Latest on MJJC

Jackson had long history with estate executor

Moonwalker.Fan said:
Sony/ATV got 3 huge important catalogs since 2002 for almost 700 mill. dollars, so...without her and somebody is running the company really good..., even Michael wasnt the big boss, he was in fact out of the dealing..., there are teams of lawyers and businesmen..., so... we must not think about it as a meeting like a family brunch...., just deals, laws, orders, bills, a lot of pieces of complex information....
Click to expand...

No offense, but that's why he was getting screwed all the time.

@RSW22: A, but I thought that Katherine only had like a title, a figurative position as trustee in his other business; she couldn't actually do anything. Wait(I think a lightbulb just went off), or is that your point?

I've heard alot about the 2006 deposition, and I've seen a few seconds(about the cows) do you know where a lengthy or written version is?


Anyhow, I like Branca, but I don't trust him. I trust him more than Dileo, but I don't trust him. Am I the only one disappointed that the article didn't go into what he thought of Michael healthwise? He saw him recent to his death.
 
Thanks, that was an interesting read, and if Im honest Branca comes across as a decent enough guy.
 
Spider-Man said:
No offense, but that's why he was getting screwed all the time.

@RSW22: A, but I thought that Katherine only had like a title, a figurative position as trustee in his other business; she couldn't actually do anything. Wait(I think a lightbulb just went off), or is that your point?

I've heard alot about the 2006 deposition, and I've seen a few seconds(about the cows) do you know where a lengthy or written version is?


Anyhow, I like Branca, but I don't trust him. I trust him more than Dileo, but I don't trust him. Am I the only one disappointed that the article didn't go into what he thought of Michael healthwise? He saw him recent to his death.
Click to expand...


As Londell explained while on Larry King, Katherine doesn't really have to be the one doing the deals and all that stuff.

Not having education and business skills is not the deciding factor.

Look, Katherine has been around the most famous musical family in the most complex deal makings since the 1960s to date.
She has FAR FAR more extensive knowledge of the workings than any civilian out there let alone several artists.

She knew how the first deal with Motown was drawn up, how the Las Vegas deal was drawn up, how the Jacksons and Epic deal was drawn up. Don't forget they were having family meetings with lawyers and advisers to discuss this.

If you look at her book as she discusses the hustle that preceded the Victory tour and all the lawyers and promoters flying everywhere.
Don't forget that without her, the Victory tour would never have happened as she had to persuade Michael to join his brothers and she was involved in all the meetings even when Joe and Don King were being pushed out.

Now there is no better education than hands-on experience. Being there, seeing it, knowing the talk, the lawyer talk, the promoter talk, the record label and executive talk, the accountants talk and number crunching, knowing the ins and outs.

Even as Mesereau says, for lawyers, studying law doesn't prepare you efefctively for the field. Experience of being a good lawyer is being out there and doing it.

Now, Katherine was there, involved in the meetings, listened and even gave contributions, suggestions and directions.
After the meetings, i'm sure as a family they went on to discuss the issues, the promotions, the legal terms, the composition, the marchendise and a lot more

Then there are all the issues in the years that followed, getting information to Michael that his advisers were trying to keep away from him. The advisers were keeping the family away but they could not keep Katherine away. Katherine packs the US magazines of negative publicity that advisers are keeping from Michael and takes them to show her son, who then releases that 1987 press statement

She is the one who tells off Dileo about creating and planting crazy stories that to this day still run as "sleeping in a hyperbaric Chamber" and whatever else Dileo did.

In the 1990s she takes a less significant role but after 2002, she is by her son every day. She sits in court and hears all that is going on. She sits with Michael in meetings with his lawyers, advisers, accountants.
She supports him when he is being pressured to sell the catalogue

From everything Katherine does behind the scenes, Michael decides to appoint her as trustee.
She has detailed information of who is who and who is doing what and what is going on with Michael's affairs and what needs to be checked on.

If she was useless and uneducated, belive you me, Branca and McClain would have appointed her as third executor on day one. "just a figure" innefective but to please everyone. But the opposite is true.


TRUSTEE

Trustees, like charity trustees, do not run affairs on a daily basis, but they have access to ALL affairs of the trust and must be consulted in all major decisions.

Branca can run the trust on a daily basis, but Katherine should be able to get her lawyer to check the paperwork, check the accountant's work, do spot check forensic audits and be consulted in all major decisions as well as decide to sit in when she feels it's an issue she wants to be informed about,even if it's not major.

She would have a major say in policy making concerning the direction of the estate, which Branca and McClain definitely want to keep to themselves so that they fully control the direction and any policy


RIGHT NOW

All the judge allows Katherine to do is to object when a decision is brought forward, but we can see how Branca and McClain plan to ramroad objections by telling the judge that if he doesn't approve in one week (ignore objections) the deal will fall through

Branca and McClain have discretion what they choose to share with Katherine, so she cannot audit accountants or find out information they don't want her to know.


