middle name is wrong. Lawyers had forgotten that part of her middle name was Michael -- Paris Michael Katherine Jackson.


Youngest son Blanket was listed by his nickname and middle name Joseph. His birth certificate names him as Prince Michael Jackson II.


Rowe said the investigation was spearheaded by Randy Jackson, himself and Brian Oxman, the Jackson family spokesman and attorney.


Family patriarch Joe Jackson -- who also is questioning the validity of his son’s will, which excluded him -- was not part of the investigation, Rowe said.


Rowe also revealed that Reverend Al Sharpton was prepared to come forward as a witness in their case.


Another explosive challenge to the will that named John Branca and John McClain as administrators of the superstar’s posthumous affairs is its signature date.


On the document, it shows Jackson signed it into effect on July 7, 2002.
However, Rowe said the pop star was in Los Angeles on that day.


The singer spent three days from July 6 to July 9 filing a petition against his record label executive Tommy Mottola in a long running court case with Sony music.


Rowe said Rev. Sharpton is willing to swear in an affidavit that he was with Jackson in New York on July 7.


“The whole world saw that Michael Jackson was in New York,” Rowe told RadarOnline.com.
“There’s footage of Michael with Rev. Sharpton on CNN.”


There are also hotel receipts to prove Jackson stayed in New York on July 7, Rowe added.


He said Jackson’s security team was also prepared to provide statements to prove his whereabouts at the time that the will was supposedly signed.


Last September, Los Angeles superior court Judge Mitchell Beckloff signed off on the papers, deeming it the most recent will.


The will named Jackson's 80-year-old mother Katherine as guardian of his three children and ordered that all his assets be moved into an entity known as the Michael Jackson Family Trust.


According to the document, Jackson's kids will receive 40 percent of their father's $300 million estate.


It also appointed as executors John Branca, a lawyer who began representing Jackson in 1980, and John McClain, a founder of Interscope Records.


“What would really solve a lot of questions about this will... there are three of four witnesses who are supposed to have witnessed the signing of the will,” Rowe said.
“I wish the estate would come forth with these witnesses.”


Rowe, no relation to Jackson's ex-wife, is releasing a tell-all book titled What Really Happened To Michael Jackson, to coincide with the one-year anniversary of Jackson’s death.


His allegations about Jackson’s death have been met with skepticism by some, who cite his time in prison after being convicted of wire fraud for his role in the cashing of a fraudulent insurance check.
But Rowe insists Jackson hired him to oversee his business and financial affairs during the scheduled London concert tour, This Is It.

 

[Thetruthbetold]

Re: Michael Jackson's Will Fake, Says His Former Advisor

Blah he is another one who didn't do anything now want to talk all that garbage its to late now they won they are running that estate even thro i feel what i feel those who running the estate isn't running in the ground like this fake advisor would of he needs to go have a cup of tea and relax

 

[Roxa]

Michael's testament is fake?

I'm sorry if was posted, but I need to know. Is this true? If won't, someone can make me understand why not?
_______________________________________________________________________

Janet Jackson hosted a two-hour meeting of her famous family during which private investigators presented explosive evidence to claim Michael's will and trust is a fake, according to one of the King of Pop's former advisors.

Leonard Rowe told RadarOnline.com that investigators — commissioned by Michael’s younger brother Randy — proved a 2002 will the singer wrote is not valid because of a string of errors and a question over his whereabouts the date it was signed.


Rowe, Jackson's longtime friend and sometime financial advisor, revealed Janet chaired the recent roundtable at her Californian home

Investigators cited incorrect names of the pop star’s children and misspellings of second wife Debbie Rowe’s middle name, as key evidence.


“Michael would never misspell his children’s names -- especially on a document that important,” Rowe told RadarOnline.com, in an exclusive interview.

In the document, daughter Paris’ middle name is wrong. Lawyers had forgotten that part of her middle name was Michael -- Paris Michael Katherine Jackson.



Youngest son Blanket was listed by his nickname and middle name Joseph. His birth certificate names him as Prince Michael Jackson II.

Rowe said the investigation was spearheaded by Randy Jackson, himself and Brian Oxman, the Jackson family spokesman and attorney.


Family patriarch Joe Jackson -- who also is questioning the validity of his son’s will, which excluded him -- was not part of the investigation, Rowe said.

Rowe also revealed that Reverend Al Sharpton was prepared to come forward as a witness in their case.


Another explosive challenge to the will that named John Branca and John McClain as administrators of the superstar’s posthumous affairs is its signature date.

On the document, it shows Jackson signed it into effect on July 7, 2002.

