Latest on MJJC

Murray won't be asked to pay restitution

Their actions arent that of ppl that blame murray.indeed its like the family blame mj so dont think it matters.thats the way theyve acted from day one
 
Pace said:
What Murray did killed that part of me that would gain anything from revenge to punishment.
I couldn't care less anymore who is collects what monies and why. It's just too late for that. I wanted to see Murray convicted. Everything else is just noise.
I see where everyone is going with that AEG lawsuit outrage- I just frankly am past the point of worrying about that. That's their business, their karma.
Click to expand...

Pace I too understand your stand and your grandfather's choice but I don't think that applies to Jacksons.

Ramona is right, this is not a case of "it wouldn't bring Michael back", "it wouldn't change anything", "we don't want blood money" type of thing for Jacksons.

Why? Well because Joe is suing Murray, Applied Pharmacy and AEG and Katherine is suing AEG in civil court. They do want money in both instances. Civil cases is all about financial damages. Joe didn't drop Murray from his lawsuit. Katherine is going full ahead with AEG lawsuit.

Bonnie Blue said:
Thanks ivy for posting the legal info on restitution, found it useful. I'm still puzzled why murray's restitution would potentially decrease the damages in a civil judgement (in the unlikely event that aeg lose). It should be crystal clear to judge and jury that murray would be able to pay only a tiny fraction of whatever amount is heaped on him - he's debt=ridden already, approaching retirement age, got 7 children to support, hopefully won't be able to practice being a doctor again etc etc. I would have thought this restitution would be easily presented by the jackson lawyers as 'symbolic' and wouldn't affect any awarding of civil damages. And i agree with ramona, that the symbolism of this financial penalty is incredibly important, and it's just wrong to throw it away like that. I think the jacksons took some really bad legal advice - all it's done is demonstrate once again how little they seem outraged by murray.
Click to expand...

I was thinking about this last night in my sleep and I realized something. Pastor never asked about Murray's finances and what he can pay or not.


This is what I'm thinking. This was a brilliant idea by Walgren. By all accounts DA isn't happy about Murray not spending the max time and this is not seeing as a violent crime. Walgren had this idea , he said look Michael Jackson is a person with high income potential, let's put this on him and put him into a financial prison rest of his life. He didn't expect him to be able to pay. He just wanted to make his future life not-profitable. Estate went with it because it was the time after the documentary. Estate has no legal grounds to stop Murray from talking but they thought if we put a huge debt on him he would be less likely to talk. They had no expectations of collecting anything either and it really didn't matter to them financially they didn't need anything.

Pastor was also angry with Murray we saw this from his sentencing speech. He would have given Murray anything he could. So when he's presented with $100+Million he was game. He didn't reject it as a unrealistically high number, he didn't reject it as Murray could never pay. He just wanted to see some calculations so that he could have some explanation for that number.

At some point I think someone in the Jacksons - even perhaps KJ'sllawyer - saw Estate's calculations (and they do have detailed accounting) and went "Damn Pastor is gonna look to this and give Murray the maximum restitution" and suddenly feared they wouldn't be able to get anything from AEG.

As to your question. Criminal restitution is only financial losses. Civil judgement include emotional distress as well. In AEG lawsuit emotional distress claim has been thrown out so it seems like AEG trial is only left to financial damages. The restitution calculation is not about what is collected but who is kept responsible for what.

For example I would assume if the financial damages is $100M and Murray was given restitution order of $100M and if AEG lost the lawsuit they could have argued that asking them to pay $100M would be doubling the loss. In the worst case scenario they would have reduced their burden to $50 Million (divide it up with Murray) or come with a payment schedule.

As of now the only reasonable explanation is what the rules say and what Michael McParland has said on Twitter that if there was restitution AEG could have used that to argue that the losses are already ordered to be paid by Murray.
 
ivy said:
Actually I lost my grandfather years ago at a DUI. It was an IVM and the guy spent 18 months in prison. We also got the restitution but it was low as my grandfather was old and retired and not much income was lost. Yet we pushed for it and it got nothing to do with the amount you collect (my grandmother donated it all), it's all about making a point.It's all about saying that a human's life is not this cheap. It's all about feeling justice. You can ask my grandmother and she would still tell you that neither the 18 months prison sentence nor the restitution the guy was ordered to pay was enough for my grandfather's life.

