Latest on MJJC

Jackson's Mom and Dad Split Over Executors/Joe Threatens Estate

Re: Jackson's Mom and Dad Split Over Executors

Trish said:
Joe Jackson's Ultimatum

Posted Nov 10th 2009 5:19PM by TMZ Staff

Joe Jackson's lawyer just made it clear to the judge -- if Michael Jackson's dad doesn't get an allowance, he'll file a creditor's claim against his son's estate.

Brian Oxman, Joe's lawyer, just said out loud he thinks Katherine has "struck a deal with the estate" rather than staying committed to challenging the will, John Branca, and on and on. Branca's lawyer, Howard Weitzman, said there has never been a "deal" with Katherine.

Oxman said if Joe doesn't get the allowance he's after, Michael would have breached a contract he had with daddy and that's why he'd then file a creditor's claim. Oxman didn't elaborate on what kind of contract MJ made with Joe.

And then there's this. Katherine Jackson's lawyer said Katherine doesn't object to Joe getting an allowance, but was quick to add that Joe has no legal standing to appear in probate court.

Read more: http://www.tmz.com/#ixzz0WV0Fu16s
Click to expand...

What exactly goes through that mans mind? :mello:
 
Joe is just a damn lunatic!

He has now proven that all Michael ever was to him was a walking ATM!
 
I find it sad that some here keep defending the undefendable....
 
Re: Jackson's Mom and Dad Split Over Executors

Vici said:
Trish! What doesnt a creditors claim mean? English is not my first language so I have a hard time sometimes understanding with some phrases, what they mean etc. Can you explain what that means?

Ps, I thought Joe was fine with NOT being in the will. Didnt he say that? Dont make yourself look like a fool, Joe!!
Click to expand...

It means he will sue the estate. Oxman is saying that Michael and Joe had a contract and it is now broken because Joe doesn't receive money from Michael/Michael's estate. So now he is planning on suing the estate if they don't give Joe a monthly allowance to cover his finances.
 
Re: Jackson's Mom and Dad Split Over Executors

This is being reported live if I'm right? If so does this mean we'll find out what their decision is today?
 
Last edited:
Re: Jackson's Mom and Dad Split Over Executors

Rockin. said:
Can someone explain what that means please?
Click to expand...

The reason that Joe has no legal standing to appear in probate court is because Michael Jackson left him out of the will. The only people who have standing are Katherine, Prince, Paris and Blanket.

Basically Joe has no right to argue his case in the probate court. Ultimately, that is up to the judge to decide.
 
And now it is over:

The judge in the Michael Jackson estate case just put a quick stop to Joe Jackson's objections to the will and to the executors -- in a nutshell, the judge said Joe had no dog in the fight ... no legal standing.

Read more: http://www.tmz.com/#ixzz0WV7POzQ4
 
OMG the man has BALLS! sis u think she's doing this cuz of the debbie rumor? maybe all this movement is making rowe nervous. but this right here would calm me down. shows she's sticking it to joe and finally doing what her son wanted her to do. raise my kids, keep them from my father, andthe money goes to them and to whomever u want it to go to while ur aliv.e


now she says she doesn't care if joe gets money BUT legally, he has no claim so that is up to the judge. so she's not saying no in open court but she knows he won't get any. and the kids are too young to make a decision like that. branca and mcclainhave no reason to agree to that since joe is threatening them.

so does oxman defend everyone in that family? randy jermaine and now joe. wow
 
Trish said:
And now it is over:

The judge in the Michael Jackson estate case just put a quick stop to Joe Jackson's objections to the will and to the executors -- in a nutshell, the judge said Joe had no dog in the fight ... no legal standing.

