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

[AnnieRUOkay89]

well, he is as talented as 50 cent , how about that ? :smilerolleyes: MJ also said he was stupid , how about that ? :mello: I'm very selective I choose to believe he is not talented and stupid , how about that ?:smilerolleyes:

Well in all fairness, "One More Chance" is a good tune.

 

[Memefan]

There is a pic that is dated on the 8th.
http://www.life.com/image/942261

digg
submit it

Michael Jackson Vs. Sony Hip Hop Summit

NEW YORK - JULY 9: Recording artist Michael Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton participate in the Michael Jackson Vs. Sony Hip Hop Summit at the National Action Network headquarters July 8, 2002 in New York City. Jackson contends that current music industry contract conventions are unfair for recording artists.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5SD...AD0DBCF1&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=37



MJ also did an interview with Rita Cosby on the evening of 6th after the event with Al Sharpton. Rita also talked about it on the 7th on Fox.

One should keep in mind that this was a 4th of July holiday weekend and the 7th was a Sunday.
link:
http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/...th=7&country=1

Here is another pic of that weekend with no date:

http://www.mtv.co.uk/artists/michael-jackson/gallery/121766-michael-jackson-through-the-years?$122317$*%20Channels
Michael Jackson Through The Years

Michael Jackson met with Rev. Al Sharpton about unfairness and racism in the music industry, Harlem, NY July 2002





I for one think the will is fake. Malnik claimed he had a will dated 2003-4, which he has never produced. I think he has made a deal with Weitzman & Branca. IMO they are crooks. MJ at one time even thought Malnik & Mottola were in it together. Both have mafia ties & as I recall so does Dileo.

By Randy exposing this will, we will get closer to the truth & vindicate MJ at last.

It could be MJ never had a will. Lots of people don't until they are well into their 60's if ever. They think its bad luck & don't want to think about it.

Does anyone have a copy of the 1997 will?

Well, apparently, LIFE got that picture wrong.

Sharpton said it was the 6th & the 9th.

Try Google:

Getty who owns the image says July 9th, 2002

NEW YORK - JULY 9: Members of the press wait for recording artist Michael Jackson to depart the Michael Jackson Vs. Sony Hip Hop Summit July 9, 2002 at the National Action

Anyway, regardless of the date...the question is about the signature. Regardless where the will was signed, MJ's signature is on it, therefore it is valid and HIS CHILDREN will inherit his money.

Randy is desperate. What next? He will try to question the Michael Jackson Family trust. The trust is as important as the will, and it is the trust that determine who gets what (or in Randy's case who doesn't get nada).

 

[williamorange1]

after he said the kids are not mj's ( Oxman and Lester and 90 % of the jackson family ) , after he said mj was a junkie and a drugged up idiot ( all of them ), after he claimed the the will was not signed by MJ , WHAT IS NEXT ? what should we expect next Randy ?

 

[jrsfan]

How? Can you connect the dots between Branca & Dr. Murray?

I'm curious to see what you say.

I am so glad you asked. I did not mean to imply connecting dots between Branca & Dr. Murray as I cannot. Perhaps Murray is solely responsible for his death although I think there are lots of ?s. I do believe Sandy & those other fans & their concerns in the weeks before MJ died. I do believe it is very suspicious that Branca comes back just before he dies. There is a lot of other suspicious stuff such as the rumors about how ill he was in Dec-Jan. Other stuff too.

The dots I do see are between Weitzman, Pellicano & Fields regarding the 93 case (which I followed closely) & I think they are responsible for that fiasco. I think Pellicano worked with Chandler to extort MJ & Chandler got greedy & MJ wouldn't deal. Pellicano was working both sides with the tabloids & the lawyers. I don't believe the lawyers didn't know about it. Here are some of my links to support it:

http://gawker.com/5031386/tom-cruises-aggressive-private-investigator

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0056947/news

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlLA/studio_film/pi_paul_barresi_takes_on_scientology_91137.asp


http://www.hollywoodinterrupted.com/archives/just_in_wrestling_with_cruise.phtml


http://www.hollywoodinterrupted.com...ual_tom_cruise_and_more_scandal_chapter.phtml

http://www.williampavelic.com/2007/...dealing-made-him-hollywoods-top-investigator/

