New Claim: Michael Jackson Supported His Dad

[blueocean]

Joe jackson said that michael supported him by way of katherine if this is true I dont see anything wrong with it, joe is michael jackson father. I Support joe and the jackson family for suing murray and AEG and I hope they can prove there case, and I dont believe it's all about money for the jackson family, joe is aiming to reveal the truth of michael death with the information they have gathered, in katherine seperate law suit with AEG her lawyer said he will reveal the truth of mj death. It's more than about money.

 

[Diplomate]

Why Joe doesn't ask to his 9 others children ALIVE to help him?

He doesn't want just some money evry month, HE WANTS THE CONTROL OF THE ESTATE.That's it.

I don't understand why the judge doesn't understand that! Clear like water.

Pathetic.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

yeah control of the estate is the bottom line

 

[blueocean]

yeah control of the estate is the bottom line

Yes they want to be in control of the estate espicially when they believe the people running the estate are involved in michael death and are stealing money from the estate,they will have they day in court and maybe they can prove there case. you will have to wait and see whats really going on and it's not all about money.

 

[Justthefacts]

Unless Branca and McClain were holding Michael down while Murray injected him they are in no way responsible for Michael's death. And to say they are stealing from the estate is about the biggest joke I have ever heard considering who is trying there best to take control of the estate

 

[blueocean]

Unless Branca and McClain were holding Michael down while Murray injected him they are in no way responsible for Michael's death. And to say they are stealing from the estate is about the biggest joke I have ever heard considering who is trying there best to take control of the estate

yes the executors maybe stealing money from the estate and they have to prove it in court, and branca connection to aeg, sony and then murray connectioon to aeg these main people along with thome could have something to do with michael death. so when this info is herd in court that's when you will know what really went down.

 

[Memefan]

Hmm.. I am not meaning an employers check? That is not the same thing. I mean he may want to be seen as Man of the household in some way. It is certainly not out of the question from someone Joe's age. Things were very different when he grew up.

But I am not here to argue. I am here to enjoy MJ and be nice to people. Even if you call me names, meme, I don't want to argue! If I am wrong, I am wrong. No matter to me.

all for L.O.V.E.

It's hard to be THE MAN OF THE HOUSEHOLD...when you live in a different state...and haven't been living in the same house as your wife in over a decade. #fail

I disagree with this. Everything has been about money since the day he had began performing.-_-

It is very difficult to give the family any credit on some matters. I really want to give them the benefit of the doubt. But they really make it difficult sometimes. It's like they choked the life out of him.

Family is supposed to be a haven from the storm. Not another cloud.

 

[Justthefacts]

yes the executors maybe stealing money from the estate and they have to prove it in court, and branca connection to aeg, sony and then murray connectioon to aeg these main people along with thome could have something to do with michael death. so when this info is herd in court that's when you will know what really went down.

This info won't be heard in court because it is a damn joke. Sounds like six degrees of Kevin Bacon. Facts darling not mindless dribble

 

[ivy]

yes the executors maybe stealing money from the estate and they have to prove it in court, and branca connection to aeg, sony and then murray connectioon to aeg these main people along with thome could have something to do with michael death. so when this info is herd in court that's when you will know what really went down.

okay some info

1. the estate is under probate which means that A JUDGE + Katherine + Kid's lawyer is overseeing EVERYTHING that the executors is doing (see the recent estate report). It's not really possible for them to steal anything.

2. Neither Katherine nor Joe has any claims about Branca and McClain having any tie with Michael's death. All that's claimed and discussed in those hearings are validity of the will (Michael being in New York vs Los Angeles) and any conflict of interest that could exists. Therefore do not hold your breath for any info about Michael's death conspiracies from this lawsuit of Joe.

 

[blueocean]

okay some info

1. the estate is under probate which means that A JUDGE + Katherine + Kid's lawyer is overseeing EVERYTHING that the executors is doing (see the recent estate report). It's not really possible for them to steal anything.

2. Neither Katherine nor Joe has any claims about Branca and McClain having any tie with Michael's death. All that's claimed and discussed in those hearings are validity of the will (Michael being in New York vs Los Angeles) and any conflict of interest that could exists. Therefore do not hold your breath for any info about Michael's death conspiracies from this lawsuit of Joe.