Well again from personal experience when the person that killed your loved one gets out of prison and you see them to live their life, you don't feel like he's toast. On the contrary you feel like your loved one's life is lost for nothing. At that time you feel everything is unfair, there's no justice and you feel there's something more needed.
Click to expand...

Pace said:
See, my family for example was stuck in another scenario. My grandfather was Ukrainian and was taken by the Germans at the end of WWII as prisoner of war. He was 17 and suffered incredibly.

After the reunification of Germany there was a new window open in which victims could file renewed claims. My grandfather remained remained somewhat heartbroken all his life, yet he was not interested in filing for the restitution the German government was offering victims. It was largely my mother who filed it for him. He filed, but if it was up to him- he didn't necessarily want to. This claim was tied directly to him and his wife (my grandfather) who had passed away a while ago), nobody else.

Having said that- I understand completely for example why your family would do that- but on the other hand I can totally understand my grandfather who felt that this would not change anything. I wished I could have talked more with him about about these things before he passed away- but he passed away. My grandfather was first and foremost the victim and he didn't want that money, he said it doesn't change anything. I never had to listen to him about how awful the Germans were etc.
Click to expand...

Thank you both for sharing your personal stories. They help perspectives.

My sympathies to you both on your losses.
 
ivy said:
The restitution calculation is not about what is collected but who is kept responsible for what.
Click to expand...

That's interesting, that would explain why the huge restitution placed on murray, whilst everyone knows it's not going toget paid, is relevant to the amount of damages possible in a civil suit against another party. In that post you recently made with the legal opinion it did say that some states took account of the defendant's ability to pay restitution whereas others didn't. I wonder if pastor would have been allowed under calif state law to not take murray's straightened circs into account.
 
If the Jackson's are awarded money in their lawsuits does the money go to the MJJ estate or the whole Jackson family? I am guessing the family and that makes me very angry. I will bet Michael is is just watching his family from above and shaking his head in disbelief. Greed...Greed ...Greed
 
ilmjj said:
If the Jackson's are awarded money in their lawsuits does the money go to the MJJ estate or the whole Jackson family? I am guessing the family and that makes me very angry. I will bet Michael is is just watching his family from above and shaking his head in disbelief. Greed...Greed ...Greed
Click to expand...

Since the restitution was to be based on Michael's projected earnings, I'd expect the restitution would go to only those who would have "formally" benefited from those earnings. So that would be the children, and Katherine. The Estate manages that money, so then, I also expect that it would have gone to the Estate to be managed for the benefit of the heirs.

Which is another reason why I think that the family may have been divided about the restitution issue. Joe may still think (as IF?) his lawsuit has a chance, and God only knows what the rest of the family may think about the potential benefits of the AEG lawsuit (again, not likely that the Jacksons will win that one.)
 
Bonnie Blue said:
That's interesting, that would explain why the huge restitution placed on murray, whilst everyone knows it's not going toget paid, is relevant to the amount of damages possible in a civil suit against another party. In that post you recently made with the legal opinion it did say that some states took account of the defendant's ability to pay restitution whereas others didn't. I wonder if pastor would have been allowed under calif state law to not take murray's straightened circs into account.
Click to expand...

that's what I was thinking like I said and I don't know for certain but "ability to pay" doesn't seem to be a concern in CA. Let's think like this $100 Million is a high amount to pay for any normal person. Even Murray was to keep his medical licence and be a popular doctor I would guess that he would make maximum around half a million a year. So even in the best case scenario it would take him 200 years to pay it back.

Chernoff got up and said his client cannot pay but Pastor never asked him about Murray's financial situation and how much he could pay. So overall it seems like how much Murray could pay or if he could pay it or not wouldn't be an issue in CA.


edited to add. I did some google search and found the smoking gun

1.2. How much victim restitution will the court order a defendant to pay?
California law provides that victims of crime are entitled to recover the full amount for any reasonable losses or expenses.6 The prosecutor is not even allowed to reduce this amount during a plea bargain, because he/she has no right to waive any claims on the victim's behalf.7

The court shall order full restitution unless it finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so, and states those reasons on the record. A defendant's inability to pay shall not be considered a compelling and extraordinary reason not to impose a restitution order, nor shall inability to pay be a consideration in determining the amount of a restitution order.

http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/victim_services/docs/Prison_Restitution_Survey_Appendix.pdf

so yeah it seems like as long as Pastor was given a detailed accounting he would have ordered Murray to pay the full amount.
 
