shimar
Proud Member
Yes he will squander it like before.
The MJ3 won't see a penny of anything by the time they become of adult age.
Latest on MJJC
- Latest Michael Jackson News
- Click Here to Join Our Community
- Follow us on X
- Wanna talk Michael? Come join the chat rooms
- The Michael Jackson Chart Watch
- Become an MJJC Patron
- Join the Premium Member Group and Get Lot's of Extra's
- Major Love Prayer - Worldwide Monthly Prayer Every 25th
- MJJC Exclusive Q&A - We talk to the family and those in and around Michael
- Join us in the Chat Rooms
- Find us on Facebook
Jackson's Will -- Randy Says Not MJ's Signature
- Thread starter Erikmjfan
- Start date
Yes he will squander it like before.
The MJ3 won't see a penny of anything by the time they become of adult age.
shimar
Proud Member
And I'm very very sorry you had to go through that.
I hope you won in the end.
Now you know why I'm so mad about this - by law, children are #1 or have equal bearing to a spouse under the law - unless a will specifies otherwise.
Wish you the best of luck in your situation.
mistty4m
Proud Member
Well i'm sure michael kids wouldn't want to be known as MJ3, sound more like a clain.
And if I'm banned & if I have to quit this board - nothing can shake the feeling from me that MJs kids are being hosed by their uncles - and Grandma Kate is unfortunately letting them make decisions for her.
This is what I replying to attacking his mother.
mistty4m
Proud Member
shimar
Proud Member
Like I said, I'm NOT attacking Katherine. In fact, I feel very sorry for her.
And I stand firm with feeling she's being heavily misguided by her other sons - all to get more money off the estate.
The estate belong to MJs kids. Katherine is a short-term beneficiary and when her time comes - her share goes back to the MJ3.
ANd the brothers are fuming and frothing at the mouth over this.
Not to mention, that now Paris, Mike Jr. and Blanket pay most, if not, ALL of Havenhurst's expenses, including all the money they give Katherine, which she in turn gives to her lazy sons & grandchildren WHO STILL LIVE THERE.
There are at least 15-20 Jacksons that live in Havenhurst. WHY should MJs kids pay their bills?
shimar
Proud Member
:clapping:
Good for you!!!
I sure hope that the MJ3 have someone to fight for them instead of that public attorney the court appointed.
Why can't the kids get a fierce attorney representing them?
It's their money, they should have the choice in the most competent legal counsel!!
mistty4m
Proud Member
Oh you mean Prince Michael, Paris and Blanket.
All I needed was proof to show I was telling the truth.
HemlockDevi
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 563
- Points
- 0
Just as I predicted. The Jackson's are "bad" The lawyers and SONY are MJ "friends" and get all control and if Katherine objects she get's zero.
Suddenly Debbie is "the perfect Mother"
Just as I told you all back in July.
Yes the will is a fraud but when your group controls Hollywood and the Media "you are always right." This is why he was killed.
PS
Murray is still free as I told this also.
Prediction The children will be removed from their Black relatives soon . Yes Race is a factor here.
You will see this too happen with your usual excuses of
"this is the way MJ wanted things."
Suddenly Debbie is "the perfect Mother"
Just as I told you all back in July.
Yes the will is a fraud but when your group controls Hollywood and the Media "you are always right." This is why he was killed.
PS
Murray is still free as I told this also.
Prediction The children will be removed from their Black relatives soon . Yes Race is a factor here.
You will see this too happen with your usual excuses of
"this is the way MJ wanted things."
MichaelsBlackPanther79
Proud Member
Mrs. Jackson is not dead yet. The will says 40% is hers until she dies, so no MJ's 3 kids aren't paying the bills Mrs. Jackson. She can do whatever she wants with that money until of course she dies, so I am not getting how MJ's kids are paying the bills...
parli123
Proud Member
Excuse me? These are Michael's Children and they are the sole beneficiaries of his Estate.
I do not think that the Law in California will allow that. Dont care what anyone says..
Michael loved his children, he lived for them only.Do not forget that. YES it is their money..Damn!!
I do not think that the Law in California will allow that. Dont care what anyone says..
Michael loved his children, he lived for them only.Do not forget that. YES it is their money..Damn!!
MichaelsBlackPanther79
Proud Member
I agree with what you are saying....
parli123
Proud Member
I do not think the children will be removed from their Black relatives..Stop this!! It will not happen..These are Michael's Children...
mistty4m
Proud Member
I don't believe they will be removed from their family also, that's too much stress to remove them from their grandmother.
mistty4m
Proud Member
Dealing with fraud myself it do matter where it was sign and the witness can't afford to make any mistakes when it come to court document with dealing with michael's will.
