Is Michael's Will Really Valid?

[ivy]

Maybe she's jumping to conclusions. I thought she did a good job. I'd like to see it analyzed by an expert. I am not so sure how good handwriting expertise can be.

A better job would be looking to other parts of the signature and determine whether they match or not using all the information she had - not only focus on Joseph and conclude that it's forged simply based on that. Because it can be easily debunked.

For example I went through naturalization process in US and on the certificate I was asked to sign my "full name by writing it in cursive" by the court clerk. so It looks nothing like my regular signature and by muzikfactory2's logic it must be forged. See my point? I guess I have high standards when it comes to conspiracy theories , well anyway.

handwriting experts look to pen contacts, acceleration, pressure points, distance between letters, slant etc and all is done with actual documents as most of these information is lost at scans/copies.

courts can order forensic examination of documents but it's not seen as an exact science and the findings could be accepted or rejected.

 

[jrsfan]

A better job would be looking to other parts of the signature and determine whether they match or not using all the information she had - not only focus on Joseph and conclude that it's forged simply based on that. Because it can be easily debunked.

For example I went through naturalization process in US and on the certificate I was asked to sign my "full name by writing it in cursive" by the court clerk. so It looks nothing like my regular signature and by muzikfactory2's logic it must be forged. See my point? I guess I have high standards when it comes to conspiracy theories , well anyway.

handwriting experts look to pen contacts, acceleration, pressure points, distance between letters, slant etc and all is done with actual documents as most of these information is lost at scans/copies.

courts can order forensic examination of documents but it's not seen as an exact science and the findings could be accepted or rejected.

I hope the court does order it or the FBI.

The FBI wasted all that time & money investigating MJ & found nothing. Really makes me mad. Something was wrong on alot of levels IMO & they investigated the wrong people.

 

[ivy]

I don't think that court has any belief/suspicion that the will/trust/signatures is/are forged.

 

[Dangerous Incorporated]

I find it really odd how you defend everything re Estate and Branca ivy and act as if there is no conspiracy or wrong doing happening. You deny everything and yet give nothing back.

 

[ivy]

I find it really odd how you defend everything re Estate and Branca ivy and act as if there is no conspiracy or wrong doing happening. You deny everything and yet give nothing back.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions.

For example I find nothing "odd" when people see suspicious things - it's their prerogative. It's their right. They are entitled to their blog posts, videos, tweets etc. Whatever an opinion might be , even though I may not agree with it, I wouldn't disrespect people or try to impose my opinions by calling other people's opinions "odd".

Similarly if I don't see anything suspicious that's my prerogative as well. And it should be respected. I'm a rational person that generally goes with legal information and facts. I don't see an indisputable or proven conspiracy or wrongdoing therefore I don't believe such things. (Side note / disclaimer: Of course any conspiracy theorist isn't required to prove anything and similarly any person isn't required to believe/accept anything and everything that's written as a conspiracy theory or wrongdoing).

For example : For you the mistakes in the children's names could be enough to label it as conspiracy or wrongdoing or forgery. For me as it legally doesn't matter as long as the intent is clear and eventually Michael's children will get everything and I can't see a direct benefit for the executors, I don't classify it as wrongdoing or fraud or forgery or conspiracy.

For you a youtube video done by a random person could be enough to believe and hate Branca that he forged a signature by adding middle name. As a person who lives in US and has been asked to sign using my full name in more than one occasion (ranging from naturalization, voter registration, social security and when cashing checks) that middle name in the signature is not an evidence of forgery for me.

and that's called difference of opinion (not odd).

In any case of my posts I do not expect people to accept or agree with anything and everything that I write , think or believe. But at the same time importantly that doesn't mean respect should be forgotten.

However I keep an open mind and read information to see if there's something out there that could change my opinion. As of now I'm not convinced and once again that's my prerogative and should be respected.

Furthermore I provide in these discussions legal information explaining why somethings do not matter, how some theories could be debunked, how some people might be misinformed. People (in general not you personally) rejecting /not accepting the information that I provide, doesn't take anything from validity of my information and doesn't mean that I provide nothing.

edited to add: and I really would like to explicitly hear what "wrongdoing" is happening according to this "forged" will / trust?

 

[kasume]

Did anyone see this?

Rowe says that Reverend Al Sharpton is prepared to come up as a witness in trial to prove that Michael was with him in New York on July 2, 2002. Not in California.

