New Jackson songs on hard drives are missing

[ParisKatherine]

ok my understanding of the " unrealeased " situation

off the wall = a few home demos and un used tracks
thriller = the freddie mercury sessions and un used material
bad = the session with prince and run dmc and the un used tracks
dangerous = hundreds of recorded demos
history = the beatles recordings
invincible = over 300 un used songs

there is a crap load of un realised songs it is said around 200 belong to the children to realise if they want / need money

mj didnt have a label when he passed ( un less there was a deal that wasnt made public )

this means the jackson will have to sell rights for it to be realised

wow how do u know about all that stuff???

 

[KingOfPop1]

The songs does not need to be logged unless they will be made available for release. That's like logging how many sweaters Michael had. If it's personal property, the property belongs to his children.

 

[Autumn II]

The songs does not need to be logged unless they will be made available for release. That's like logging how many sweaters Michael had. If it's personal property, the property belongs to his children.

Absolutely, the songs belong to the children.

Do you guys KNOW that if Katherine takes the Executors to court, for any reason, THEIR court costs will be paid from the estate, but not hers? At least, that's what happened with my mother's estate, in a similar (but much smaller in scale) situation.

I hope someone continues to look for an updated will.

 

[jamgirl86]

The songs does not need to be logged unless they will be made available for release. That's like logging how many sweaters Michael had. If it's personal property, the property belongs to his children.

Absolutely.

A hard drive is his personal property...how do we know who's computer it came from?

 

[jamgirl86]

Absolutely, the songs belong to the children.

Do you guys KNOW that if Katherine takes the Executors to court, for any reason, THEIR court costs will be paid from the estate, but not hers? At least, that's what happened with my mother's estate, in a similar (but much smaller in scale) situation.

I hope someone continues to look for an updated will.

:yes:

 

[Lacey]

The songs does not need to be logged unless they will be made available for release. That's like logging how many sweaters Michael had. If it's personal property, the property belongs to his children.

I understand what you mean, but unreleased songs are way more valuable than sweaters. I also agree that they belong to the children, but how do we know the children have them? All I can think of is that I know plenty of families who when there was a death descended like locusts afterwards taking whatever they wanted and afterwards when things were missing that were supposed to go to particular people, suddenly no one knew where they were. And I'll bet lots of people know families like that. At least if the songs were registered as a part of the estate, then they would definitely be in the hands of the children.

 

[jamgirl86]

I understand what you mean, but unreleased songs are way more valuable than sweaters. I also agree that they belong to the children, but how do we know the children have them? All I can think of is that I know plenty of families who when there was a death descended like locusts afterwards taking whatever they wanted and afterwards when things were missing that were supposed to go to particular people, suddenly no one knew where they were. And I'll be lots of people know families like that. At least if the songs were registered as a part of the estate, then they would definitely be in the hands of the children.

Don't compare the Jacksons to locusts.

 

[Lacey]

Don't compare the Jacksons to locusts.

If you actually read my post you would know that I did know such thing.

 

[Autumn II]

1.And that truth, to me, also including questions about his family - who also, at times, have seemed to be cashing in already and in worse ways than selling merch.

2.The only indication that I've ever heard about Michael changing his will every 5 years was from LaToya, and I most certainly don't consider her a trustworthy source.

3. . . . in rehearsals for a previous tour, Michael told them he had IV for nutrition during some of the rehearsal. He said he didn't do it on purpose, it was just how he was and that's why he didn't want to tour. So, if all that is true, and it does ring true, it's understandable that someone would be employed to make sure Michael ate. That's also how he could pass a physical and then close to tour time be losing weight and not sleeping.

4. The latest news about the insurance policy is that specifies NO payment for illegal or illicit drug use, and it's looking like it won't pay off - of course, that's TMZ which is always questionable, but it does make sense from the insurance company's point of view because of the typical drug scene with musicians/bands, etc.

5. I truly believe that the autopsy report is being held back because of investigative issues. If it were not so, then I would think the Jackson's would have made theirs public. The only reason that makes sense for them not to is not to compromise the investigation.

6. I do think that if there was a later will, that whoever drafted it and the witnesses to it would have spoken up. As for Frank, didn't listen to the interview, so I didn't hear him say he was expecting money from the estate.

7. Because there was no initial reason to suspect it was a crime scene. Michael could have had a heart attack or a stroke. Police don't secure houses as crime scenes whenever anyone calls 911 to report someone not breathing.

