Roxa
Proud Member
But if there are so many mistakes in the Will, why it was validated?????????????????
Latest on MJJC
- Latest Michael Jackson News
- Click Here to Join Our Community
- Follow us on X
- Wanna talk Michael? Come join the chat rooms
- The Michael Jackson Chart Watch
- Become an MJJC Patron
- Join the Premium Member Group and Get Lot's of Extra's
- Major Love Prayer - Worldwide Monthly Prayer Every 25th
- MJJC Exclusive Q&A - We talk to the family and those in and around Michael
- Join us in the Chat Rooms
- Find us on Facebook
actually there's not so many mistakes in the will
- children's name : added Prince to Michael Jr's name, omitted hyphen in Paris's name, added Joseph to Blanket's name
These typos in the names doesn't matter as the intent is clear - meaning that Judge and everyone else can understand that Michael is mentioning his kids
- Los Angeles is written instead of New York
we heard that this was either a mistake by one of witnesses or somebody though they were supposed to write "place of residence".
as long as one or more witnesses comes up with affidavits saying that they indeed saw him sign the will and that was just an error , it doesn't matter either.
- Debbie's name is not wrong actually. Her middle name is just shortened (as long as middle names go, even an initial is fine) and she kept the Jackson surname at least until 2005 (that's how she identified herself during the 2005 trial).
All of these are minute details actually.
Any will can be invalidated by 3 reasons : the signature is forged/faked , the person was not in sound mind , the person was forced.
Dangerous Incorporated
Guests
What's funny though is that when the wrongful death lawsuit was filed yesterday, it had to be refiled again because of a typo and yet the Will can have all childrens names wrong and location of Will signed wrong despite the Will specifically stating at the end that all information in the Will is accurate.
And I still dont understand why MJ would update his trust regularly from 95-02 and then do nothing with the Trust from then on even after the trial.
And I still dont understand why MJ would update his trust regularly from 95-02 and then do nothing with the Trust from then on even after the trial.
not really that funny or surprising as a lawsuit and a will are totally different things - it's like comparing apples and oranges. For example you can even have oral wills, on the other hand lawsuits has to follow a certain order and rules. Wills are much more relaxed and as I said a million time as long as the intent is clear (who do you want to leave what in which conditions) that will is fine.
Last edited:
Ashtanga
Proud Member
opcorn:Upon rereading the court transcripts of the testimony of LeGrand - I believe the reason Branca became out with MJ was because of this fact, that the law firm of Ziffren(Branca's firm) had Sony as a client which is clearly a conflict of interest:
12 A. Well, absolutely, yes, because I obtained
13 files from the Ziffren law firm evidencing the
14 Ziffren law firm and Mr. Branca’s representing Mr.
15 Jackson in just such discussions over a period of
16 time.
17 Q. And just to clarify, Mr. Branca was a
18 partner at the Ziffren law firm in Los Angeles,
19 correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. That firm also represented Sony, correct?
22 A. I believe the answer is correct. Yes.
23 Q. And you were concerned that Mr. Branca and
24 that law firm might not be representing Mr.
25 Jackson’s interests properly because of their
26 connection to Sony, correct?
27 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; leading.
28 THE COURT: Sustained. 10210
1 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Didn’t you investigate Mr.
2 Branca because you were concerned that he and Sony
3 had set up an offshore account to funnel money to so
4 they could defraud Michael Jackson?
Branca was out by April 4, 2005 - he was on the list by Davis on Justice System.net. Davis is a lawyer who works with Geragos. The list was put out intentionally & discussed on many forums. Although LeGrand had no actual proof to testify about, but Branca's firm also was working for Sony. I wouldn't like that fact alone.
link:
discussion about list
http://www.mjj2005.com/kopboard/inde...hl=trudy+green
http://www.mjj2005.com/kopboard/index.php?showtopic=5048&hl=trudy+green
LeGrand testified to this about Branca:
Q. But the investigation did indicate he was
6 somehow involved in the account, correct?
