Latest on MJJC

Jackson had long history with estate executor

rsw22 - thanks for your posts in here, I've learnt a lot!
 
rsw22 said:
And after Michael has been through the storm and still alive ready to storm the stage in a deal that does not involve them, they sit down and say, man, if this guy has a succesful tour, we are done for. He will make money and then demand the right to walk off, not with 50% but can buy us out at 100%
Click to expand...
Erm... that makes no sense. How exactly could MJ have forced Sony to sell their share?

Seriously, Mottola's Sony obviously had problems with MJ leaving the label - the lack of promotion for Invincible shows that - but the idea that Sony would be 'done for' and would have to sell their share of Sony/ATV to MJ if MJ had a successful tour is ludicrous.
 
Conspiracy or not, this 2002 will DOES NOT sit right without a 3rd executor & 4th executor to act out in CHECK & BALANCE.
Michael made that mistake with Konizter giving him the power of attorney
for LWMJ, Take Two, back-door shady merchandising deals and the defunct "What can I give" that tanked before it was given it's deserved radio air time.
I can't believe after the 2005 trial, Michael has not made a revision to the 2002 will.
If Judge Mitchell Beckloff can name attorney Margaret Lodise , Guardian Ad Litem for the kids just if anything happens to Katherine, why can't a judge name entertainment biz attorneys a 3rd and 4th executors ad litem likewise.
Londell McMillan is already representing Katherine and if court allows, that is the first step in the right direction.
No one faults Branca the brilliant deal sealer and money making wizard he is, but with all the power given to just him and McClain, I'm afraid will see history repeating itself like in Konizter's.

And what's with the Mecca gloating he's gonna hit jackpot in 2018......
http://www2.canada.com/windsorstar/n...f-f641b2e5fd3c

Beatles copyrights in Sir Paul's sights

In nine short years, Paul McCartney will hit the jackpot again.
The 67-year-old former Beatle -- already worth about £440 million (C$800 million), according to a report by Britain's Sunday Times in April -- will be able to start reclaiming the copyrights to the lucrative Beatles catalogue.
He and John Lennon, the Fab Four's primary songwriters, lost control of pop's most coveted catalogue as the band was falling apart.

They continued to receive songwriting royalties, but have lost out on a massive windfall over the years from licensing deals.
All but a handful of Beatles copyrights eventually ended up with Michael Jackson, and these 250-or-so songs form the crown jewel of Sony/ATV Music Publishing, a 50-50 joint venture between the late singer and Sony Corp.
The U.S. Copyright Act of 1976 gave songwriters the ability to recapture the publishing share of the copyright on pre-1978 works after two consecutive 28-year terms or 56 years. That means Beatles compositions registered in 1962 will be eligible for reversion in the United States in 2018, while songs written in 1970 will be eligible in 2026.
Under a clause in the Copyright Act, heirs of songwriters who die during the first 28-year term can recapture the publisher's portion of copyrighted works at the end of that term. In the case of Lennon, who died in 1980, the publisher's portion of his share of the Lennon-McCartney catalogue for songs written in 1962 became eligible for reversion in 1990, while songs written in 1970 were eligible in 1998.
Lennon and McCartney effectively lost control of the group's song rights even while the group was still a recording entity, in 1969.
That was when Northern Songs, the company established six years earlier solely to publish their joint compositions by English publisher Dick James and Beatles manager Brian Epstein, was sold to British media tycoon Lew Grade's ATV Music. Ownership of ATV subsequently passed to Australian billionaire Robert Holmes a Court and then, in 1985, to Jackson, who paid $47.5 million for the company.
In 1995, Sony came into the picture, forming a joint venture with trusts formed by Jackson, creating a new entity: Sony/ATV Music Publishing. Under the deal, Sony paid Jackson $110 million and gave him a 50-per-cent stake in the merged company, which at the time was valued at about $500 million, according to the 2007 book Northern Songs: The True Story of the Beatles' Song Publishing Empire by Brian Southall with Rupert Perry.
Sources estimate that Sony/ATV is now valued at about $1.7 billion
Click to expand...
 