BRANCA

Branca is a good successful lawyer, i'm not disputing that, but he's human and what that estate needs is checks and balances.
When Michael drew up that will, a lot of stuff was peaceful, it was moreless a calm before the storm.
After a storm, you don't go out in light clothing, you need a jacket to protect you from teh cold that a storm brings.
At a time when many are skeptical over what has transpired in Michael's life from 2003 to 2009, a good-faith person would seek to re-assure atleast the mother.
But when she is locked out, let's say you were a parent and your child went through what Michael endured, knowing that there are people who want to harm your child and seize his assets. Then suddenly he passes away and you are being locked out of his affairs,
  • wouldn't you be suspicious?
  • Wouldn't you be hurt?
  • Wouldn't you suspect in the corner of your mind that maybe these people locking you out were involved in your son's death?
  • When you know they could easily appoint you executor since your son had appointed you as a trustee?
 
By Associated Press
December 26, 2006, 8:17 AM EST

LOS ANGELES -- Michael Jackson is suing his former accountants, claiming they withdrew $2.5 million a year from his bank accounts but did not properly pay his bills.

The lawsuit by Jackson and MJJ Productions Inc. was filed Thursday in Los Angeles Superior Court against Bernstein, Fox, Whitman, Goldman & Sloan, alleging negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.

The lawsuit asks for unspecified damages and for an accounting of money the defendants received for services.

Jackson hired the Los Angeles-based firm in 2003 for bookkeeping, opening bank accounts and filing personal, corporate and real estate taxes, the lawsuit stated.

However, Jackson alleges the accountants hired people and entered into contracts on his behalf without getting his permission.

The accountants also did not communicate directly with Jackson or keep him apprised of his financial affairs, according to the lawsuit.
Click to expand...


As a trustee, Katherine would have power to check up and audit all the millions coming into the estate, work she would delegate to her attorneys
 
I think this was a great article and I think that Branca and Maclain have Michael's interests in his children's welfare and future in mind as he makes the best decisions for Michael's legacy and estate survival. Does not sound like his estate is in any financial distress.
 
As the situation stands right now, I don't trust nobody!

Michael is'nt here anymore and that is no accident!
 
What I can't understand about this situatiom is why Branca and Mcclain can't let Katherine have a seat at the table?? What is the problem?
Why are they now doing PR to sway public opinion?


Firstly as RSW22 pointed out and several others including Londell who was actually legally representing MJ in some capacity after Branca left/was fired ......Katherine was with and sat in on countless business meetings with MJ, There is no one more equipped to know what was going on with MJ's business affaris. She knows who did what when MJ was alive/ Who really tried to help MJ, who betrayed him. Katherine has always been very involved so for those who act like when business was discussed she had to go out the room is ridiculous.
She knows where alot of the bodies are buried sort to speak.


Second, I think a family member should be on the board to help protect MJ's legacy and protect the estate. Someone who truly has MJ's best interest at heart should have a say in what kind of money-making decisions are being made until the children are old enough to be apart of these decisions if they choose.
Also Katherine herself wouldn't be involved in the day to day and that's common sense, her team hopefully including Londell would be
Someone needs to make sure everyone is doing what they are suppose to especially when this type of money is involved.

I don't think anyone is questioning the competency of Branca or Mcclain but MJ himself said he didn't trust Branca 3 years ago in the deposition
Then mysteriously a few weeks before MJ dies Branca is back and having MJ sign papers giving him control over MJ's affairs?
Why was that even necessary?

These are real questions and they should be answered

Thanks for posting that article. I knew there was something that happened in 06 where lawyers/accountants etc...was not doing what they were supposed to in regards to MJ's affairs but didn't have time to research it.
 
FOR THOSE WHO WANTED MORE INFORMATION ABOUT BRANCA AND SONY

The law firm Branca was part of, also represented Sony. Sony to them is the bigger client than the individual Michael

Below is Mesereau in 2005 cross-examining LeGrand about Branca and Sony


10 Mr. Branca worked for Mr. Jackson, was paid for by
11 Mr. Jackson, correct? He received money from Mr.
12 Jackson for services, true?
13 A. I believe the Ziffren law firm received
14 compensation from Mr. Jackson for legal services,
15 yes.
16 Q. Do you think Mr. Branca ever received any of
17 those moneys for work that he performed?
18 A. I believe Mr. Branca was paid by his firm,
19 yes.
20 Q. All right. And Mr. Jackson (sic) was one of
21 the people he fired when he was cleaning house,
22 true?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. As was Trudi Green?
25 A. Yes.
　
　
　
BRANCA SPECIALIST IN MUSIC LAW