Vici said:
randyjackson8 Randy Jackson
My siblings & I were never informed the restitution bid against Murray was being dropped. We DO NOT support that action. NOT our decision.
13 minutes ago

randdy.png


http://twitter.com/randyjackson8


-----------------

Then who's damn decision is it? I dont get how it always gets complicated when it comes to the Jacksons!! ughhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Here we go again. Every time the family does something horrific and fans make a huge outcry, Randy and sometimes Jermaine come out and say they never knew about it, or no one asked them about that, or it was not their decision. They always try to hide and in a sly way implicate their mother as being the one behind the decision. The men in that family really need some backbone!!!!!!!
 
Petrarose said:
Here we go again. Every time the family does something horrific and fans make a huge outcry, Randy and sometimes Jermaine come out and say they never knew about it, or no one asked them about that, or it was not their decision. They always try to hide and in a sly way implicate their mother as being the one behind the decision. The men in that family really need some backbone!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

im not trying to make excuses for anybody but... how can you say they were behind it??? Were you there when the decision was made??? Maybe they really dont know, it very obvious that they dont have the best communication in that family. Katherine is a grown woman who makes her own decisions. She is STILL their mother first and foremost no matter how old she/they are. Also in every article I have read about the story, it said Katherine, not Katherine and family or Joe, Randy, Janet, LaToya, or anybody else. So we really dont know who is behind what.
 
chanel05 said:
im not trying to make excuses for anybody but... how can you say they were behind it??? Were you there when the decision was made??? Maybe they really dont know, it very obvious that they dont have the best communication in that family. Katherine is a grown woman who makes her own decisions. She is STILL their mother first and foremost no matter how old she/they are. Also in every article I have read about the story, it said Katherine, not Katherine and family or Joe, Randy, Janet, LaToya, or anybody else. So we really dont know who is behind what.
Click to expand...

As I wrote in this thread before, the problem with this reasoning is that Randy has had his hand in almost everything up to this point. He was the one who wrote the family's statement, one of the main ones who wanted to challenge the will, and Karen, one of his close friends, was one of the key ones they used for the AEG lawsuit. Now, you're going to tell me he had nothing to do with this?

Also, it took several days after the news broke for Randy to respond, saying he didn't know. When Kenny was removed from the lawsuit, he responded in outrage the same day. He did the same thing during Murray's first hearing when he twitter how Kenny and others at AEG weren't in court, but it took days when it came to responded that his family dropped the restitution against Murray and it was only one twit. He responded more during the fake song debate.

Not just Randy, where is the outrage and concern from the rest of the family? Jermaine had lots to say when he heard the family home was going to be up for sell, but now says nothing that his brother's killer was let off from paying anything after he said four years wasn't enough. What about T3 who had more to say about the Oprah interview and the songs, but say crap about what just happened.

Where's the outrage and concern? All we get is one twitter that sounds like a half baked excuse? Sorry, not buying it.
 
Not just Randy, where is the outrage and concern from the rest of the family? Jermaine had lots to say when he heard the family home was going to be up for sell, but now says nothing that his brother's killer was let off from paying anything after he said four years wasn't enough. What about T3 who had more to say about the Oprah interview and the songs, but say crap about what just happened.

Where's the outrage and concern? All we get is one twitter that sounds like a half baked excuse? Sorry, not buying it.
Click to expand...


So true Ramona!

This family has shown no outrage over Murray or what he did to Mike. They are more upset over stupid stuff like the will, the AEG lawsuit, the estate and other stuff. They don't seem to care that Murray drugged MJ to death and left him alone to die while he chatted on the phone with his girlfriends. Where is the outrage? I would've been on the news everyday calling for Murray's head on a platter because as a doctor, he knew what he was doing was wrong. If I was Katherine I would be calling out the medical board for not punishing Murray fast enough and not suspending his license fast enough. He willingly gave a man anesthesia at home without monitoring equipment and they just don't care. It is so sad that MJ's fans are more outraged than his own family.
 
