Latest on MJJC

Jackson's Will -- Randy Says Not MJ's Signature

Gaiaschild said:
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
Click to expand...

If there was fraud I would think the executors would change. If there was fraud in this, what else did they do, might be a bigger question.

If the courts decide not to accept the 97 will, everything would just go to the kids in trust. The actual Jackson Family Trust could have changed over the years. Nothing is proven at this point. But if I were Trudy Green, Barry Siegel & John McClain I would be hiring a criminal lawyer just in case.

I don't find the 1997 will anywhere. Does anyone have a copy?
 
Memefan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link that says that he wasn't there?

As far as Branca putting his life's work on the line - perhaps that is the reason he has been so successful - perhaps he has always been shady.

Madoff was very well respected at one time, gave to lots of charities too. Now he is in jail.
 
jrsfan said:
If there was fraud I would think the executors would change. If there was fraud in this, what else did they do, might be a bigger question.

If the courts decide not to accept the 97 will, everything would just go to the kids in trust. The actual Jackson Family Trust could have changed over the years. Nothing is proven at this point. But if I were Trudy Green, Barry Siegel & John McClain I would be hiring a criminal lawyer just in case.

I don't find the 1997 will anywhere. Does anyone have a copy?
Click to expand...

Wrong. There would be no "executor" - the State of California would be the "executor" and freeze up all the assets until the children are of legal age to claim the estate.

100% would go to the kids, Katherine will lose custody, the state will grant their next of kin custody - which is their mother Debbie Rowe, and then they'll be a custody battle over Blanket.

The court could say (which they do) that it's in the best interest to keep the siblings together - and Blanket's "next of kin" is Paris & Mike, Jr.

Debbie wants all the kids to stay together - but unless Debbie adopts Blanket, she has no legal bearing over him.
 
Again, THE JACKSONS DO NOT CARE WHAT "OUTSIDERS" THINK OF THEM.
 
I think you are working for the Jacksons. In your eyes they are God they can do no wrong and Michael owe them all his money..right?
I guess Randy did not make the Estate Bankrupt? right?
 
shimar said:
Wrong. There would be no "executor" - the State of California would be the "executor" and freeze up all the assets until the children are of legal age to claim the estate.

100% would go to the kids, Katherine will lose custody, the state will grant their next of kin custody - which is their mother Debbie Rowe, and then they'll be a custody battle over Blanket.

The court could say (which they do) that it's in the best interest to keep the siblings together - and Blanket's "next of kin" is Paris & Mike, Jr.

Debbie wants all the kids to stay together - but unless Debbie adopts Blanket, she has no legal bearing over him.
Click to expand...


I am no lawyer or anything to do with law, but from what I understand Katherine was given custody not just because of the will, you cannot will children, they would have evaluated the best interests of the children. Most likely that wouldn't change. Prince & Paris are old enough to say where they would like to go.
 
katherine got custody only because Debbie did not object , the minute the judge will be presented with a pic of 5 YERAS old mj dancing in a sex club and another pic of his mama wearing a dimond , the judge wil tell Debbie , what were you thinking ? go get your kids .
 
debbie had every right to those kids. the will, as far as who gets what, is one thing. but custody, the elsest two have a living parent. she chose to go w/ whatmj wanted. but she can change her mind.

she does not need to formally adopt blanket in order to be his guardian. he can choose for her to do it and allow it and agree but that is not needed in order for her to have custody.

simply b/c her next of kin (her two kids)have a next of kin brother who is a minor and they can request they be kept together. and most likely the state will abide by the requst

as for what shimar said, it's spot on. except the trust, the kids' trust would be run by debbie until they are of age.

katherine would lose custody as well as her share of the trust. it would all go tothe kids.

so randyshould shut up right about now unless he want his mama to lose it all.
 
jrsfan said:
I am no lawyer or anything to do with law, but from what I understand Katherine was given custody not just because of the will, you cannot will children, they would have evaluated the best interests of the children. Most likely that wouldn't change. Prince & Paris are old enough to say where they would like to go.
Click to expand...


Katherine Jackson was given custody because Debbie Rowe wanted to respect MJs wishes.

But Debbie has every legal and moral right to her children.
 
Memefan said:
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.
Click to expand...
Paris wasn't included in the 1997 will. She was born in 1998 ;D
 
virginia_woolf said:
Paris wasn't included in the 1997 will. She was born in 1998 ;D
Click to expand...
True. I stand corrected

The point I wanted to make is, IF the 2002 will is deemed invalid by the judge for whatever reason, the 1997 will will be probated.

so Randy has to find a "reason" to challenge the 1997 will...and he still won't get any closer to MJ's money.
 
Soso Deaf said:
it's fraud *gasp* b/c he can't get nothing and his mama can't will him anything when she passes
Click to expand...
It maybe fraud cause michael was in new york with al sharpton at the time the will was signed in los angeles, and al sharpton is working with the jackson family on this so we dont know what al sharptons knows.
 
Memefan said:
True. I stand corrected

The point I wanted to make is, IF the 2002 will is deemed invalid by the judge for whatever reason, the 1997 will will be probated.

so Randy has to find a "reason" to challenge the 1997 will...and he still won't get any closer to MJ's money.
Click to expand...
I can not figure out the reason some of the fans want to over look the obvious just to bash the jackson family, its clear as day the will would be questionable if michael was in one place and the will say is was in another, who would let that go? the 1997 will was updated and that is questionable if it is fraud that is breaking the law. at first when there was no will presented the judge gave katherine temporaily control of the estate, I dont know the legallity if it would go back to her if they prove that the singnature is fraud.
 
