Latest on MJJC

Jackson Estate Opposes Stipend for Joe Jackson

MJ#1WhoIsIt said:
Im Simple you tell us, you reposted it. But Most can figure it out for themselves without yours or my help.
Click to expand...

LOL.....you think they do but they don't, you're just rambling.

Anyway, for the people who wanna choose to ignore Michael's WILL, let me ask you this, he did'nt include his siblings as beneficiaries either, so now, should they having been supported by Michael in the past, now have the right to file legal docs. asking the court for money as Joe is now doing?
 
ivy said:
When I read the documents I believe that the first paragraph means that they are okay with paying for any reasonable expenses if he is indeed dependent on MJ.

1. there's no evidence that he was dependent on MJ.
2. Even if he was/is, the expenses listed are far away from being reasonable. There's a rent and then hotels, then entertainment, money to support his children and grandchildren, legal expenses etc.
Click to expand...

Yes that's pretty much what I read as well.
 
kathiejmie said:
For me Michael is the most important person of them all, no matter how good or bad the rest of the family is. Actually, he's the only one who's important (and the MJ3 of course) I support Michael. I respect him and I love him. If he decided not to include the Jacksons in his will, then I say so be it. It's his money and his decision. And taking into account he had the same will in 1997 and 2002, it was a decision he was comfortable with. That's more than enough for me.
Click to expand...

Thankyou for this.:clapping: I feel exactly the same way.
 
Ernestine said:
The question I have, how do you know?????? I love when fans make an assumption about Joe and Michael's relationship when they have no proof. MJ said he forgave his father..There is proof in many interviews where he stated Joe is the reason for his success. We don't know what went on behind closed doors. Unbelievable! I think we need to let go of the past. The fans are the only ones holding onto the past and won't move on. By all means, its not our business!
Joe and Michael's relationship was between them to figure out during the good and the bad.
Click to expand...



you have a point but Michael left his father out of will in 1997 and again in 2002...that gesture is powerful in and of itself
 
Right.........I must admit that I do not have a clear picture of what is happening here. I am not supporting Joe, but I feel really uncomfortable when I see people discussing the family like in this thread. They are people, and no matter what- they were all his family. I just feel that going to a level of discussing people like this is kind of putting us down, while trying to put others down- if that makes sense? Joe does not have a great position in my heart. Still, he is his own worst enemy. And he is what he is also due to his own history. We are all a link in the chain of our own family history, and I greatly admire Michaels ability to recognice this and understand the reasons why his father became who he is. So in Michaels spirit; why not just leave him be?
 
Maybe it should be why can't Joe let Michael be? I don't like thinking bad things about his family but here is somebody 3 days after Michael died at the BET awards plugging his record label and when someone asked how he was doing he said "great". That bothers me a lot. His father isn't living on the streets. Michael did not put him in the will and he should accept that but he doesn't. Michael should be left alone for once and yet people still want more and more from him. If I was Joe I would look to my other kids for help if it's that bad. I couldn't care less how much money Michael had I just wish for anything that he could still be here and be with his kids.
 
but this is illusory evidence against Joe. People react in different ways after death their relatives and apart from Joe tried explaine this occurrance. I don't defend Joe but just try understand. Yes, I've read Oxford Speech and since then I think differently about their complicated relations.
This thread makes me sad....
 
triniti said:
but this is illusory evidence against Joe. People react in different ways after death their relatives and apart from Joe tried explaine this occurrance. I don't defend Joe but just try understand. Yes, I've read Oxford Speech and since then I think differently about their complicated relations.
This thread makes me sad....
Click to expand...
The Oxford speech was just that a speech. He was trying to be a good role model by saying ''I forgave'' etc. Obviously the bruises Joe left on Michael's poor soul never faded away. They were visible, obvious and ever present. He may have forgiven but never forgotten it (and even that is highly doubtful), he had to battle with issues caused by Joseph Jackson thru out his life time. Physical bruises go but the pain remains the same.
 