However, Rowe said the pop star was in Los Angeles on that day.


The singer spent three days from July 6 to July 9 filing a petition against his record label executive Tommy Mottola in a long running court case with Sony music.

Rowe said Rev. Sharpton is willing to swear in an affidavit that he was with Jackson in New York on July 7.

“The whole world saw that Michael Jackson was in New York,” Rowe told RadarOnline.com.

“There’s footage of Michael with Rev. Sharpton on CNN.”

There are also hotel receipts to prove Jackson stayed in New York on July 7, Rowe added.

He said Jackson’s security team was also prepared to provide statements to prove his whereabouts at the time that the will was supposedly signed.


Last September, Los Angeles superior court Judge Mitchell Beckloff signed off on the papers, deeming it the most recent will.

The will named Jackson's 80-year-old mother Katherine as guardian of his three children and ordered that all his assets be moved into an entity known as the Michael Jackson Family Trust.

According to the document, Jackson's kids will receive 40 percent of their father's $300 million estate.


It also appointed as executors John Branca, a lawyer who began representing Jackson in 1980, and John McClain, a founder of Interscope Records.

“What would really solve a lot of questions about this will... there are three of four witnesses who are supposed to have witnessed the signing of the will,” Rowe said.

“I wish the estate would come forth with these witnesses.”


Rowe, no relation to Jackson's ex-wife, is releasing a tell-all book titled What Really Happened To Michael Jackson, to coincide with the one-year anniversary of Jackson’s death.

His allegations about Jackson’s death have been met with skepticism by some, who cite his time in prison after being convicted of wire fraud for his role in the cashing of a fraudulent insurance check.

But Rowe insists Jackson hired him to oversee his business and financial affairs during the scheduled London concert tour, This Is It.


http://www.radaronline.com/exclusiv...el-jacksons-will-fake-says-his-former-advisor

Have a video of this former talking in the link.

 

[ginvid]

Re: Michael's testament is fake?

I am going to move this thread to conspiracy.

 

[ivy]

As we can see that Rowe is repeating everything that has been written and discussed in this thread over and over again.

Like mentioned in the discussions before the errors in the names do not matter as long as the intent is clear.

In regards of the location I also believe that the witnesses actually came forward (submitted written statements to court) saying that they saw Michael sign the will and the place was an error. (TMZ reported it back when first Joe started talking about the will). and that's all needed in that regards as well.

---------------

okay and some interesting thing. I was looking to the documents that Oxman filed for the wrongful death suit against Murray.

For a group of people who are making a lot of fuss about error in the children's names in the will, I found it to be ironic that they referred to "Michael Joseph Jackson Jr" as "Prince Jackson" in those documents.

And guess what: it doesn't matter, just as similar error doesn't matter in the will.

 

[marc_vivien]

http://www.lawlink.com/research/CaseLevel3/48267

that only person interested may contest a will, either before or after probate, it has been held that "An 'interested person' is one who has such a pecuniary interest in the devolution of the testator's estate as may be impaired or defeated by the probate of the will or be benefited by having it set aside." (Estate of O'Brien, 246 Cal.App.2d 788, 792 [55 Cal.Rptr. 343].) In the early case of Estate of Baker, 170 Cal. 578, 586-587 [150 P. 989], it was held that the right of an interested person to contest a will is fundamentally based upon the loss of property or property rights resulting from the recognition of an invalid instrument depriving him that the purpose of a will of those rights; that the purpose of a will contest is to establish a violation of the contestant's right of property; that in its essence the contest is an action for the recovery of property unlawfully taken or about to be taken from the ownership of the contestant.

http://www.lawlink.com/research/CaseLevel3/68233

An "interested person" is "defined as one who has such a pecuniary interest in the devolution of the testator's estate as would be impaired or defeated by the probate of the will or be benefited by setting it aside." (Estate of Marler (1957) 148 Cal.App.2d 30, 33 [306 P.2d 105].) Thus, a will contestant must show his or her share of the distribution will be increased if the contest is successful.

http://www.lawlink.com/browse_codes.aspx?caselevel3=66263

To contest a will before or after probate, the would-be contestant must be an "interested person." (?? 370, 380.) [4] "The courts do not favor will contests." (3 Koontz, op. cit. supra, ? 22.4, p. 22-8.) [5a] Accordingly, the courts have long and steadfastly limited the right to contest the probate of a will to those who have "'such a pecuniary interest in the devolution of the testator's estate, as would be impaired or defeated by the probate of a will or be benefited by the setting aside of the will.' [Citations.]" (Estate of Molera (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 993, 998 [100 Cal.Rptr. 696].)