Read more: http://www.tmz.com/#ixzz0WV7POzQ4
Click to expand...
what an asshat...like seriously sorry for my words but he is. no wonder mj felt that way about him. he doesn't deserve anything. disgusting
 
Re: Jackson's Mom and Dad Split Over Executors

Trish said:
It means he will sue the estate. Oxman is saying that Michael and Joe had a contract and it is now broken because Joe doesn't receive money from Michael/Michael's estate. So now he is planning on suing the estate if they don't give Joe a monthly allowance to cover his finances.
Click to expand...

Ohhh please no :no:

Very sad situation :(

Trish said:
The reason that Joe has no legal standing to appear in probate court is because Michael Jackson left him out of the will. The only people who have standing are Katherine, Prince, Paris and Blanket.

Basically Joe has no right to argue his case in the probate court. Ultimately, that is up to the judge to decide.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I know that he hasn't got a right to money because he wasn't on the Will. I just don't know what probate court means..?
 
The attorney for the estate said this is WHY Michael trusted his mother so much. Ultimately she does the RIGHT THING. :yes:
 
Re: Jackson's Mom and Dad Split Over Executors

Trish said:
Joe Jackson's Ultimatum

Posted Nov 10th 2009 5:19PM by TMZ Staff

Joe Jackson's lawyer just made it clear to the judge -- if Michael Jackson's dad doesn't get an allowance, he'll file a creditor's claim against his son's estate.

Brian Oxman, Joe's lawyer, just said out loud he thinks Katherine has "struck a deal with the estate" rather than staying committed to challenging the will, John Branca, and on and on. Branca's lawyer, Howard Weitzman, said there has never been a "deal" with Katherine.

Oxman said if Joe doesn't get the allowance he's after, Michael would have breached a contract he had with daddy and that's why he'd then file a creditor's claim. Oxman didn't elaborate on what kind of contract MJ made with Joe.

And then there's this. Katherine Jackson's lawyer said Katherine doesn't object to Joe getting an allowance, but was quick to add that Joe has no legal standing to appear in probate court.

Read more: http://www.tmz.com/#ixzz0WV0Fu16s
Click to expand...

If Joe actually had a physical contract, he could have presented that initially. All he has is 'Kate used to give me money when Michael was alive and so Michael's estate should do the same.'

Trish said:
And now it is over:

The judge in the Michael Jackson estate case just put a quick stop to Joe Jackson's objections to the will and to the executors -- in a nutshell, the judge said Joe had no dog in the fight ... no legal standing.

Read more: http://www.tmz.com/#ixzz0WV7POzQ4
Click to expand...

Thank God. :clapping::clapping::clapping:

Katherine withdrew her objections so hopefully we will have some peace.
 
wow estate lawyer is being real nice - he said that they would come together with all the lawyers involved and will discuss whether or not give joe an allowance.
 
Thank god that's over. Joe is an ass and I cant believe he even tried to do this. He's just proved why Mike cut him out of the will.
 
It's nice to see the estate lawyers and Katherine lawyers working together. Michael would want this... Michael is looking down on his mother and smiling right now.
 
(from the live TMZ stream outside the courtroom) In response to a reporter's question "was Joe Jackson's filing these papers motivated by Mrs. Jackson's change in representation?" ...........Streisand said, "yes"

in other words, once she changed lawyers....the confrontation started.
 
Trish said:
It's nice to see the estate lawyers and Katherine lawyers working together. Michael would want this... Michael is looking down on his mother and smiling right now.
Click to expand...


I agree. what the lawyers said were so nice, it looks like they are working and getting along together..


ps: I laughed so hard when Mr.streisand said that he heard what joe filed with court from TMZ.
 
THANKS THANKS THANKS THANKS TO MRS. KATHERINE'S LAWYER!! (they really seem like nice people to me)

This crazyness has come to an end..well for now.. (let's hope Joe won,t come back tomorrow with something else!)