6 Q. You yourself, as you’ve indicated yesterday,
17 were not a specialist in music law, right?
18 A. That’s right.
19 Q. Mr. Branca purportedly was, right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Now, you answered some questions yesterday
22 about the Sony/ATV catalog. Remember that?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And the Sony/ATV catalog was owned 50/50 by
25 Sony and Michael Jackson, correct?
26 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; leading.
27 THE COURT: Overruled.
28 THE WITNESS: Yes. 10209
　
BRANCA CONNECTION WITH SONY
　
1 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And at times Mr. Jackson
2 and Sony would have business discussions about their
3 respective ownership interests in the catalog,
4 right?
5 A. I was never privy to those discussions. It
6 would certainly seem that they would occur, but I
7 don’t have actual knowledge of that.
8 Q. But you were aware that negotiations went on
9 from time to time between representatives of Michael
10 Jackson and representatives of Sony about their
11 respective interests in that music catalog, right?
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
 
Jackson was concerned about Branca's loyalty because Branca's law firm were also representing Sony with whom Michael was having problems

LeGrand was about to answer a question about some connection Interfor had uncovered about Branca's connection with Mottola, when suddenly the prosecution objects

A source had provided the lawyers with information about the existence of an offshore account by Sony

There was money being deposited by Sony in the offshore account for the benefit of Branca and possibly others which would violate Branca's obligations to Michael

Mesereau then asks a direct question whether LeGrand thinks Sony was paying Branca to sell out Michael.
By the way, a lawyer cannot not make such a direct accusatory statement against another lawyer, even if it's framed as a question, unless there is basis for that

The offshore account was in the Carribean

The investigator, Interfor's report indicated that Branca was involved in the account even though he wasn't a signatory
Interfor's report indicated that Sony had transfered money into the account for the benefit of Michael's lawyer - Branca.

Though Legrand tries to cover for himself by saying he has no proof of this statements.

But he hired a reputable investigative company with a reputation to uphold and they came back with a report

By the way, they could easily have been sued by Branca for libelous statements, but never were after Legrand's public testimony


This is their website
http://www.interforinc.com/home-html.asp

LeGrand suspected Branca of self-dealing - and Branca is now in a position to exercise the utmost self-dealing if there is no other executor to watch him.




MORE INFORMATION

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?
5 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Same objection.
6 THE COURT: Sustained.
7 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Why did you investigate
8 Mr. Branca?
9 A. I requested -- well, let me back up.
10 After consultation with my partner, Mr.
11 Gibson, and discussion with I believe Mr. Joss at
12 Paul Hastings, Mr. Gibson and I instructed the firm
13 Interfor to investigate Mr. Branca, because Mr.
14 Konitzer had indicated in several conversations that
15 he was very concerned about Mr. Branca and that Mr.
16 Jackson had expressed concern about Mr. Branca’s
17 loyalty.
18 Also, there was -- Mr. Schaffel related
19 information that also was negative of Mr. Branca.
20 So we made collectively the decision to ask Interfor
21 to further the background investigation, to conduct
22 investigation into Mr. Branca.
23 Q. But at the time, Konitzer didn’t know that
24 you were also investigating him, right?
25 A. That’s correct.
26 Q. At the time, Schaffel didn’t know you were
27 also investigating Schaffel, right?
28 A. That’s correct. 10211
　
　
　
1 Q. At the time, Weizner didn’t know you were
2 also investigating Weizner, right?
3 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Leading;
4 foundation.
5 THE COURT: Overruled.
6 THE WITNESS: That’s correct. We did not
7 inform them of the scope of -- the full scope of
8 Interfor’s actions at our request.
9 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And you also investigated
10 somebody named Tommy Motolla, correct?
11 A. I’m not sure that’s correct.
12 Q. Do you recall asking Interfor to do some
13 investigation into an offshore bank account?
14 A. It’s kind of the other way around. We asked
15 Interfor to investigate Mr. Branca. They indicated
16 to us that --
17 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m going to object based
18 on hearsay.
19 MR. MESEREAU: State of mind, Your Honor.
20 THE COURT: Sustained.
21 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: What was your state of
22 mind when you investigated the possibility that an
23 offshore account had been formed by various people
24 to defraud Michael Jackson?
25 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m going to object as
26 leading.
27 THE COURT: Sustained.
28 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: What was your state of 10212
　
　
　
1 mind when you investigated the formation of an
2 offshore bank account?
3 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; assumes facts.
4 THE COURT: Sustained.
5 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you investigate the
6 existence of an offshore bank account?
7 A. We requested Interfor to look into that
8 possibility, yes.
9 Q. Why?
10 A. Because there was a --
11 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll object based on
12 hearsay.
13 MR. MESEREAU: State of mind.
14 THE COURT: The objection is overruled.
15 You may complete your answer.
16 THE WITNESS: Because we had -- we, the
17 lawyers, had been given information from a source
18 that appeared to have some credibility that such an
19 account existed.
20 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And why did you want to
21 investigate that account?
22 A. Be -- well, to me, that’s kind of obvious.
23 But if, in fact, there was an offshore account in
24 which money was being deposited for the benefit of
25 Mr. Branca or others, that would indicate very
26 serious violations of Mr. Branca’s responsibilities
27 to Mr. Jackson.
28 Q. Did you think at one point that Sony was 10213
　
　
　
1 paying Mr. Branca money to sell out Mr. Jackson?
2 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Improper
3 opinion; leading.
4 THE COURT: Sustained.
5 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did your investigation
6 involve anyone you thought was involved in
7 transferring money to that bank account?
8 A. The best way I can answer that is to say we
9 asked the investigators to do as complete a job as
10 they could with the financial resources we had
11 available for them. And I didn’t delineate who they
12 should or shouldn’t look into with respect to such
13 an account.
14 Q. But at your direction, they looked into the
15 existence of that account, correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And it was your direction that they look
18 into that account because you were concerned that
19 Michael Jackson’s attorney and Sony were putting
20 money in that account so Mr. Jackson’s lawyer would
21 essentially sell him out, right?
22 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Leading;
23 argumentative.
24 THE COURT: Sustained; foundation.
25 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Where was the offshore
26 account, if you know?
27 A. I’m sorry, I don’t recall. I believe it was
28 in the Caribbean. 10214
　
　
　
1 Q. Okay. And did your investigation get far
2 enough to establish that, in fact, this lawyer was a
3 signatory on that account?
4 A. I don’t believe so, no.
5 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.
22 Q. You investigated Mr. Branca because, in your
23 words, you thought he was involved in self-dealing,
24 right?
25 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Improper
26 opinion; no foundation; leading.
27 THE COURT: Overruled.
28 THE WITNESS: Again, you know, I want to be 10215
　
　
　
1 clear. I consulted with my partner and, you know,
2 other lawyers, and we collectively made a decision
3 to -- that it was prudent to have our investigator
4 look into the possibility of such actions being
5 taken by Mr. Branca.
 