As I have heard in joe jackson case they will show that branca is stealing money from the estate etc, joe and oxman say that they want murray and every one else involved in mj death, they are going after AEG aswell branca is believed to be brought on by AEG according to rowe who is working with joe to get justice for mj, branca is tied in with AEG business and about the surpose to be phony will presented by branca, mj body gurads at that time has given oxman a statement, saying they know mj did not sign any will that day cause they were there.

 

[Severus Snape]

It's sad to say that it would not be surprising if true.

 

[Justthefacts]

As I have heard in joe jackson case they will show that branca is stealing money from the estate etc, joe and oxman say that they want murray and every one else involved in mj death, they are going after AEG aswell branca is believed to be brought on by AEG according to rowe who is working with joe to get justice for mj, branca is tied in with AEG business and about the surpose to be phony will presented by branca, mj body gurads at that time has given oxman a statement, saying they know mj did not sign any will that day cause they were there.

Joe and Oxman say Joe and Oxman say. Joe and Oxman are liars and bad omes

 

[ivy]

I think it's important to differentiate between what people are saying and what is actually being filed in a court of law

As I have heard in joe jackson case

now let's clarify Joe has 3 cases going on

1. in the appeals court to determine that whether he's a dependent of Michael. If he's found dependent he will try to challenge the will as invalid and get Branca and McClain removed from executors.

2. Wrongful death lawsuit against Murray

3. A complaint about AEG to the health board saying that they failed to look out for Michael's best interest.

None of the lawsuit claims Branca and McClain had anything to do with Michael's death or any connection with AEG.

The only connection claim is that as Branca has previously had working connection for Sony there could be a conflict of interest (if Michael didn't know it and if it wasn't for Michael's best interest)

they will show that branca is stealing money from the estate etc

,

their only claim is "fraud" based on the claim that executors knew the will had error on it and hid it from the court. the only stealing he mentions was the one allegedly happened in the past - Oxman just argues that Michael suspected embezzlement on Branca's part (2003 firing) and therefore he shouldn't be an executor.

joe and oxman say that they want murray and every one else involved in mj death, they are going after AEG aswell branca is believed to be brought on by AEG according to rowe who is working with joe to get justice for mj, branca is tied in with AEG business and about the surpose to be phony will presented by branca

,

well Joe is only suing Murray. he has a complaint about AEG to the medical board - medical board can only investigate and suspend physicians. Katherine is the one who's going after AEG - again her lawsuit doesn't mention anything about Branca.

mj body gurads at that time has given oxman a statement, saying they know mj did not sign any will that day cause they were there.

sorry to say but this doesn't mean a thing because 1) were bodyguards with him 24/7? - any first class law student could argue that they couldn't have perfect information as they weren't 24/7 with Michael and 2) all the witnesses have given affidavits that he did sign the will and they saw it.

Plus once again by the lawsuit Oxman doesn't say that he didn't sign the will , he says that there's a location error.


Overall what I am saying is there's a huge difference between what Joe and Oxman might be saying to media, fans on Ustream , conspiracy theories and what is being filed in court.

 

[marc_vivien]

Ivy, the appellate court don't determine if Joe is dependent or not :


What is an appeal?
An appeal is when someone who lost a case, or part of a case, asks a higher court to decide if the lower court made a legal mistake.
An appeal is not a new trial. In appeals, the parties cannot present new evidence or new witnesses. The appellate court only reviews the record from the lower court to decide if a legal mistake was made in the original trial.
In an appellate case, the arguments are about the law, not the facts of a case.

Does the appellate court rehear cases or hold a new trial?
No. The appellate court does not rehear the case or hold a new trial. It does not take new evidence, or decide which witnesses were telling the truth. There are no witnesses or juries. In an appeal, the judges of the appellate court review what happened in the trial court to see if a legal mistake was made in the case; for example, to see if the trial court judge applied the wrong law to the facts of the case.
The appellate court cannot change the trial court judge's decision just because the appellate court judges disagree with it. The trial court is entitled to hear the evidence and come to its own decision. The appellate court can only reverse the trial court's decision if it finds a legal mistake in the trial court proceedings that was so important that it changed at least part of the outcome of the case. Because of this heavy burden of proof, it is quite difficult to win an appeal. Very few decisions in civil cases are reversed by the appellate court.




http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp/other/appeals-geninfo.htm#1

 

[ivy]

The appellate court can only reverse the trial court's decision if it finds a legal mistake in the trial court proceedings that was so important that it changed at least part of the outcome of the case.