VICTORY!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Soso Deaf said:
OMG the man has BALLS! sis u think she's doing this cuz of the debbie rumor? maybe all this movement is making rowe nervous. but this right here would calm me down. shows she's sticking it to joe and finally doing what her son wanted her to do. raise my kids, keep them from my father, andthe money goes to them and to whomever u want it to go to while ur aliv.e


now she says she doesn't care if joe gets money BUT legally, he has no claim so that is up to the judge. so she's not saying no in open court but she knows he won't get any. and the kids are too young to make a decision like that. branca and mcclainhave no reason to agree to that since joe is threatening them.

so does oxman defend everyone in that family? randy jermaine and now joe. wow
Click to expand...

Lord, Hasn't Oxman always kinda been the family lawyer, in some ways?
 
Dude, is this really going on?

I'm gonna go 2 the court and OBJECT the security guard @ the court...well it makes scence since everyone thinks this is Obviously a joke...RIGHT?

I Respect Joe As a father, but DUDE, YOU NEED TO GET OFF what ever ur on(and I really say that with L.O.V.E.) The will Can NOT and will NOT be changed...Why dont the others sibilings help him out?...oh, I know, Cuz THEY are Broke...I mean really! The only ppl. i'll trust from now on are Janet, Rabbie and Mrs. Kathrine Jackson.

This Circus needs to stop. Esp. Billie Jean? Wtf?:wtf: i mean Really?What in the H*LL has the world come to?

I'm just gonna stop talking now cuz My fingers are tired...for real!

L.O.V.E.
Romi
 
Carinemjj said:
THANKS THANKS THANKS THANKS TO MRS. KATHERINE'S LAWYER!! (they really seem like nice people to me)

This crazyness has come to an end..well for now.. (let's hope Joe won,t come back tomorrow with something else!)

VICTORY!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

That's what he had his sights on Michael's children...MONEY!!!! that man has to go. Way to go Ms Katherine!!!
Oh and while yoi're there in court get a restaining order for Joe for at least the next 10 yrs.
 
Last edited:
Trish said:
The attorney for the estate said this is WHY Michael trusted his mother so much. Ultimately she does the RIGHT THING. :yes:
Click to expand...

So true. She is a strong woman who does right by her beloved son. I'm so happy that she stood up for Michael but also for herself. This can't have been easy but being the strong woman she is, she just showed them all not to mess with her and Mike.
 
Adam F. Streisand
Partner and Chair, Trust and Estate Litigation Practice Group

Adam Streisand is a trial lawyer who focuses his practice on disputes involving trusts, decedents’ estates and conservatorships; the obligations of fiduciaries such as trustees, executors, conservators, attorneys and other professionals; accountant and legal malpractice; tax litigation; and copyright and intellectual property disputes. In addition to his law practice, Mr. Streisand is active in charitable work. He founded the Fund for the Future of Sri Lanka's Orphans, which helped to build an orphanage for the victims of the 2004 tsunami.