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

Oh gosh, Rowe, Sharpton keep safe....

 

[Ashtanga]

Did anyone see this?

Rowe says that Reverend Al Sharpton is prepared to come up as a witness in trial to prove that Michael was with him in New York on July 2, 2002. Not in California.

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

Oh gosh, Rowe, Sharpton keep safe....

Let's see if this will really happen............. :timer:

 

[ivy]

Did anyone see this?

Rowe says that Reverend Al Sharpton is prepared to come up as a witness in trial to prove that Michael was with him in New York on July 2, 2002. Not in California.

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

Oh gosh, Rowe, Sharpton keep safe....

that's old news and doesn't matter.

the witnesses has already gave affidavits to the court that they saw Michael sign his will and there was a mistake with the location (someone thought that they are supposed to write place of residence).

legally all is needed that witnesses say that they saw MJ sign it, wrong place or Sharpton's testimony won't invalidate the will.

 

[kasume]

I never heard that. So that's their argument.....

Wouldn't these people KNOW these things about signing the wills.....or at least one person....

What month did these witnesses come forward to the court? And how many of them have come forward?

Can you please give a link where you read or heard that information? I've tried looking for it, but I can't find it.

 

[ivy]

sharpton said this back at october 2009 so it's not new like I said.

http://www.tmz.com/2009/10/21/jacksons-will-randy-says-not-mjs-signature/

stories about witnesses and error in place

Michael Jackson's 2002 will has a mistake in it, TMZ has learned -- but it looks like a case of no harm, no foul.

As we first reported, according to the will -- dated July 7, 2002 -- it was signed in Los Angeles. But Randy Jackson told TMZ Michael was in New York City on that date.

Randy thinks the signature on Michael's will is a forgery. But Howard Weitzman, the lawyer for the estate, tells TMZ the signature is valid and the witnesses saw Jackson put pen to paper.

We've now confirmed Jackson definitely signed the will in New York City on 7-7-02. So the reference to Los Angeles is clearly a mistake.

Our sources say the person who wrote "Los Angeles" is one of the witnesses to the will and simply forgot where he was.

This mistake will not invalidate the will.

http://www.tmz.com/2009/10/22/micha...-witnesses-new-york-city-los-angeles-probate/

Michael Jackson's 2002 will (his last) has a mistake in it, but despite what some conspiracy theorists (his brother Randy) think, it looks like just that.

A mistake. No harm, no invalidation required.

According to the will, dated July 7, 2002, it was signed in Los Angeles. But Randy Jackson says Michael was in New York City on that date and can prove it.

As a result Randy thinks the signature on Michael's will is a forgery.

But Howard Weitzman, the lawyer for the estate, says the signature is valid and the witnesses saw Jackson sign the thing. The L.A. reference is just wrong.

Michael Jackson signed the will in New York City on the date in question. Whomever wrote L.A. is a witness who simply forgot ... or screwed up. Whatever.


The bottom line is that the mistake does not invalidate the will, even if Randy is convinced for some reason that it should. It was just a harmless error.

http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2009/10/michael-jackson-will-valid-despite-error/

 

[kasume]

Thank you for sharing that.

But I notice that it's really just the lawyer for the estate speaking on everyon'e behalf.

None of the witnesses have actually come up to court.

But how come the estate's laywer is only denouncing the suspicious date of the will? The date isn't the only thing that's suspicous. Like Leonard Rowe is saying, if any one of those witnesses would actually COME UP and identify themselves in court and speak, then things might be MUCH clear.

...smart way to avoid a mountain of mess by calling it a simple mistake......like Murray is doing....

 

[ivy]

Thank you for sharing that.

But I notice that it's really just the lawyer for the estate speaking on everyon'e behalf.

None of the witnesses have actually come up to court.

But how come the estate's laywer is only denouncing the suspicious date of the will? The date isn't the only thing that's suspicous. Like Leonard Rowe is saying, if any one of those witnesses would actually COME UP and identify themselves in court and speak, then things might be MUCH clear.

...smart way to avoid a mountain of mess by calling it a simple mistake......like Murray is doing....

in California legally two of the witnesses are required to come to court or sign a witness affidavit stating they saw the person (in this case MJ) signing that will, in other words to authenticate the will.

What you are saying has already happened and that is why a judge determined the will as valid.

Don't limit yourself to what is reported in media. also it's important to remember that witnesses has a duty to the court not to the public.