LeGrand mentions a group of people who were setting the stage for Sony to eventually acquire Michael's share of the catalogue

Mesereau brings up the link between Mottola and Branca working in cohorts with each other against Michael




10 Q. Isn’t it true that you were trying to
11 investigate offshore accounts owned by Branca and
12 someone named Tommy Motolla?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Who was Tommy Motolla?
15 A. He was a very powerful figure in the record
16 industry at one time. I believe he was the
17 president of the Sony Entertainment Division in the
18 U.S. I’m not sure of his exact title or position.
19 Q. Were you concerned that Tommy Motolla and
20 Mr. Jackson’s lawyer, John Branca, were working
21 together to defraud Michael Jackson?
22 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Relevancy;
23 assumes facts; leading.
24 THE COURT: You may answer.
25 THE WITNESS: Based on the suspicions that
26 were expressed to me and my partner, we asked
27 Interfor to look into these rumors.
28 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Now, you had known 10218
　
　
　
1 Konitzer for how many years at that point?
2 A. I’m not sure. Six, seven, eight maybe.
3 Q. But you had never investigated Konitzer
4 before you started this investigation, right?
5 A. Right.
6 Q. Even though you knew Konitzer all those
7 years, you had never hired an investigative firm to
8 check out his background, correct?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. You were concerned that Konitzer was engaged
11 in self-dealing at the expense of Michael Jackson,
12 true?
13 A. Yes.
14 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Relevancy;
15 improper opinion.
16 MR. MESEREAU: I think the prosecutor’s gone
17 through all this, Your Honor.
18 THE COURT: The objection is overruled.
19 THE WITNESS: My answer is yes, I was
20 concerned.
21 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You were also concerned
22 that Dieter Weizner was engaging in self-dealing at
23 the expense of Michael Jackson, correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. You were -- you asked for an investigation
26 into Konitzer’s background in Canada, right?
27 A. Canada and Germany, yes.
28 Q. And you also asked for an investigation into 10219
　
　
　
1 Weizner’s background in Germany, right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Have you ever met Tommy Motolla?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Ever spoken to him?
6 A. No.
7 Q. To your knowledge, did Al Malnik have any
8 relationship with Tommy Motolla?
9 A. Not to my knowledge.
10 Q. Did you ever talk to him about that?
11 A. I don’t believe I ever talked to Al about
12 whether or not he knew or had met Tommy Motolla.
13 Q. Was it your belief when you started this
14 investigation that Al Malnik, Tommy Motolla, John
15 Branca and people at Sony were trying to find a way
16 to get Mr. Jackson’s interest in that music catalog?
17 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Argumentative;
18 leading; relevancy.
19 THE COURT: Overruled.
20 You may answer.
21 THE WITNESS: I’m not sure that I would
22 include Al Malnik in that group, but I certainly was
23 concerned that Branca and Motolla, in particular,
24 had set the stage, so to speak, for Sony to be able
25 to obtain Michael’s interest in the Sony/ATV joint
26 venture.
27 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And as a former prosecutor
28 and as Michael Jackson’s attorney, you thought the 10220
　
　
　
1 ethical and professional thing for you and your law
2 firm to do was to investigate these people to
3 protect Mr. Jackson as best you could, right?
4 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m going to object to the
5 prefatory remarks as argumentative.
6 THE COURT: Overruled.
7 You may answer.
8 THE WITNESS: The investigation was one of
9 the tools we employed to try to be effective in
10 representing our client’s interest.
 
