Latest on MJJC

Jackson Estate Opposes Stipend for Joe Jackson

Ramona122003 said:
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.
Click to expand...

anyway, the judge ruled that Joe don't have any legal in the estate's matters
 
Ramona122003 said:
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.
Click to expand...

You are correct. When people plan for will's and life insurance they do not take it lightly. I a have been a life insurance agent almost twenty years and we do some estate planning dealing with lawyers and will's and to sit down with a family or a single parent(which is even more complicated) they take it very serious, especially with kids involved they are extremely concerned what will happen to their children after they are gone. MJ had to think heavily about this especially after and during the trial. He would have changed his will during those sad years if he felt uncomfortable. Who knows what would have happened to him in jail if he would have been convicted. We are not giving him enough credit on the will.
 
ensleyave said:
You are correct. When people plan for will's and life insurance they do not take it lightly. I a have been a life insurance agent almost twenty years and we do some estate planning dealing with lawyers and will's and to sit down with a family or a single parent(which is even more complicated) they take it very serious, especially with kids involved they are extremely concerned what will happen to their children after they are gone. MJ had to think heavily about this especially after and during the trial. He would have changed his will during those sad years if he felt uncomfortable. Who knows what would have happened to him in jail if he would have been convicted. We are not giving him enough credit on the will.
Click to expand...

For these reasons I sometimes think that it seems reasonable that Michael might have prepared another will - I mean more RECENT one (I'm just thinking).
 
CherubimII said:
Jackson Estate Opposes Stipend for Joe Jackson
Michael Jackson's estate files opposition to monthly stipend for father Joe Jackson
By ANTHONY McCARTNEY
The Associated Press
LOS ANGELES
Michael Jackson's estate is opposing a bid by the late singer's father to receive a monthly allowance.
Attorneys for estate administrators John Branca and John McClain filed papers opposing Joe Jackson's efforts to get more than $15,000 a month from his son's estate. The filing states Joe Jackson has failed to show that his superstar son supported him while he was alive.
The filings also note that the singer omitted his father as a beneficiary in his will and trust.
Joe Jackson filed for the monthly stipend in November, saying he had little income and relied on his son's help to survive.
His attorney, Brian Oxman, did not immediately return a phone message Friday.
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=9635399
Click to expand...


$$$ More money for John Branca.

images


Attention: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Harlem community.
Now that I have told you about the Historical way the Music Industry cheats their artists especially "black" artists;
I must meet with my "dear friend" John Branca (who is a former SONY lawyer) and sign my new Will giving total control of my entire estate over to him.
He is my "loving friend" and my family is "bad"and must never question John (GOD) Branca.


My Mother and children, only an allowance.
My father Joseph, deserves nothing.
SONY, all my songs and the catalog.
John Branca, EVERTHING else!My whole career and life's work was all for him and the lawyers
and the other leeches whom keep me indebt and in civil court.
 
$$$ More money for John Branca.

He gains nothing by this but Paris, Blanket and Prince do.
 
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 (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.
Click to expand...

Whatever damage Joe did to his son Michael, it was nothing compared to the false accusations & what the media did to him in 93 & 2004-5.
 
jrsfan said:
Whatever damage Joe did to his son Michael, it was nothing compared to the false accusations & what the media did to him in 93 & 2004-5.
Click to expand...


And you know this how?

Yes, those accusations were terrible and did nothing to add to Michael's life. However, having your father who is suppose to protect, guide, and love you beat the living crap out of you is just as bad if not worst.

There is a reason why children who are abuse mentally and physically do not live as long as children who were not. They also have many mental and emotional issues that many carry with them for the rest of their lives to some degree. It has actually been proven that physically beating a child can have similar effects to someone who molested a child. The only real different is the stigma.

So, Joe does not get a free pass on this and Michael appear to have agreed.
 
Ramona122003 said:
And you know this how?