You are right that they won't go and determine and say that he's dependent or not dependent however they can withheld or reverse the previous decision.

the key word is "reverse the trial court's decision". Beckloff ruled that Joe has no standing as he wasn't a dependent of Michael. If the appellate court reverses the decision that would mean that he has a standing. and technically it would allow Joe to go after the will, estate and the executors. That's what I was meaning in my previous post.

 

[marc_vivien]

ok, but Beckloff ruled :

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff said he would not agree to hold a separate hearing -- requested by Joe Jackson attorney Brian Oxman -- before making his ruling, saying he had enough information before him to make the appointments of John Branca and John McClain.


The judge also said that other than his claims of entitlement to a family allowance, Joe Jackson was excluded from assets from the estate under his son's will or the family trust and therefore had no standing to challenge McClain or Branca.


"Mr. Jackson takes nothing under this estate," Beckloff said. "That was a decision his son made. I don't see how he's affected by the appointment of Branca or McClain as executors."

http://www.dailynews.com/breakingnews/ci_13757337

The judge ruled that only a beneficiary, such as Katherine Jackson, is in a position to make the challenge.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-11-10/...joe-jackson-katherine-jackson/2?_s=PM:SHOWBIZ



A beneficiary is someone who takes assets under the will or by intestacy laws.

The phrase "any person interested" includes only persons who, either absolutely or contingently, are entitled to share in the estate. [4] Appellants are not entitled to share in the estate. They do not have any pecuniary interest in the devolution of the estate as may be defeated or impaired by the probate of the will. They are not in any way interested in preserving the assets, or in the settlement of the estate. They have no right to oppose the probate of the will or the grant of letters of administration with the will annexed, or to appeal from the order with respect thereto.

http://www.lawlink.com/research/CaseLevel3/24741

 

[marc_vivien]

By law, only some people can contest the will, someone who will inherit a part of the estate. Joe Jackson will not inherit nothing by will or trust. if the will is invalid, the kids will have 100% of the estate. And Katherine will be the administator (because she is the guardian).

The new argument from Oxman is that under the Civil Code section 377.60, as dependent parent, the estate had obligation to file a wrongful death lawsuit on the behalf of the "heirs" (Joe). the executors are acting like "statutory trustee" and failed. So, he may challenge them.

but the 377.60 says :

377.60. A cause of action for the death of a person caused by the
wrongful act or neglect of another may be asserted by any of the
following persons or by the decedent's personal representative on
their behalf:
(a) The decedent's surviving spouse, domestic partner, children,
and issue of deceased children, or, if there is no surviving issue of
the decedent, the persons, including the surviving spouse or
domestic partner, who would be entitled to the property of the
decedent by intestate succession.
(b) Whether or not qualified under subdivision (a), if they were
dependent on the decedent, the putative spouse, children of the
putative spouse, stepchildren, or parents. As used in this
subdivision, "putative spouse" means the surviving spouse of a void
or voidable marriage who is found by the court to have believed in
good faith that the marriage to the decedent was valid.

damages fom wrongful death lawsuit are not assets of the estate

 

[elusive moonwalker]

mj body gurads at that time has given oxman a statement, saying they know mj did not sign any will that day cause they were there.

this argument is redundant anyway cause if the 2002 wil lgets thrown out the 97 one comes instead and shock horror its the same as the 2002 one without the kids who werent born at that point.the fact its the same as the 2002 one tells u its not fake unless u are gonna be stupid enough to claim the 97 one is aswell

As I have heard in joe jackson case they will show that branca is stealing money from the estate etc, joe and oxman say that they want murray and every one else involved in mj death, they are going after AEG aswell branca is believed to be brought on by AEG according to rowe who is working with joe to get justice for mj, branca is tied in with AEG business and about the surpose to be phony will presented by branca, mj body gurads at that time has given oxman a statement, saying they know mj did not sign any will that day cause they were there.