Last edited:
twinklEE said:
The Oxford speech was just that a speech. He was trying to be a good role model by saying ''I forgave'' etc. Obviously the bruises Joe left on Michael's poor soul never faded away. They were visible, obvious and ever present. He may have forgiven but never forgotten it, he had to battle with issues caused by Joseph Jackson thru out his life time. Physical bruises go but the pain remains the same.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I have been posting for teh past 7months about Michael and Joe....excellent post..:clapping::clapping:
 
maybe, and as I said earlier I don't defend Joe, but I know from my own experience, there are some details which we often don't know and the situation later may appeared not black or white,
only my opinion
 
triniti said:
maybe, and as I said earlier I don't defend Joe, but I know from my own experience, there are some details which we often don't know and the situation later may appeared not black and white,
only my opinion
Click to expand...
For a father to to insult his children the way Joseph did, for a father to strip them down, oil them up and whip them, like they are not humans but animals. There is NO EXCUSE NO JUSTIFICATION. NO NOTHING WHATSOEVER. (NOT directed at you personally just saying)
Nothing about these situations was ''manipulated'' by Michael, Joseph was a beast period, no point in denying, downplaying accusing other ppl of lying etc will change this. At the end of the day Joseph won't go where MJ went that's for sure.
 
twinklEE said:
The Oxford speech was just that a speech. He was trying to be a good role model by saying ''I forgave'' etc. Obviously the bruises Joe left on Michael's poor soul never faded away. They were visible, obvious and ever present. He may have forgiven but never forgotten it, he had to battle with issues caused by Joseph Jackson thru out his life time. Physical bruises go but the pain remains the same.
Click to expand...


I just want to add this. I think some here do misunderstand the forgiveness.

Namely, Michael may have forgiven his father for what was done for him, but he never forgotten. When people are abuse there are many emotions that the person go through long after the physical or mental had stopped. Some spend their entire lives trying to come to terms with what happen to them and some never can.

When someone does comes to term with something with that nature, they make peace with it and forgive the person. What they are doing is not excusing the behavior, but taking control back from the abuser. If you spend the rest of your life being angry, bitter, distrusting, and disturb by what you have been though, the abuser still have control of you. By forgiven them, you are telling that person that they no longer control their lives and you are done with it.

I think Michael did this with his father. He forgave Joe so he could move on with his life and not forever live in Joe's shadow. That what I personally got anyway.
 
twinklEE said:
For a father to to insult his children the way Joseph did, for a father to strip them down, oil them up and whip them, like they are not humans but animals. There is NO EXCUSE NO JUSTIFICATION. NO NOTHING WHATSOEVER. (NOT directed at you personally just saying)
Nothing about these situations was ''manipulated'' by Michael, Joseph was a beast period, no point in denying, downplaying accusing other ppl of lying etc will change this. At the end of the day Joseph won't go where MJ went that's for sure.
Click to expand...

and for reasons like this ..is why Joe disgusts me!!!......and then he has the nerve to want money from Michael.....this guy is full is bullshi*.......how dare he......poor Michael he and his siblings were treated very badly from joe.
 
Ramona122003 said:
I just want to add this. I think some here do misunderstand the forgiveness.

Namely, Michael may have forgiven his father for what was done for him, but he never forgotten. When people are abuse there are many emotions that the person go through long after the physical or mental had stopped. Some spend their entire lives trying to come to terms with what happen to them and some never can.

When someone does comes to term with something with that nature, they make peace with it and forgive the person. What they are doing is not excusing the behavior, but taking control back from the abuser. If you spend the rest of your life being angry, bitter, distrusting, and disturb by what you have been though, the abuser still have control of you. By forgiven them, you are telling that person that they no longer control their lives and you are done with it.

I think Michael did this with his father. He forgave Joe so he could move on with his life and not forever live in Joe's shadow. That what I personally got anyway.
Click to expand...
That is what I said, he may have forgive but never forgotten, people confuse these two things a lot. One doesn't equal nor include the other. I agree btw entirely.
 
xthunderx2 said:
and for reasons like this ..is why Joe disgusts me!!!......and then he has the nerve to want money from Michael.....this guy is full is bullshi*.......how dare he......poor Michael he and his siblings were treated very badly from joe.
Click to expand...
Since his siblings believe he did nothing wrong and that he was just ''old school'' they should be gladly paying for his expenses after all Joseph shouldn't even have to ask. But I guess this applies only when it comes to MJ as Joseph Walter only made him but not the rest.
 
Ramona122003 said:
I just want to add this. I think some here do misunderstand the forgiveness.

Namely, Michael may have forgiven his father for what was done for him, but he never forgotten. When people are abuse there are many emotions that the person go through long after the physical or mental had stopped. Some spend their entire lives trying to come to terms with what happen to them and some never can.

When someone does comes to term with something with that nature, they make peace with it and forgive the person. What they are doing is not excusing the behavior, but taking control back from the abuser. If you spend the rest of your life being angry, bitter, distrusting, and disturb by what you have been though, the abuser still have control of you. By forgiven them, you are telling that person that they no longer control their lives and you are done with it.

