Katherine Jackson: Statement About Attorney

If branca has his way he will bankrupct the estate like he wanted michael to file for bankruptcy before, so sony can get the catalogue thats what i think brnca goal is, Im glad the jackson family are fighting for the truth. that will get branca out.


More like fighting for the old mighty dollar.

If you are going by the Sony Catalog, you must already know that his own family actually tried to get him to sell it at one point, during the 2005 or 2007. In fact, Randy tried to make him sign it away, when Michael was on trial.

If you do not trust Brance because you think he will sell the Catalog, then you must have the same standard for Michael's family.

Also, like I have stated before, if they had any reasonable proof of wrongdoing, why haven't they presented it in court yet. All we heard is talk and no action.

You can try to defend the family all you like, but if you are basing this solely on the Catalog, that family is not trustworthy either.
 
If you are going by the Sony Catalog, you must already know that his own family actually tried to get him to sell it at one point, during the 2005 or 2007. In fact, Randy tried to make him sign it away, when Michael was on trial.

which is lower than low
 
If branca has his way he will bankrupct the estate like he wanted michael to file for bankruptcy before, so sony can get the catalogue thats what i think brnca goal is, Im glad the jackson family are fighting for the truth. that will get branca out.

Source please?

Thank you
 
If branca has his way he will bankrupct the estate like he wanted michael to file for bankruptcy before, so sony can get the catalogue thats what i think brnca goal is, Im glad the jackson family are fighting for the truth. that will get branca out.
yea right. if the family had control there would be the most cheesy mj products out there, tribute after tribute (a la jermaine), and stupid interviews garnering more money than the ones they 've done so far have garnerd.

they've filed chap. 11 for a reason. they're not good w/ money. branca and mcclain are trying to raise as much as they can for the estate so they can pay off the inheritance tax along w/ the massive debt. they need to prove they can get it down and can pay on it so they don't have to sell the atv.

people act like branca is on his own. he has mcclain there too who has to agree along w/ the attny for the kids and the judge. gosh
 
Last edited:
well considering the amount of money the estate has made since june 25th brancas not doing a very good job of bankrupting the estate is he lol
 
we are not asking them to spend their lives in courts defending mj but at least don't support the people who spread these stories about him . is this too much to ask ?

how come Oxman says publically Lester told the truth and mj lied about that and he end up invited to mj's funeral and set infront of Liz taylor .? How come Rowe who called mj junkie and was actually fired by mj be called to deliever a speech at mj's funeral ?

why ??????????????????????
Also, why was Lisa Marie Presley allowed to come to the funeral, not to mention view Michael's body..AFTER ALL those years of her bashing and disrespecting him in the media.

There were several people at Michael's final funeral that had me scratching my head. I love the Jackson family...but I have to wonder, are they THAT forgiving, or just don't have
a clue, or just don't care? I couldn't stand to look in the direction of anyone who insulted my dead loved one when he was alive. I don't get it.
 
shhhhhhhhhhhh don't say that...it'll ruin the conspiracy theory :doh:

michael did not trust branca, and branca wanted michael to file for bankruptcy back then, if branca had a chance he would make sure sony get the catalogue, branca is on that list of people that was inside michaels camp that was working against him, to help sony take his catalogue. i dont trust branca. I hope the jackson family show that branca and gang is a fraud. there is enough information to show branca for what he is.
 
Also, why was Lisa Marie Presley allowed to come to the funeral, not to mention view Michael's body..AFTER ALL those years of her bashing and disrespecting him in the media.

There were several people at Michael's final funeral that had me scratching my head. I love the Jackson family...but I have to wonder, are they THAT forgiving, or just don't have
a clue, or just don't care? I couldn't stand to look in the direction of anyone who insulted my dead loved one when he was alive. I don't get it.

Unfortunately we are all on the outside looking in so we have no idea other than sound bites and media inference about the nature of these relationships.

Families are complicated and so are relationships. It's hard to really say what's what with any certainty. People fight, fuss, argue and make up all the time, so this may very well be the case here, but we will never really know.
 
michael did not trust branca, and branca wanted michael to file for bankruptcy back then, if branca had a chance he would make sure sony get the catalogue, branca is on that list of people that was inside michaels camp that was working against him, to help sony take his catalogue. i dont trust branca. I hope the jackson family show that branca and gang is a fraud. there is enough information to show branca for what he is.


Like I said, if that was true they would had presented it in court by now if Brance was such a fraud. So far, silence. They have over four mouths, they should had found something by now, unless Brance is some type of evil genius.

You keep supporting the family even though they too wanted Michael to sell the catalogue several times in the past. Randy going as far as to make him sign it away while he was on trial, which had to be the lowest point of Michael's life. So by you logic, the family should not be trusted as well. You cannot have it both ways. Unless you are trying to tell me that if the family sells the catalogue, it is okay because their are family.