HemlockDevi said:
If he is working with her she would not wish him removed as executor. Yet once again the Jackson's must be in the wrong. Some how what the Media tells you must be believed.

Jackson's own words( Is he wrong too)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW1T1DZdWrA





Katherine better hire a food taster ASAP. Hopefully she will note have a "cardiac arrest" or sudden "drug overdose" from the "stress".
Click to expand...
that's a bit much, don't u think? :no:

and i think there's a conflict of interest in having her w/ a seat at the table. that's y she should be able to appoint a neutral person to sort of watch over things. like a check and balances...everyone acting as one to benefit the estate.

just lik ehow they appointed a lawyer for the kids. if katherine is their guardian and is also fighting for the kids, then it's a conflict of interest. same w/ teh trust.

they need to be able to ask the question, is she doing this to benefit the estate and the legacy of her son or to benefit herself. i have no doubt it would be to benefit her son's legacy but if she stands to benefit from it also, then they can always complain thta she's tryin gto get deals w/ an impure motive.

so that's y a non-biased third person should be appointed. one that the two johns and katherine can agree on.
 
KATHERINE'S CONFLICT OF INTEREST HAS NO VALIDITY

Elvis' father, was a beneficiary of the estate, yet he was an executor, sole executor

Therefore Branca's argument that Katherine, mother of Michael, is a beneficiary and therefore it would be a conflict of interest if she was an executor/trustee, does not hold water.

Especially when Branca says he wants to model Michael's estate based on Elvis' model

I hope Katherine's team raise this issue.


Look at Elvis' Will, he appointed his father as executor
Item XI
Executor and Trustee
I appoint as executor of this, my last will and testament, and as Trustee of every trust required to be created hereunder, my said father.

http://www.ibiblio.org/elvis/elvwill.html
Click to expand...


Then he also appointed his father as a beneficiary
the principal at any time and from time to time to time for health, education, support, comfortable maintenance and welfare of:

(1) My daughter, Lisa Marie Presley, and any other lawful issue I might have,

(2) my grandmother, Minnie Mae Presley,

(3) my father, Vernon E. Presley, and

(4) such other relatives of mine living at the time of my death who in the absolute discretion of my Trustees are in need of emergency assistance for any of the above mentioned purposes and the Trustee is able to make such distribution without affecting the ability of the trust to meet the present needs of the first three numbered categories of beneficiaries herein mentioned or to meet the reasonably expected future needs of the first three classes of beneficiaries herein mentioned. Any decision of the Trustee as to whether or not distribution, to any of the persons described hereunder shall be final and conclusive and not subject to question by any legatee or beneficiary hereunder.

(c) Upon the death of my Father, Vernon E. Presley, the Trustee is instructed to make no further distributions to the fourth category of beneficiaries and such beneficiaries shall cease to have any interest whatsoever in this trust.

http://www.ibiblio.org/elvis/elvwill.html
Click to expand...

Then in the will of Elvis' father, he appointed 3 executors, National Bank, Elvis accountant and Priscilla Presley

Elvis' will appointed his father, Vernon Presley, as an executor and trustee of his estate, and it further stipulated that the inheritance bequeathed to his only child, Lisa Marie Presley, was to be held in trust and managed on her behalf until she reached age 25. Vernon Presley died in 1979, and his own will named three co-executors to succeed him: National Bank of Commerce; Joseph Hanks, Elvis' accountant, who retired from this post in 1990; and Priscilla Beaulieu Presley, Elvis ex-wife and Lisa Marie's legal guardian. Upon Lisa Marie's 25th birthday in 1993, the trust automatically dissolved. Lisa chose to form a new trust, the Elvis Presley Trust, and retain the executors to continue management of the estate in the form of a private business entity known as Elvis Presley Enterprises. Prior to 1993, there were two dilemmas confronting the executors of the trust. Firstly, there were a myriad of businesses and individuals who were blatantly using Elvis' name and image for their own profit, without permission of the executors of Elvis' estate. The executors wished to unify the disparate Elvis markets under the name of the estate. Following a number of successful, precedent-setting court rulings against infringers, the Tennessee legislature passed a new law, the Personal Rights Protection Act of 1984. (11) This law gave EPE the unqualified right to control the use of Elvis' name and likeness.
　
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb2998/is_3_14/ai_n28947974/
Click to expand...