“If you find dirt on a celebrity, then you go to the attorney, or directly to the client, and say, ‘Hey, there’s a story brewing with the tabs, we need to quash it: Most celebrities are not gonna hesitate, because a celebrity is the most naive, infantile person in the world. They get preferential treatment, but if boulders fall on their head in real life, they don’t know what to do, other than dig deep into their pockets,” says Barresi. “Pellicano was the master of getting them to do that–the celebrity never knew how simple it was to put a fire out, or that sometimes there was never really a fire in the first place. There would be a story brewing, but the reporter couldn’t nail it down. So Pellicano would light the fire. He was the arsonist—and then he’d come back and put the fire out.”



They did alot of wiretapping which Pellicano is now in prison for. Faxes & cell phone convos can also be tapped. I think with all their wiretapping they came across business information which I believe they used with their clients which would be more profitable & less risky than dealing with tabloids. This is in IMO what Weitzman needs to cover up. Weitzman made at least several televisions appearances that I saw to say that Pellicano wasn't going to roll over on people even though he was not his lawyer.

interesting links:
.” http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/01/business/01pellicano.html

Ron Meyer, pres of Universal Studios

http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewnews.asp?id=19104

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190789,00.html

Weitzman leaving Fields

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-436.html
warrant for Pellicano

http://www.lukeford.net/profiles/profiles/anthony_pellicano.htm

http://sinhablar.com/blog/2006/04/18/pellicano-and-donald-re/

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-08-18/business/fi-36573_1_bad-cop

Weitzman hired by MCA, Ron Meyer connection

http://articles.latimes.com/1998/apr/07/business/fi-36788

Weitzman, Meyer - Weitzman left Universal Studios

http://www.royblack.com/tv/transcripts/abrams_dec3_03.html

Abrams questions whether Pellicano gave MJ bad advice

ABRAMS: Yes, which they say it is. All right, let's move on. Case two, moving on to Mark Geragos' other big client, Michael Jackson. Defense sources telling me that they're doing a number of things. They are beginning their investigation. One of the things they're doing is they're looking into private investigator Anthony Pellicano now serving time in a federal prison. Now we've known that this was going to come up because he was retained by Jackson back in 1993 when another boy made accusations of molestation. That case was settled. It will probably come up in the new case. The D.A. today saying he expects that it will and now they're investigating whether Pellicano may have given Michael Jackson some bad advice and whether he might have had a motive to do that. Roy Black, they going to make any hay out of this? Could they make any hay out of this?
BLACK: Well Dan you know I've heard the same thing that you have. I find it hard to connect that to the particular case. Let's fact it, Pellicano is pretty down right now and everyone is kicking him. The thing I would be worried about if I was on the Jackson side is whether Pellicano would cooperate in order to get some type of sentence reduction.
ABRAMS:And when you say cooperate, you mean turn on his former client?
BLACK: Sure. That happens all the time. As soon as somebody gets in prison they're always looking for a way out and it would certainly be to his benefit to cooperate with the prosecution in Santa Barbara if they would allow the feds to reduce his sentence.
ABRAMS: Howard Weitzman, is this going to be a big issue or not?

WEITZMAN: Well listen, you may recall I'm responsible for Pellicano coming to Los Angeles. I hired him...

ABRAMS: Right.

WEITZMAN: ... (UNINTELLIGIBLE) case in 1982. I think the chances of Anthony turning on any of the lawyers or any of the clients is zero. I don't think that's his frame of mind. I represented Michael in 1993. I was part of the team when Johnnie Cochran was hired. To the best of my knowledge there was nothing inappropriate done by Pellicano or anyone in those proceedings.

ALLRED: That would be a pretty pathetic defense if Michael Jackson tried it. It's a kind of a variation of the devil made me do it. Anthony Pellicano made me do it...
ABRAMS: Maybe he was working both sides of the fence. Maybe he was engaging in improper conduct and as a result gave Michael Jackson bad advice.

ALLRED: I mean if this is all that Michael Jackson's got he's in bigger trouble than we thought.
BLACK: But...

BLACK: But he wasn't a lawyer.

BLACK: Getting bad advice from a private investigator really is not going to take you very far.
WEITZMAN: Yes.