Also, if Michael did not trust Brance, then why is god's name is his name in both the 2002 and 1997 will. If you forge a will, why would you make a second one? So you can add the extra child and make it look more real? No, too much of a risk of being caught, unless they are all morons.
 
Who is attacking the family. I gave you my honest opinion on what is already known fact about the family and I even base it on mines.

Sorry, having your 79 years old mother raise your kids with your baby momma when you out selling stories about your dead brother is not cool. I do not care if it was the Jackson, the Clintons, or even Obamas, you do not do stuff like that.

I do have some prejudgement, there is no hiding that, but ever opinion is base on what I have seen with my own eyes, not some tabloid.

Unless they have some solid proof that the will is somehow wrong, they should honor the will and let the mother go back to raising all those kids. I also doubt they the will is forge since they had not directly challenge it since it was brought out. All we heard was noise about this and that, but not came out of it, unless they are waiting or something.

Given the Jackson' known track record, none of them save for Janet, is to be trusted around money. If you think I am basing this on tabloid trash, answer me this. How is that despite all the royalties the brothers get off those Jackson 5 CDs, that they are still broke?

When you have the answer, please reply.

The brothers, according to Margaret Maldonado's book(Jermaine's ex), do not receive royalties from Jackson 5 CDs. Alot of groups when they are just starting out do not have good contracts & are probably just grateful to just be signed. You can find her book, on Jetzi, if you haven't read it. I am sure it was a big disappointment for her, she probably thought she had it made when she married Jermaine, even if he wasn't a big star then. They might get some from the Jacksons, but Jermaine I think, wasn't part of that, maybe at the end.

As far as the will being valid, time will tell. It took 4 years for Tito & his sons to get Bohanna convicted for murdering Deedee. They had to sue civilly first too in order for the police to file charges, is what I recall. It probably helped the police to gather evidence. It was not a money issue, it was for justice.
 
Like I said, if that was true they would had presented it in court by now if Brance was such a fraud. So far, silence. They have over four mouths, they should had found something by now, unless Brance is some type of evil genius.

You keep supporting the family even though they too wanted Michael to sell the catalogue several times in the past. Randy going as far as to make him sign it away while he was on trial, which had to be the lowest point of Michael's life. So by you logic, the family should not be trusted as well. You cannot have it both ways. Unless you are trying to tell me that if the family sells the catalogue, it is okay because their are family.

Also, if Michael did not trust Brance, then why is god's name is his name in both the 2002 and 1997 will. If you forge a will, why would you make a second one? So you can add the extra child and make it look more real? No, too much of a risk of being caught, unless they are all morons.


I don't think MJ trusted Branca, Malnik or Koppelman. MJ was obviously in a cashflow bind during that time period financially as well as being on trial. Randy had apparently found a deal for MJ with Stabler & Dash? at Prescient? as I recall (not in this article) and Branca , Malnik & Koppelman had a Goldman Sachs deal which included selling at least a part of the catalog. Burkle came up with another way which worked without having to sell the catlog. Here is an interesting article about what was going on:

Lots of Conflicting Advice

Jesse Jackson Makes a Pitch

By ETHAN SMITH and KATE KELLY
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
June 8, 2005; Page A1

clip_image001.gif
clip_image002.gif
clip_image003.gif


In the glare of a Santa Maria, Calif., courtroom, pop singer Michael Jackson has been fending off criminal charges of child molestation that threaten his career and his freedom. Behind the scenes, the 46-year-old entertainer is embroiled in an equally critical battle over the future of his financial assets.

Mr. Jackson's other crisis is centered on a seemingly simple question. To escape at least $270 million in debt amassed in support of his unusual lifestyle, should Mr. Jackson sell his stake in a coveted music-publishing catalog?

The answer has not come easily. Mr. Jackson is surrounded by an ever-changing cast of characters, making it difficult to determine who, if anyone, is in charge of his business affairs. One camp has urged Mr. Jackson to sell some of his holding to avert financial disaster. Another group -- which includes supermarket billionaire Ron Burkle -- says such drastic action is unnecessary. More recently, the Rev. Jesse Jackson has emerged as an outspoken advocate for the singer and has personally interceded on his behalf with bank officials.
Meanwhile, according to a person close to the singer, Mr. Jackson's cash reserves ran so low earlier this year that he worried about paying his electric bill.

After two months of backstage maneuvering, Mr. Jackson is, as usual, in an odd spot. The financial fate of the former King of Pop now rests in the hands of a New York-based investment firm that invests in distressed debt. Last month, Fortress Investment Group LLC bought Mr. Jackson's loans outstanding from their holder, Bank of America Corp.