I had to handle my own mother's will and every little thing count when it come to showing proof of everything.
In my opinion dealing also with a greedy attorney's myself handle our family "class action lawsuit" regarding the graveyard cases in california, regarding my aunt and family, these case was all over the news and it was very big issue.
After our case was over both attorney's was fighting over who got paid more then the other and one attorney warn me and my mother the other one is come out of this case like a fat rat.
I found this a little strange just wanted to search the net and found this, funny how these two signatures look just a like.
I posted this early, this is how easy someone can fake signature, just do a search online you can fan this michael jackson signature online by searching google and compare it to the will.
mistty4m
Proud Member
I agree about doctor murray should be in jail but his still free, I believe if there is any MJ groups protesting about michael's death this is the person they need to start focusing on now.
It's easy to get off track and don't focus on the main issue at hand.
Superstition
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 2,521
- Points
- 63
The situation is jacked.
If he had a will and its not honored, then what does that say? If the will was forged or falsified, then that too sucks.
There's no winning or losing in these situations it seems.
If he had a will and its not honored, then what does that say? If the will was forged or falsified, then that too sucks.
There's no winning or losing in these situations it seems.
Me too. Actually though I think there are even better ones (same day with Al Sharpton) from here which are dated June 6th. Grace is there taking loads of pictures & Karen is with him too. I love his suit. :wub:You can tell the crowds love him. I wish I had been there. There are about 100 pics on this site:
link:
http://www.mjjpictures.com/main.html
I do not see Trudy Green there though. I looked for her in the video of the interview with Rita Cosby. You would think as his manager she would have been there, unless she had been fired earlier as RF reported on July 15, 2002.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,57706,00.html
RF has her back later in the year & leaving in 2003.
link:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80404,00.html
There is chaos in the world of Michael Jackson. On Monday he fired his longtime adviser and attorney John Branca. By fax, of all things.
For Branca, the sudden news came just as Jackson's manager, Trudy Green, left the singer. Last week, Jackson also fired his longtime accountant, Barry Siegel, as well. (All parties declined to comment.)
Everything is a little bit curious to me.
princessleia
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 133
- Points
- 0
This whole thing is driving me crazy. I really don't know what to think, I don't like what any of the sides are doing.
I won't say anything about the family because it's been discussed so much already.
But on the other hand, I don't like how the judge just approved Branca & McClain's motion without any serious discussions, without a lawyer for the other party being present. The judge could have easily allowed some time for
the new lawyer to come up with his arguments, it's not like the estate would have suffered some irreparable harm if this decision is delayed by a week or so. Especially in a situation where the will could be invalid. I know that no such arguments were formally presented in court, but still. Maybe I'm just influenced by the fact that in my country, a will with a "mistake' like that would be thrown out of court without any further questions asked. I understand it works different in the US, but this still bothers me. For all we know, some concerns of the family could be legitimate, despite everything that's said about them. I'm all for keeping Branca & co as executors, but they shouln't be left uncontrolled.
Does anyone know exactly what new powers the executors got with this new court decision? The news articles only say they will be able to make "day-to-day" decisions on their own and only go to court for approval concerning the "biggest decisions" (per TMZ) but what exactly does that mean? What is considered a big decision? So far, the
executors asked for approval on deals like the Moonwalker book or the AEG/Sony movie deal and the memorabilia deal, are these considered day-to-day or big decisions? If the new ruling means they no longer have to seek approval for deals like this, then I'm concerned. If someone here has a legal background and could clear that up, I'd really
appreciate that, because this motion/ruling doesn't seem to be available on the net.
I'm asking this because While all this hoopla about the will is going on, the executors are negotiating some really significant deals that will have long term effects, ie. they're negotiating with Sony about the rights to the unrealeased masters, and the negotiations are supposed to be in the final stages. Also, wasn't it mentioned in one documentary that Sony/ATV is up for renewal in September of this year? I'm not sure what that means to be honest, but if that's so, who's negotiating that and what exactly are they negotiating? The debts will also have to be refinanced in 2010, I assume around March/May, which is not that far away, so surely there are already plans/negotiations about that. All these issues are really significant and I sure hope they are not considered day-to-day decisions that the executors can make without court approval while negotiating with the family, otherwise the executors are in a position to drag out the negotiations and set things in stone before the family has any say.