did oxman or rowe tell you that LOL funny how its all rowe oxman and joe all in it together bet rowes hoping for a good % cant wait for the evidence of branca stealing money.funny how they havnt claimed anything cause they know they would get their ass's sued other than going on about the 03 trial where nothing was provern.. why havnt they gone to the police. is mclain in on this or is he ok cause the family know him. so branca was brought in by AEG? well makes a change from saying he was in with sony. so cant wait to see all this evidence presented LOL god some fans are so niave and so far up the jacksons asses that they cant see the wood for the trees and ignore all the facts that are placed infront of them. its the same mentality as the haters during the trial. whether happened there was always an excuse no matter how stupid it made them look

according to rowe who is working with joe to get justice for mj,

lmao yeah and im mjs love child.

Overall what I am saying is there's a huge difference between what Joe and Oxman might be saying to media, fans on Ustream , conspiracy theories and what is being filed in court.

exactly. oxman and joe and rowe are full of it. they talk to the media but when it comes to walking the walk in court they run same ole.look at how joe ran when he was gonna get questioned under oath dropped his claim faster that a jacket spud.

 

[ivy]

A beneficiary is someone who takes assets under the will or by intestacy laws.

I don't think that Oxman argues that Joe is a beneficiary. See this

"Brian Oxman said that Joe is allowed to challenge the executors as ”an interested party who has the right to be an executor or personal representative.”"

http://www.okmagazine.com/2009/11/joe-jackson-accuses-michael-jacksons-executors-of-fraud/

IMO this was never about a monthly allowance, it's about being an executor and getting 5-10% from every deal and managing Michael's name, image and likeliness.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

IMO this was never about a monthly allowance, it's about being an executor and getting 5-10% from every deal and managing Michael's name, image and likeliness.

yeap spot on. he wants control

 

[marc_vivien]

Ok, but by law, Katherine has priority for appointment.

By law,

http://www.lawlink.com/research/CaseLevel3/68233

An "interested person" is "defined as one who has such a pecuniary interest in the devolution of the testator's estate as would be impaired or defeated by the probate of the will or be benefited by setting it aside." (Estate of Marler (1957) 148 Cal.App.2d 30, 33 [306 P.2d 105].) Thus, a will contestant must show his or her share of the distribution will be increased if the contest is successful.

you can not contest a will because you want to be an executor. It's not permitted by the law. You can contest a will when you share in the estate (heir at law, beneficiary under a prior will, etc..).

Oxman's argument about rights for appointment is BS.

 

[marc_vivien]

here, 2 posts from a estate/probate lawyer who post in TMZ :

http://www.tmz.com/2010/08/16/joe-jackson-michael-jackson-estate-beneficary-will-executors/9/

Margaret Lodise is correct in her assessment. (Full disclosure: I have personally dealt with Ms. Lodise in a professional capacity on two separate occasions. She is a bright, formidable woman and a talented litigator. Michael Jackson's children are fortunate to have her competent counsel shepherd their interests throughout the legal process.) Each time Joseph Jackson files a frivolous claim with the court the best interests' of Michael Jackson's children are intentionally undermined.
Joseph Jackson has no legal standing whatsoever; and the Court will not give him what his son has forsaken. It appears Joseph Jackson is putting his own overgrown sense of entitlement ahead of the welfare of his grandchildren. Unfortunately, Joseph Jackson lacks competent legal counsel. Mr. Oxman's actions have been incredulous thus far. (Though it is beginning to appear his actions and Joseph Jackson's legal pursuits may be a part of a larger, misguided strategic plan to further stall and elongate the legal process. Time will tell. But - and this is my legal hypothesis - do not be surprised if once the Court summarily dismisses Joseph Jackson's claims, he attempts to start the process over again claiming he received inadequate counsel in the person of Mr. Oxman.) Either way, Mr. Oxman and his conduct are an embarrassment to the legal profession.
For those who may be interested, I would be remiss if I did not add that over the last year, I have spoken with a number of colleagues who know and/or have worked directly with Mr. Branca over the years. No one has had anything imperfect to say about him or his practices. Mr. Branca remains well-liked and a respected member of the Bar.
One more point, (as many on this board are preoccupied with questioning the validity of Michael Jackson's Last Will and Trust), as an attorney in California who draws up EP instruments each day, I can tell you with certainty that there is nothing extraordinary about the Michael Jackson Estate instruments given the magnitude of his estate. Especially an Estate that includes minor children. It is important you understand that the time to challenge the validity of The Last Will of Michael Jackson has come and gone. Once the Court, upon review of a complete history of all Estate instruments, accepted Mr. Jackson's Will into probate it was over. What is evident, after having read the Michael Jackson Estate Instruments as filed with the Court, is Michael Jackson put a great deal of care into planning his estate.
Mjuls, Esq.