7 A. The investigator’s report so indicated.
8 Q. And the investigator’s report indicated it
9 appeared that Sony was involved in that account,
10 right?
11 A. The investigator’s report indicated that
12 Sony had transferred money to the account.
13 Q. Sony had transferred money to that account
14 for the benefit of Mr. Jackson’s lawyer, right?
15 A. That’s what was indicated in the report.
16 It -- I need to be very clear here that that
17 was not verified, with a reasonable degree of
18 certainty, that I would have acted upon that
19 information. And Mr. Branca’s a fine lawyer. And,
20 you know, there is no -- I have no proof of these
21 statements.
Just to be clear:
Branca was bought out in 2006 - he has it on his website. MJ went to alot of trouble to get him out:
http://www.johnbranca.com/pdf/john_branca_latimes_sony_atv.pdf
Just an odd thing I noted while rereading LeGrands testimony - he had called Malnik the night before he testified.
Also he testified that he was suspicious of Trudy Green, but never said why & investigated her - interesting because she is a witness on the will signed on June 7, 2002 & she never was with MJ in any of his appearances - as his manager, she should have been there. I looked for her in all the pics. Karen Faye was there & so was Grace.
Dangerous Incorporated
Guests
First Im never denied he was rehired in 06.
What you're forgetting about is that Branca was fired again in 06 due to the allegation by Michael that Branca was conspiring to Bankrupt him.
They were after MJ for a long time and after not being able to put him in jail, they went for the jugular.
Jermaine Jackson talked about a conspiracy after the not guilty verdict on Larry King Like June 15. This is what he said:
JACKSON: ...through the mud, and I'll say this. Wait, wait, wait. This is really important. It's like there're conspirators out there who were behind this whole entire thing. It's almost like a magician. They throw this child molestation crap on you with the right hand, while the left hand is trying to do something else. So, this was the whole plan. But at the same time, we've always said Michael is a thousand percent innocent.
Now, the conspirators out there, yes, they are shaking in their boots, because they know we know. We knew from day one, and it's not going to work. They're not going to get away with this.
Source: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/15/lkl.01.html
Maria MJ
Proud Member
So Ivy, how would any of these 3 reasons be proven?
If we assume that the witnesses lied about seeing him sign, and the signature was forged/coppied from another document/stamped on the will, what's the procedure for knowing this?
Again if Mike was given something to blurr his judgement and signed the will thinking he was signing something else? Is there a way to prove that?
Finally, how do we know he was not forced? I mean who makes sure that none of the above is true before validating a will?
marc_vivien
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,176
- Points
- 38
IF mj was not happy with this will, he had plenty of time to change it. Don't forget, McMillan and Lopez were his lawyers
Maria MJ
Proud Member
I have this sense that judges don't care about wills that much. They want to move on quickly and should anyone have grounds to contest the will they may do so.
So this whole validation procedure seems from sloppy to non existent. Just to get it over with.
But I would like to hear Ivy's take on this as she has the background.
So this whole validation procedure seems from sloppy to non existent. Just to get it over with.
But I would like to hear Ivy's take on this as she has the background.
Dangerous Incorporated
Guests
Not if they didnt see it or the Will was made up at a later point such as within the 8 days Branca was rehired or between when MJ died and Branca handed in this Will.
to verify signature is the easiest of all - it's sent to the expert, authentication services etc. everyone has a certain way to write, certain pressure points etc. so experts can determine that very easily and quickly to a certainty
the other two need some sort of witnesses. saying that certain people were forcing him or he was impaired in someway. however I believe it's quite a hard thing to do in regards to Michael. First he was protesting Sony at that time and in the videos etc he's fine. Secondly 7 years passed after the will. so you not only have to prove that he was impaired and/or forced but also that went on 7 years so that he couldn't do any other will.
(remember anna nicole and her old husband. how he left her everything, that was impaired/forced thing. that lawsuit still goes on to this day).
and remember this : let's talk hypothetically let's assume that someway somehow he was forced to make the will and executors had that will in their hands. what stopped Michael from making another one? Remember you don't have to cancel the other will, a newer dated will automatically becomes the valid will. So in this theory he would need to have access to no lawyers at all - however he had 2 different lawyers after Branca, McMillan and Lopez.
first of all a fyi - they don't need to see the will. they could have simply written a new will that automatically cancels the older one.