LeGrand talks about trying to empower Michael with information of people sorrounding him



11 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: In response to Prosecutor
12 Auchincloss’s questions, you said you wanted --
13 excuse me, let me rephrase that.
14 In response to Prosecutor Auchincloss’s
15 questions about why you started this investigation,
16 you said you wanted Michael Jackson to be empowered.
17 Do you remember that?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And what did you mean by the word
20 "empowered"?
21 A. I wanted him to have a higher degree of
22 detail and knowledge about the people who were
23 becoming influential in his business and financial
24 affairs, so that, having that knowledge, he could
25 then make better decisions about those people and
26 the positions they would occupy in his life.
27 Q. Did you feel that Michael Jackson had made
28 poor decisions in trusting certain people in his 10221
　
　
　
1 life?
2 A. No disrespect intended to Mr. Jackson, but
3 it’s -- it was apparent from any review of the
4 lawsuits against him and some of his well-publicized
5 history that he’s been taken -- you know, that
6 people have attempted to gain significantly from
7 being associated with him.
8 Q. And you felt, looking at his history, that
9 he’d been taken advantage of repeatedly, right?
10 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Leading;
11 argumentative.
12 THE COURT: Sustained.
13 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you make a
14 determination whether or not Mr. Jackson had been
15 taken advantage of?
16 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; improper
17 opinion.
18 THE COURT: Relevancy; sustained.
19 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you feel that one of
20 your responsibilities as Mr. Jackson’s new attorney
21 was to try and stop people from taking advantage of
22 him?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Did you have concerns that all of the people
25 that you were investigating were taking advantage of
26 Michael Jackson?
27 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Leading;
28 relevance. 10222
　
　
　
1 THE COURT: Asked and answered.
2 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Asked and answered.
3 THE COURT: Sustained.
4 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you know that Mark
5 Geragos was investigating the Arvizos?
6 A. I don’t know. I don’t remember -- as I sit
7 here today, I don’t remember specifically that I
8 knew he was investigating them. I’m just not sure
9 about that. I’m sorry.
10 Q. I’m sorry. Did I stop you?
11 A. No. I just -- I don’t remember.
12 Q. Well, Prosecutor Auchincloss asked you if
13 you had ever talked to an investigator named Brad
14 Miller, right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And I believe you thought you might have,
17 but you weren’t sure; is that right?
18 A. That’s right.
19 Q. At some point, you were one of the lawyers
20 responsible for hiring Mark Geragos, right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Do you recall ever discussing with Mark
23 Geragos his decision to investigate the Arvizos’
24 background in extortion and fraud?
25 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Argumentative;
26 assumes facts; hearsay.
27 THE COURT: Sustained.
28 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you ever talk with 10223
　
　
　
1 Mark Geragos about what he learned about the J.C.
2 Penney suit filed by the Arvizos?
3 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Hearsay;
4 exceeds the scope.
5 THE COURT: Sustained.
6 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: When you were
7 communicating with Mr. Geragos, did you ever
8 discuss, you and he, a J.C. Penney suit, that you
9 recall?
10 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; hearsay.
11 THE COURT: Sustained.
　
　
　
 