In a written statement, Jackson spokeswoman Raymone K. Bain said the agreement with Fortress "will provide greater financial strength and flexibility for Mr. Jackson."

The story of how Mr. Jackson was pushed to the brink of financial disaster is another strange turn for a performer whose 40 years in the public spotlight are filled with many such moments. After a series of high-profile incidents -- from settling a previous allegation of sexual abuse to being pictured dangling his infant son from a hotel balcony -- the singer finally wore out his welcome with the public. As his popularity plunged, Mr. Jackson used loans to compensate for declining income from record sales and concert tours.

The singer shells out more than $1.5 million a month in overhead costs, according to a person familiar with his finances. At the Neverland ranch in California -- named for the fantasy world in J. M. Barrie's "Peter Pan" -- Mr. Jackson spends thousands of dollars to maintain his menagerie of zoo animals, according to documents filed in a lawsuit unrelated to the criminal case and the current financial mess.

Mr. Jackson's financial affairs tumbled into disarray in early April when Bank of America notified him that he was in default on part of the loans. The notice set off a furious debate over his most valuable asset: a 50% stake in Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC, an entity that owns and administers copyrights to thousands of songs, including the words and music to 251 Beatles tunes. The catalog, which Mr. Jackson co-owns with Sony Corp., was pledged as collateral for some of the loan portfolio.


Even in the depressed music industry, catalogs are prized for the steady revenue they generate from public performances and other licensing fees. Sony/ATV is particularly valuable because it controls famous Beatles compositions such as "Yesterday" and "Hey Jude" and is valued by people who have recently looked at the company at more than $1 billion. Mr. Jackson could resolve his debt crisis by shedding all or part of his stake.

This spring, that's exactly what some of his closest advisers were urging. The group included longtime associates such as entertainment attorney John G. Branca, veteran music-industry executive Charles A. Koppelman and Miami attorney Alvin I. Malnik. A long list of buyers has expressed interest in the business, according to several people involved with the matter. Sony itself has had its eye on Mr. Jackson's stake for years and ex-Beatle Paul McCartney has closely followed the company's history, according to a person close to him.

Even after the sale to Fortress, which forestalled a bigger financial crisis, these advisers continued to urge the singer to sell. They are worried about an estimated $10 million legal tab in the criminal case and a possible bankruptcy filing.

To his advisers, Mr. Jackson has expressed an emotional tie to the Sony/ATV asset -- he bought it partly out of love for the Beatles -- and has resisted that advice. Instead, he turned to a longtime friend, Mr. Burkle. As managing partner of closely held Yucaipa Cos. LLC, a private investment firm, Mr. Burkle has little music-industry experience.

According to Jesse Jackson, who has allied himself with Mr. Burkle, the billionaire adviser agreed to analyze the situation. Mr. Burkle has told the singer the debt crunch could be resolved in a way that would avoid a sale, according to a person close to Mr. Burkle.

Unknown is the current inclination of Mr. Jackson himself, who seems ill-prepared these days to make the call. In the past week, he has checked into a hospital twice and barricaded himself inside his ranch. There he awaits a verdict in the criminal case.

The son of a steel-mill worker from Gary, Ind., Michael Jackson became a quasi-professional pop singer at the age of 4 thanks to the efforts of his father, Joe. Teamed with four elder brothers in the Jackson 5, little Michael quickly became the star with his good looks, dance moves and preternaturally assured vocals. The group topped the charts with hits such as "ABC."

Mr. Jackson went solo in 1979 and quickly became one of the biggest pop stars in the world. His album "Thriller" spawned giant hits like "Beat It" and "Billie Jean." In the U.S., it has shipped more than 26 million units, according to the Recording Industry Association of America, making it the second-biggest selling album ever, after "Their Greatest Hits: 1971-1975," a record by the Eagles.

Even during Mr. Jackson's heady years, strange reports surfaced about his friendships with a chimpanzee named Bubbles and child stars a fraction of his age. Mr. Jackson hid behind surgical masks or umbrellas as his personal appearance grew increasingly odd. His dark skin paled and his sculpted facial features were increasingly unrecognizable as those of the boy who won pop fans' hearts.

Amid the tabloid fodder, Mr. Jackson made a canny business move. In 1985, after a protracted bidding process, he bought ATV Music Publishing for $47.5 million from Australian businessman Robert Holmes a Court. A decade later, with his music career in decline, Mr. Jackson needed cash. In 1995 he entered into a complex partnership with Sony to merge ATV with the Japanese company's modest library of songs. Sony already owned Mr. Jackson's record label, Epic Records.