Plus the identities of the witnesses is already public, it's written on the will.

 

[marc_vivien]

Only people who have a share in the estate or may have a share (a desinherited heir) may contest the will. So, Rowe, Oxman or Randy don't have standing

 

[kasume]

I still have suspicions on this will based on what I have said before, and other reasons which I have not shared on here.

It doesn't matter if Rowe, Oxman, Randy don't have standing or not. I don't have standing on the will either, and neither do any of us here. We are just trying to turn over every single stone in this investigation, and if something just looks a little odd, we have to look into it.

 

[jrsfan]

that's old news and doesn't matter.

the witnesses has already gave affidavits to the court that they saw Michael sign his will and there was a mistake with the location (someone thought that they are supposed to write place of residence).

legally all is needed that witnesses say that they saw MJ sign it, wrong place or Sharpton's testimony won't invalidate the will.

Trudy Green wasn't anywhere around MJ in New York. I searched for her thru many pictures. Karen Faye was there & so was Grace. I don't know about McClain (not sure what he looks like) or Barry Siegel - but the manager is usually there at appearances & interviews. What if it could be proven that Trudy Green was not there?

According to RF:
Phillips is ordinarily 100 percent right on in his music industry stories. But on this one I would say Sony Music and Tommy Mottola, and probably Michael's now ex-manager Trudy Green, have put him on the spin cycle.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,57706,00.html
dated July 15, 2002

Not sure if RF is saying she was an ex or probably an ex at this point, as RF says later she left in 2003.

According to RF, she worked for Kaufman in Los Angeles.


What does anyone think about the date & location above the sigs? The date slants to the left, but the location slants to the right? Not sure what that means really - but perhaps 2 different people.

 

[ivy]

Trudy Green wasn't anywhere around MJ in New York. I searched for her thru many pictures. Karen Faye was there & so was Grace. I don't know about McClain (not sure what he looks like) or Barry Siegel - but the manager is usually there at appearances & interviews. What if it could be proven that Trudy Green was not there?

she could be in NY but not attend the public outing.
she could be there but not photographed
she could have come a day later etc etc..

regardless she's alive and well as well as other people that were there such as Karen Faye and Grace etc , whether she was there or not could be easily checked. As no one (in the family such as Joe or Randy) is making any fuss about the witnesses and as I said at least 2 of them or all 3 have either took the witness stand or given written affidavits stating that they saw MJ sign the will, I'll classify this as all 3 were most probably there.

 

[Maria MJ]

I can understand it may be common practice for a judge to overlook some discrepancies in a will.
Perhaps this common practice was taken into consideration when the will was presented to the judge.
What bothers me and raises the red flag is that this is happening to MJ's will. A perfectionist who would never overlook minor details such as incorrect spelling of names or wrong location.
I'm in firm disbelief of coincidences. Michael had enemies and this is a factual pattern in his life, especially during the last years.

 

[jrsfan]

she could be in NY but not attend the public outing.
she could be there but not photographed
she could have come a day later etc etc..

regardless she's alive and well as well as other people that were there such as Karen Faye and Grace etc , whether she was there or not could be easily checked. As no one (in the family such as Joe or Randy) is making any fuss about the witnesses and as I said at least 2 of them or all 3 have either took the witness stand or given written affidavits stating that they saw MJ sign the will, I'll classify this as all 3 were most probably there.

I agree, those are all possibilities. But we do have Karen Faye tweeting Randy as I recall to challenge the will. What I remember is that a reporter wrote that affidavits were filed that said they saw him sign it but gave no date as to when it was signed. I wish I could find the link to verify. It could be that the location is correct, it was signed in LA but the date was incorrect - not the location. I don't buy the I don't remember where I was etc stories. Doing a will in NY on a trip seems fishy, could have easily been done at home.

 

[ivy]

I agree, those are all possibilities. But we do have Karen Faye tweeting Randy as I recall to challenge the will. What I remember is that a reporter wrote that affidavits were filed that said they saw him sign it but gave no date as to when it was signed. I wish I could find the link to verify. It could be that the location is correct, it was signed in LA but the date was incorrect - not the location. I don't buy the I don't remember where I was etc stories. Doing a will in NY on a trip seems fishy, could have easily been done at home.

I personally don't see Karen Faye as a credible source. she's simply close with Randy and is supporting anything he says. Plus I believe her issue is more towards Branca, Dileo and their recent rehiring but not towards the witnesses.