- how would branca know that MJ didn't have a will dated later than 2002? Remember most recent will is the valid one. a faked will dated 2002 doesn't make that much sense. in that case you are betting that he didn't have a more current will and his oldest was done at 2001 or before.
and more importantly
- how could Siegel leave the executor position in 2003 if the will was faked in 2009?
Dangerous Incorporated
Guests
Or faked it.........
........Branca being MJs lawyer for 8 days could easily have found out or obtained the REAL Last Will & Testimony of Michael Jackson when Branca replaced MJ's previous lawyer as it would be Branca's job to have MJs Will which he did. Whether that means that the Will Branca handed in is the real will or a fake (or composite of several Wills) is another thing altogether.
Branca could have got rid of the most recent Will and used the last Will he had that included himself (as I doubt MJ would include Branca in any Wills after his suspicions) or its a composite of several Wills and be another oversight. It wouldnt be the first or!
I think the more important questions are why wasnt the 2002 Will updated if Siegel resigned and Michael didnt trust Branca (which Michael didnt trust Branca based on 05 trial and MJs statement re conspiracy to bankrupt)? 2 out of 3 people to run MJs estate stated in the Will have issues with MJ. Would Michael leave such doubt as to who was or leave untrustworthy people to run his estate?
Michael's Will was regularly updated from 1995-2002. After the trial and after the reconstructing of MJs financial situation involving large loans and assets, Michael didnt update his trust or consider who he has placed in charge of his estate especially when Michael was worried that he was going to be murdered?
fyi - there's no requirement that says that "the new lawyer should have the last will"..
the lawyer that prepares it will have a copy and the original will be at the person (MJ) or whoever he gave it for safe keeping (such as a friend or family member).
so I fail to see how Branca could or would obtain or see the other wills (yet alone in 8 days).
+ even though he had access and was able to get rid of the most recent will (btw how would he get access to the lawyers copy?) what about the lawyer that prepared it, the witnesses and the executors of that will? how did he get rid of that people? when branca filed the 2002 will someone would have come forward and say "hey wait a minute he did have a more recent will". so why didn't that happen? (See Gary Colemen 3-4 people came up with different wills). oh and btw - even if the original will is lost/destroyed, if someone has the copy and the lawyer that prepared it or the witnesses can testify for its authenticity that copy of the will is accepted as valid - so your theory of destroying the will should include the original will, all the copies of it, the lawyer, all the witnesses and the executors - a quite far fetched and quite impossible scenario IMO.
+ how do you know that Michael's will was regularly updated? there was 1997 will and then the 2002. It seems like he didn't even update a will in 1998 or later to include Paris. So to me it doesn't seem like he regularly updated it. and with the way that the trust set up all you need to update that pour over will will be when you have kid, marry or divorce - don't forget in Michael's case the most important document is the trust - not the will. Will in this case is just pour over will that says that the trust is the main document and it should be followed.
- an important point: siegel leaving the executor position doesn't require any updating. we have seen the trust Michael has set 3 executors and he says that any one of them can be the sole executor if the other ones do not want to keep that position so his will/trust calls one executor enough. So Siegel leaving the executor position still leaves 2 other people. he would only have to update the will if all 3 executors told him that they wouldn't be executors and there was no executors left.
and the answer to the other question is simple - yes there have been rumors or suspicion of some actions by Branca but it was never proven so perhaps Michael believed that Branca was clean and therefore had no reason to replace him.
remember he was fired in 2003 but was rehired. yes in the 2005 trial we heard the investigation but yet he was rehired, and then he was rehired in 2009 as well. if he was that shady how do you explain all these rehiring? forget the whole will debate for a moment. why would Michael keep rehiring a person if he was suspicious , if there was any proof?
so perhaps simply there was no basis for those claims and therefore no reason to replace him.
the lawyer that prepares it will have a copy and the original will be at the person (MJ) or whoever he gave it for safe keeping (such as a friend or family member).
so I fail to see how Branca could or would obtain or see the other wills (yet alone in 8 days).