http://www.tmz.com/2010/08/16/joe-jackson-michael-jackson-estate-beneficary-will-executors/23/

First, it is important to point out that you are confusing two distinct and separate actions. Most of your questions pertain to Joe Jackson’s pursuit of a Wrongful Death claim. The other action is Joe Jackson’s efforts to have John Branca and John McClain removed as co-Executors of Mr. Jackson’s Estate.
As I explained in my earlier posting, almost anyone can file a lawsuit against any party for almost any reason. Once the lawsuit is filed, the Courts decide if the case merits a response. But in order to file a lawsuit the litigants must have the proper standing to bring suit in the first place. The Court has already correctly ruled that Joe Jackson does not have the legal standing to initiate either action. Joe Jackson and Brian Oxman are now seeking to have Judge Beckloff’s ruling overturned by the appellate court. Judge Beckloff’s ruling was on point in accordance with California state law and Mr. Jackson’s expressed wishes. The chances of the appeals court overruling Judge Beckloff’s decision can only be described as infinitesimal if not impossible. What Joe Jackson and Brian Oxman are now doing is “banging on doors in the hope of breaking a window.” A futile effort if there is no window in the first place. As stated earlier, these gentlemen are having the legal equivalent of a temper tantrum because they were not invited to the party. A party they were not invited to because Michael Jackson did not invite them.
Why Brian Oxman is conducting himself in this manner, I honestly don’t have an answer for you. I find his actions to date baffling. To quote a colleague: “Joe Jackson must have promised him [Oxman] a seat “at the table” should he gain control of the Estate. Otherwise this fool has thrown away his career and trashed his reputation for no reason.”

http://www.grossmanlaw.net/blog/joe-jackson-cant-contest-appointment-of-executors.cfm

Joe Jackson can't contest appointment of executors

Joe Jackson was denied the right to challenge the appointment of the executors of Michael Jackson's estate. Judge Beckloff, the Los Angeles probate court judge who made this decision, got it right. The will had already been admitted to probate and Joe Jackson does not inherit under the will.



Since Jackson takes nothing under the will, he had no standing (meaning he had no stake in the outcome) so he couldn't challenge who would be in charge of the estate; the executor. If someone who got nothing under the will could challenge the appointment then that would allow anyone with an opinion and enough money to hire a lawyer the ability to tie up a probate.

 

[marc_vivien]

Oxman, in his reply brief, wrote :

He also says that although the will does not leave Joseph Jackson any assets, his client is a "statutory beneficiary" under the state Code of Civil Procedure and that both Branca and McClain are "statutory trustees."


According to the attorney, Joseph Jackson was financially dependent upon his son while the singer was alive. When the entertainer died, McClain and Branca had the obligation to bring a wrongful death suit against those who allegedly caused his death in order to replace that lost income, according to Oxman.


Joseph Jackson ultimately was forced to bring the action on his own behalf in U.S. District Court on June 25, the first anniversary of his son's death, against Dr. Conrad Murray, the physician charged with giving the pop superstar a lethal dose of sedatives.


His client "was placed in the intolerable position of paying for the wrongful death proceeding himself, which would cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars," Oxman's court papers state.

http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/trial-procedure-appellate-decisions/14947554-1.html

Oxman attempted to persuade the three judge panel - arguing that Joe had filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Dr. Conrad Murray, giving Mr. Jackson legal standing as a beneficiary or heir to the estate.

