She claims she didn't know:scratch:
"to the extent there has been any delay in Mrs Jackson's intervention, such a delay has been caused by executors failure to communicate with Mrs J and/or other personal, and, to some extent, privileged reasons. Accordingly, any delay has been justified and reasonable. Mrs J is willing to provide additional explanatory information to the court, in camera."
I wonder why she is willing to give her reasons for court in front of camera, but not in writing?
In order to get her 10%, she has to side with these crooks and support their case to get it.
If the Estate owes no 'duty of care' to Katherine, it presumably owes no 'duty of care' to MJ's children either. But since the Estate is supposed to maximise / protect both Katherine's and MJ's children's inheritance, I guess it has some duty of care to all of them? (even though they all seem to have their own attys).
KJ's attorney change, Havenhurst grab, claims Trent abusing her and now this have Randy written all over it. Good that PB are older now and know how certain fam members operate so they are prepared of what is coming.
Hope so. I am sure of Prince, I am not in the same way of Paris.
Didn`t she post some anti-Estate-stuff and she is in cloce contact with Austin Brown, seems also friendly with Janet.
Imagine one of the kids will also join this claim. Horrible.
Whys its the estates job to tell them? Why isnt it the plaintiffs job to tell her "hey look what we found you could be in for a windfall"
The estate believes for good reasons that MJ was the full owner of his own MJ company and told her already that from day one. KJ again is failing MJ. Hasn't she benefited enough from him?
I think she sees this as another way of providing for her cubs in the long term.....that's all she and Joe know....the hustle and its usually at MJ's expense.The other deals she made in the last 7 years haven't worked out eg. Howard Mann and by the looks of it this case might fail too just like her lawsuit with AEG.
The estate believes for good reasons that MJ was the full owner of his own MJ company and told her already that from day one. KJ again is failing MJ. Hasn't she benefited enough from him?
But in a court case, the defendant (however sure of their ground) cannot just assume that they will win the case.........
You and I both know that MJ was the full owner of his companies. this thing of him being part owner is pure nonsense, designed to steal money from MJ, his estate, and worse his children who are the sole heirs of MJ.
I think she sees this as another way of providing for her cubs in the long term.....that's all she and Joe know....the hustle and its usually at MJ's expense.The other deals she made in the last 7 years haven't worked out eg. Howard Mann and by the looks of it this case might fail too just like her lawsuit with AEG.
But not by stealing from your own son. Come on ! By joining the frivolous suit, she's actually participating in a scam operation to steal from MJ, his estate and children, and yes, that makes her a "despicable woman".
As with the 'Finaldi' complaints, we all know what the outcome 'should be'...but I am just saying that no side of any legal complaint can behave as if the outcome is a foregone conclusion....atty's have rules and codes of ethics that they must abide by, and they must be seen in public to abide by them.
If Estate atty's have no 'duty of care' to Katherine, then I think legally they may not be required to tell her / her attys about the El Amin case (and her 10%) claim. I was just surprised that it seems that the Estate is viewed as having no 'duty of care' to her. Maybe they did tell her old attys...who have now been been replaced??
The only duty of care is the distribution of income as per MJ will. nothing more and nothing less. besides, what do you want the estate to tell her? that she owns 10% of MJ companies? this makes no sense. The executors did tell her from day one that she's just a beneficiary. she's not a heir to MJ, meaning she does not inherit anything from MJ at all.
It's not difficult to tell her / her atty's that she is named in a claim by some people that the Estate believe have no valid claim. At least that would be transparent, and would save the Estate from having to face later claims by her that they failed to tell her. It was pretty certain that a member of the family was going to find out and tell her at some point. .
how do you know her previous attorney was not briefed in probate matters. she even changed attorney recently. probably because he knew this was a scam.
still, she's trying to use this to make it look like she's actually entitled to 10% of MJ companies by representing to the court that she's protecting her interests. really, what interests?
Her late request to joint the El Amin claim says this:
'to the extent there has been any delay in Mrs Jackson's intervention, such a delay has been caused by executors failure to communicate with Mrs J and/or other personal, and, to some extent, privileged reasons. '
She mentions personal or privileged reasons, but not specifically her previous attys.
I have no doubt that her previous attorneys told her about it. If we know about it, they did.
What about the 850 trial last year ?
The trial on this case concluded in January 2016. this is over a year ago. why the judge is not making a ruling already? even if you take into account all the post trial briefs and motions, really this is over the top.
Its damn confusing keeping up with all the various legal sh** that surrounds Mike! damn man...
"Close friend and confidant". LMAO.
I have never seen anyone with as many close friends and confidants as Michael. Amazing.Most people are fortunate if they have one to three really close friends to confide in.Yes everyone seems to be a close friend and confidant these days ?
Make Branca and McClain pay her what she is entitled to? Didn't we go through this in the early days with that Mann person? Didn't he say that Katherine was penniless from the Estate and that's why she was signing with him?"Close friend and confidant". LMAO.
There seems to be a lot of confusion in his head. What does Katherine's alleged co-ownership in the MJ Company have anything to do with her supposed ability to fire Branca and McClain as the executors of the MJ Estate? And no, she doesn't have any power to fire Branca or McClain. If she had I am sure she already would have done that, considering her cubs like Randy are constanly in her ears about Branca. The fact they think this lawsuit will lead them to have control over the Estate says it all.
I have never seen anyone with as many close friends and confidants as Michael. Amazing.Most people are fortunate if they have one to three really close friends to confide in.
Make Branca and McClain pay her what she is entitled to? Didn't we go through this in the early days with that Mann person? Didn't he say that Katherine was penniless from the Estate and that's why she was signing with him?
Doesn't she have an attorney representing her? Who else has been asking for the allowance increases? Who else has asked for that 5 million dollar loan?
What does this mean for Katherine?