Looking at Elvis' will, definitely Michael's will was left so open-ended when it comes to how the executors manage it.
Which in turn gives them a lot of room to wiggle.

It does not specify what age his kids can take ownership of the estate, unless information is contained in the trust documents.

Also, if Katherine was appointed, it means in a her will, she can name an executor to replace her, since this thing is open-ended. Before you start, of course she wouldn't pick Joe, but someone more sensible.
But it seems Branca doesn't want the wiggle room of control reduced with an executor like Katherine or whoever she may appoint to succeed her.

But definitely, if this was done for Elvis will, father as executor and beneficiary, then the resistance to Katherine has ulterior motives.
 
Last edited:
The no-contest issue does not apply to exexutors

The will allows current executors to appoint an additional executor or a replacement executor should any of them resign.

The no-contest has to do with objecting to the executors or distribution of assets.

What Katherine is asking is to be appointed as a replacement executor/trustee and Branca does not want Katherine.

The reason he gives is there would be a conflict of interest if they appointed her because she is a beneficiary.
But as you can see from Elvis' will, that is not so.

I think Branca included that in so that no one could unseat him, that is legal language that did not originate from MJ but from a lawyer.
These kind of wills involving wealthy people need to be drawn up with more than one lawyer, as they have insight into law and can see what the other is trying to pull off and advise teh clients accordingly.

Unfortunately for MJ, he was too trustful of one lawyer, and as his Personal Assistant Evvi Tavasci said in a court hearing involving Schaffel, that was the problem. Michael at times placed too much trust in individuals without safegauards

Look at Michael allowing Bashir to keep the footage, when Tavasci reminded Michael that Bashir was supposed to deposit footage with her after filming, as had been agreed from the start

Look at how Schaffel could easily access Michael's accounts, and took out a lot of money

Look at Konitzer with Power of attorney

Look at accountants directing money elsewhere

Look at Ramone Baine with Power of Attorney

Look at Branca with MJ signing control of everything to him a week before he dies

Look at Tahome with $5million in cash which he then finds a story to cover up that Michael was going to buy a house, yet he had been fired

And you will see this was a weakness of Michael in always trusting just one person with everything, unfortunately now, that one lawyer who is the executor has "power of attorney" moreless is going to do as he pleases. McClain is merely a music executive, so Branca calls the shots and has great sway.
 
rsw22 said:
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.
[/LIST]
Click to expand...
rsw22 - thank you so much for all the info. I'm learning so much.
My grief increases every day as I get to 'know' MJ.
God bless MJ's mother to live many more years healthy.

A question, this Frank Dileo was still with MJ and still part of his team right?
Did MJ take any action, when Dileo told this stupid story - "sleeping in a hyperbaric Chamber" to media?
 
I can't remember who it was but originally there WAS a third person named alongside Branca and McCain who later bowed out - anyone know who he was and why he withdrew himself?

Edit- Barry Siegel
 
Last edited:
rsw22 said:
The no-contest issue does not apply to exexutors

The will allows current executors to appoint an additional executor or a replacement executor should any of them resign.

The no-contest has to do with objecting to the executors or distribution of assets.

What Katherine is asking is to be appointed as a replacement executor/trustee and Branca does not want Katherine.
Click to expand...


Looking at this clause below and interpreting it strictly MJ plainly states:

1) If any trustees drop out no replacements need be named
2) Replacements may be named ONLY if none of the three original named individuals are not willing or able to serve.

It seems pretty clear to me MJ didn't want any people serving but these, and only in the event that none of them at ALL were able to serve should any replacement be then considered.