Sony paid Mr. Jackson $150 million, according to one person close to the transaction, and the electronics giant took operational control, according to several people familiar with the arrangement. Mr. Jackson became a 50% owner of the newly created Sony/ATV.

Sony/ATV's structure grants Mr. Jackson veto power over key executive appointments and new acquisitions, say people familiar with the deal. The contract also grants both partners the right to counter any offer to buy out the other side. In addition, these people say, contractual provisions allow either party to bid for the half it doesn't own.

But the Sony deal didn't solve Mr. Jackson's growing financial problems. According to a 2002 suit filed in California Superior Court by Union Finance & Investment Corp., seeking $12 million in unpaid fees and expenses, he began to borrow large sums of money. By 1998, documents show, loans totaling $90 million from NationsBank Corp. were nearly exhausted. NationsBank merged with BankAmerica Corp. in 1998, and the newly combined company renamed itself Bank of America Corp. Mr. Jackson later sought additional capital from Bank of America.

By 2000, Mr. Jackson was on the hook for $270 million. Some of the debt was secured by Mr. Jackson's stake in Sony/ATV. Other loans were backed by Neverland and Mijac, a separate music-publishing firm that owns Mr. Jackson's compositions, among others.

According to the court documents, the debt supported a decidedly unconventional lifestyle. Expenses listed at the time included food for Neverland's animals, limousine rentals, costumes and $1.15 million in payments to "Debbie," a probable reference to Mr. Jackson's ex-wife, Debbie Rowe.

"Michael Jackson was -- and is -- a ticking financial timebomb, waiting to explode at any moment," Union Finance said in its suit.

In recent years, Mr. Jackson's financial situation worsened as his behavior grew more erratic. In 2002, he launched a public diatribe against then-Sony Music chief Thomas D. Mottola, calling him, "very, very, very devilish."

Attempts by some to steer the singer out of trouble were hampered by disagreements among the rotating cast of advisers. Among them was Mr. Branca, 54, a well-established Los Angeles music attorney whose clients include Aerosmith, Fleetwood Mac and Nelly. Mr. Branca, who has been involved with Mr. Jackson, on and off, since the early 1980s, owns a small stake in Sony/ATV, tied to Mr. Jackson's ownership, and negotiated most of the major contracts involved in the current struggle. For long stretches, he has found himself cut out of Mr. Jackson's affairs.

Also involved is Mr. Malnik, a 71-year-old Miami lawyer, who in 1980 was barred from entering casinos in New Jersey because of alleged organized-crime connections, which Mr. Malnik has previously denied. He could not be reached for comment. Mr. Malnik befriended Mr. Jackson several years ago, according to people who know them. The two men spent a weekend in Mexico with "Rush Hour" director Brett Ratner to celebrate Mr. Ratner's birthday, the director recalls.

Mr. Malnik brought in Mr. Koppelman, a storied figure in music publishing who is also vice chairman of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. Mr. Koppelman, 65, came on board about two years ago to advise Mr. Jackson on his publishing holdings and other business matters. In an unusual twist, people close to the singer say the Bank of America loan package included a covenant requiring Mr. Koppelman be retained as a consultant. (Mr. Koppelman was also Mr. Jackson's chief rival in bidding for the ATV catalog 20 years ago.)

According to several people familiar with their thinking, all three of these men favored selling at least a portion of Sony/ATV to salvage Mr. Jackson's finances.

Early this year, a variety of possible deals were served up to the pop singer. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and private-equity firm Blackstone Group expressed interest, according to people close to these discussions. Before acquiring Mr. Jackson's debt portfolio, investment firm Fortress also discussed buying at least some of Mr. Jackson's holdings, say people familiar with the discussions.

Messrs. Branca and Koppelman urged Mr. Jackson to accept the Goldman Sachs deal, people familiar with the matter say, which would have introduced Goldman as a third partner in the Sony/ATV venture. Mr. Jackson would have been left with a stake in his beloved publishing company and no debts.

But even as the criminal trial began in late February, Mr. Jackson continued to resist, partly on the grounds that publishing rights are always more valuable in the long run.

In early April, Bank of America lowered the boom. According to one person close to the Jackson camp, Mr. Jackson fell short of a scheduled payment by about $300,000. Other people close to the matter say Mr. Jackson had been in violation of his loan agreement for some time.

Bank of America officials found themselves inundated with pleas from the singer's advocates. Willie Gary, a prominent Florida litigator who has been retained by the singer, says he contacted the bank on Mr. Jackson's behalf. Mr. Burkle, the supermarket magnate, also contacted Bank of America officials and urged them to allow Mr. Jackson to make good on his missed payment before throwing the entire loan package into default. The advisers brought in a Los Angeles bankruptcy lawyer to cover a worst-case scenario.