LeGrand was also concerned about AlManik's rising influence in Michael's life and what his links were


　
6 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You were concerned that
7 all of the individuals you investigated were
8 involved in self-dealing, right?
9 A. No. That’s not right. For example, I did
10 not suspect Mr. Malnik of self-dealing in any way.
11 Q. Then why did you have an entirely separate
12 and more comprehensive investigation done of Mr.
13 Malnik?
14 A. I had done an Internet search on Mr. Malnik
15 before I met him. That Internet search indicated
16 that he had ties to organized crime; that he was
17 rumored to be the, you know, quote, heir of Meyer
18 Lansky.
19 There were, you know, sufficient clouds in
20 the public record of Mr. Malnik’s past that, again,
21 we, the lawyers, made a collective decision that it
22 was prudent to further investigate Mr. Malnik. We
23 did not know who he was. And he was becoming a more
24 and more powerful figure in Michael Jackson’s life.
25 Q. Did you at any point determine that Malnik
26 had ties with Sony?
27 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Foundation;
28 improper opinion; leading. 10216
　
　
　
1 THE COURT: Sustained.
2 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you know whether or not
3 Mr. Malnik has ever had a position with the Sony
4 corporation?
5 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Same
6 objection. Add relevancy.
7 THE COURT: Relevancy, sustained.
8 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: When you did your
9 investigation, you and your partner, both former
10 prosecutors, were you concerned about Mr. Malnik’s
11 relationship with Sony?
12 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Same objection.
13 THE COURT: Overruled.
14 THE WITNESS: I really don’t recall that we
15 had any concern over Mr. Malnik’s relationship with
16 Sony. In fact, I’m not aware that he had a
17 significant relationship with Sony.
18 Our concern about Mr. Malnik was simply
19 based upon the, you know, public records indicating
20 these, you know, vague relationships to criminal
21 figures. And those -- you know, those are all long
22 in the past, but still, you know, in the public
23 domain.
24 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And you were concerned
25 that all of these characters were trying to steal
26 money and take advantage of Michael Jackson, right?
27 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Leading;
28 argumentative. 10217
　
　
　
1 THE COURT: Sustained.
 
You still trust Branca?

This will, I don't trust it.

Katherine is Michaels mother, she should know all of the business dealing concerning the estate. Point Blank.

These are not normal circumstances.

I refuse to trust anyone that has dealing with Sony.

Sony is the devil behind everything.
 
indranee said:
we're not quarreling, we're discussing :)

but most of all, I want to know why did Michael not update his will after five years? I can't quite believe he didn't do so after 2005/2006. it's a big question mark for me.
Click to expand...

Michael's will was very succinct; it basically gave all his assets to his family trust, appoints executors and names the guardian for his children.

What would you have expected him to change? His martial status had not changed, nor had his children. The guardians were still available and the trust was in place. He apparently still had faith in those he appointed as executors.

Any real changes would have been made to the Trust, not the will, and it is unlikely that will ever be made public.

MJ even anticipated this attempt to circumvent his desires and put the no contest clause in his will.

I think MJ made it crystal clear who he wanted to manage his financial affairs and who he wanted to raise his children - and they were not the same people.
 
i think what the john's have done is starting to convince katherine that they're legit BUT im sure she still wants her side at the table. if not her, then someone she appoints. i think it'll be fine w/ two. add another and then that's more money taken out of what they make for the estate
 
rsw22 said:
As Londell explained while on Larry King, Katherine doesn't really have to be the one doing the deals and all that stuff.

Not having education and business skills is not the deciding factor.

Look, Katherine has been around the most famous musical family in the most complex deal makings since the 1960s to date.
She has FAR FAR more extensive knowledge of the workings than any civilian out there let alone several artists.

She knew how the first deal with Motown was drawn up, how the Las Vegas deal was drawn up, how the Jacksons and Epic deal was drawn up. Don't forget they were having family meetings with lawyers and advisers to discuss this.

If you look at her book as she discusses the hustle that preceded the Victory tour and all the lawyers and promoters flying everywhere.
Don't forget that without her, the Victory tour would never have happened as she had to persuade Michael to join his brothers and she was involved in all the meetings even when Joe and Don King were being pushed out.

Now there is no better education than hands-on experience. Being there, seeing it, knowing the talk, the lawyer talk, the promoter talk, the record label and executive talk, the accountants talk and number crunching, knowing the ins and outs.

Even as Mesereau says, for lawyers, studying law doesn't prepare you efefctively for the field. Experience of being a good lawyer is being out there and doing it.

Now, Katherine was there, involved in the meetings, listened and even gave contributions, suggestions and directions.
After the meetings, i'm sure as a family they went on to discuss the issues, the promotions, the legal terms, the composition, the marchendise and a lot more

Then there are all the issues in the years that followed, getting information to Michael that his advisers were trying to keep away from him. The advisers were keeping the family away but they could not keep Katherine away. Katherine packs the US magazines of negative publicity that advisers are keeping from Michael and takes them to show her son, who then releases that 1987 press statement

She is the one who tells off Dileo about creating and planting crazy stories that to this day still run as "sleeping in a hyperbaric Chamber" and whatever else Dileo did.