ABRAMS: Go ahead, Howard, you want to say something?

WEITZMAN: I was just going to say I don't think Pellicano is going to surface in this case. I don't think there's any nexus, any connection, and I don't think you will find him involved if they allow any of the allegations in the prior case to come into evidence...

ABRAMS: All right.

WEITZMAN: ... in the 2003 case.

ABRAMS: Yes or no answer from each one of you. Roy Black, will the Michael Jackson case go to trial?
BLACK: Yes, but I don't think they have enough.
ABRAMS: Howard Weitzman?

WEITZMAN: I predict we haven't seen enough to answer that question. This seems to be imploding on a daily bases. I think it depends on what else surfaces. I'll tell you this. I don't think Michael will make a deal. And if it doesn't implode from the government side, it will go to trial.

ABRAMS: Gloria.

ALLRED: I think the answer is yes Dan. I don't think that the D.A. would have decided to charge it and file it if in fact he didn't think he had enough at least to go to trial.

ABRAMS: My prediction that that case will not go to trial. I can't tell you exactly how or what's going to happen. I'm just feeling it. But I'm always wrong. Roy Black, Howard Weitzman, Gloria Allred, thanks a lot for coming on the program.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you...
​

http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/nyt-on-ron-meyerpellicano-friendship/
Ron Meyer connection to Pellicano

I would like to see MJ's name cleared for his children's sake.

 

[jrsfan]

Well, apparently, LIFE got that picture wrong.

Sharpton said it was the 6th & the 9th.

Try Google:

Getty who owns the image says July 9th, 2002

NEW YORK - JULY 9: Members of the press wait for recording artist Michael Jackson to depart the Michael Jackson Vs. Sony Hip Hop Summit July 9, 2002 at the National Action

Anyway, regardless of the date...the question is about the signature. Regardless where the will was signed, MJ's signature is on it, therefore it is valid and HIS CHILDREN will inherit his money.

Randy is desperate. What next? He will try to question the Michael Jackson Family trust. The trust is as important as the will, and it is the trust that determine who gets what (or in Randy's case who doesn't get nada).

From what I understand he gets nada either way. If the will is invalid, everything goes to the kids, they would inherit everything. The courts would appoint someone to represent their interests so they would be protected. MJ's mother would lose & the charities. New executors would be appointed.

Also, you said you saw the 1997 will. Can you give a link please? I have been looking & can't find it. Thanks so much in advance.

 

[williamorange1]

the more legal troubles , the longer the probate goes , which means no money for the beneficiaries except allowance , hopefully the probate goes on for along time . we can agree that 24.000 $ a month for a 100 person is not that much . enjoy it Randy .

 

[marc_vivien]

do you think that the Will will be declared void by the court ?

 

[shimar]

I am so glad you asked. I did not mean to imply connecting dots between Branca & Dr. Murray as I cannot.

Then there is no motive for murder by Branca - Murray killed MJ, but I believe Murray did not act alone OR was framed for it.

You can connect Murray with MJs then close circle, like Dr. Tohme and some Jackson family members, but not Branca.

 

[shimar]

do you think that the Will will be declared void by the court ?

No - but if they do, who suffers are MJs mom and the charities MJ wanted to support.

The kids will inherit 100% of everything and the State of California will be the "executor" of the MJ estate until Mike, Jr. becomes of legal age.

 

[michaelsson]

smh. not surprised,

 

[williamorange1]

no will no executor . the jacksons will then want to be appointed in charge of the kids money and if Debbie does not fight them for custody , they will be appointed in charge of everything . Not because the judge wants it , but because there is no one to challenge them . so no , don't think it is easy and the state of California is gonna protect the kids interests .

 

[shimar]

no will no executor . the jacksons will then want to be appointed in charge of the kids money and if Debbie does not fight them for custody , they will be appointed in charge of everything . Not because the judge wants it , but because there is no one to challenge them . so no , don't think it is easy and the state of California is gonna protect the kids interests .

Not as much - Debbie Rowe IS the closest next of kin to both Paris & Mike Jr., Debbie Rowe IS THEIR MOTHER who never gave up parental rights, and then for Blanket, the next of kin is his brother & sister.