Even the fans have more love for Michael!
This so&#8211;called &#8220;family&#8221; of the <ST1:CITY><ST1:pJacksons</ST1:p</ST1:CITY>........ Pfft!
Why?
From the get go
before Michael even got to kindergarten
he&#8217;s made a five year old slave worker outta belt-whipping, anger-lashing Joe Jackson!
Missed proper school, sweat and slogged more hours than a construction worker just so
he can put food of on the table, for this so-called family of the J<ST1:CITY>acksons! </ST1:p</ST1:CITY>WTF!
Hanging on his coat-tails, milked his gravy train till death do them part
And what did they do for him since then?
Hell! Even his justice is now COMPROMISED.
Too bad MJ3 have no powers in this decision.
Giving up M<ST1:CITY>urray'</ST1:CITY>s restitution is PERMANENT, IRREVERSIBLE and IRREVOCABLE
Do they know the gravity of this decision?
On what bets exactly are they hatching on
will they ever see some glimmer of hope of some money from this <ST1:STOCKTICKER>AEG</ST1:STOCKTICKER>&#8217;s lawsuit?
Dying on their watch?
Ought ta have seen the writing on the wall when Michael complained of hot and cold?
Oh! They shoulda have seen this coming and sacked M<ST1:CITY>urray i</ST1:CITY>mmediately?
All <ST1:STOCKTICKER>AEG</ST1:STOCKTICKER> needed is to say Murray's selected by Michael, never employed by <ST1:STOCKTICKER>AEG</ST1:STOCKTICKER> and this lawsuit&#8217;s toast.
Can the guardian ad litem (Margaret Lodise (Sp?) act on behalf of the children and intervene?
Can the estate seek an attorney to represent MJ3, ask for a confidential agreement to STFU from Conrat Murray, Nicole Avarez et al
once and for all?
In no way shall Michael&#8217;s name be dragged through mud again! Hell No! Never!​
 
Last edited:
I've tried so many different ways of looking at this trying to figure out why this decission has been made, sadly the only conclusion I can see so far is that it is based on how it could effect the 'real' money from the AEG suit. All well and done Randy stating that this was not his nor his siblings decission, (did he check with LaToya I wonder) , but he doesn't tell us who made the decission or why, again we are left in the dark. I guess the excuse will be someone taking advantage of KJ and that she has the wrong people in her ear, trust me some 'outsider' will be blamed.


I find it so hard to believe that Katherine is comfortable with letting Murray off so easily, he will serve approx 2 years and maybe some of that will at home with the instrument and their child. I know we've said this before but I do not understand how she can allow Murray the potential to profit from his crime, the crime of killing her son. Sometimes there are more important things than money and I'm surprised that KJ doen's appear to know this yet.

Just staggered by this decission.
 
LastTear said:
I've tried so many different ways of looking at this trying to figure out why this decission has been made, sadly the only conclusion I can see so far is that it is based on how it could effect the 'real' money from the AEG suit. All well and done Randy stating that this was not his nor his siblings decission, (did he check with LaToya I wonder) , but he doesn't tell us who made the decission or why, again we are left in the dark. I guess the excuse will be someone taking advantage of KJ and that she has the wrong people in her ear, trust me some 'outsider' will be blamed.


I find it so hard to believe that Katherine is comfortable with letting Murray off so easily, he will serve approx 2 years and maybe some of that will at home with the instrument and their child. I know we've said this before but I do not understand how she can allow Murray the potential to profit from his crime, the crime of killing her son. Sometimes there are more important things than money and I'm surprised that KJ doen's appear to know this yet.

Just staggered by this decission.
Click to expand...

I am staggered too... Katherine has shown no outrage at all regarding MJ's death. Any loving mother I know would be fighting tooth and nail for the justice of their child no matter how old the child is especially if your son was killed so recklessly and unncessarily. Mike was supposed to be in the hands of a professional doctor who was going to look after him instead he killed him. Katherine should've been at the doorsteps of the medical board wanting Murray to pay financially and professionally. He gave her son anesthesia at home for no medical purposes whatsoever and he didn't even monitor him. I would be livid.. But I am not surprised. Katherine didn't protect Mike as a child from Joe what makes us think she's going to protect him now?
 
jaydom7 said:
I am staggered too... Katherine has shown no outrage at all regarding MJ's death. Any loving mother I know would be fighting tooth and nail for the justice of their child no matter how old the child is especially if your son was killed so recklessly and unncessarily. Mike was supposed to be in the hands of a professional doctor who was going to look after him instead he killed him. Katherine should've been at the doorsteps of the medical board wanting Murray to pay financially and professionally. He gave her son anesthesia at home for no medical purposes whatsoever and he didn't even monitor him. I would be livid.. But I am not surprised. Katherine didn't protect Mike as a child from Joe what makes us think she's going to protect him now?
Click to expand...