8. I would prefer to think that the hard drives were removed to prevent theft. True that Michael would want that music for his children - which is why it should be turned over to the estate so that it can be catalogued and legally given to his children.

9. I question the motives of everyone doing business with Michael and I'm looking for answers. But I also question the motives of some family members. Whoever in the family has them could easily offer to leak music and try to make a deal on their own to cash in. Not like family members already haven't cashed in from tabloids. For those who say, why shouldn't the family profit from his music - well, the ONLY family Michael wanted to profit was his children and his mother.

10. I have plenty of whys - and not a lot of answers. But I'm keeping all my options open and not excluding ANYONE.

The reason I do not trust the executors is because I have been THROUGH this process, ok? I have personal experience, with my mother's estate. A huge amount of money will be gained by the executors. As it stands now, the family is out of the loop in terms of WHAT will be done with whatever is on the hard-drives. . . unless the hard-drives are not found. I hope they are not. Given what happened to ME, I seriously doubt that the executor's primary interest is the family or the children. And the family knows it.

By points. . . .

1. Sure, some of the family are cashing in. Michael was a brother, uncle, son, and father. I'd rather they cash in than anyone else.

2. I believe LaToya about the will. I believe that someone with such a complex estate would update a will at LEAST every five years, as conditions and circumstances change. That is just logical. Katherine is 79 years old, and really didn't know everything. She has custody of the CHILDREN, but is not in a position to run a multi-milliion dollar business. I can't imagine that a person Michael fired long ago would be his first choice. I hope a "real" will is found. . . . .

3. Yeah, that's one way he could pass a physical. There are other ways, too. Including paying off a doctor. That possibility remains open.

4. I have not seen the insurance policy. Neither has anyone else here, as far as I know. Early-on, statements were said/leaked that it was highly unusual that it mentioned "drug-overdose." We may NEVER see the policy. That question remains open and worthy of some. . thinking about? Lloyd's of London is a company known for insuring high-risk and unusual clients. There is no way drug-overdose would NOT have been covered by them.

5. The transcript from Frank's interview is posted. He is deeply involved with the estate.

6. Witnesses to the will? Sure. Money talks, or shuts people up. So do threats. There are many possibilities here. . . . . .

7. You'd better BELIEVE there was reason to think it was a crime-scene. The most famous person in the world drops dead at the age of fifty, on the eve of his traveling to London? Better to err on the side of caution here, and they did not. How hard would it have been to put the yellow tape up and keep it there for awhile? Not hard at all. . . .

8. The personal property now belongs to the family. The clothing left in the closets, the shoes, and the HARD-DRIVES with whatever personal writing might be on there, and music.

9. Motives of family members? Sure. But follow the money. AEG is already cashing in hugely, much more than if Michael had remained alive. And Frank seems to think he's owed a portion of the estate? WHAT? We have no way of knowing if the "only" family members Michael wanted to profit from the estate were his mother and his children. He knew his mother would disperse money to other family members as she saw fit.

10. I'm not excluding anyone, either.

Waiting to see who else had insurance policies on Michael, or will those be "redacted," too? NOBODY is really investigating this, really, in my opinion. I read that Katherine hired a P.I. GOOD FOR HER!

Vic

 

[Autumn II]

I know it's a very sad, confusing time for MJ fans. BUT I do not think it's fair to go around casting aspersions on people like Frank Dileo.

Of course he's no longer MJ's manager, but he was for many, MANY years. He has a right to speak on these issues regardless.

We are raising QUESTIONS, including about Franks' behavior and his recent role in Michael's life.

Frank was Michael's manager for only FIVE years. He was abruptly fired in 1989. No reason was ever given. He had not managed Michael for twenty years.

He does not have the right to insert himself into discussions about the estate. He was an employee. But. . .whose?

 

[Derek1984]

There was NEVER a recording with Michael and Prince together. It never happened. This has been said by Bruce Sweiden. The two met, but never recorded together.

 

[Lacey]

The reason I do not trust the executors is because I have been THROUGH this process, ok? I have personal experience, with my mother's estate. A huge amount of money will be gained by the executors. As it stands now, the family is out of the loop in terms of WHAT will be done with whatever is on the hard-drives. . . unless the hard-drives are not found. I hope they are not. Given what happened to ME, I seriously doubt that the executor's primary interest is the family or the children. And the family knows it.

I have personal experience as well, but it did not turn out the way yours did. If the hard drives were in the hands of the estate, at least it would be certain that if anything was done with them, the estate would profit. Permission had to be granted for Michael's book to be reissued, I would assume that any other deals made would have to similarly be as open and accounted for. I'm just not a fan of things "going missing" - that includes hard drives as well as medical reports. I also wonder what, if anything else, might be on those hard drives.