+ even though he had access and was able to get rid of the most recent will (btw how would he get access to the lawyers copy?) what about the lawyer that prepared it, the witnesses and the executors of that will? how did he get rid of that people? when branca filed the 2002 will someone would have come forward and say "hey wait a minute he did have a more recent will". so why didn't that happen? (See Gary Colemen 3-4 people came up with different wills). oh and btw - even if the original will is lost/destroyed, if someone has the copy and the lawyer that prepared it or the witnesses can testify for its authenticity that copy of the will is accepted as valid - so your theory of destroying the will should include the original will, all the copies of it, the lawyer, all the witnesses and the executors - a quite far fetched and quite impossible scenario IMO.
+ how do you know that Michael's will was regularly updated? there was 1997 will and then the 2002. It seems like he didn't even update a will in 1998 or later to include Paris. So to me it doesn't seem like he regularly updated it. and with the way that the trust set up all you need to update that pour over will will be when you have kid, marry or divorce - don't forget in Michael's case the most important document is the trust - not the will. Will in this case is just pour over will that says that the trust is the main document and it should be followed.
- an important point: siegel leaving the executor position doesn't require any updating. we have seen the trust Michael has set 3 executors and he says that any one of them can be the sole executor if the other ones do not want to keep that position so his will/trust calls one executor enough. So Siegel leaving the executor position still leaves 2 other people. he would only have to update the will if all 3 executors told him that they wouldn't be executors and there was no executors left.
and the answer to the other question is simple - yes there have been rumors or suspicion of some actions by Branca but it was never proven so perhaps Michael believed that Branca was clean and therefore had no reason to replace him.
remember he was fired in 2003 but was rehired. yes in the 2005 trial we heard the investigation but yet he was rehired, and then he was rehired in 2009 as well. if he was that shady how do you explain all these rehiring? forget the whole will debate for a moment. why would Michael keep rehiring a person if he was suspicious , if there was any proof?
so perhaps simply there was no basis for those claims and therefore no reason to replace him.
Last edited:
Ashtanga
Proud Member
opcorn:Dangerous Incorporated
Guests
Maybe no requirement but as I said previously, he would have been able to obtain the REAL last Will if he wanted too, and after all he claims he had the Will and he was the "new" lawyer.
I wonder why he didnt come forward with it straight away? He had time, after all Katherine had time to go to court and take temp control of Estate. And he never claimed that he had to get it from anyone else. Another odd thing is why Michael's original copy of his last Will wasnt found.
Dont you usually keep original Wills locked up like a vault or safe deposit box or somewhere that shady people couldnt get to it? Michael didnt trust Branca. Michael didnt trust certain members of his family (Randy, Joe, Jermaine) and no family member or friend claimed to have had MJs copy. So where is it? Did Peter Lopez have it? Is that why he was killed?
If Branca had an agenda as he previously had and being as powerful lawyer as he is, and known to be previously associated with MJ, it would be VERY easy for him to obtain an copies of MJ's Will if need be.
From the previous lawyer?
Again, Peter Lopez...............but hey this is speculation, after all if I knew the answers, I go to the cops! But if there's a Will (punn intended) there's a way!
I said his Trust was regularly updated from 95-02 and then.....nothing.
Well of course Branca would want it set up. This way if something happens to McClain, Branca is left in charge of the Estate. Who knows what could happen years down the track. Maybe McClain might step down, or end up like Lopez. Best to be wary and observant than ignorant. Remember only all the paragraphs in the Will the regard to control of the Estate has an initial next to it. And them some strange initials too.........
So Michael had his suspicions about Branca twice, didnt update his Will or Trust at all, and then 8 days before MJs death he is rehired and still in charge of everything? Rather convenient if you ask me. Lucky MJ didnt protect himself from possible conspiracy to bankrupt him while leaving Branca an open door directly to his entire fortune. Otherwise he'd would have had to of update his Will in the 8 days before he died and that would have looked rather suspicious for Branca wouldnt it?