V

I appoint JOHN BRANCA, JOHN McCLAIN and BARRY SIEGEL as co-Executors of this Will. In the event of any of their deaths, resignations, inability, failure or refusal to service or continue to serve as co-Executor, the other shall serve and no replacement need be named. The co-Executors serving at any time after my death may name ore or more replacements to serve in the event that none of the three named individuals is willing or able to serve at any time.
 
Spot on mischief.

rsw22, Branca is correct to say that "adding Katherine Jackson as an executor or a trustee could raise tax questions because she is a beneficiary." (and note, 'could', not 'would'). You're over-simplifying to say "Elvis did it, so it won't", it's complex to say the least. It depends on the trust and the applicable laws. Generally, she could be a trustee and make distribution decisions without incurring tax issues provided those decisions are made to 'ascertainable standards'. But we don't know the terms of the trust, we don't know whether the rules of the trust meet those standards.

Given the potentially huge expense - potentially the estate being subject to estate tax twice - if they get it wrong, it'd be crazy for the administrators to not be cautious about it.
 
Aengil said:
Spot on mischief.

rsw22, Branca is correct to say that "adding Katherine Jackson as an executor or a trustee could raise tax questions because she is a beneficiary." (and note, 'could', not 'would'). You're over-simplifying to say "Elvis did it, so it won't", it's complex to say the least. It depends on the trust and the applicable laws. Generally, she could be a trustee and make distribution decisions without incurring tax issues provided those decisions are made to 'ascertainable standards'. But we don't know the terms of the trust, we don't know whether the rules of the trust meet those standards.

Given the potentially huge expense - potentially the estate being subject to estate tax twice - if they get it wrong, it'd be crazy for the administrators to not be cautious about it.
Click to expand...


There are no tax complications on the estate

Money was still going to be paid out for a third executor anyway.

Katherine gets paid as a beneficiary. She then has to pay income tax
When Katherine gets paid as an executor, she then pays the tax on that income

Those are two separate incomes, one is to manage her duties as an executor, the other is what she is entitled to in the will

Londell is a top notch entertainment lawyer, he wouldn't raise the issue if he knew it will be a burden for the estate. Come on. One executor's pay complicates estate taxes? That's a first.

First it was conflict of interest,
Then it is Jacksons are incompetent,
Now it is tax complexities.




The judge was able to identify any duplicate costs between Katherine and the kids, which i think even though he has the right to do, was unfair.
Because Katherine is entitled to 40%, the kids to 40%

If there are duplicate costs, then that doesn't change the 40% and it's up to Katherine to manage that and say open up savings account for the kids to put in what is deducted from duplicate costs, and also put in her savings account the same

Say Katherine has electricity bills, $200 per month, the kids have electricity bills $200 per month, as assigned for their 40% each.
Then that gets paid out. Katherine then decides, okay, we don't need $400 for electricity, so i will pay $100, the kids share $100, and i put $100 in my savings account, and the kids get $100 in their savings account or for extra treats.

But the Judge reduced that, thereby fudging about the 40% and 40% share for each, when she slashes Katherine's share to 83% of what had been suggested.

Let's look at another thing, Judge's ruling. We saw how they impacted on MJ

The judge had no option but to grant Katherine custody, because there was no contest and Londell had made sure a deal was done and even got a declaration from Joe, so the judge had no foot to stand on trying to block that.

Katherine's share proposed - judge reduces it to 83%
Katherine asked to be executor - judge keeps it pending
Katherine consents to some deals, objects to others - judge appoints lawyer for kids compromising Katherine's objections


Is the judge, a friend of Branca, being fair to Katherine?

Or do we have round two of Melville, a friend of Sneddon when it came to Michael
 
rsw22 said:
There are no tax complications on the estate

Money was still going to be paid out for a third executor anyway.

Katherine gets paid as a beneficiary. She then has to pay income tax
When Katherine gets paid as an executor, she then pays the tax on that income
Click to expand...
It's not income tax that's relevant here rsw22. It's estate tax. It's nothing to do with pay.