Yes, those accusations were terrible and did nothing to add to Michael's life. However, having your father who is suppose to protect, guide, and love you beat the living crap out of you is just as bad if not worst.

There is a reason why children who are abuse mentally and physically do not live as long as children who were not. They also have many mental and emotional issues that many carry with them for the rest of their lives to some degree. It has actually been proven that physically beating a child can have similar effects to someone who molested a child. The only real different is the stigma.

So, Joe does not get a free pass on this and Michael appear to have agreed.
Click to expand...


I agree with this completely. Fact is, through the years Michael has often had insomnia and research shows that the majority of people who have used propofol for insomnia have a history of suffering childhood abuse. So, IMO, Joe definitely doesn't get a pass and shouldn't get anything from the estate. It should only go to Michael's children and mother, the way he wanted it.
 
Lacey said:
I agree with this completely. Fact is, through the years Michael has often had insomnia and research shows that the majority of people who have used propofol for insomnia have a history of suffering childhood abuse. So, IMO, Joe definitely doesn't get a pass and shouldn't get anything from the estate. It should only go to Michael's children and mother, the way he wanted it.
Click to expand...

i agree
 
Ramona122003 said:
And you know this how?

Yes, those accusations were terrible and did nothing to add to Michael's life. However, having your father who is suppose to protect, guide, and love you beat the living crap out of you is just as bad if not worst.

There is a reason why children who are abuse mentally and physically do not live as long as children who were not. They also have many mental and emotional issues that many carry with them for the rest of their lives to some degree. It has actually been proven that physically beating a child can have similar effects to someone who molested a child. The only real different is the stigma.

So, Joe does not get a free pass on this and Michael appear to have agreed.
Click to expand...
Thank you! Michael's insecurities and the issues he had with himself was all Josephs fault, Joseph didn't just abuse him physically but mentally and emotionally.
 
In several I mean several interviews even in private phone calls, he consistantly talked about his father and abuse. How many times did he have to say for some to believe him. MJ was almost obsessed with this. He could not understand WHY. What did he do so wrong to be treated this way. I am baffled by the disbelief. Just because he forgave they feel MJ was healed and forgot all about it. That was not the case. You can't forget it. You can try to live with it and move on but it is still there buried deep inside of you.
 
twinklEE said:
the judge only told him he had no standing to contest the will. The monies hearing is scheduled for the 28th of this month, I believe
Click to expand...

Yeah, the 28th is when the judge makes the call.
If the executors supported the stipend, that would have probably made it easier for Joe to get it. That's why antagonizing them at this juncture was a stupid move.
 
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 (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.
Click to expand...

Like you said yourself the affect of Michael's childhood on his life seems obvious, I don't think anyone is denying this.

Though I don't consider it 'just a speech' and I don't think that his forgiveness was 'highly doubtful'. From personal experience, its not as simple as it might seem and I think it was important for Michael to say what he said, for himself, not just everyone listening. Forgiving doesn't mean forgetting, its evaluating and coming to terms with, and moving on in a positive direction.

However this has nothing to do with the Will we have, which does not mention Joe as a beneficiary. Simple as.

His request for allowance has been denied, this is what the thread is about isn't it? Or like some are saying that hasn't been decided yet?
 
Last edited:
Didn't Rabbi Shmuley wrote the Oxford Speech? I think I read that in his horrible book.
 
Rockin. said:
His request for allowance has been denied, this is what the thread is about isn't it? Or like some are saying that hasn't been decided yet?
Click to expand...
The executors opposed to it, it hasn't been decided yet.

Yeah, the 28th is when the judge makes the call.
If the executors supported the stipend, that would have probably made it easier for Joe to get it. That's why antagonizing them at this juncture was a stupid move.
Click to expand...
Exactly, I bet Oxman advised him to antagonize the admins, bet both of them were thinking they are smart while doing so.
 