In early April, Rev. Jackson called Kenneth Lewis, the chairman and CEO of Bank of America, to lobbyon behalf of the singer. Mr. Lewis declined to discuss the matter, recalls Rev. Jackson, on the grounds that the bank's relationship with the singer is confidential.

In an interview, Rev. Jackson says it was "a gross injustice" that the singer might have to sell his assets because of the shortfall. "Michael had a cashflow problem because he's not been working and he's on trial," Rev. Jackson says. "But his assets are greater than his debts."

Amid mounting pressure, Bank of America walked away from the situation without providing an explanation. The bank notified Mr. Jackson, via fax, it was selling the loan package to Fortress.

Founded in 1998, Fortress says it has about $15 billion in equity capital under management. The firm has a toe in the private-equity and hedge-fund worlds and also invests in distressed debt. It counts as investors pension funds and wealthy individuals. The firm bought the loans at face value, people involved in the matter said. Funds sometimes buy debt at a discount to compensate for any risk.

The firm has extended the loan beyond its original December due date, say people familiar with the matter, and has extended additional credit to Mr. Jackson.

Even if Mr. Jackson is acquitted and the problems with his debt resolved, his financial future will remain clouded. To get back on track, he would need to curb spending or again earn income as a performer -- goals that have proved elusive in the past. In addition, according to Rev. Jackson, the singer believes the men advising him "were in fact conspiring to take his holdings and that's what triggered this avalanche of challenges."

If the jury votes to convict, these questions may be moot. People close to Mr. Jackson on both sides of the debate say a conviction would likely trigger the sale of most if not all of his remaining assets, including Neverland, the Sony/ATV stake and the Mijac catalog. After listening to the 13-week trial, the jury has been deliberating since last Friday.

Write to Ethan Smith at ethan.smith@wsj.com and Kate Kelly at kate.kelly@wsj.com

clip_image004.gif
 
^Okay, this lost me :lol:

However, the point I am making is if Michael did not trust Brance, why didn't he take him out of his will. He is in both the 1997 and 2002. Why would you keep someone that you feel did that have your best interest?

Unless you are saying that Michael did not find the time to update his will, that does not make sense. Michael was obviously a smart business man and if he felt Brance was not to be trusted with his estate, he would had rewritten the will without Brance.

The only way this theory works if there is another will floating out there that no one cannot find. If Michael was smart enough to keep track of two of his wills, I do not see how a third one could disappear without a trace.

I could be wrong, but it all seems unlikely in either case. Also, Jessa Jackson tends to be full of it sometimes, so do not take him at his word.
 
^Okay, this lost me :lol:

However, the point I am making is if Michael did not trust Brance, why didn't he take him out of his will. He is in both the 1997 and 2002. Why would you keep someone that you feel did that have your best interest?

Unless you are saying that Michael did not find the time to update his will, that does not make sense. Michael was obviously a smart business man and if he felt Brance was not to be trusted with his estate, he would had rewritten the will without Brance.

The only way this theory works if there is another will floating out there that no one cannot find. If Michael was smart enough to keep track of two of his wills, I do not see how a third one could disappear without a trace.

I could be wrong, but it all seems unlikely in either case. Also, Jessa Jackson tends to be full of it sometimes, so do not take him at his word.

:yes:It is a long article & the whole sony atv thing is complicated. I have trouble keeping my own finances straight, let alone MJ's.

As for a third will, Al Malnik claimed to quite a few reporters apparently right after MJ died that he had a 2003 will & then went quiet about it. If MJ had ever signed a will with Malnik as executor he would have to have been drugged. My speculation is that he made a deal with Branca & Weitzman, though.

links(there are pages & pages if you google):
http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2009/06/the_malnik_familys_michael_jac.php

http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2009/06/al_malnik_wont_shut_up_about_m.php

http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2009/06/michael_jackson_al_malnik_mottola_sony_beatles.php

http://wcbstv.com/entertainment/michael.jackson.al.2.1061679.html


[FONT=&quot]Al Malnik is connected with the mob. He is rumored to have taken all Lansky's money. Now if you just saw him for the first time on TV recently he does seem all warm & fuzzy. Unfortunately appearances can be deceiving. He is a scary guy.
[/FONT]
http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...NwPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=s40DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6822,1620062

http://www.vanityfair.com/fame/features/2005/07/orth200507




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meyer_Lansky


[FONT=&quot]


[/FONT]
 
:yes:It is a long article & the whole sony atv thing is complicated. I have trouble keeping my own finances straight, let alone MJ's.