Trusts & Estates Magazine says Mr. Streisand "is a trial lawyer renowned for his courtroom victories in celebrity estates." The Daily Journal says Mr. Streisand's C.V. "is a lawyer's resume on steroids." He is named as one of the Top 100 Attorneys in Trusts and Estates in the country by Worth magazine. He was named one of the top 100 attorneys in Los Angeles by the Los Angeles Business Journal. He is named in The Best Lawyers in America published by Woodward/White, Inc. He was named one of the top 500 trial lawyers in the country by Lawdragon 500. He is a Fellow of the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel, the former Executive Editor of the California Trusts and Estates Quarterly, a member of the Executive Committee of the California State Bar Trusts and Estates Section, an attorney member of the National College of Probate Judges, a member of the Advisory Board of the UCLA/CEB Estate Planning Institute, a member of the CEB Estate Planning Advisory Committee, a member of the Planning Committee of the USC Probate and Trust Conference, a faculty member of the National Institute for Trial Advocacy (NITA) where he teaches trial skills to practicing attorneys, and a frequent author and speaker on topics related to trust and estate litigation.
Representative Experience
Mr. Streisand is well known for his victories in courtroom battles over celebrity estates, including the estates of Ray Charles, Marlon Brando, Rodney Dangerfield and Barry White. Mr. Streisand represents Larry Birkhead in the Estate of Anna Nicole Smith. He represented Britney Spears in her conservatorship proceedings. Mr. Streisand also authored Senate Bill 771 on behalf of the Marilyn Monroe estate, establishing the descendibility of a celebrity's name, image and likeness to the celebrity's heirs. Mr. Streisand is equally well known for his success in some of the most complex cases in the probate courts. He won an eight-figure trial victory, including double damages, on behalf of the trustee, in a complex case over the ownership of 70 real properties and 25 bank and brokerage accounts, unwinding 40 years of fraudulent creditor and tax avoidance schemes (follow the link to the Court of Appeal opinion affirming in full the trial court judgment). In three successive trials against a former trustee, Mr. Streisand won judgments in each case for a total of more than $10 million, double damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. Mr. Streisand won a trial invalidating a trust amendment as the product of undue influence and a violation of the original trust terms, and a trial to remove the trustee involved in the procurement of the instrument. Winning in trial is the best leverage for obtaining favorable settlements. For example, Mr. Streisand obtained a $113 million settlement in an action by family members owning a minority interest in the Farmer Bros. Coffee Company against Roy Farmer who was controlling the company as trustee of family trusts owning a majority block of the stock.

On the defense side, Mr. Streisand has achieved equally outstanding results. He was victorious after a six-week trial in defense of a $25 million surcharge case, arising out of allegations of self-dealing by the trustee in redemptions of the trust's stock and options in a private REIT, among other claims. Mr. Streisand successfully defended corporate trustees in a $57 million surcharge and removal case, alleging self-dealing and irreconcilable conflicts of interest. Mr. Streisand won summary judgment for the trustees of the Mark Hughes Trust in an action to surcharge and remove them based on allegations that as trustees and as officers and directors of Herbalife, the company founded by Mark Hughes, they enacted poison pills, golden parachutes and other anti-takeover devices to entrench and enrich themselves at the expense of the beneficiary. Mr. Streisand won four motions in a row, until the case was dismissed in its entirety, for the primary beneficiary and fiduciaries of the nine-figure estate of a prominent British Lord. Plaintiffs claimed that the estate's representatives transferred assets through a worldwide web of trusts to deprive plaintiffs of their inheritance. Mr. Streisand successfully defended the National Parkinson Foundation in a trial of a will contest by disgruntled beneficiaries claiming that the decedent improperly revoked his participation in mutual wills. The case was affirmed on appeal by the Second District Court of Appeal at 2003 WL198712. Mr. Streisand won a trial of a will contest alleging fraud, undue influence and lack of testamentary capacity concerning the $60 million estate of a prominent Canadian businessman. Mr. Streisand successfully defended the estate of an octogenarian against a claim by an exotic dancer in her twenties that the decedent promised to leave half of his estate to her.

Some of Mr. Streisand’s other victories in celebrity and entertainment cases include his victory in obtaining the dismissal of palimony claims by Coco Johnson against comedian and talk-show host Bill Maher. Mr. Streisand won summary judgment in the U.S. District Court for the Beastie Boys and Capitol Records in a landmark copyright case involving digital sampling and affirmance on appeal in the 9th Circuit. Newton v. Diamond, et al., 349 F.3d 591 (9th Cir. 2003), 204 F.Supp.2d 1244 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (follow the link to see the 9th Circuit opinion). Mr. Streisand won a multi-million dollar judgment in an arbitration by proving that Franchise Pictures breached a distribution agreement for the motion picture "Plan B" starring Diane Keaton. On behalf of famed ocean explorer Jacques Yves Cousteau, Mr. Streisand obtained a permanent injunction in an action against his son Jean-Michel Cousteau to protect against the commercialization of the Cousteau name by its use in connection with a Fiji resort.

http://www.loeb.com/adam_streisand/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top