TM already reported that the will was signed in New York , and one of the witnesses wrote LA because he thought he had to write the place where mj actually lived .

a mistake in where the will was signed is not enough reason to call it fraud .

especially since the same exact will was signed in 1997 . MJ's signature on each paragrah, plus three witnesses is more than enough evidnece the will is valid .

the jacksons have no chance in hell and they know that very well .
 
nothing will go back to katherine, the judge told her already she should stop acting like she owns anything of that estate , because she does not . that tells you how high the judge thinks of that family .
 
williamorange1 said:
nothing will go back to katherine, the judge told her already she should stop acting like she owns anything of that estate , because she does not . that tells you how high the judge thinks of that family .
Click to expand...
I can understand katherine, she dont trust branca and macain she is going to try and protect her son estate, and once the judge see there evidence he wil have to follow the law and rule by the evidence.
 
williamorange1 said:
TM already reported that the will was signed in New York , and one of the witnesses wrote LA because he thought he had to write the place where mj actually lived .

a mistake in where the will was signed is not enough reason to call it fraud .

especially since the same exact will was signed in 1997 . MJ's signature on each paragrah, plus three witnesses is more than enough evidnece the will is valid .

the jacksons have no chance in hell and they know that very well .
Click to expand...
I believe they have enough evidence to back there claims, and did"nt i read that the witness forget were she was, and that the lawyer for branca did not answer that question. the jackson family and there lawyer's are smart enough to know how the law works. they know they have to prove there case. i am sure they have a lot more evidence
 
*~MJ Loves MJ~* said:
And Randy, if you are reading this, you and your girl-friend need to give me and others the $50 that we so eagerly paid to join MJJ Source. Dammit!!
Click to expand...


I think this should be reported to TMZ about their "star source" Randy - who stiffed thousands of MJ fans without giving their money back.

See how Randy likes it when he goes off blabbing to the media.
 
blueocean said:
I believe they have enough evidence to back there claims, and did"nt i read that the witness forget were she was, and that the lawyer for branca did not answer that question. the jackson family and there lawyer's are smart enough to know how the law works. they know they have to prove there case. i am sure they have a lot more evidence
Click to expand...


With 3 witnesses? I won't be surprised if the judge throws this claim out.

Both 1997 & 2002 wills are valid.

The Jacksons are just mad that Michael didn't leave them anything. Why should he? He gave them everything while he was alive! Millions worth.

They all lived FOR FREE and still live FOR FREE in Havenhurst. And MJs supported most of his nieces & nephews too - because their deadbeat dads were too irresponsible to support their own kids!

Why should the MJ3 keep supporting the entire family like their dad did in life?

It's time for all of them to start paying rent at Havenhurst or GET OUT.
 
shimar said:
With 3 witnesses? I won't be surprised if the judge throws this claim out.

Both 1997 & 2002 wills are valid.

The Jacksons are just mad that Michael didn't leave them anything. Why should he? He gave them everything while he was alive! Millions worth.

They all lived FOR FREE and still live FOR FREE in Havenhurst. And MJs supported most of his nieces & nephews too - because their deadbeat dads were too irresponsible to support their own kids!

Why should the MJ3 keep supporting the entire family like their dad did in life?

It's time for all of them to start paying rent at Havenhurst or GET OUT.
Click to expand...

Shimar, I must say I agree with you. :agree:
 
The Jacksons are very dysfunctional..I think these two men knew the tense relationship MJ had with his family.

If (or when) push come to shove, I hope they don't hesitate to use everything they know to keep the Jacksons from destroying the estate. They owe it to MJ & to his three kids.

Regardless of what impact it will have on the Jacksons' 'wholesome' image.
MJ suffered a lot because of his family...and it is high time they go out and find themselves a job to make their own darn money.
 
Memefan said:
The Jacksons are very dysfunctional..I think these two men knew the tense relationship MJ had with his family.

If (or when) push come to shove, I hope they don't hesitate to use everything they know to keep the Jacksons from destroying the estate. They owe it to MJ & to his three kids.

Regardless of what impact it will have on the Jacksons' 'wholesome' image.
MJ suffered a lot because of his family...and it is high time they go out and find themselves a job to make their own darn money.
Click to expand...
I guess you say they are dysfunctional, and they should let go of the fact that they have evidence? that can prove that branca was fired around the time the will was updated and that michael was in new york and not los angeles. they are smart enough to know that equals fraud and there lawyers know that too.
 
blueocean said:
I guess you say they are dysfunctional, and they should let go of the fact that they have evidence? that can prove that branca was fired around the time the will was updated and that michael was in new york and not los angeles. they are smart enough to know that equals fraud and there lawyers know that too.
Click to expand...

It doesn't when it comes to validating a will.

All it takes is the following:

PROOF that the will was signed by the person giving the will on the date it was signed.

That's it.

Location has nothing to do with it.
 
and they should let go of the fact that they have evidence? that can prove that branca was fired
Click to expand...
well they never brought the evidence to court when they said there were gonna
 
i dont get why ppl are trying to discredit the 02 will. so what u gonna say when the 97 will comes in instead? u gonna try and descredit that aswell. who exactly gains from creating a fasle 02 will that just happened to be the same as the 97 will. the arguements are totally illogical
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top