Good question, is there any proof. Apart from 05 trial, Michael publicly made a statement re conspiracy to bankrupt. He obviously had something to back that up in 06 other wise he could be libel for slander and hey everyone who had a chip on their shoulder when no longer working for the cash cow attempted sue MJ. So MJ must have had some evidence of this conspiracy.
Yet there we have no seen any proof as to whether MJ did rehire Branca at all. Hell we didnt know who really was MJs manager for a while there. We dont even really know if Dileo was really MJs last manager. I know there was a letter to Rowe but there was doubts around that too if you recall.
First there was Tohme, then Rowe and at some point Dileo simultaneously ot seemed. That really wasnt made clear. Now Dileo as we know has allegiances w/ $ony also like Branca.
Dileo worked for Epic before ever being MJs manager and is on the $ony/ATV board....with Branca! So did Dileo work his way in and rehire Branca without MJ even knowing? Did AEG with $ony get Dileo back in? It was beneficial for all parties....except Michael. AEG would have had Dileo who wasnt as objective as Rowe was to MJs schedule. Dileo helps $ony and gets Branca back in to work his magic. Tuddah.....conspiracy!
Dileo has acted suspicious since MJs death on multiple occasions, changing his story, appearing @ UCLA with fired Tohme, which was recently Tohme's job and Dileo avoided question re Tohme w/ Raffles. And Dileo or nobody questions why a former employee was at the hospital on the day he dies? Ok then.......
I have no idea why certain ppl on this forum have no issues with Branca and why a lot of people are ignoring the fact that Michael called out several times of conspiracy and being fearful of his life, and yet after his sudden death dont put 2 and 2 together? It would be like me saying that youve threatened my life repeatedly and then I suddently disappear, generally, you would the first person the authorities would investigate. To think that it was just one bumbling idiot Dr is laughable IMO
Murray, Phillips, Dileo and others couldnt tell the same story twice if they tried.:doh:
Last edited:
most important thing first :
you have 30 days to file a will with the court.. (even if you can't find the original you have to file the notice of the existence of such will)
if Peter Lopez had a will, if he knew there was another will, he had to file it/give notice of it by July 25, 2009.
so therefore if he had a will and they tried to stop him from filing it, he should have been killed before or by July 25, 2009.
after July 25th it was too late to file a newer will so there would be no reason and no connection to Peter Lopez after that date.
you generally do not rush to the court. In most cases people will make known that they have a will and wait to see if a newer will is out there and comes forward.
how do you know that Michael's original copy of the will wasn't found?
It seems like they filed the original as it was quickly accepted. If they filed a copy of the will then we would see an authentication process / hearing. Plus if that happened then there wouldn't be a claim by Joe about the validity of the will as it would already be determined.
many people keep it at different place. sure safe deposit boxes are used, some people keep it in their houses other people could give it to family or friends for safe keeping. and it doesn't have to be a family member for example Michael could have given it to Elizabeth Taylor, Miko Brando, Frank Cascio etc.. who knows?
okay please explain Branca's power to me.. he's known as the best entertainment lawyer and has the high profile musician / artist clients etc but nothing else. he isn't known as mafia or something similar..
even if we assume that all the accusations was true, he was doing not so good deals for Michael to get money for himself..
what gives Branca the power to obtain all copies of a will and destroy them and silence all the related people (lawyer, witness, executors) and even kill people in the way?
that raymone bain statement from 2006.
first of all that official statement didn't list any names - so you can't sue for libel or slander.
in other words you can say "people are conspiring against me to steal my money" - nobody can sue you
if you say "ivy is conspiring against me to steal my money" then I can sue.
as if you remember that statement also said that there was an investigation and MJ will sue people - but he never did.
so it doesn't look like there was "hard" evidence that would be enough in a court of law..
court has a copy of the rehiring letter.
that would require Dileo having power of attorney. so Michael would have known if he allowed Dileo to hire/sign for him. However we have seen Murray's contract and it needed Michael's signature. so it doesn't look like Michael gave power of attorney / power to sign for him to anyone.
sure Michael called conspiracy but he didn't give out names. all of his family goes aroung saying that Michael said people was after his catalog but never gave names.
so I think that depends on each person and what you see and believe. for me personally I believe that Mottola definitely wanted to finish Michael, Sony of course wanted to control the catalog and Tohme looks shady.