I truly hope that the executors are 100% representing Michael's interests and makeing the best deals possible, but it would be great if someone more knowledgable than me could explain what powers they have exactly.
I won't say anything about the family because it's been discussed so much already.
But on the other hand, I don't like how the judge just approved Branca & McClain's motion without any serious discussions, without a lawyer for the other party being present. The judge could have easily allowed some time for
the new lawyer to come up with his arguments, it's not like the estate would have suffered some irreparable harm if this decision is delayed by a week or so. Especially in a situation where the will could be invalid. I know that no such arguments were formally presented in court, but still. Maybe I'm just influenced by the fact that in my country, a will with a "mistake' like that would be thrown out of court without any further questions asked. I understand it works different in the US, but this still bothers me. For all we know, some concerns of the family could be legitimate, despite everything that's said about them. I'm all for keeping Branca & co as executors, but they shouln't be left uncontrolled.
Does anyone know exactly what new powers the executors got with this new court decision? The news articles only say they will be able to make "day-to-day" decisions on their own and only go to court for approval concerning the "biggest decisions" (per TMZ) but what exactly does that mean? What is considered a big decision? So far, the
executors asked for approval on deals like the Moonwalker book or the AEG/Sony movie deal and the memorabilia deal, are these considered day-to-day or big decisions? If the new ruling means they no longer have to seek approval for deals like this, then I'm concerned. If someone here has a legal background and could clear that up, I'd really
appreciate that, because this motion/ruling doesn't seem to be available on the net.
I'm asking this because While all this hoopla about the will is going on, the executors are negotiating some really significant deals that will have long term effects, ie. they're negotiating with Sony about the rights to the unrealeased masters, and the negotiations are supposed to be in the final stages. Also, wasn't it mentioned in one documentary that Sony/ATV is up for renewal in September of this year? I'm not sure what that means to be honest, but if that's so, who's negotiating that and what exactly are they negotiating? The debts will also have to be refinanced in 2010, I assume around March/May, which is not that far away, so surely there are already plans/negotiations about that. All these issues are really significant and I sure hope they are not considered day-to-day decisions that the executors can make without court approval while negotiating with the family, otherwise the executors are in a position to drag out the negotiations and set things in stone before the family has any say.
I truly hope that the executors are 100% representing Michael's interests and makeing the best deals possible, but it would be great if someone more knowledgable than me could explain what powers they have exactly.
Memefan
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 5,382
- Points
- 0
the new powers were given on october 2nd. Katherine's lawyers had presented their arguments then, but the judge rejected them. The judge had given the exec new power to overview day to day business, review lawysuits against the estate etc.
Branca & McClain went back to court because they wanted the judge to write everything he said on ocrober 2nd on papers.
Apparently, Katherine's lawyers were not paying attention in court on october 2nd, and were questionning B&M's decisions. They went back to the judge and ask him to write down everything he said previously....so the Randy & co can understand once and for all.
From Octoer 2nd:
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff gave attorney John Branca and music executive John McClain powers over the estate which allow them to consider claims from people who say the singer owed them money.
They can also enter into business deals that are not opposed by the singer’s mother, Katherine Jackson, 79, and can represent the estate in several court cases that were pending against the entertainer when he died.
The judge made the ruling despite the objections of lawyers for Katherine Jackson, the singer’s mother.
She wants a Jackson family member added to the team administering the estate which is expected to be worth more than £300 million.
Mr Branca and Mr McClain were named by Jackson as co-executors in a 2002 will.
Two weeks after the singer's sudden death on June 25, Judge Beckloff gave temporary control of the estate to them.
Katherine Jackson, 79, is a beneficiary of the estate, along with the singer's three children and charities.
Her lawyers have said she wants a greater say in decisions made by Mr Branca and McClain.
In his latest ruling Judge Beckloff extended the co-executors’ control over the singer’s financial affairs until at least January. However, he also urged them to settle differences with Mrs Jackson.
Howard Weitzman, a lawyer for the estate, said: “The judge has made it very clear that he'd love us to arrive at some settlement. So I think he has given us a clear mandate on how he thinks we should proceed. If we can do it within his parameters, great. And if not, then there'll be a trial.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...ckson-executors-retain-control-of-estate.html
Memefan
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 5,382
- Points
- 0
the new powers were given on october 2nd. Katherine's lawyers had presented their arguments then, but the judge rejected them. The judge had given the exec new power to overview day to day business, review lawysuits against the estate etc.