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2010/10/nobody-wants-joe-jackson-be-part-michaels-estate


his argument, now, is that filing a wrongful death lawsuit gives him standing to contest the executors. But :

Furthermore, a cause of action for wrongful death under Code of Civil Procedure section 377 clearly is not an asset of the estate of the decedent.

http://www.lawlink.com/research/CaseLevel3/62972

In a wrongful death case the action must be brought by the decedent's "heirs or personal representatives on their behalf." (Code Civ. Proc., ? 377, subd. (a).) The personal representative "is made a statutory trustee to recover damages for the benefit of the heirs. As administrator of the estate he has no interest in the matter, for the fruits of any judgment he may recover do not belong to the estate. Those fruits pass to the heirs as statutory beneficiaries of the statutory trustee. They do not take them by way of succession. This statutory action was given for the benefit of the heirs of the deceased, and for no other purpose. It was enacted in order that they might compensate themselves for pecuniary injury suffered in the loss by death of a relative, and this being so the statute necessarily contemplates that there must be heirs of a deceased. If this deceased had no heirs, then this statute does not apply, and there can be no action; for there can be no statutory trustee if there be neither trust nor beneficiary." (Webster v. Norwegian Mining Co. (1902) 137 Cal. 399, 400 [70 P. 276].)

http://www.lawlink.com/research/CaseLevel3/60612



Oxman is looking for something which will stick

 

[ivy]

Oxman is looking for something which will stick

Totally agree as I told you before as well. It's my partial educated opinion that Oxman is just trying to throw anything that he can find hoping that at least one sticks.

 

[Big Apple2]

here, 2 posts from a estate/probate lawyer who post in TMZ :

Thanks for those 2 postings marc vivien.

I find it very interesting to read what a "third-party," who is also an estate/probate lawyer and has no claims in these proceedings, has to say about this particular case.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

his argument, now, is that filing a wrongful death lawsuit gives him standing to contest the executors. But :

yeah but isnt murray claiming he cant sue cause hes not a benificiary? so its like going round in circles.he has no standing in the wrongful death case so how can oxman say by filing that suit it means he use it to support his other claims

 

[elusive moonwalker]

here, 2 posts from a estate/probate lawyer who post in TMZ :

http://www.tmz.com/2010/08/16/joe-jackson-michael-jackson-estate-beneficary-will-executors/9/


http://www.tmz.com/2010/08/16/joe-jackson-michael-jackson-estate-beneficary-will-executors/23/




http://www.grossmanlaw.net/blog/joe-jackson-cant-contest-appointment-of-executors.cfm

thanks for posting that. its all so simple when they point everything out. unless these judges fancy setting a precedent and basicalyl re write the law joe has no chance. but yeah oxman is throwing mud hoping something will stick cause if it does hes in for big $

 

[{Laura}]

This isn't new information. Joe has always been entirely dependent on Michael's income. Begging money from a daughter like Janet would've been far too great of an insult to his so called manhood.

 

[blueocean]

this argument is redundant anyway cause if the 2002 wil lgets thrown out the 97 one comes instead and shock horror its the same as the 2002 one without the kids who werent born at that point.the fact its the same as the 2002 one tells u its not fake unless u are gonna be stupid enough to claim the 97 one is aswell

did oxman or rowe tell you that LOL funny how its all rowe oxman and joe all in it together bet rowes hoping for a good % cant wait for the evidence of branca stealing money.funny how they havnt claimed anything cause they know they would get their ass's sued other than going on about the 03 trial where nothing was provern.. why havnt they gone to the police. is mclain in on this or is he ok cause the family know him. so branca was brought in by AEG? well makes a change from saying he was in with sony. so cant wait to see all this evidence presented LOL god some fans are so niave and so far up the jacksons asses that they cant see the wood for the trees and ignore all the facts that are placed infront of them. its the same mentality as the haters during the trial. whether happened there was always an excuse no matter how stupid it made them look

lmao yeah and im mjs love child.

exactly. oxman and joe and rowe are full of it. they talk to the media but when it comes to walking the walk in court they run same ole.look at how joe ran when he was gonna get questioned under oath dropped his claim faster that a jacket spud.

About the will All I can tell you, that will that branca presented and said michael sign it in los angelos while he was in new york, michael body guards gave a statement to oxman saying michael did not sign any will that day they were there, that would make that will a fraud. about the case guess you have to wait and see what evidence they have.

 

[Justthefacts]

We don't have to wait and see anything because Oxman is no position to challenge the will none. The only person who can do that is Katherine and it is to late to do so. If they have this evidence as you say then they should have said something about it before hand now it is just to late