You don't appear to understand the issues here.

Estate tax has to be paid on MJ's estate now. Everything that remains in the trust, managed by independent trustees, will not be taxed again in the event of the death of one of the beneficiaries, because it doesn't belong to them, it belongs to the trust.

But if Katherine is made a trustee as well as a beneficiary it is possible estate tax would have to paid again in the event of her death as, depending on the rules of the trust, she could be regarded for tax purposes as owning it.
 
Last edited:
I can see the argument for allowing Katherine to be an executor - ordinarily any mother/close family member would wish to be privy to or in charge of that side of things. However, Michael didn't name her and obviously he had his reasons for that. If he didn't name her in 2002, even if there WERE another later will which I doubt, I can't see him naming her in a later one either.

On the trustee/beneficiary side - speaking generally here, appointing a bankrupt as a trustee I'd liken to putting an alcoholic in charge of a brewery! Aside from that we aren't privy to the ins and outs of that trust but I would fully expect it to contain a clause stipulating that Katherine's share of the trust cannot be used to pay her creditors.

That trust will be watertight in many many respects and not least to protect claims from any vultures seeking to gain a piece of the pie. There will be method in any perceived madness in the way it has been drawn up and I don't believe anything contained in it will be to the detriment of his mother or the other beneficiaries.
 
mischief said:
I can see the argument for allowing Katherine to be an executor - ordinarily any mother/close family member would wish to be privy to or in charge of that side of things. However, Michael didn't name her and obviously he had his reasons for that. If he didn't name her in 2002, even if there WERE another later will which I doubt, I can't see him naming her in a later one either.

On the trustee/beneficiary side - speaking generally here, appointing a bankrupt as a trustee I'd liken to putting an alcoholic in charge of a brewery! Aside from that we aren't privy to the ins and outs of that trust but I would fully expect it to contain a clause stipulating that Katherine's share of the trust cannot be used to pay her creditors.

That trust will be watertight in many many respects and not least to protect claims from any vultures seeking to gain a piece of the pie. There will be method in any perceived madness in the way it has been drawn up and I don't believe anything contained in it will be to the detriment of his mother or the other beneficiaries.
Click to expand...


Let's not go into directing insults at Katherine, calling her a "bankrupt".

If you know the true story, you wouldn't even say that. It's highly direspectful to Michael's mother.

If you don't want her as a trustee, well and good, but don't find any reason in the book to slam her

Now we have an addition to the list

First it was conflict of interest,
Then it is Jacksons are incompetent,
Then it is tax complexities,
Now it is Katherine is a bankrupt

Do you want to know the story why Katherine went bankrupt?

Joe was always into endless deals which involved him and definitely his wife Katherine was caught up in it by virtue of being a spouse. Whether you like it or not, if your spouse mismanages business, you will be affected. It is like credit rating for a home, but even more as both of you are liable for debts, unless divorced.

Now, every time Joe would sink into debt, he would get Katherine to ask Michael to bail him out.

Katherine got tired of this. She got tired of bailing Joe out by asking her son all the time. You know what she did? She made a wise decision. She refused to ask Michael to bail Joe out any more.

Michael could see his mother and father going bankrupt. In 1997 MIchael was raking in tens of millions from the HIStory tour, giving millions to charity.

You think he would just stand by and see his beloved mother file for bankruptcy?
But Katherine put her foot down, she refused to let Michael bail Joe out. All that seems to have been agreed was to tell Michael, you pay the bills, pay the food. Joe can come and eat, he has bills paid and a roof over his head. Don't bail him out or else it will never end, let us go bankrupt and he will learn

This is why i like this lady, she can put her foot down and say, no more nonsense.
Look at Jermaine struggling to have Michael buried in Neverland, Katherine has put her foot down.

This lady aint a walkover, which some people think. If you watch "Our Son Michael", you can see her telling off Joe over some remarks.