I also personally do not see evidence against Branca - mainly because in the 2005 trial when the private investigator said that there was no evidence and he was a liked person and Michael hired him back constantly. Same goes for Dileo as I haven't forgotten that he was present at the 2005 trial - even though he was fired years ago and wasn't rehired until years later. and if you don't agree with it , fine..
you have 30 days to file a will with the court.. (even if you can't find the original you have to file the notice of the existence of such will)
if Peter Lopez had a will, if he knew there was another will, he had to file it/give notice of it by July 25, 2009.
so therefore if he had a will and they tried to stop him from filing it, he should have been killed before or by July 25, 2009.
after July 25th it was too late to file a newer will so there would be no reason and no connection to Peter Lopez after that date.
you generally do not rush to the court. In most cases people will make known that they have a will and wait to see if a newer will is out there and comes forward.
how do you know that Michael's original copy of the will wasn't found?
It seems like they filed the original as it was quickly accepted. If they filed a copy of the will then we would see an authentication process / hearing. Plus if that happened then there wouldn't be a claim by Joe about the validity of the will as it would already be determined.
many people keep it at different place. sure safe deposit boxes are used, some people keep it in their houses other people could give it to family or friends for safe keeping. and it doesn't have to be a family member for example Michael could have given it to Elizabeth Taylor, Miko Brando, Frank Cascio etc.. who knows?
okay please explain Branca's power to me.. he's known as the best entertainment lawyer and has the high profile musician / artist clients etc but nothing else. he isn't known as mafia or something similar..
even if we assume that all the accusations was true, he was doing not so good deals for Michael to get money for himself..
what gives Branca the power to obtain all copies of a will and destroy them and silence all the related people (lawyer, witness, executors) and even kill people in the way?
that raymone bain statement from 2006.
first of all that official statement didn't list any names - so you can't sue for libel or slander.
in other words you can say "people are conspiring against me to steal my money" - nobody can sue you
if you say "ivy is conspiring against me to steal my money" then I can sue.
as if you remember that statement also said that there was an investigation and MJ will sue people - but he never did.
so it doesn't look like there was "hard" evidence that would be enough in a court of law..
court has a copy of the rehiring letter.
that would require Dileo having power of attorney. so Michael would have known if he allowed Dileo to hire/sign for him. However we have seen Murray's contract and it needed Michael's signature. so it doesn't look like Michael gave power of attorney / power to sign for him to anyone.
sure Michael called conspiracy but he didn't give out names. all of his family goes aroung saying that Michael said people was after his catalog but never gave names.
so I think that depends on each person and what you see and believe. for me personally I believe that Mottola definitely wanted to finish Michael, Sony of course wanted to control the catalog and Tohme looks shady.
I also personally do not see evidence against Branca - mainly because in the 2005 trial when the private investigator said that there was no evidence and he was a liked person and Michael hired him back constantly. Same goes for Dileo as I haven't forgotten that he was present at the 2005 trial - even though he was fired years ago and wasn't rehired until years later. and if you don't agree with it , fine..
Last edited:
I think this is your best argument - although the will could still be a composite of other wills, which I would think would be likely. I think Branca would have been asked to resign at the same time. The list of contingent beneficiaries of the nephews & cousins seems old & outdated as they were from the applehead club. Almost seems like it might be from an insurance policy of beneficiaries. Diana Ross in there too is outdated. Where is the 97 will?
I do remember reading in some article that Weitzman filed affidavits to the court from the witnesses saying they saw MJ sign the will but they gave no date of when they saw him sign it. I thought that was odd - I have looked for the article again, but so far I have not been able to find it.