As for a third will, Al Malnik claimed to quite a few reporters apparently right after MJ died that he had a 2003 will & then went quiet about it. If MJ had ever signed a will with Malnik as executor he would have to have been drugged. My speculation is that he made a deal with Branca & Weitzman, though.

links(there are pages & pages if you google):
http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2009/06/the_malnik_familys_michael_jac.php

http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2009/06/al_malnik_wont_shut_up_about_m.php

http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2009/06/michael_jackson_al_malnik_mottola_sony_beatles.php

http://wcbstv.com/entertainment/michael.jackson.al.2.1061679.html


[FONT=&quot]Al Malnik is connected with the mob. He is rumored to have taken all Lansky's money. Now if you just saw him for the first time on TV recently he does seem all warm & fuzzy. Unfortunately appearances can be deceiving. He is a scary guy.
[/FONT]
http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...NwPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=s40DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6822,1620062

http://www.vanityfair.com/fame/features/2005/07/orth200507




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meyer_Lansky


[FONT=&quot]


[/FONT]


This is some deep stuff and I am really too tire to be really thinking this deeply right now. I will end on this note.

Michael hired Brance days before he died. Now before we go into the big conspiracy theory, I would like to point out that even if Michael never hire Brance again in his life, he still would be the executor or the will. So Michael's hiring or firing has no effect on that.

If Brance did not have Michael's best interest in mind, why would Michael hire him back. I doubt he did it just to get back the dream team of the 80s. He also rehire Brance back in 2004 or 2005 I think and Brance left himself in 2006. I think that is document proof, but do not quote me.

Also, Brance did not draw up the 2002 will, his office did, but he was not there. So, he had on influence on rather he was put in it or not.

In the end all of this is very complicated and little over my head for me. Brance has done nothing but good things for the estate so far, so I will take a wait and see approach with him.

I honestly trust him more than Michael's family since their money skills are surpass and that is putting it nicely.
 
michael did not trust branca, and branca wanted michael to file for bankruptcy back then, if branca had a chance he would make sure sony get the catalogue, branca is on that list of people that was inside michaels camp that was working against him, to help sony take his catalogue. i dont trust branca. I hope the jackson family show that branca and gang is a fraud. there is enough information to show branca for what he is.
omg, really?

cuz mike fired and hired his ass multiple times. each time someone came into his life and tried to get control, they made up lies about jon andmike fired him. but time and time again, he went back. why? cuz branca doesn't need michael jackson. he's successful in his own right. they built an empire together. remember, he was going back to the old team. dileo and then branca. so if u don't believe he hired him back, then i don't believe frank was hired back. :doh:

ALSO there is NOT enough information. legrande was hired by ron kon, remember one of the un-indicted co-conspiritors? he wanted to be mike's money man so he had a guy make up false crap about an off shore account but they could never PROVE it. it was all just words.

if the family had ANYTHING, they'd say it by now. all they're doing is making themselves look foolish. sorry but um jermaine's vienna tribute? lame to the 100th power. u want the family to come up w/ideas on how to make money for the estate?

they can't do that b/c they would benefit. it's a CONFLICT OF INTEREST. branca's 3% isn't enough motive to push crap products but katherine's 40% IS.
 
omg, really?

cuz mike fired and hired his ass multiple times. each time someone came into his life and tried to get control, they made up lies about jon andmike fired him. but time and time again, he went back. why? cuz branca doesn't need michael jackson. he's successful in his own right. they built an empire together. remember, he was going back to the old team. dileo and then branca. so if u don't believe he hired him back, then i don't believe frank was hired back. :doh:

ALSO there is NOT enough information. legrande was hired by ron kon, remember one of the un-indicted co-conspiritors? he wanted to be mike's money man so he had a guy make up false crap about an off shore account but they could never PROVE it. it was all just words.

if the family had ANYTHING, they'd say it by now. all they're doing is making themselves look foolish. sorry but um jermaine's vienna tribute? lame to the 100th power. u want the family to come up w/ideas on how to make money for the estate?

they can't do that b/c they would benefit. it's a CONFLICT OF INTEREST. branca's 3% isn't enough motive to push crap products but katherine's 40% IS.

I don't think that " if the family had ANYTHING, they'd say it by now" is necessarily true. Sometimes things take time, especially in the legal world. Just think, its not only a bonanza for lawyers but also for private detectives. LOL

The 3% argument I think can work both ways - why don't they let a member of the Jacksons be a co-executor if it just a small amount of money? Must be more ways to make money than that 3%? From my point of view it would just make sense for them to let them have KJ at the table just for good will, in the long run there would be more money for everyone if everyone is happy - the brothers could do alot to promote things. Supposedly if you believe TMZ, not the best of sources, but Harvey Levin said McClain was for it but it was Branca who was not. Why?