She also had tweets/facebook updates saying that Michael was close to his family and would want them to manage is his estate - which is a total BS IMO.

Now don't get me wrong I'm open to discussion whether Michael wanted Branca and/or if Branca is a good choice for an executor or not but at the same time no one could make me believe that Michael wanted his dad to manage his money for example.

and for a minute put everything aside , forget all these discussions, errors, suspicious things etc and look to the very basics

who's getting the money / inheriting the estate?
- Michael provides for his mother during her lifetime and then everything goes to his kids.

is this something that Michael would do?
- I'll say yes.

in the last year only the estate raised 1 billion dollars so this a multi billion dollar estate. who is suitable to run this estate?
- I'll say professionals - lawyers, music executives etc people with the knowledge of the business. Not only his family members do not have the good track record (most of them filed for bankruptcy) I do not think that they have the ability to manage this big of a estate.

but hey that's just me.

 

[kasume]

I
and for a minute put everything aside , forget all these discussions, errors, suspicious things etc and look to the very basics

who's getting the money / inheriting the estate?
- Michael provides for his mother during her lifetime and then everything goes to his kids.

is this something that Michael would do?
- I'll say yes.

We CANNOT afford to forget the suspicious things while investigating in his murder.

On a recent discussion, I heard that Michael's children are only getting a very small percentage of every dollar.

in the last year only the estate raised 1 billion dollars so this a multi billion dollar estate. who is suitable to run this estate?
- I'll say professionals - lawyers, music executives etc people with the knowledge of the business. Not only his family members do not have the good track record (most of them filed for bankruptcy) I do not think that they have the ability to manage this big of a estate.

That's no excuse. They can hire some new people to help them run the estate, instead of people Michael fired.

 

[ivy]

On a recent discussion, I heard that Michael's children are only getting a very small percentage of every dollar.

true for now. the estate is in probate process and they are getting allowance for the time being. But it will increase over time and by the time they are 40 they'll own everything. This is normal estate process.

That's no excuse. They can hire some new people to help them run the estate, instead of people Michael fired.

well don't forget that Michael also fired Joe from being his manager and he also fired Randy from managing his business affairs. "people Michael fired" consists of a lot more people than Branca etc.

and who's "they"? nobody would have a say in the case of Michael's estate other than Michael (and a judge if needed). He determined the executors, he alternatively mentioned Bank of America as executor. Similarly if there was no will a judge would have determine a bank as an executor for an estate this size.

 

[Ohood]

when it comes to business MJ and Branca are soul mates ! i find Branca's name in Michael's will very natural . they made great achievements together and no one can honor these achievements like Branca ! their business reunion is priceless and it will continue like this as long as Branca is involved.

 

[kasume]

Originally Posted by kasume
On a recent discussion, I heard that Michael's children are only getting a very small percentage of every dollar.

true for now. the estate is in probate process and they are getting allowance for the time being. But it will increase over time and by the time they are 40 they'll own everything. This is normal estate process.

From the same discussion, I heard the exact opposite. That the percentage going to the lawyers will bump up to 20% and the children will be getting even less.

well don't forget that Michael also fired Joe from being his manager and he also fired Randy from managing his business affairs. "people Michael fired" consists of a lot more people than Branca etc.

And that is why Joe and Randy aren't handling the estate. Branca shouldn't handle the estate either. If Michael couldn't even trust his own family, what makes anyone think he'll trust Branca who he fired in the past also?

I guess eight days before Michael's death....he made a turn around again finally began to trust Branca again.....??? And let's not forget Branca's business connection to sony.

I wouldn't be surprised if Branca's the one helping Murray out with his fincances in court. We never did find out who Murray's "fat pocketed friends" are.

 

[ivy]

From the same discussion, I heard the exact opposite. That the percentage going to the lawyers will bump up to 20% and the children will be getting even less..

a question : from this discussion you are talking about where/how do they come up with 20% number? a judge determined 5% each (10% total) , trust documents say a "reasonable amount" for compensation. so where does this 20% number comes from? Is there a basis for it or is it just a guess?

I'll say false. for example in the last year childrens monthly allowance has been increased to 60K to 80K. Also executors compensation is determined by the court.

plus the trust documents has been made public due to a leak and the rules of it is quite clear - at least if you have a legal understanding. I have other posts about this in the appropriate thread and here's the summary.