In the 1990s she takes a less significant role but after 2002, she is by her son every day. She sits in court and hears all that is going on. She sits with Michael in meetings with his lawyers, advisers, accountants.
She supports him when he is being pressured to sell the catalogue

From everything Katherine does behind the scenes, Michael decides to appoint her as trustee.
She has detailed information of who is who and who is doing what and what is going on with Michael's affairs and what needs to be checked on.

If she was useless and uneducated, belive you me, Branca and McClain would have appointed her as third executor on day one. "just a figure" innefective but to please everyone. But the opposite is true.


TRUSTEE

Trustees, like charity trustees, do not run affairs on a daily basis, but they have access to ALL affairs of the trust and must be consulted in all major decisions.

Branca can run the trust on a daily basis, but Katherine should be able to get her lawyer to check the paperwork, check the accountant's work, do spot check forensic audits and be consulted in all major decisions as well as decide to sit in when she feels it's an issue she wants to be informed about,even if it's not major.

She would have a major say in policy making concerning the direction of the estate, which Branca and McClain definitely want to keep to themselves so that they fully control the direction and any policy


RIGHT NOW

All the judge allows Katherine to do is to object when a decision is brought forward, but we can see how Branca and McClain plan to ramroad objections by telling the judge that if he doesn't approve in one week (ignore objections) the deal will fall through

Branca and McClain have discretion what they choose to share with Katherine, so she cannot audit accountants or find out information they don't want her to know.


BRANCA

Branca is a good successful lawyer, i'm not disputing that, but he's human and what that estate needs is checks and balances.
When Michael drew up that will, a lot of stuff was peaceful, it was moreless a calm before the storm.
After a storm, you don't go out in light clothing, you need a jacket to protect you from teh cold that a storm brings.
At a time when many are skeptical over what has transpired in Michael's life from 2003 to 2009, a good-faith person would seek to re-assure atleast the mother.
But when she is locked out, let's say you were a parent and your child went through what Michael endured, knowing that there are people who want to harm your child and seize his assets. Then suddenly he passes away and you are being locked out of his affairs,
  • wouldn't you be suspicious?
  • Wouldn't you be hurt?
  • Wouldn't you suspect in the corner of your mind that maybe these people locking you out were involved in your son's death?
  • When you know they could easily appoint you executor since your son had appointed you as a trustee?
Click to expand...


fantastic post.
 
If Michael wanted Branca back for representing him a few week ago he passed away, ... that means a lot!!!

Michael fired many people who were not - the YES men!

Its not fair to present that testimony as a fact that Branca is.... what? I didnt get it!
When Michael drew up that will, a lot of stuff was peaceful, it was moreless a calm before the storm.
Click to expand...
- thats the clue!!!

I dont understand only one thing!

After the trial, why the hell Michael didnt upgrade his will!

This is only one thing I am concern about...., cos everything has changed..., and he was satisfied with that up to the end..., and wanted Branca back...
 
Moonwalker.Fan said:
If Michael wanted Branca back for representing him a few week ago he passed away, ... that means a lot!!!

Michael fired many people who were not - the YES men!

Its not fair to present that testimony as a fact that Branca is.... what? I didnt get it!
- thats the clue!!!

I dont understand only one thing!

After the trial, why the hell Michael didnt upgrade his will!

This is only one thing I am concern about...., cos everything has changed..., and he was satisfied with that up to the end..., and wanted Branca back...
Click to expand...


But Michael was easy to manipulate, especially by people who knew him well over so many years. Even LeGrand mentions it. That was an eternal weakness of Michael when in the hands of those who knew him well. Even Debbie Rowe said Michael is easy to manipulate especially when he is afraid. Man, I felt that was low when Debbie said that infront of Michael, even if she didn't mean it in a bad way.

Frank Dileo manages to wiggle his way back and gets Tahome fired

Once Frank is comfortable, he manages to convince Michael that Branca is the guy. We don't even know waht sweet-talking Frank did

Then when Michael listens to Frank who then calls Branca over, they meet and Branca gets Michael to sign a legal document handing all control of his business over to him

Frank gets Michael to appoint him on the board of SonyATV

A week later, Michael is dead

Branca bids his time, doesn't rush back to LA yet when someone dies, people drop whatever they are doing to rush back. Especially for someone who knows he is "in charge of all Michael affairs"

He then presents the will. Katherine raises concern about how Branca and Michael parted

Lo and behold, Branca's lawyer produced the signed document


If this wasn't reality, i would say it was a good movie script. Everything works like clockwork


BOTH FRANK AND BRANCA WERE ON SONY PAYROLL AT ONE POINT OR ANOTHER
 
rsw22 said:
BOTH FRANK AND BRANCA WERE ON SONY PAYROLL AT ONE POINT OR ANOTHER
Click to expand...

Branca is a big time entertainment lawyer so it is not surprising that he had worked for major labels.