Executors can do alot of damage to an estate. MJ's accountants seemed to have done him alot of damage over the years. Look at Merv Griffin's son claims:

http://www.theinsider.com/news/2660443_Merv_Griffin_s_Son_Trust_Fund_Lawsuit

Al Malnik was able to take Meyer Lansky's fortune of $100-400 million & leave him with $37000. Lansky was a big time crook too. He just got outconned. Malnik is brilliant IMO.

And recall that
John Branca
- Trudy Green
- Howard Kaufman
- Charles Koppelman
- Al Malnik
- Tommy Mottola
- Brett Ratner

were named by Carol Davis from the Justice System.net as trying to conspire against MJ, make him bankrupt. She is a lawyer with Geragos - she wouldn't have named these names on air without proof IMO.

LeGrande was fired before he could prove it, as I recall was his testimony. And wasn't Konitzer supposed to be a Sony plant? Ann Kite was a really honest person in all that mess & was very concerned & went to Jermaine is what I recall from the testimony at trial - & then Konitzer's POA was revoked.
 
And recall that
John Branca
- Trudy Green
- Howard Kaufman
- Charles Koppelman
- Al Malnik
- Tommy Mottola
- Brett Ratner

were named by Carol Davis from the Justice System.net as trying to conspire against MJ, make him bankrupt. She is a lawyer with Geragos - she wouldn't have named these names on air without proof IMO.

source? for your information regarding Carol Davis, please.

I don't know the 'on air' interview or discussion to which this pertains. .....I have never heard anything about Brett Ratner trying to bankrupt MJ?? I need to read or see that from the source, please.....Thanks
 
We should always let the light shine.....

For it illuminates

Keep WATCHIN'.......

Come the light then, breaking all the signs of RA hotels ... we'll call the flashlight and be there;)
I hope Susie no longer has this number or K.eys K.eys K.eys ...
I'm watching and praying!
If I'm not mistaken was Guimaraes Rosa, who said, ¨ the devil's greatest trick is to make people believe he does not exist "
 
This is some deep stuff and I am really too tire to be really thinking this deeply right now. I will end on this note.

Michael hired Brance days before he died. Now before we go into the big conspiracy theory, I would like to point out that even if Michael never hire Brance again in his life, he still would be the executor or the will. So Michael's hiring or firing has no effect on that.

If Brance did not have Michael's best interest in mind, why would Michael hire him back. I doubt he did it just to get back the dream team of the 80s. He also rehire Brance back in 2004 or 2005 I think and Brance left himself in 2006. I think that is document proof, but do not quote me.

Also, Brance did not draw up the 2002 will, his office did, but he was not there. So, he had on influence on rather he was put in it or not.

In the end all of this is very complicated and little over my head for me. Brance has done nothing but good things for the estate so far, so I will take a wait and see approach with him.

I honestly trust him more than Michael's family since their money skills are surpass and that is putting it nicely.
I dont think it was micahel that hired branca back, dr thome was hiring and firing michael staff at that time,about the updated will it could be a fraud they have some documents on this matter, and there supposed to have been a third will.
 
I dont think it was micahel that hired branca back, dr thome was hiring and firing michael staff at that time,about the updated will it could be a fraud they have some documents on this matter, and there supposed to have been a third will.


Tohma was long fire before Brance was rehire so there is noway he could had hire him and it to be legal. Also, as I have said early, even if Brance was never hire again, he is still in the will. So, what really would be the point of hiring him again?

Also, people say there is a third will, but nothing has come of it. If Michael did the same process that he did the other two wills, they should be in the hands of a lawyer office, like what just happen with Brance.

If Michael had written a third will, why hasn't that lawyer office presented it yet? Brance would not have known about a third will if his office did not write or hold it, so how would he be able to make a deal with a suppose lawyer who had it?
 
Tohme was out when Branca was rehired
the updated will is not a fraud, why it is a fraud when the beneficiaries are his three kids and katherine as long as she is alive .

as for a third will, who supposed to have that will? isn't it Londel who was with mj during the three last years of his life ? or Randy who manged MJ's business during the trial ?

do you even use logic when making such theories . Branca could not hide a thrid will because he did not have it .


have you read joe's court papers?