LisaB said:
I find it hard to see so many of you disrespecting an 80 y/o, and the father of MJ (who MJ loved; make no bones about that). Some of you are speaking quite loosely and nonsensically. You think the brothers would be busy purging Joe of the "abusive" title if they didn't care for him? You think they hate him, and he is a pariah of the family? Are you hanging your hats on the legaleese of impersonal lawyers of the estate who knows less about MJ than we do?? Lawyers who are simply running a business with no thought, or care for personal affections?
Click to expand...

agree
 
gerryevans said:
Yeah, the 28th is when the judge makes the call.
If the executors supported the stipend, that would have probably made it easier for Joe to get it. That's why antagonizing them at this juncture was a stupid move.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by "antagonizing" the executors. For me the idea that the executors make their decisions based on whether they've been upset by someone is rather troubling. I thought whether Joe was entitled to an allownce was a matter of law, and not whether the executors like him or not.

But actually you're probably right that the reason for their objection is that Joe did something they didn't like, and now needs to be "punished" since back when the request was presented, "The lead lawyer for the estate executors has said they would not oppose an allowance for Joe Jackson as long as his wife, who is a beneficiary, agrees." I guess something changed. (You can see the original article in this thread: http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=83395)

Now, I wanted to give you a source for the sentence I quoted, and guess what. It comes from a CNN article that I found on this board that quoted the article as well as the URL. The article was written by Alan Duke on December 10, 2009, and the URL is http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/12/10/jackson.estate/. The title was "Judge hears Joe Jackson's request for monthly allowance".

I clicked on the URL to check if it works and it does, but it is now titled "Judge delays arguments on Joe Jackson's allowance request" and has been rewritten and no longer includes that quote. Instead it now says "The estate executors have not filed any objections to Joe Jackson's request for a monthly allowance, although lead lawyer Howard Weitzman did not rule out the possibility it would be contested."
The original article is GONE from CNN. (and from almost everywhere else on the web for that matter).

And some of you wonder why people believe in conspiracy theories?
 
princessleia said:
I'm not sure what you mean by "antagonizing" the executors. For me the idea that the executors make their decisions based on whether they've been upset by someone is rather troubling. I thought whether Joe was entitled to an allownce was a matter of law, and not whether the executors like him or not.
Click to expand...


Well, as a matter of law Joe would NOT be entitled to anything since Michael did not leave him anything in the will. Also, the amount Joe asked for and the breakdown of the reasons for the amounts is just outrageous which does not help.
 
Lacey said:
Well, as a matter of law Joe would NOT be entitled to anything since Michael did not leave him anything in the will. Also, the amount Joe asked for and the breakdown of the reasons for the amounts is just outrageous which does not help.
Click to expand...

I was just about to say the samething.

I think BEFORE the Executors saw Joe's list of financial request, they probably would have been willing to give him a comfortable allowance. But the minute they saw the request for hotels, airfare, eating out, 2-assistants, money for Joe's daughter and his daughter's daughter, they changed their mind.

You can't say on one hand, you really need this money to SURVIVE, while listing airfare, eating out and TWO assistants. I guess Joe's first mistake was having Brian Oxman as his attorney. That was mistake number one, in my opinion.
 
HemlockDevi said:
$$$ More money for John Branca.

images


Attention: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Harlem community.
Now that I have told you about the Historical way the Music Industry cheats their artists especially "black" artists;
I must meet with my "dear friend" John Branca (who is a former SONY lawyer) and sign my new Will giving total control of my entire estate over to him.
He is my "loving friend" and my family is "bad"and must never question John (GOD) Branca.


My Mother and children, only an allowance.
My father Joseph, deserves nothing.
SONY, all my songs and the catalog.
John Branca, EVERTHING else!My whole career and life's work was all for him and the lawyers
and the other leeches whom keep me indebt and in civil court.
Click to expand...


Notice he (John Branca-CROOK) has now demanded 10% of the estate profits. Just as I said back in July; follow the money$$$.

What a good "friend" he is while the man who was responsible for bringing Michael Joseph Jackson is left penniless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top