After everything that has happened thus far, my ONLY conclusion is that Katherine Jackson's ONLY concern is the financial well being of her ENTIRE family. And in my opinion, she doesn't care where that money comes from nor how bad she looks in the process.

I keep thinking about the words from Randy Jackson's own lawsuit against the mother of his children, wherein he states that they "lived like kings and queens." That in my opinion is how Katherine Jackson wants them ALL to continue to live, i.e. like kings and queens. Never mind that nobody is earning that type of money (aside from Janet of course). LOL!

It was Michael's job to provide the "kings and queens" financing, now it's Katherine's job (I guess) and she is obviously not concerned with any embarrassments or shady deals. Lord only knows what's gonna happen to all of those "kings and queens" when Katherine Jackson is no longer ABLE to provide for all of them.

Michael Jackson is not a loving son, he's merely a TOOL used to make money so that the rest of the family can live like royalty. Shameful!
 
Last edited:
chanel05 said:
im not trying to make excuses for anybody but... how can you say they were behind it??? Were you there when the decision was made??? Maybe they really dont know, it very obvious that they dont have the best communication in that family. Katherine is a grown woman who makes her own decisions. She is STILL their mother first and foremost no matter how old she/they are. Also in every article I have read about the story, it said Katherine, not Katherine and family or Joe, Randy, Janet, LaToya, or anybody else. So we really dont know who is behind what.
Click to expand...

Ramona122003 said:
As I wrote in this thread before, the problem with this reasoning is that Randy has had his hand in almost everything up to this point. He was the one who wrote the family's statement, one of the main ones who wanted to challenge the will, and Karen, one of his close friends, was one of the key ones they used for the AEG lawsuit. Now, you're going to tell me he had nothing to do with this?

Where's the outrage and concern? All we get is one twitter that sounds like a half baked excuse? Sorry, not buying it.
Click to expand...

In addition to what Ramona said none of his siblings has expressed any disagreement on Twitter. Let's forget Jackie, Tito and Marlon but Latoya and Jermaine had tweeted about the trial a lot - especially Latoya. But you got nothing from them. They would be quick to express any unhappiness but we got nothing. So Randy's tweet seems like a damage control thing rather than being sincere.
 
If I recall correctly, wasn't Randy Jackson the FIRST person to tweet "how proud he was of his family" when Katherine's lawsuit was first filed?
 
jaydom7 said:
I am staggered too... Katherine has shown no outrage at all regarding MJ's death. Any loving mother I know would be fighting tooth and nail for the justice of their child no matter how old the child is especially if your son was killed so recklessly and unncessarily. Mike was supposed to be in the hands of a professional doctor who was going to look after him instead he killed him. Katherine should've been at the doorsteps of the medical board wanting Murray to pay financially and professionally. He gave her son anesthesia at home for no medical purposes whatsoever and he didn't even monitor him. I would be livid.. But I am not surprised. Katherine didn't protect Mike as a child from Joe what makes us think she's going to protect him now?
Click to expand...

You may be right and if that is the case then I can only assume that they hold Michael equally responsible for what happened.
 
Big Apple2 said:
If I recall correctly, wasn't Randy Jackson the FIRST person to tweet "how proud he was of his family" when Katherine's lawsuit was first filed?
Click to expand...

Not to mention how he blew up when he heard Kenny was dropped and his mother's lawyer issue an apologize. For the lack of better words, Randy completely lost his shit. The way he ranted on twitter you would think Kenny killed Michael. He went on to say that although his mother may have forgiven him, he will never and that's nice compare to what his friend Karen said about Kenny.
 
LastTear said:
You may be right and if that is the case then I can only assume that they hold Michael equally responsible for what happened.
Click to expand...
Im sure they blame mj even more so when he left them nothing but his kids.just like the victim impact statement said they cant perform with him anymore ie we cant get a big pay day.and just like reebie blamed mj for the allegations
 
elusive moonwalker said:
Im sure they blame mj even more so when he left them nothing but his kids.just like the victim impact statement said they cant perform with him anymore ie we cant get a big pay day.and just like reebie blamed mj for the allegations
Click to expand...