Going into bankruptcy ensured that Joe stopped bothering Michael for the most part with his issues.

You think Joe could not tell Katherine to tell Michael that he wants to talk to him?
Why didn't he get Katherine to convey the message? Because she laid down the rules, that is your son, you communicate with him on your own terms, not through me.

So to call her a bankrupt when you do not know what led to that is simply low.

And it also misses the point that there will be 3 executors, not one person making all the decisions.

She accepted bankruptcy so that Joe stops messing about with her son's money like a cash machine every time he landed himself into financial trouble.

Now you tell me this lady is incompetent and a bankrupt?

Oh yeah, she will stop any of the vultures in Michael's camp messing around with MJ's money.
 
For those who buy into media stories that Jacksons want Michael's money and are incompentent
　
Janet Jackson - multi-millionaire

Randy Jackson - someone who has a million dollar credit card and his businesses

Jackie Jackson - has a ranch of his own

Marlon Jackson - has been distant from the rest and has his stable family and business

Tito Jackson - has his business, showbiz deals from time to time and tours doing shows

Rebbie Jackson - has her family and stable life
　
Katherine Jackson - already taken care of in the will and Janet can take care of her even without Michael's money

　
Joe Jackson - Has a restaurant in Las Vegas, a home in Las Vegas and his showbiz circuit over there. And he can't get his way with Katherine any more.

Jermaine Jackson - he is the most ambitious and doesn't seem to have something fixed that he always does.
　
　
Latoya Jackson - has a couple of assets, does showbiz to earn more, only person who might not have a very solid base, but she's single, no kids, no burdensome expenses
　
　
Definitely looking at this, only two or three family members may benefit if they accessed Michael's money but it ain't happening, so why say or paint all the Jacksons as wanting their fingers in Michael's money?

And you will notice it's the last 3 that are always talking to the media.
And by the way, Marlon went bankrupt, picked himself up again and is doing well.
 
rsw22 said:
Let's not go into directing insults at Katherine, calling her a "bankrupt".
Click to expand...

You obviously missed the start of that sentence where I stated "speaking GENERALLY" . It was in no way intended as an insult - I was speaking GENERALLY :) x
 
I'll give a scenario which may ...MAY... be a reason why it would not have been prudent then or now to add Katherine as a trustee.

Depending on the exact nature of the trust Katherine as a beneficiary MAY be protected under the trust against any claims by creditors made against her interest in the estate.

Were Katherine also to be or have been added as a trustee TOO then, again, depending on the exact nature of the trust, she might not then have this protection- because she is a trustee.

We can only guess and surmise because we don't know the specifics nor ever will but, and for the very reasons mentioned in the immediate posts above, its highly likely Michael will have wanted her to be protected from any such claims.
 
mischief said:
I'll give a scenario which may ...MAY... be a reason why it would not have been prudent then or now to add Katherine as a trustee.

Depending on the exact nature of the trust Katherine as a beneficiary MAY be protected under the trust against any claims by creditors made against her interest in the estate.

Were Katherine also to be or have been added as a trustee TOO then, again, depending on the exact nature of the trust, she might not then have this protection- because she is a trustee.

We can only guess and surmise because we don't know the specifics nor ever will but, and for the very reasons mentioned in the immediate posts above, its highly likely Michael will have wanted her to be protected from any such claims.
Click to expand...

I don't know much about this, but THAT argument sounds very plausible to me.
 
rsw22 said:
If you don't want her as a trustee, well and good, but don't find any reason in the book to slam her

Now we have an addition to the list

First it was conflict of interest,
Then it is Jacksons are incompetent,
Then it is tax complexities,
Now it is Katherine is a bankrupt
Click to expand...

The best reason is that Michael didn't name her as a trustee or executor. No other reasoning should even come into play until there is hard evidence of mishandling of the duties Michael bestowed on his appointees.

MJ knew his family better than anyone. He knew how he wanted his estate and legacy managed and provided for that.

For the court to even seriously consider adding her is a travesty and would set a bad precedent.
 