Both joe and Katherie wanted and filed paper to e named administrators of mj's estate 3 days after his death . not as previously thought Katherine was not the only one . she and joe both of them , too much for the claims joe was out and katherine was making all the decisions .

another thing MJ used to send katherine 50.000$ monthly , and during the last years the number became $66.000. now she gets 28.000$ no wonder she is upset and can't pay the electricity bills .
 
omg, really?

cuz mike fired and hired his ass multiple times. each time someone came into his life and tried to get control, they made up lies about jon andmike fired him. but time and time again, he went back. why? cuz branca doesn't need michael jackson. he's successful in his own right. they built an empire together. remember, he was going back to the old team. dileo and then branca. so if u don't believe he hired him back, then i don't believe frank was hired back. :doh:

ALSO there is NOT enough information. legrande was hired by ron kon, remember one of the un-indicted co-conspiritors? he wanted to be mike's money man so he had a guy make up false crap about an off shore account but they could never PROVE it. it was all just words.

if the family had ANYTHING, they'd say it by now. all they're doing is making themselves look foolish. sorry but um jermaine's vienna tribute? lame to the 100th power. u want the family to come up w/ideas on how to make money for the estate?

they can't do that b/c they would benefit. it's a CONFLICT OF INTEREST. branca's 3% isn't enough motive to push crap products but katherine's 40% IS.
This time when branca came back to work for michael dr thome said he was doing the hiring and firing of michael staff, not michael according to dr thome. about the estate, the judge said everything will remain the same till next year, so next year they can take there case to court the new lawyer katherine hired believe she has a case, they must have somthing big for this new high powered attorney to take there case. and he wins a lot in this type of case. james brown, marlon brando, etc
 
Tohme was out when Branca was rehired
the updated will is not a fraud, why it is a fraud when the beneficiaries are his three kids and katherine as long as she is alive .

as for a third will, who supposed to have that will? isn't it Londel who was with mj during the three last years of his life ? or Randy who manged MJ's business during the trial ?

do you even use logic when making such theories . Branca could not hide a thrid will because he did not have it .


have you read joe's court papers?

Both joe and Katherie wanted and filed paper to e named administrators of mj's estate 3 days after his death . not as previously thought Katherine was not the only one . she and joe both of them , too much for the claims joe was out and katherine was making all the decisions .

another thing MJ used to send katherine 50.000$ monthly , and during the last years the number became $66.000. now she gets 28.000$ no wonder she is upset and can't pay the electricity bills .
Rowe said michael did not hire branca back and he did not trust branca, and i believe rowe, dr tohme was fired by michael but dr tohme acted like he was still representing michael he was trying to get the auction items returned to him, he was doing what he wanted to do regardless of the fact michael fired him, yes I believe dr tohme hired branca even if he was fired at that time, dr tohme did not accept the fact that michael had fired him and continued to represent michael through mjjproduction
 
Tohme was out when Branca was rehired
the updated will is not a fraud, why it is a fraud when the beneficiaries are his three kids and katherine as long as she is alive .

as for a third will, who supposed to have that will? isn't it Londel who was with mj during the three last years of his life ? or Randy who manged MJ's business during the trial ?

do you even use logic when making such theories . Branca could not hide a thrid will because he did not have it .


have you read joe's court papers?

Both joe and Katherie wanted and filed paper to e named administrators of mj's estate 3 days after his death . not as previously thought Katherine was not the only one . she and joe both of them , too much for the claims joe was out and katherine was making all the decisions .

another thing MJ used to send katherine 50.000$ monthly , and during the last years the number became $66.000. now she gets 28.000$ no wonder she is upset and can't pay the electricity bills .


Where did you get those numbers? It would make sense why Katherine would be mad about her allowance. Especially since the family could even touch the child support, unless they want to get Katherine in big trouble.
 
Rowe said michael did not hire branca back and he did not trust branca, and i believe rowe, dr tohme was fired by michael but dr tohme acted like he was still representing michael he was trying to get the auction items returned to him, he was doing what he wanted to do regardless of the fact michael fired him, yes I believe dr tohme hired branca even if he was fired at that time, dr tohme did not accept the fact that michael had fired him and continued to represent michael through mjjproduction


It would had been illegal since Tohma was fire. Brance was offically hire, so there is no way Tohma could had done it. Also really, what would be the point of hiring Brance, he was already in the will. Also, how the heck would Tohma even know about what was in Michael's will. His own family didn't even know he even had a will.

You believe Rowe, the same guy who is currently suing Michael's estate for 300 million dollars and was suing him for 30 million before he died. This is the same guy who said Michael only sign for 10 concerts before he contract was presented in court and showed a min of 18.

Also, how the heck Rowe knows who Michael hire or fire. His butt got the boot from Michael and he wouldn't go away either.
 
Where did you get those numbers? It would make sense why Katherine would be mad about her allowance. Especially since the family could even touch the child support, unless they want to get Katherine in big trouble.

from joe's documents presented to the court.
 
from joe's documents presented to the court.

TMZ said that in the online chat. Did you actually see the documents anywhere?

Oxman has always maintained on TV, more than one time, that Michael supported both of his parents as people would want to do for their elderly parents. The money went to Katherine & then she gave Joe the money. I am sure they do have documentation of this, so it would seem the court might honor this.
 
Back
Top