I think Michael did this with his father. He forgave Joe so he could move on with his life and not forever live in Joe's shadow. That what I personally got anyway.
Click to expand...

well your post is accurate about why people forgive there abusers....and if this is the reason why Michael SAID that he forgave Joe then I have much respect for him for doing it...because it takes a VERY strong person to forgive and abuser....whether it be from physical abuse or mental abuse....and I think Joe is guilty of both...and Michael was his victim.
 
twinklEE said:
Since his siblings believe he did nothing wrong and that he was just ''old school'' they should be gladly paying for his expenses after all Joseph shouldn't even have to ask. But I guess this applies only when it comes to MJ as Joseph Walter only made him but not the rest.
Click to expand...

this is true!!!.....but then again half of them are living off of Michael too..so ..ooppsss....I guess they have no room to talk...they need Micheal's money too.
 
Ramona122003 said:
When someone does comes to term with something with that nature, they make peace with it and forgive the person. What they are doing is not excusing the behavior, but taking control back from the abuser. If you spend the rest of your life being angry, bitter, distrusting, and disturb by what you have been though, the abuser still have control of you. By forgiven them, you are telling that person that they no longer control their lives and you are done with it.
Click to expand...

thanks for posting this.
This is very true and well.... gives me a lot to think about. Forgiving can be so hard to do when it comes to abuse. So, so hard... even when you want to, but find no remorse in the abuser. It really takes a lot of courage and if MJ was able to do so, I am proud of him. This takes years and years.

Thanks again :)
 
Ramona, I agree that it could be any kind of therapy for Michael, very wise words.

I'm not still convinced whether Joe is only the monster or he has any human qualities. I will be following his steps in order to answer my question. Now,I don't know enough ...
 
triniti said:
Ramona, I agree that it could be any kind of therapy for Michael, very wise words.

I'm not still convinced whether Joe is only the monster or he has any human qualities. I will be following his steps in order to answer my question. Now,I don't know enough ...
Click to expand...

I agree with Ramona too. I don't believe Joe Sr. is a monster and I'm sure he has many great qualities. Being faithful to his wife or being humble aren't among them though.

I also blame Katherine for a lot of what Michael went through as a child. I am the SAME age as Michael, I had other siblings growing up and my father was a factory worker all his life. Not exactly rich when I was a kid and yet, if my father ever hit me or abused any of us, my mother would have never tolerated that.

I think it takes more than one person to abuse a child. Turning a blind eye is allowing it.

Lets be real here. I don't have anything against the woman but I think she is an enabler and she turns a blind eye rather than put a stop to something. I know it is hard for many fans to even go there, but thats just how I see it. I worry about the children because I think Katherine is too old to deal with the issues and problems and loves ALL her grand children equally and that means she will want to see all of them do well and have things, whether their own parents provide it or not.

As for Joe supporting his 'other' daughter and family, they need to take care of themselves like the rest of the world.
 
I don't have much to say but:

k2nskp.gif


cookieq.jpg
 
kathiejmie said:
For me Michael is the most important person of them all, no matter how good or bad the rest of the family is. Actually, he's the only one who's important (and the MJ3 of course) I support Michael. I respect him and I love him. If he decided not to include the Jacksons in his will, then I say so be it. It's his money and his decision. And taking into account he had the same will in 1997 and 2002, it was a decision he was comfortable with. That's more than enough for me.
Click to expand...
I AGREE WITH YOU!!!!:agree:
 
xthunderx2 said:
well your post is accurate about why people forgive there abusers....and if this is the reason why Michael SAID that he forgave Joe then I have much respect for him for doing it...because it takes a VERY strong person to forgive and abuser....whether it be from physical abuse or mental abuse....and I think Joe is guilty of both...and Michael was his victim.
Click to expand...

yes I agree. Michael's very strong and very wise. Besides he was also a very good son. He had never said a bad word about any member of his family, he had never tried to take advantage of them. Which can't be said about the family. Father who promotes his recording label a few days after his passing. Brothers who visit his resting place for the ratings. I guess they are so used to using Michael that they honestly don't see anything wrong with it. It's just normal behaviour for them. And they honestly don't understand why people are not happy with some of their choices. That's sad.
 
kathiejmie said:
yes I agree. Michael's very strong and very wise. Besides he was also a very good son. He had never said a bad word about any member of his family, he had never tried to take advantage of them. Which can't be said about the family. Father who promotes his recording label a few days after his passing. Brothers who visit his resting place for the ratings. I guess they are so used to using Michael that they honestly don't see anything wrong with it. It's just normal behaviour for them. And they honestly don't understand why people are not happy with some of their choices. That's sad.
Click to expand...
I think that's the saddest part.
 
virginia_woolf said:
It wasn't Joseph who brought in Branca, he was hired by Michael himself.
Click to expand...