[quto]I believe that Michael knew exactly what he was doing when he named Katherine a beneficiary and NOT a trustee. I'm sure she was a fine mother to Michael but I don't think she has the talent necessary to be involved in running his business and I suspect MJ knew that.[/quto]

yeah, agree with this. Mike knew what he's doing and he always knows who is to be trust in on these kind of things.I think Branca and McClain will well handel his estate.
 
Yeah, MJ knew what he was doing, that's why his mother, who is in the middle of grieving, has to spend a lot of time fighting the estate executors.

That's why his favourite nephew has to take the stand and yet be ignored by a judge who is friends with Branca.

Give me a break. These people are as corrupt as they come

Let's look back,

Barry Rothman (Chandler's lawyer) and Judge David Rothman, one and the same. The Judge enabled Chandlers to extort Michael with his biased rulings


Sneddon and Judge Melville, friends, they worked together to drive forward a case that had no basis and many biased rulings which if not biased, would have prevented the malicious trial.

Branca and Judge Beckloff, friends, working together to help Branca retain control of MJ's estate.

It takes two to Tango, a connection with the judge = biased rulings

This is a Judge who takes memorabilia which he knows that he cannot rule against Katherine in favour of Branca if the children, heirs to the property, are being represented by Katherine.
He then first appoints a lawyer, of course who won't object because she was brought in on that very issue and has the judge to thank for free cash.

Then he attacks Katherine saying "The property is not hers", which he couldn't have said before because the lawyers would have said, well, it belongs to the children who are the heirs


Then he rules against Katherine, even with Taj testifying.

You think if Michael saw this he wouldn't delete Branca and McClain from his will with one stroke?


Funny enough, anyone could see that since 2002, they we plotting to kill Michael, seize his estate and then demonise the family as incompetent and unfit to manage it.

Roger Friedman in August 2002 was writing about how a plot is in motion to destroy Michael once and for all
Click to expand...

And by you reiterating such comments that MJ knows his family better and didn't want them involved, comments that Branca made, just confirm that.

This is a lawyer who has tried to exploit the differences in his family for his greedy motives to retain control of MJ.

I'm sure when he was advising him on who to select as executors, Branca was telling MJ this crap about not involving anyone in his family as an executor.

Don't for a moment tell me that MJ couldn't trust Janet as an executor, and i can see from McClain's inclusion, it's possible that Micheal wanted to pick Janet, only for Branca to drive him away from that by suggesting McClain who had done deals for Janet.

Please, Branca is a brother to the dollar sign. So anything he does is with that motive.
Any lawyer who had the best intentions of a client would spot one person MJ could rely on as co-executor in the family, especially such a large family.
Any lawyer with greedy motives of CONTROL would the EXACT OPPOSITE, manipulate the client to keep ALL family members away.

The co-executor has a say but not exclusive say, decisions are by consensus at the table.

ALL BRANCA WANTED WAS CONTROL - PERIOD!!

No consensus.

Travesty of justice to appoint a replacement co-executor after one has resigned?
Damn, some of you really have it out for Katherine that i begin to think Branca has some agents on fan forums to promote his agenda.

It's such a Travesty of justice for the mother who was a trustee in 2009 while Michael was alive, to then be appointed as a trustee immediately after she dies.
But it's not a travesty of justice for a lawyer that the client fired, to then re-appear a week before his death make him sign a document to take control of everything and then provide both the old will and the document immediately after death.

If we were watching a movie with such a scene, viewers would say that there is something dodgy going on.
In fact any sensible person would advocate for a family member to be involved, given the circumstances.

THAT IS TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE

You want to say that document Branca made Michael sign was not manipulation? Hey, this guy has just stepped back in Michael's life who has several lawyers handling different things, but rather than ask Michael what areas of business he should take charge of, all he does is give MJ a document to CONTROL EVERYTHING!!
 