By points. . . .

1. Sure, some of the family are cashing in. Michael was a brother, uncle, son, and father. I'd rather they cash in than anyone else.

Not me, not the WAY they have cashed in. Selling storied to the same tabloids who lie about Michael without blinking doesn't ever sit well with me. Especially with such private information.

2. I believe LaToya about the will. I believe that someone with such a complex estate would update a will at LEAST every five years, as conditions and circumstances change. That is just logical. Katherine is 79 years old, and really didn't know everything. She has custody of the CHILDREN, but is not in a position to run a multi-milliion dollar business. I can't imagine that a person Michael fired long ago would be his first choice. I hope a "real" will is found. . . . .

Believing LaToya or not is something everyone has to decide on themselves, especially since there is only her word. The reason I don't believe her is because of some of the other things she has said. For me to take her word, I would need corroboration - but that's just me. As for Katherine, I agree with you there, but then why should she be petitioning to be put in such a position???? Her representatives are all saying how much Michael relied on her advice in business and everything, but yet LaToya (who never seemed all that close to Michael) would know about his wills and yet Katherine would not even know he had one??? Something isn't right there. Also, through the years, Michael has always seemed much closer to Janet - so if LaToya knew, then wouldn't Janet? But she has had nothing to say other than to express her grief.

In any case, even if he did have another will, which I don't think is so (could always be wrong), I don't believe he would have named any of his family as executors. It would probably be some other legal firm. That's just what I think.

3. Yeah, that's one way he could pass a physical. There are other ways, too. Including paying off a doctor. That possibility remains open.

Paying off a doctor is a possibility. But I do believe it was necessary for him to have another physical in London. In any case, the autopsy reports from both sides should show if there were any serious problems that should have been reported in the physical.

4. I have not seen the insurance policy. Neither has anyone else here, as far as I know. Early-on, statements were said/leaked that it was highly unusual that it mentioned "drug-overdose." We may NEVER see the policy. That question remains open and worthy of some. . thinking about? Lloyd's of London is a company known for insuring high-risk and unusual clients. There is no way drug-overdose would NOT have been covered by them.

I did read that though. Here is some of what it says:

"Under the terms in place when Jackson died, the $17.5-million policy covered only "losses" -- cancellations or non-appearances by the pop icon "resulting from accident." That coverage could have been expanded to include shows scuttled by a death from natural causes or by illness, but only after insurance officials had reviewed the results of the second medical examination and watched a run-through of the show at the O2 Arena.

Jackson, 50, died June 25, the week before he was to travel to London.

On Thursday, AEG Live provided a copy of the policy to Jackson's mother, Katherine, in what the company said was an effort to quell misinformation about its terms. The entertainer's father, Joe Jackson, suggested in an interview Sunday with Fox News' Geraldo Rivera that there was something suspicious about the AEG policy.


According to a copy obtained by The Times, the policy specifically prohibited a payout if cancellations were related to illegal drug use.

"This insurance does not cover any loss directly or indirectly arising out of, contributed to, by or resulting from . . . the illegal possession or illicit taking of drugs and their effects," the policy read."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-jackson-insurance7-2009aug07,0,5290158.story

5. The transcript from Frank's interview is posted. He is deeply involved with the estate.

6. Witnesses to the will? Sure. Money talks, or shuts people up. So do threats. There are many possibilities here. . . . . .

I'll go read the entire interview. And on the will, yeah, all that is in the outer realms of possibility, but I want more facts to go on.

7. You'd better BELIEVE there was reason to think it was a crime-scene. The most famous person in the world drops dead at the age of fifty, on the eve of his traveling to London? Better to err on the side of caution here, and they did not. How hard would it have been to put the yellow tape up and keep it there for awhile? Not hard at all. . . .

No, there wasn't reason to think that until they actually spoke to Murray. Then they did impound his car. Hindsight is always 20/20.

8. The personal property now belongs to the family. The clothing left in the closets, the shoes, and the HARD-DRIVES with whatever personal writing might be on there, and music.

Well, it's only my opinion, but I would think that all of his personal property should belong to his children, and it's only my belief, but I believe in my heart that's what Michael would have wanted too.