Sorry to correct you. Wasn't Branca hired in 1977?

Michael was then 19years old with his manager as Joe. Tell me how Branca would be hired without Joe's approval and consent by a 19year old?

A lawyer was needed for Michael to manage his affairs because he was no longer a minor.
You want to say Michael went out on the street, brought back a lawyer and his father - the manager - just looked the other way?

The books or articles may say MJ hired Branca, but they do not spell out to you how he got hired. His father was definitely involved.

It's like a book or article saying Latoya hired Jack Gordon as manager, but when you go back, it all started with Katherine and Joe discussing that Latoya needed a manager so that she wasn't left out. Then Joe went to find someone to co-manage. Then that guy manipulated the daughter to push Joe out, and the rest you all know.

So, before relying on a one-liner article "MJ hired Branca", find out how it all came about. There is more than meets the eye, a lot of bad blood between Branca and Joe.

If you remember the 2003 documentary "Our Son Michael", Joe spells out people around Michael who frighten him about his father and family so as to drive a wedge between then and control him.

Well, it's helpful that someone here reiterated that Branca advised Michael to fire Joe as manager. And that effort to advice against the father, who can dispute did not extend upto the will? With Branca advising Michael to leave him out as beneficiary even of a tiny share?

Infact, if Joe's team was wise, they could use that to their advantage, the person who drew up the will, adviced Michael during it's drafting and appointed as executor is the same one who since the 80s sought to distance Michael from his father through the advice. And now is the same person oppossing Joe receiving support.

As much as i may not support all Joe's moves, i know these people in the music industry are hawks whose only interest is money. The best thing for MJ's estate is to have two hawks face each other off.

That way, the estate won't be plundered for personal gain.
Anyone who thinks that the estate is in safe hands of Branca and Dileo is as dillusional as saying the US Federal vault is safe in the hands of con-artists.
Why not get AEG to then run MJ's estate? Or Colony capital? You think they care about MJ? They only care about milking as much profit for themselves.


It may not be safe in Joes hands, not safe in Branca's hands, but when the two face off, then it's safe because they check each other -checks and balances.

Don't forget that other people NOT connected with the Jackson family have also advised Michael about Branca's crafty machinations and no crafty guy wants to be monitored closely - which Michael was able to do when he was alive, leading to Branca being fired a number of times.

Unfortunately, MJ did a will as a formality, not expecting to die soon.
 
Last edited:
rsw22 said:
Sorry to correct you. Wasn't Branca hired in 1977?

Michael was then 19years old with his manager as Joe. Tell me how Branca would be hired without Joe's approval and consent by a 19year old?

A lawyer was needed for Michael to manage his affairs because he was no longer a minor.
You want to say Michael went out on the street, brought back a lawyer and his father - the manager - just looked the other way?

The books or articles may say MJ hired Branca, but they do not spell out to you how he got hired. His father was definitely involved.

It's like a book or article saying Latoya hired Jack Gordon as manager, but when you go back, it all started with Katherine and Joe discussing that Latoya needed a manager so that she wasn't left out. Then Joe went to find someone to co-manage. Then that guy manipulated the daughter to push Joe out, and the rest you all know.

So, before relying on a one-liner article "MJ hired Branca", find out how it all came about. There is more than meets the eye, a lot of bad blood between Branca and Joe.

If you remember the 2003 documentary "Our Son Michael", Joe spells out people around Michael who frighten him about his father and family so as to drive a wedge between then and control him.

Well, it's helpful that someone here reiterated that Branca advised Michael to fire Joe as manager. And that effort to advice against the father, who can dispute did not extend upto the will? With Branca advising Michael to leave him out as beneficiary even of a tiny share?

Infact, if Joe's team was wise, they could use that to their advantage, the person who drew up the will, adviced Michael during it's drafting and appointed as executor is the same one who since the 80s sought to distance Michael from his father through the advice. And now is the same person oppossing Joe receiving support.

As much as i may not support all Joe's moves, i know these people in the music industry are hawks whose only interest is money. The best thing for MJ's estate is to have two hawks face each other off.

That way, the estate won't be plundered for personal gain.
Anyone who thinks that the estate is in safe hands of Branca and Dileo is as dillusional as saying the US Federal vault is safe in the hands of con-artists.
Why not get AEG to then run MJ's estate? Or Colony capital? You think they care about MJ? They only care about milking as much profit for themselves.


It may not be safe in Joes hands, not safe in Branca's hands, but when the two face off, then it's safe because they check each other -checks and balances.

Don't forget that other people NOT connected with the Jackson family have also advised Michael about Branca's crafty machinations and no crafty guy wants to be monitored closely - which Michael was able to do when he was alive, leading to Branca being fired a number of times.