Last edited:
Branca was not acting in the best interests of Michael Jackson but in the best interests of Branca

And I hope Katherine's legal team can pursue this issue with Beckloff, and then if it fails, the California Supreme court and the appellate courts, as far as it can go, concerning the duties of a legal representative and the precedent it sets.
An attorney has a legal and ethical duty to act in the best interests of the client, irrespective of circumstances

When a lawyer is entrusted with legal affairs, it's his/her legal duty to oversee those affairs and notify the client and those concerned accordingly, and to act in their best interests.

When a client entrusts a lawyer or law firm with a will, whether the law firm represents the client at that time or not, once set periods agreed with the client or set out in the will come to pass, the lawyer/law firm has a duty to notify those concerned.

Say if an Uncle lives a will for an heir who doesn't know about it, at the point that the heir reaches 18 years, if that's what the will says, then the law firm has to notify the heir. If the will says, upon the death of the uncle, then the law firm has to notify the heir.

If the will requires the uncle to update it every 4, 5 or 6 years, then the law firm has to notify the uncle to update his will because they were entrusted with that duty.
The Uncle may have circumstances that make him unable to remember to update the will, say he is in a care home, the law firm, whether representing the Uncle at that point or not, but with the duty to maintain the will, have a duty to contact the Uncle, arrange a meeting for updating the will. This can only be negated when the Uncle tells the law firm that he no longer wishes for them to handle affairs of his will, even if they have or have not been representing him.
　
It was in Michael's best interests to have the will maintained every 5 years. The will was maintained in 1997, 2002 but in 2007 when it should have been maintained, it was not.

Michael was overwhelmed with a lot of legal and financial issues between 2007 and 2008, then 2009 it was the meetings and deals to do tours.
Michael was not in the best position, in the midst of all these overwhelming legal issues, to recall that he had to update his will in 2007.

Branca and his law firm, who had a duty to notify Michael that his will was due for update, failed in their legal duty to do so, even though they have systems in place to remind them of duties coming up that need to be maintained and/or acted upon.
Branca had not passed on this duty of maintaining the will to any other lawyer or law firm, even though he had ceased representing Michael as a lawyer.

A law firm/lawyer maintaining the will does not need to also be representing the client on a daily basis as that is a separate duty on its own.



THEREFORE
Branca and his law firm failed in his ethical and legal duty to act in the best interests of their client over the 52 weeks of 2007, and subsequently the entire 52 weeks of 2008


BRANCA'S BEST INTERESTS


What seems to be the case here is that Branca was unwilling to remind Michael concerning the updating of the will every 5 years because he was not Michael's daily attorney at the time and therefore felt that any update of the will would lead him and his law firm losing out as Michael might change the executors.

It was therefore in Branca's best interests not to carry out his duty to notify the owner of the will about the need to update it till such a point in time that he was back in the loop managing all his affairs.

It was his duty to let Michael, who had entrusted him and his law firm with the maintenance of the will, know that the will was due for update irrespective of whether or not he or his law firm would be retained. And Michael could have informed Branca whether he still wished for his law firm to carry on handling his will or had transferred its maintenance to another law firm


REMEDY

The remedy for such is for the courts to find that Branca and his law firm failed in their ethical and legal duty to notify the concerned for a period of over 2 years, when his will was due for update.

And upon such a finding, to then find a cure for such conduct, by either recursing the executors, or enabling an executor to be appointed to oversee that the law firm acts in the best interests of the client.

Also, the law firm should be fined as a deterrent to other law firms who may seek not to inform their clients about issues, so as to promote their best interests over those of the client for instance, whose will they maintain.
　
This case is all the more important because this was not a one-off will that a client wrote to be put in the safe till he dies.
This is a will that the client wanted updated every five years and the law firm had a duty to ensure that was done whether or not they represented the owner of the will on other matters.

It's similar to a person owning an insurance policy that they want to be reviewed every 5 years, but then the law firm entrusted with maintaining the insurance policy, fails for 2 years to notify the client that the insurance policy is due for review as was requested.
That law firm would have failed in its duty to act in the best interests of the policy holder
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top