- estate is now at the probate process. the rule is to pay debts first before giving out any money. therefore during this time any beneficiary will get an "allowance". no estate can pay out any amount of money to any beneficiary without paying the debts first - that's the law. ( I know there are some people and fans are saying that "estate has earned millions but katherine and kids getting only thousands" - which is true but also at the same time it is the law. Even though Michael's trust said "give everything to my kids immediately" they couldn't be giving out any money without settling the debts - once again it's the law)

- after probate process and till 30 years old MJ kids continue to get money from the income. the trust allows for additional money to be given for life expenses such as school, buying property, marriage and starting business

- starting 30 years old they'll not only get money but they'll be getting their shares (control of) properties, assets (including neverland, sony/atv etc). by the time they are 40 they'll own and control everything.

the thing to understand is this MJ's kids are the main beneficiaries and the ones who will inherit the estate over time. Executors job is to run the estate and they'll get compensation for the job that they are doing. Any executor will get / charge the same amount that wouldn't really change. All other money generated is going to seperate trust accounts for the kids.

 

[honeysucklejasmine]

i find Branca's name in Michael's will very natural . they made great achievements together

I agree. There is no evidence of actual wrongdoing on Branca's behalf concerning Michael only rumour and speculation. I also haven't come across evidence of wrongdoing in his dealings with the multitude of other artists and companies he has represented.
http://www.johnbranca.com/artist-representation

In fact there is plenty of evidence of his numerous accomplishments, not only whilst working as Michael's attorney, but also whilst working with others:

Part of a 2006 Super Lawyers Article on Branca:
'And a third key is his creative deal-making ability, praised even by those who sometimes sit on the other side of the table.
Berry Gordy, founder of Motown Records, calls Branca "a good friend, a great quarterback, and the Smokey Robinson of deal making."
Jordan Schur, president of Geffen Records, gushes, "John is an innovator. He's constantly thinking of new ways to do deals."
And Jeff Kwatinetz, head of the giant entertainment management company The Firm, says, "It's very easy for lawyers to find reasons deals shouldn't work. John's a deal-maker, not a deal-breaker. He's as good an entertainment lawyer that has ever lived or breathed."
After the ceremony honoring [Carlos] Santana, the new doctor describes Branca in terms attorneys don't hear very often: "Lawyers are like shamans. Shamans use the law of nature; lawyers use the laws of reason...I feel very protected by John."'
http://www.superlawyers.com/califor...ble/9dd713b1-1420-4355-9d4f-299d7446244c.html

Branca being brought back shortly before TII doesn't surprise me as in the past, he effectively helped to exploit the Michael Jackson brand via the Pepsi commercials, and is therefore someone in my opinion, Michael may have wanted onboard prior to the launch of an international tour. Of course, as has already been pointed out, even if Branca didn't return to MJs' team on a consultancy basis, he would still have been an executor of Michael's will.

Part of a 2007 Branca interview with a Michael Jackson Fan Club:
Q. If you look back, what do You consider as the greatest thing in Your career?
A. Working with Michael not only on the “Thriller” album but in helping him acquire the Beatles catalog and the merger with Sony, as well as getting Michael the ownership of his masters, are among the accomplishments I am most proud of from my work with Michael. I also helped Michael make the two Pepsi deals which pioneered modern commercial tie-ins for artists.

Q. As it’s been widely reported in the media, You are no longer working with Michael. How could this happen?
A. Although I am not currently working with Michael, I wish him well and would certainly help him in any way I could if he asked. I believe Michael has a lot of great music and performances in him.

Q. What’s next for You? Where can we hear about you in the future?
A. I’ve been fortunate my practice is thriving. I’ve represented 29 members of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame thus far. I’m also representing a number of very important current artists in the industry. But I always felt I had a very special connection with Michael and I look forward to seeing him again soon. In some ways I look upon him as a brother.
http://kingofpop.info/news/2007/03/01/michaeljacksonhu-interview-with-john-branca/

Brief interview on 30 June 2009:
'So what did he and Michael talk about? "We discussed how to exploit his valuable brand and the upcoming concert," says Branca.
http://thresq.hollywoodreporter.com/2009/06/michael-jackson-will-estate-john-branca.html

Unless proof to the contrary is found I believe John Branca is the right man for the job as specified by MJ in his will and, in my view, someone who actually cared about Michael.

 

[Ashtanga]

I wouldn't be surprised if Branca's the one helping Murray out with his fincances in court.