Branca & McClain went back to court on thursday october 22nd, because they wanted the judge to write everything he said on October 2nd on papers.
Apparently, Katherine's lawyers were not paying attention in court on october 2nd, and were questioning B&M's decisions. They went back to the judge and ask him to write down everything he said previously....so the Randy & co can understand once and for all.
From Octoer 2nd:
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff gave attorney John Branca and music executive John McClain powers over the estate which allow them to consider claims from people who say the singer owed them money.
They can also enter into business deals that are not opposed by the singer’s mother, Katherine Jackson, 79, and can represent the estate in several court cases that were pending against the entertainer when he died.
The judge made the ruling despite the objections of lawyers for Katherine Jackson, the singer’s mother.
She wants a Jackson family member added to the team administering the estate which is expected to be worth more than £300 million.
Mr Branca and Mr McClain were named by Jackson as co-executors in a 2002 will.
Two weeks after the singer's sudden death on June 25, Judge Beckloff gave temporary control of the estate to them.
Katherine Jackson, 79, is a beneficiary of the estate, along with the singer's three children and charities.
Her lawyers have said she wants a greater say in decisions made by Mr Branca and McClain.
In his latest ruling Judge Beckloff extended the co-executors’ control over the singer’s financial affairs until at least January. However, he also urged them to settle differences with Mrs Jackson.
Howard Weitzman, a lawyer for the estate, said: “The judge has made it very clear that he'd love us to arrive at some settlement. So I think he has given us a clear mandate on how he thinks we should proceed. If we can do it within his parameters, great. And if not, then there'll be a trial.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...ckson-executors-retain-control-of-estate.html
Last edited:
elusive moonwalker
Guests
someone want to explain the reason for this being faked? does branca get 80% of the estate in it? no. was the 97 will faked cause it says exactly the same as the 02 one. there is no logic behind it except for gready ppl who are pissed that they arent getting anything from it so will try anything to discredit it. yet if the 02 will is discredited in comes the 97 one which is exactly the same bar the kids being in it cause some of them werent born then
Memefan
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 5,382
- Points
- 0
I agree.
Someone wrote Randy might get the kids to testify against their father. How exactly will he get kids that were, 5, 4 & 1 to say their dad was an addict? And just looking at the pictures posted above, MJ walking the streets of Harlem with Sharpton, how are they gonna convince the judge he wasn't sound of mind?
They have videos of him around that time. He was protesting one of the most powerful man in the music industry...yet, they claim Branca who wasn't even there at during the signature of the will, influenced MJ.
how are they gonna prove undue influence???
Grace was in Harlem with MJ...so the family might get her to testify in support of their forgery claim in exchange of her being in the kids' lives.
marc_vivien
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,176
- Points
- 38
one question :
if the 2002 will is void, what will happen to Paris & Blanket ? They will not be heirs anymore ?
if the 2002 will is void, what will happen to Paris & Blanket ? They will not be heirs anymore ?
elusive moonwalker
Guests
suppose.but prince is hardly gonna run off with everything is he
elusive moonwalker
Guests
they cant thats why they are going down this route now. was he not in sound mind in 97 as its the same will?
princessleia
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 133
- Points
- 0
Thanks for the explanation Memefan!
Memefan
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 5,382
- Points
- 0
yes...the 1997 will will be probated and the court will ADD BLANKET in. Paris & Prince were included in the 1997 will, only Blanket wasn't for obvious reason.
Very similar to what happened in the Anna Nicole Smith case.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/02/16/smith.ruling/index.html
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKN0451906520080304
williamorange1
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 783
- Points
- 0
yeah the 1997 will will be probated and the other two kids will be included . no worry at all . as someone said before the fmily is using the media to force the executors to accept Randy as a third executors, obviously Branca does not buy all their threats . they have no case whatever and even if they succeeded , the 1997 will is the same . Branca will still run the show.
Gaiaschild
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 650
- Points
- 0
I doubt it, if the will is found to be invalid, and Branca suspect of being involved with fraud, he will not be allowed to be executor, surely. This would not be allowed in normal circumstances but it seems anything is possible in Michaels' world
Memefan
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 5,382
- Points
- 0
they wish someone like Branca would be as conniving as they are. This man has been in the business for years, with many high profile clients...you think he would put all his life's work on the line? That something joe & his remnant sons would do.
Branca has a stellar career. The Jacksons had MJ's stipends.
Branca wasn't even there for the 2002 will. McClain was a witness, but Branca wasn't there.