In the seminal case of Estate of Land (1913) 166 Cal. 538 [137 P. 246], the California Supreme Court noted "'the statute contemplates a legal interest and not merely a grievance to the feelings of propriety or sense of justice.'" (At p. 543.) [6] The purpose of restricting who may contest probate is to avoid "delaying the settlement of the estate." (Estate of Plaut (1945) 27 Cal.2d 424, 429 [164 P.2d 765, 162 A.L.R. 837].)

[7a] As "only an interested person may properly be a contestant" (Estate of Powers (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 715, 719 [154 Cal.Rptr. 366], italics in original), appellant must allege his standing as an interested person. [5b] That is, he must allege he would take under another will or by intestacy in the event of a successful contest to the purported will. (Id., at p. 720.)

http://www.lawlink.com/browse_codes.aspx?caselevel3=66263

[12] This procedure would be in keeping with the words of Justice Traynor, who wrote in Estate of Plaut, supra: "Although the right to ask the court for an adjudication of his claim to the estate should be denied a person whose interest 'has not even the appearance of validity or substance' [citation], it should not be denied a person who, even though he may ultimately not receive any part of the estate, has at least established a prima facie interest in that estate. Since a proceeding to probate or contest a will is a proceeding in rem [citation], and at the end of the six-month period [now 120 days] during which it may be contested the probate of the will is conclusive [citations], all persons whose interests may be adversely affected should be given an opportunity to be heard." (27 Cal.2d at pp. 428-429.) In that same opinion, Justice Traynor recognized with approval that the probate court could hold a hearing on the standing question before proceeding with the trial of the contest (id., at p. 426) and the contest should be dismissed if the contestant cannot make a prima facie showing of standing (id., at p. 429).

Only an interested party could challenge the will (Probate code section 48) :

http://www.zwwillcontest.com/

Under case law, the general rule is that the will or trust contestant must have an interest of a pecuniary nature which may be impaired or defeated by probate of the will or benefited by setting it aside (such as an heir or legatee under a prior will).

Case law has recognized standing in the following persons:

Heirs at law: Any person who would succeed to any portion of the estate if decedent had died intestate (without a will) has standing to contest a testamentary document which would defeat or impair that intestate interest.

Pretermitted heirs: Decedent's children, spouse, and registered domestic partner, although omitted from the will (or other 'testamentary instrument'), may have claims to a 'statutory share' of the estate as 'pretermitted heirs.'

Beneficiaries under earlier will: The beneficiaries under an earlier will, whose interests are impaired or defeated by a later will offered for probate, have standing to contest the later will.

Beneficiaries under later will: Conversely, if the interest of a beneficiary under a later will may be impaired or defeated by probate of an earlier will, the beneficiary has standing to contest probate of the earlier will.

Creditors of heirs: An heir's creditors may have an 'interest' in the estate if decedent's will disinherits the debtor-heir. However, such creditors have standing to file a will or trust contest only if they have perfected a judgment lien at the time the property would pass to the heir if the will were set aside. Conversely, an heir's general unsecured creditors (no judgment lien) apparently have no standing to file a will contest.

Executor under earlier will admitted to probate: The executor appointed under a will, duly admitted to probate, has an affirmative obligation to defend that document against subsequent contests.

Proposed executor under will offered for probate: A person designated by decedent to be executor has no 'duty' to defend a contest before admission of the will to probate and his or her appointment as executor.

Assignee or estate of proper contestant: The right to contest a will survives to the contestant's estate; similarly, it is assignable. Hence, a proper contestant's assignee or a deceased contestant's estate representative has standing to pursue the will contest in the original (assigning or deceased) contestant's place.

You have 120 days to contest the will (Probate Code section 8270(a)) and 60 or 120 days to contest the trust (Probate Code section 16061.7)

 

[Ashtanga]

As we can see that Rowe is repeating everything that has been written and discussed in this thread over and over again. Like mentioned in the discussions before the errors in the names do not matter as long as the intent is clear.

okay and some interesting thing. I was looking to the documents that Oxman filed for the wrongful death suit against Murray.

For a group of people who are making a lot of fuss about error in the children's names in the will, I found it to be ironic that they referred to "Michael Joseph Jackson Jr" as "Prince Jackson" in those documents.

And guess what: it doesn't matter, just as similar error doesn't matter in the will.