Unfortunately, MJ did a will as a formality, not expecting to die soon.
Click to expand...
No it was Michael who hired Branca when he turned 21, Joseph and Katherine thought Branca was too young to be a lawyer
 
rsw22 said:
Sorry to correct you. Wasn't Branca hired in 1977?

Michael was then 19years old with his manager as Joe. Tell me how Branca would be hired without Joe's approval and consent by a 19year old?

A lawyer was needed for Michael to manage his affairs because he was no longer a minor.
You want to say Michael went out on the street, brought back a lawyer and his father - the manager - just looked the other way?

The books or articles may say MJ hired Branca, but they do not spell out to you how he got hired. His father was definitely involved.

It's like a book or article saying Latoya hired Jack Gordon as manager, but when you go back, it all started with Katherine and Joe discussing that Latoya needed a manager so that she wasn't left out. Then Joe went to find someone to co-manage. Then that guy manipulated the daughter to push Joe out, and the rest you all know.

So, before relying on a one-liner article "MJ hired Branca", find out how it all came about. There is more than meets the eye, a lot of bad blood between Branca and Joe.

If you remeber the 2003 documentary "Our Son Michael", Joe spells out people around Michael who frighten him about his father and family so as to drive a wedge between then and control him.

Well, it's helpful that someone here reiterated that Branca advised Michael to fire Joe as manager. And that effort to advice against the father, who can dispute did not extend upto the will? With Branca advising Michael to leave him out as beneficiary even of a tiny share?

Infact, if Joe's team was wise, they could use that to their advantage, the person who drew up the will and appointed as executor is the same one who since the 80s sought to distance Michael from his father through the advice.

As much as i may not support all Joe's moves, i know these people in the music industry are hawks whose only interest is money. The best thing for MJ's estate is to have two hawks face each other off.

That way, the estate won't be pludered for personall gain.
Dileo is as dillusional as saying the US Federal vault is safe in the hands of con-artists.

It may not be safe in Joes hands, not safe in Branca's hands, but when the two face off, then it's safe because they check each other -checks and balances.

Don't forget that other people NOT connected with the Jackson family have also advised Michael about Branca's crafty machinations and no crafty guy wants to be monitored closely - which Michael was able to do when he was alive, leading to Branca being fired a number of times.

Unfortunately, MJ did a will as a formality, not expecting to die soon.
Click to expand...



The will was more than a formality since he made it in 97 and updated it in 02. If you have someone who actively screwed you and you have this person written in your will to take care of your affairs, I would think you want to update it. Michael was a businessmen and would had foresaw that Brance was completely written out if he thought he was untrustworthy. So, that will was not written on the spew of the moment or just as a rough draft. Also, the whole point of a will is to plan for the unexpected, so although he didn't plan to die young, he still plan for it. Anyone with alot of money is advise to make a will because to be blunt, shit happens.

Also, Michael hired Brance himself. I have articles dating aback to the 70s that said Michael hired Brance to oversee his business away from his family. He had no connections to the family, which is why Joe didn't like him and though he might give Michael 'ideas'. It was nothing like Toy, who Joe hired people to work with her.

On this quote:

"Our Son Michael", Joe spells out people around Michael who frighten him about his father and family so as to drive a wedge between then and control him.

In case you have forgotten, this is the same person who claimed that Michael was a strung out drug addict who was being manipulating and cut off from his family. Even though he came to a family gathering just a month ago and he saw him two weeks before his death. Not to mention his claim that Michael only sign up for 10 concerts, but his actual contract has a min of 18. Do I even have to mention the body doubles? So at the very least, Joe's words should be taken with a grain of salt.

Michael would had most likely fire his father even without Brance's advise, if it is true. All of his other brothers and sisters dumped Joe and Brance was not in the picture. I also doubt he would cut Joe from the will, but keep the mother because that still give the family a voice. Knowing the kind of relationship Michael had with is father, is it that hard to believe that Michael gave Joe the middle finger in his will?

On this quote:

Infact, if Joe's team was wise, they could use that to their advantage, the person who drew up the will and appointed as executor is the same one who since the 80s sought to distance Michael from his father through the advice.

That argument will not work for a simple reason. Even after Brance left Michael's services, he still cut off Joe and his family. So, Joe can't really say that Brance somehow blocked Michael from him when in the years he was gone, he still could not get to Michael. You also have the fact that Michael had seven years before his death to change the will and Brance was not even there for most of it.

Brance has a proven record that shows he knows how to deal with alot of money. Joe has a record of wasting money. I think the courts will clearly see who is more able to take care of the estate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top