9. Motives of family members? Sure. But follow the money. AEG is already cashing in hugely, much more than if Michael had remained alive. And Frank seems to think he's owed a portion of the estate? WHAT? We have no way of knowing if the "only" family members Michael wanted to profit from the estate were his mother and his children. He knew his mother would disperse money to other family members as she saw fit.

Following the money leads me elsewhere. There is no way at ALL that AEG will profit more than if Michael was alive. They will profit, yes, but not more. They would have sold much more merchandise if the concerts had taken place. And if Michael had done even ONE concert they would have actual concert footage to sell, not just rehearsal footage. There is no way they profit more. Now who does profit without any loss??? Could be Tohme. I wonder if he got his cut of the AEG deal upfront as Michael's manager. That would be all profit and he would have nothing to gain or lose if Michael didn't go through with the concerts because he was out. That makes me think about things like the auction and the 5 million of Michael's he had lying around. I wonder if he would profit more with Michael dead because then his dealings could remain secret. And since you talk about insurance policies, I also wonder if Tohme had one on Michael too as his manager. Not to mention if 5 million of Michael's money was all he had. More motive there since Michael knew what he gave him. I think people are soooo focused on AEG that they are forgetting other possibilities. I am truly bothered by Tohme and how Michael got involved with Murray and with him.

10. I'm not excluding anyone, either.

Waiting to see who else had insurance policies on Michael, or will those be "redacted," too? NOBODY is really investigating this, really, in my opinion. I read that Katherine hired a P.I. GOOD FOR HER!

Vic

I do think there needs to be a LOT more investigation, and I'm glad, too, if Katherine hired a P.I. - I know I sure would.

 

[LisaB]

Why would MJ have to have an updated will if things never changed? Why would he want different executors? He has hired and fired several lawyers but he never changed his executors as he more than likely wanted them to remain executors. U also need to remember Branca is not the only executor. There is also Mccain(sp) who was never fired. He also has a say. And if money talks the other executor, if they existed would be talking very much right now because he would be getting big dough as an executor.I am also quite wary of his family getting control of his wealth. That would be a disaster waiting to happen. I also know we have taken to much speculation to form the basis of our arguments and we get into trouble then. For example instead of questioning why the insurance would cover drug overdose we should wait for the insurance coverage to be factually revealed. Question: is there a limit as to how much AEG can benefit from MJ? I don't think they are entitled to more than they have already spent and certainly not more than the proposed profit they would have made had MJ done the concerts.

 

[krism]

i remember reading in some uk magazine that theres roughly 600 unreleased songs. some recorded, others just music or notes. certainly enough for several studio albums.

 

[Lily]

We are raising QUESTIONS, including about Franks' behavior and his recent role in Michael's life.

Frank was Michael's manager for only FIVE years. He was abruptly fired in 1989. No reason was ever given. He had not managed Michael for twenty years.

He does not have the right to insert himself into discussions about the estate. He was an employee. But. . .whose?

This is an excerpt to something I read a couple days ago as to a reason he may have been fired in 1989.......


Dileo, 42, looks like the kind of man who's more at home making deals than mending fences. And small wonder. As Michael Jackson's manager for five years, he had done just that, shepherding the singer through two hit albums (Thriller, still the biggest-selling LP in history, and Bad), two world tours and into enough endorsements to make them both rich for life. Then, 20 months ago—without warning, Dileo says—he was sacked.

The reason, some speculate, may have been his failure to secure theatrical release for Jackson's feature-length film, Moonwalker, which was eventually released in Europe. "I brought in a $7-or $8-million offer," retorts Dileo, insisting that others had then counseled Jackson against that deal. In February 1989, when he and the singer spoke by phone, Dileo says, it was business as usual, and "everything was hunky-dory." Three days later Jackson's attorney called. "Michael doesn't want to work with you anymore," was all Dileo was told.

Although the dismissal still "hurts plenty," the ex-manager says, any would-be fiscal woes were tempered by a severance package estimated to be worth more than $5 million.

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20113386,00.html

 

[RedMaryFlint]

"Under the terms in place when Jackson died, the $17.5-million policy covered only "losses" -- cancellations or non-appearances by the pop icon "resulting from accident." That coverage could have been expanded to include shows scuttled by a death from natural causes or by illness, but only after insurance officials had reviewed the results of the second medical examination and watched a run-through of the show at the O2 Arena.

Jackson, 50, died June 25, the week before he was to travel to London.

On Thursday, AEG Live provided a copy of the policy to Jackson's mother, Katherine, in what the company said was an effort to quell misinformation about its terms. The entertainer's father, Joe Jackson, suggested in an interview Sunday with Fox News' Geraldo Rivera that there was something suspicious about the AEG policy.