So sad.
 
At first, I think that nearly every fan was in total support of Katherine, in her all-important role as guardian of Michael's precious children. And then? Slowly, or rapidly, that support was eroded, and for many of us, it has ENDED in disgust. A pattern formed, of her using the children as bait for income generation for an entire family, and not particularly looking out for their welfare, at all.

There was the insane "Howard Mann contract," where KATHERINE was to be paid for producing those children for various public events. Of course, such a contract was not legal, but that was not the point. The POINT was, the clarity about her intentions to USE those children to help support an entire family, even as Michael, himself, was used throughout his life.

There was the ill-fated and ultimately ridiculous "Tribute concert," (the KISS fiasco!). Now, of course, the subject of lawsuits. Michael's children were again "trotted out," as some sort of bait?

There was the Heal the World foundation, where again, the children were trotted out and required to wear t-shirts advertising what seems, very much, to be a FAKE charity. Another fail, as the fans watched the trend with increasing horror.

There was Joe's "perfume," that apparently illegally uses Michael's name and likeness. And again? The children were trotted out, and photographed holding up bottles of the stinky stuff. SLEAZY! And now? The originator of the perfume is nowhere to be found, to be served legal papers as he will be SUED. Another fail.

There is also Paris' seemingly ill-fated "movie career." She should be ONLY "A-list," and only when she is completely ready. Instead, this seems to be a film for which there is no funding, at all. And Paris, at the age of only thirteen, seems to be very active on Twitter, without really understanding the implications for her lack of privacy and potential loss of what remains of her childhood. NOBODY seems to be looking out for her, at all.

So, yeah, at first almost everyone was in support of Katherine, as guardian. And now. Is ANYONE still "in support," given this trend? Probably NOT.

Relinquishing restitution is the final straw. It's like watching a ship sinking, slowly or fast. What the children seem to lack? ANYONE in their world looking out for their EMOTIONAL best interests.
 
For Katherine to be a 82 year old grandma she sure ain't acting right:wacko:
 
When Michael died I think the majority of people supported the Jacksons but over 2 years later it has changed dramatically and for good reason. I know I tried to understand and give the benefit of the doubt but I can't do it anymore when it all feels wrong to me.

I have tried to understand this decision but I just can't. Obviously they would never get any money from Murray but that wasn't the point of it. The point was to protect Michael from this guy profitting from what he did. He killed Michael. Do they not get this or just don't really care? I haven't seen any outrage from these people unless it has to do with money and what they will get or not get. It's always about money with these people not love. It makes me sick and I don't want to hear or see these people again about anything. I am very glad that Michael's estate is not run by these people.
 
Autumn II said:
There was Joe's "perfume," that apparently illegally uses Michael's name and likeness. And again? The children were trotted out, and photographed holding up bottles of the stinky stuff. SLEAZY! And now? The originator of the perfume is nowhere to be found, to be served legal papers as he will be SUED. Another fail.
Click to expand...

They just served him - during the perfume launch event :) ehehehehehe
 
ivy said:
In addition to what Ramona said none of his siblings has expressed any disagreement on Twitter. Let's forget Jackie, Tito and Marlon but Latoya and Jermaine had tweeted about the trial a lot - especially Latoya. But you got nothing from them. They would be quick to express any unhappiness but we got nothing. So Randy's tweet seems like a damage control thing rather than being sincere.
Click to expand...

First: Do I think that restitution should be cancelled?? NO! I was very shocked when I read about it. I also definitely think its wrong if they are cancelling it because they are expecting some money from AEG (which im not too sure about happening). I also dont agree with everything they do/done but I guess I really dont care either way because it doesnt affect me.

Lastly: So just because they didnt tweet about it, that means that they agree with it?? WTF!?!?!
Maybe Im missing something here... but when did it become mandatory that they have to tweet everything that they think?? Once fans start to realize that NONE of those people owe us anything, the better off we will be. They dont have to tweet every opinion on THEIR family issues because honestly, its none of our business.
Just because they tweeted in the past and havent now dosent really mean anything. Some people actually have lives outside of the computer ya know?? N before someone gets offended, NO SHADE
 
They have a history of tweeting about irrelevent b.s though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top