I tend to think that 3T and the other cousins were the ones that was very close to Michael. We have seen them with him at later years as well (Private Home Videos etc). He probably did not have connection that he had with them with other cousins.
I know some people mention his sisters such as Rebbie etc as possible guardians but again my personal opinion he wasn't as close to his sisters as some people tend to believe. There are old interviews done with Rebbie and Janet that says they haven't seen Michael for 2 years or so on. His mother and Diana Ross is the two mother figures that he has personally known.
1997 will is most probably is kept by the person who has it or it could be filed with the court. Regardless as there's a newer will it automatically becomes invalid. (if the newer 2002 will becomes invalid then 1997 will is probated).
That affidavits was for the New York - Los Angeles issue. If they had filed a copy of the will they would also need an affidavit from the lawyer that prepared the original will.
My understanding from watching TMZ live, & some articles read, was that the 97 will was filed with the court. Here's one link:
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/31760847
Attorneys also disclosed that another Jackson will from 1997 has been lodged with the court, but will only become a factor if the 2002 will is invalidated. Details of the older will were not disclosed.
I do not understand why the 97 will is not public.
as long as there's a newer will (2002), the older will (1997) is invalid. that's why.
Maria MJ
Proud Member
My gut feeling tells me that Peter Lopez was in possession of a more recent will and he was threatened from the start to not step out with it.
No proof of course, just plain instinct.
No proof of course, just plain instinct.
Maria MJ
Proud Member
If I get this right, Jrsfan, we'd like to see for ourselves the 97 will to ensure it was identical to the 2002 will with the exception of Blanket's name being added, right?
I can understand that. If the 2002 will is faked, there's a good reason why the 97 will is nowhere to be found.
I can understand that. If the 2002 will is faked, there's a good reason why the 97 will is nowhere to be found.
Now we can be sure that 1997 will was at least the same in regards to the beneficiaries as the 2002 will.
If the beneficiaries were different (such as if Joe was in 1997 will but removed from the 2002 will) it would give those people grounds to contest the will.
and I don't think the 1997 will is "no where to be found". It's been mentioned alot and I'm sure the media has seen it. How can TMZ can claim it's the same if they haven't seen it? It's just not been made public (yet).
If the beneficiaries were different (such as if Joe was in 1997 will but removed from the 2002 will) it would give those people grounds to contest the will.
and I don't think the 1997 will is "no where to be found". It's been mentioned alot and I'm sure the media has seen it. How can TMZ can claim it's the same if they haven't seen it? It's just not been made public (yet).
Last edited:
Dangerous Incorporated
Guests
<object width="445" height="364"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/v-CZ2iQMlWA&hl=en_GB&fs=1?color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&hd=1&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/v-CZ2iQMlWA&hl=en_GB&fs=1?color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&hd=1&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="445" height="364"></embed></object>
^^
Some (legal) documents in US needs to be signed in full legal name (including middle name). Some documents require the signature to be exactly as your name is written in the document (such as if it's written as First Middle Lastname you'll sign like that, if it's written as First Lastname you would sign like that).
I have a shortened signature as well (omitted middle name, shorter version of first name) some places such as USCIS, IRS and my bank always asks me to sign in full name (and ask me to sign again if I used the shorter signature).
so Muzikfactory2 is jumping into conclusions, Michael could have simply be asked to sign with "full name".
Some (legal) documents in US needs to be signed in full legal name (including middle name). Some documents require the signature to be exactly as your name is written in the document (such as if it's written as First Middle Lastname you'll sign like that, if it's written as First Lastname you would sign like that).
I have a shortened signature as well (omitted middle name, shorter version of first name) some places such as USCIS, IRS and my bank always asks me to sign in full name (and ask me to sign again if I used the shorter signature).
so Muzikfactory2 is jumping into conclusions, Michael could have simply be asked to sign with "full name".
Last edited:
Vici
Proud Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2009
- Messages
- 2,758
- Points
- 48
Wasnt the story that Branca was out of town at the time MJ passed and then came into town and presented the will? I think TMZ said it back then.
That is my memory also.