So if Randy & the other Jacksons invalidate the will - they lose EVERYTHING, the kids get it all and the State of California will freeze it all up until they are of legal age and Debbie gets custody of the kids.

 

[marc_vivien]

no will no executor . the jacksons will then want to be appointed in charge of the kids money and if Debbie does not fight them for custody , they will be appointed in charge of everything . Not because the judge wants it , but because there is no one to challenge them . so no , don't think it is easy and the state of California is gonna protect the kids interests .

so, you think that randy can be successful on his new trap

 

[shimar]

so, you think that randy can be successful on his new trap

Randy is under the assumption that Debbie Rowe is not going to fight for her kids.

LOL!!!!!!

Debbie & Katherine are in a very amicable agreement with regards to the children.

But if anybody steps in besides Katherine or a non-appointed guardian like MJ stated in his will, Debbie is going to raise a whole lotta hell.

 

[williamorange1]

but there will be no trust and with no trust the creditors will be able to destroy everything mj built . the state of California can't freeze everything, because there are liabilities and creditors , taxes , they will want to be paid and since there will be no trust to protect the estate , everyone will go after the kids' money .

Debbie will sure fight for the kids then , but what if she did not, what if Randy promised her a cut of the deal . and who said MJ wanted Debbie to be in control of his money .

 

[indranee]

Well, I dont think Randy is lying , why would he lie about his bloodbrother's Will?

:rofl:

 

[williamorange1]

Basically MJ's financial empire will be destroyed without executors , without a trust , without professional people directing the ship .

 

[williamorange1]

you don't understand , Randy is now acting like BIG FUCK YOU MICHAEL . since I'm not ganna get it , ill make sure your kids won't get anything also . the guy is insane ,


could you even imagine the number of people who will claim they are the parents , could you even imagine what Klien will claim then , Lester ....etc

 

[indranee]

Your opinion won't be popular but I agree with you. I know everyone here believes Katherine is a saint, and so let them think that. But I think those three kids would be in better and safer hands with Debbie Rowe. Katherine did her best raising all her kids, and she did do a good job. I give her that. But there are too many forces surrounding her in order to get to the kids which = to lots of $$$$$$.

Debbie isn't perfect but she would take care of all 3 kids like a lioness. She would rip anyone heads off if anyone tried anything with those children. The whole "rumour" about the kids appearing on the reality show started from somewhere. Then when everyone exploded on this site about that idea, a quick announcement was made that it wasn't true.

Yes, Debbie got a lot of money from Michael over the years BUT that was HIS decision. HIS CHOICE.

I think Michael's kids would be better off with Debbie. Some member's of the Jackson family are not sincere about those kid's well being.

And Randy - Enough already!

ITA. but she needs to go for it. and if she does, it would mean she's contesting the will. why did Michael not want Debbie to have the kids? possibly, because he knew she didn't want them. to be honest, I don't mind the idea of her having them at all. I also think she's strong and tough and would protect them and give them a good upbringing. but the kids don't know her at all. hell, they probably still don't know her true identity as it relates to them (they've been banned from the internet, right? thank god). uh... I'll stop talking about this now.

anyway, this is a hot mess. why oh why oh why do things always have to be this way when it comes to Mike?!! god!!

 

[jrsfan]

Basically MJ's financial empire will be destroyed without executors , without a trust , without professional people directing the ship .

I think financially everything would be fine. New, honest professional people would be there. Besides I think Malnik made a deal with Branca & Weitzman & he would be out. He claimed initially he was executor of a 2003 will. He is mafia & never does anything for free.

 

[williamorange1]

if the Jacksons proved that one of the witnesses was not present when mj signed the will , then be sure the will will be declared not valid .

one of the most basic legal requirements for a valid will is for at least two witnesses being all present when the person signs his/her will . they should have witnessed him signing it .

 

[indranee]

There is a pic that is dated on the 8th.
http://www.life.com/image/942261

digg
submit it

Michael Jackson Vs. Sony Hip Hop Summit

NEW YORK - JULY 9: Recording artist Michael Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton participate in the Michael Jackson Vs. Sony Hip Hop Summit at the National Action Network headquarters July 8, 2002 in New York City. Jackson contends that current music industry contract conventions are unfair for recording artists.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5SD...AD0DBCF1&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=37



MJ also did an interview with Rita Cosby on the evening of 6th after the event with Al Sharpton. Rita also talked about it on the 7th on Fox.