:doh:

 

[jrsfan]

I agree. There is no evidence of actual wrongdoing on Branca's behalf concerning Michael only rumour and speculation. I also haven't come across evidence of wrongdoing in his dealings with the multitude of other artists and companies he has represented.
http://www.johnbranca.com/artist-representation

In fact there is plenty of evidence of his numerous accomplishments, not only whilst working as Michael's attorney, but also whilst working with others:

Part of a 2006 Super Lawyers Article on Branca:
'And a third key is his creative deal-making ability, praised even by those who sometimes sit on the other side of the table.
Berry Gordy, founder of Motown Records, calls Branca "a good friend, a great quarterback, and the Smokey Robinson of deal making."
Jordan Schur, president of Geffen Records, gushes, "John is an innovator. He's constantly thinking of new ways to do deals."
And Jeff Kwatinetz, head of the giant entertainment management company The Firm, says, "It's very easy for lawyers to find reasons deals shouldn't work. John's a deal-maker, not a deal-breaker. He's as good an entertainment lawyer that has ever lived or breathed."
After the ceremony honoring [Carlos] Santana, the new doctor describes Branca in terms attorneys don't hear very often: "Lawyers are like shamans. Shamans use the law of nature; lawyers use the laws of reason...I feel very protected by John."'
http://www.superlawyers.com/califor...ble/9dd713b1-1420-4355-9d4f-299d7446244c.html

Branca being brought back shortly before TII doesn't surprise me as in the past, he effectively helped to exploit the Michael Jackson brand via the Pepsi commercials, and is therefore someone in my opinion, Michael may have wanted onboard prior to the launch of an international tour. Of course, as has already been pointed out, even if Branca didn't return to MJs' team on a consultancy basis, he would still have been an executor of Michael's will.

Part of a 2007 Branca interview with a Michael Jackson Fan Club:
Q. If you look back, what do You consider as the greatest thing in Your career?
A. Working with Michael not only on the “Thriller” album but in helping him acquire the Beatles catalog and the merger with Sony, as well as getting Michael the ownership of his masters, are among the accomplishments I am most proud of from my work with Michael. I also helped Michael make the two Pepsi deals which pioneered modern commercial tie-ins for artists.

Q. As it’s been widely reported in the media, You are no longer working with Michael. How could this happen?
A. Although I am not currently working with Michael, I wish him well and would certainly help him in any way I could if he asked. I believe Michael has a lot of great music and performances in him.

Q. What’s next for You? Where can we hear about you in the future?
A. I’ve been fortunate my practice is thriving. I’ve represented 29 members of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame thus far. I’m also representing a number of very important current artists in the industry. But I always felt I had a very special connection with Michael and I look forward to seeing him again soon. In some ways I look upon him as a brother.
http://kingofpop.info/news/2007/03/01/michaeljacksonhu-interview-with-john-branca/

Brief interview on 30 June 2009:
'So what did he and Michael talk about? "We discussed how to exploit his valuable brand and the upcoming concert," says Branca.
http://thresq.hollywoodreporter.com/2009/06/michael-jackson-will-estate-john-branca.html

Unless proof to the contrary is found I believe John Branca is the right man for the job as specified by MJ in his will and, in my view, someone who actually cared about Michael.

You should start a Branca fan forum.

 

[kasume]

You should start a Branca fan forum.

My thoughts too. There's some Branca lovers here. h34r:

 

[Maria MJ]

Only time will tell about Mr.Branca's loyalty. And unfortunately, if the worst case scenario is verified, it will be too late when evidence surfaces.
There are a lot of red flags raised throughout the years and a lot of unanswered questions which need to be addressed.

 

[ivy]

You should start a Branca fan forum.

My thoughts too. There's some Branca lovers here. h34r:

if you are free to feel whatever you want (love or hate, for or against) about someone , shouldn't the same freedom apply to other people as well ? plus this wouldn't be a forum and we wouldn't be having an intelligent discussion if there was no alternative views than our own.

aren't we all here to investigate / examine if michael's will is valid, if Branca is loyal or not? How can we do it without thoughts, information from every side, every point of view? How can we discover the truth if our minds are closed to other information, other opinions?

if the information presented is wrong, not sufficient etc we should all go ahead educate people, point errors, debunk it, explain our take so that we can all benefit from it. But labeling people and diving people into groups will not benefit us at all.