Everyone assumes this to be a negative but in my opinion it could be a positive as if he knows their inner workings it could give him the upper hand in negotiations for the trust.
 
Laura_Jo said:
I like John, I think he's a good guy and Michael trusted him. I think he is doing and will continue to do a good job. And if he keeps the Jackson family at a distance the more the better.
Click to expand...

I agree..to me Branca was so pivotal in making Michael Jackson..the super-mega start he was..

-neverland
-Beatles Catalog
-master recordings
-1991 Sony record deal

and who knows what else...

and I too believe Michael did not want his family managing his estate...
he vision was bigger and greater... to sustain his iconic/legendary status... he want his estate to run like a well oil corporation...


I think Mrs Jackson legal team is going about this regarding the estate all wrong...........
 
to me if Branca really wanted to harm Michael...........it would have been done a loooooooooooooooooong time ago........................

from what I see... with the This Is It sales...for the concert Michael saw that he REALLY had a chance to comeback big... and the people he had were amateurs to handle what was about to take off... so he called back the experienced people he knew could do it... Joel Katz, Branca, Dileo...

Tohme f-up on the auction must have made Michael nervous and he knew Ms Bains could NOT handle something with such magnatude...so he got on the horn
 
micaro7 said:
What I can't understand about this situatiom is why Branca and Mcclain can't let Katherine have a seat at the table?? What is the problem?
Why are they now doing PR to sway public opinion?


Firstly as RSW22 pointed out and several others including Londell who was actually legally representing MJ in some capacity after Branca left/was fired ......Katherine was with and sat in on countless business meetings with MJ, There is no one more equipped to know what was going on with MJ's business affaris. She knows who did what when MJ was alive/ Who really tried to help MJ, who betrayed him. Katherine has always been very involved so for those who act like when business was discussed she had to go out the room is ridiculous.
She knows where alot of the bodies are buried sort to speak.


Second, I think a family member should be on the board to help protect MJ's legacy and protect the estate. Someone who truly has MJ's best interest at heart should have a say in what kind of money-making decisions are being made until the children are old enough to be apart of these decisions if they choose.
Also Katherine herself wouldn't be involved in the day to day and that's common sense, her team hopefully including Londell would be
Someone needs to make sure everyone is doing what they are suppose to especially when this type of money is involved.

I don't think anyone is questioning the competency of Branca or Mcclain but MJ himself said he didn't trust Branca 3 years ago in the deposition
Then mysteriously a few weeks before MJ dies Branca is back and having MJ sign papers giving him control over MJ's affairs?
Why was that even necessary?

These are real questions and they should be answered

Thanks for posting that article. I knew there was something that happened in 06 where lawyers/accountants etc...was not doing what they were supposed to in regards to MJ's affairs but didn't have time to research it.
Click to expand...

I think part of the problem is Katherine is one of the main beneficiaries so there some sort of conflict with her being an executor....

as far as just having a seat at the table............I don't know???

but just like there is a hold up with a few deals........I think if Katherine does get a seat at the table....her lawyer will be trying to flex some influence on everything... which does not necessary benefit Michael's children....

glad they are being represented...becuz them being representing is like Michael being represented...

I like Katherine.. BUT Michael's view on business was different from his families..
 
I agree with Rasta. Branca is someone that knows the industry and he will know which deals would be the best for the estate. Not saying I trust him 100%, but out of everyone out there, I would rather take my chances with him. You can't deny this guy is bad ass when it comes to making business deals.

As you can see with Jermaine and Joe's projects, The Jacksons don't at all have credibility with the industry. Anytime they're doing anything they're always working with the bottom of barrel people.
 
Why is the Media so eager to "report" how "good of a friend" John Branca was to Michael Jackson? is?

Where is the same media interest in Katherine Jackson wanting his gone as "executor of the 2002 will"?

Michael Jackson fired John Branca because criminality and conflict of interest in working for SONY MUSIC USA against his "good friend".


John Branca is robbing the Jackson family. He offers them $500 million; while he and the other parties(you know what they did) will steal the other 2 billion.

If John is "some one who knows the indutry and so trust worthy; why is he lying to the KatherineJackson & family about the value of the 50% of 750,000 song SONY/ATV???


It is not 500 million but more like 2.5 billion!
What a "good friend" Branca is to LIE to Michael's Mother.
 
To hear Branca say that he was "Surrounded again" i felt like what i was thinking and suspicious about was confermed. meaning ppl. around Michael werent really there 4 him but just 4 the experiance.

Thankyou for this article. shades some light to the darkness.
 
branca is undervaluing the estate or the assets only b/c of the debt. once that is clear, then the true value will shine. he's talking about LIQUID assets. there wasn't much compared to actual assets that could be sold.

he's made almost $100M for the estate in less than two months. not bad, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top