One should keep in mind that this was a 4th of July holiday weekend and the 7th was a Sunday.
link:
http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/...th=7&country=1

Here is another pic of that weekend with no date:

http://www.mtv.co.uk/artists/michael-jackson/gallery/121766-michael-jackson-through-the-years?$122317$*%20Channels
Michael Jackson Through The Years

Michael Jackson met with Rev. Al Sharpton about unfairness and racism in the music industry, Harlem, NY July 2002





I for one think the will is fake. Malnik claimed he had a will dated 2003-4, which he has never produced. I think he has made a deal with Weitzman & Branca. IMO they are crooks. MJ at one time even thought Malnik & Mottola were in it together. Both have mafia ties & as I recall so does Dileo.

By Randy exposing this will, we will get closer to the truth & vindicate MJ at last.

It could be MJ never had a will. Lots of people don't until they are well into their 60's if ever. They think its bad luck & don't want to think about it.

Does anyone have a copy of the 1997 will?

aww I love that second pic!! :wub:

 

[indranee]

LOL, LOL. I swear it sounds like the jackson family did something PERSONALLY to you. You can go off on randy but calling him a no talent. LOL. Randy is said to be the most musically gifted of the family. This is something that Michael has said about Randy very often. He was the Jackson resident whiz kid. You sound like a Johnny caome lately fan, who reads Tabloid and comes to spread it on hear and I'm not only talking about this post. If you want I can mail you my mom and my aunts Jackson family magazines and history through the years to educate yourself. You crack me up man.

well if he's so talented he can go make his OWN MUSICAL EMPIRE now, can't he?

he can dang well leave Michael and his will and his three babies alone.

 

[blueocean]

after he said the kids are not mj's ( Oxman and Lester and 90 % of the jackson family ) , after he said mj was a junkie and a drugged up idiot ( all of them ), after he claimed the the will was not signed by MJ , WHAT IS NEXT ? what should we expect next Randy ?

When and where did randy say the michael kids were not michael? and who are you referring to that called michael a junkie? oxman when he said michael was addicted to prescription medication, he did not use the term junkie, or drug up idiot, that is your terminology. and the jackson family have a right to find out if the singnature is michael or was it a forged singnature.

 

[marc_vivien]

if the Jacksons proved that one of the witnesses was not present when mj signed the will , then be sure the will will be declared not valid .

one of the most basic legal requirements for a valid will is for at least two witnesses being all present when the person signs his/her will . they should have witnessed him signing it .

you are not very optimistic

 

[williamorange1]

no I'm not optimistic at all , if indeed MJ signed it and faxed it and there were no witnesses when he signed the will , then Randy have a VERY strong argument .

an unwitnessed will , is valid if it is all handwritten by MJ and signed by him . but mj's will is typed .

 

[marc_vivien]

no I'm not optimistic at all , if indeed MJ signed it and faxed it and there were no witnesses when he signed the will , then Randy have a VERY strong argument .

an unwitnessed will , is valid if it is all handwritten by MJ and signed by him . but mj's will is typed .

Howard Weitzman, an attorney for administrators of the Jackson estate John Branca and John McClain, said in a statement, “Despite any claims to the contrary, we are confident Michael Jackson’s will is valid, that he signed it and that it reflects his wishes. All three witnesses listed on the will recall being present when Michael signed it.”

http://blogs.reuters.com/fanfare/20...istrators-dismiss-questions-about-legal-will/

 

[williamorange1]

When and where did randy say the michael kids were not michael? and who are you referring to that called michael a junkie? oxman when he said michael was addicted to prescription medication, he did not use the term junkie, or drug up idiot, that is your terminology. and the jackson family have a right to find out if the singnature is michael or was it a forged singnature.

Randy said everything he wanted to say through Oxman and Lester . most people on this board got that feeling long time ago . move on please .

 

[williamorange1]

the place of signing is NOT AN ISSUE AT ALL , but the witnesses being present is a BASIC LEGAL REQUIRMENT for a will to be considered valid .

let's hope the witnesses were in New York , or mj was in LA .

 

[williamorange1]

Also important thing , THE DATE is also not of a big deal .