I follow this thread from the beginning, but I have to say. Soooooooooooo, I can understand that if I want to use any name that I invent or my childhood nickname in any legal document, it is ok. (???) :doh:

Your response did not convince me. :smilerolleyes:

 

[Roxa]

I think Rowe was reading this thread lol. I didn't have acess to this thread before.

About the wrong in the names...? Why all ppl call the first Michael's child of ''Prince'' if the child doesn't have ''Prince'' in the name? Odd! And in some documents we see Michael Joe Jackson why not can we see Deborah Jean?

I don't anything fake in put Katherine and Diana Ross to take care of the children. Has others more closer of Michael than they?

 

[ivy]

I follow this thread from the beginning, but I have to say. Soooooooooooo, I can understand that if I want to use any name that I invent or my childhood nickname in any legal document, it is ok. (???) :doh:

Your response did not convince me. :smilerolleyes:

There's something called "also known as or AKA" in short. and the idea behind that is this as long as it's we can understand who that is then it's okay.

for example - when you hear Prince Jackson do you know who that is? Do you automatically think "oh that's Michael Jackson's older son" ?

And the answer is yes. Although Prince might not be his legal name since birth Michael called him Prince and everyone knows who we are talking about when you say Prince. and that's why you can use that name with no issues.

In short you can use an already known alternative name/ alias/ nickname without any issues (but you cannot invent a nickname on the spot).

 

[Ashtanga]

There's something called "also known as or AKA" in short. and the idea behind that is this as long as it's we can understand who that is then it's okay.

I know. -_-

Well, you can use the nickname if it has been mentioned. Not there is this: ''Oh, I know that the nickname is Blanket, he is the son of MJ, I know who is, soooooooo, I'll put Blanket''. This is only valid if mentioned before FULL NAME aka Blanket > (which is not mentioned in any document this way). We're talking about a legal document, something serious and not a mess.

for example - when you hear Prince Jackson do you know who that is? Do you automatically think "oh that's Michael Jackson's older son" ?

And the answer is yes. Although Prince might not be his legal name since birth Michael called him Prince and everyone knows who we are talking about when you say Prince. and that's why you can use that name with no issues.

In short you can use an already known alternative name/ alias/ nickname without any issues (but you cannot invent a nickname on the spot).

Really? And how many Prince Jackson there worldwide?


http://www.usa-people-search.com/Default.aspx?view=PE


Thousands.


And end of story -_-



and question ended for me.

 

[ivy]

^^
that's your opinion and I respect that

but in US there's a superior court ruling that says as long as the intent is clear the mistakes in the names does not matter.

so I'm not writing my opinion. and that might not be something that you accept but it's acceptable by US law and legally speaking that's what matters.


edit : and it's not a question of how many prince jackson's in the world. the will already states "his children".. so you are looking for somebody that's called "prince jackson" who is "the child" of "Michael Jackson". (it's the same thing in the wrongful death lawsuit as well).. so it's not a case of million people with the same name.

okay from the will " I (Michael Jackson) have 3 children living Prince Michael Jackson Jr."

From oxman's filing " to send Michael Jackson's son Prince Jackson"

so you can see that it's not a case of anybody named Prince Jackson, it's a case of Michael Jackson's kid named Prince Jackson.. so it narrows the possibility to only 3 people - Michael's kids. The intent is clear as a day.

 

[Ashtanga]

^^
that's your opinion and I respect that

I also respect your opinion.

but in US there's a superior court ruling that says as long as the intent is clear the mistakes in the names does not matter.

so I'm not writing my opinion. and that might not be something that you accept but it's acceptable by US law and legally speaking that's what matters.


edit : and it's not a question of how many prince jackson's in the world. the will already states "his children".. so you are looking for somebody that's called "prince jackson" who is "the child" of "Michael Jackson". (it's the same thing in the wrongful death lawsuit as well).. so it's not a case of million people with the same name.

okay from the will " I (Michael Jackson) have 3 children living Prince Michael Jackson Jr."

From oxman's filing " to send Michael Jackson's son Prince Jackson"

so you can see that it's not a case of anybody named Prince Jackson, it's a case of Michael Jackson's kid named Prince Jackson.. so it narrows the possibility to only 3 people - Michael's kids. The intent is clear as a day.

:girl_whistle:


P.S. I've read the WILL and all other documents, a thousand times.

 

[ivy]

I also respect your opinion.

just to be clear

In this instance I'm not writing my opinion or what I believe or think.

I'm writing what the US law and superior court ruling says.

 

[Ashtanga]

just to be clear

In this instance I'm not writing my opinion or what I believe or think.

I'm writing what the US law and superior court ruling says.

I know and you've said it.