According to a copy obtained by The Times, the policy specifically prohibited a payout if cancellations were related to illegal drug use.

"This insurance does not cover any loss directly or indirectly arising out of, contributed to, by or resulting from . . . the illegal possession or illicit taking of drugs and their effects," the policy read."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-jackson-insurance7-2009aug07,0,5290158.story

That tears it then. If AEG had wanted an insurance payout, they would have been much better off if Michael had been injured rather than dead, especially dead by drugs.

 

[LisaB]

Wow, so there is something factual about the insurance coverage, and it goes against what was being constantly mentioned. See, when will we learn to just wait for some facts.

Of course I am assuming that policy is the correct one.

 

[Autumn II]

Wow, so there is something factual about the insurance coverage, and it goes against what was being constantly mentioned. See, when will we learn to just wait for some facts.

Of course I am assuming that policy is the correct one.

It's hard to identify "facts" these days, what with mainstream news using tabloid sources. We may never know if that is from the "real" policy.

Interesting. But if it's really the language of the insurance policy, then technically, Propofol is not "illicit" nor "illegal." It's not a controlled substance, such as morphine or Demerol. Whoa! I'm sure it will be added to the list of "controlled substances," but was NOT at the time of Michael's death. If the doctor obtained it . . well, he IS a doctor. Isn't he?

What it IS, is extremely stupid for Murray to have used it outside of a hospital. Is he the "fall guy?" Don't know. . . . .

 

[Lacey]

It's hard to identify "facts" these days, what with mainstream news using tabloid sources. We may never know if that is from the "real" policy.

Interesting. But if it's really the language of the insurance policy, then technically, Propofol is not "illicit" nor "illegal." It's not a controlled substance, such as morphine or Demerol. Whoa! I'm sure it will be added to the list of "controlled substances," but was NOT at the time of Michael's death. If the doctor obtained it . . well, he IS a doctor. Isn't he?

What it IS, is extremely stupid for Murray to have used it outside of a hospital. Is he the "fall guy?" Don't know. . . . .

It wouldn't be illegal per se, but propofol would be an illicit use of a drug. It was never intended for use as an aid for insomnia - plus being used without proper monitoring. That's part of what that article was about. This is what we'll all have to wait and see about. But it doesn't look good for payoff.

 

[RedMaryFlint]

Interesting. But if it's really the language of the insurance policy, then technically, Propofol is not "illicit" nor "illegal." It's not a controlled substance, such as morphine or Demerol. Whoa! I'm sure it will be added to the list of "controlled substances," but was NOT at the time of Michael's death. If the doctor obtained it . . well, he IS a doctor. Isn't he?

The language is not only against illicit drugs but the illicit taking of drugs. Given the alleged circumstances of administration of the propofol, that nullifies a payout.

 

[KingOfPop1]

So what if Michael recorded 100 songs for his children and stored them on some external hard drives?!? What if these songs are not meant for release, but only for his children? Michael paid producers, composers, etc and so he owns them and he decided to store them. Hmm, much like fine jewels or a one of a kind record collection. Why on earth would his former manager need to speak to a magazine about this? It isn't Frank's property! Frank's job was over the moment Michael died. He can't manage the estate - that's up to Branca & McClain. That music doesn't belong to Sony Music either. It's PERSONAL PROPERTY that is now owned by his children. They have inherited it.

Again I use the sweater analogy ... Lets say Michael had 200 sweaters. Unless the executors of the estate are planning to SELL these sweaters, they do not need to be logged and they go directly to Michael's widow, and if there is no widow, property goes to the children and that is the law in California.

So the question is, will there be an ESTATE SALE, where everything must be logged?

 

[AllForMJ]

The Jackson family has more right to have Michael's personal belongings than anyone outside of their family.

Let's be thankful that Michael's family immediately went over to the house to get his personal belongings. If they did not, the people that were around him when he was alive would have been taking things and I think Michael would prefer for his things to be with his family.

Remember how many locks Michael had on the door of his bedroom at Neverland and that he had a security system as well? It's most likely because he did not want his staff, or anyone visiting his home, going through his things while he was away. He kept many items of great value at home as well as large sums of money. He's a millionaire. The people employed to run his home are not.

Also, what was Frank going to do with the hard drives if he had them? Was he just going to let them sit dormant? Most likely not. Especially not with the way that he keeps talking about money. So far, he's mentioned the cost of the shows, how much he said the doctor could be paid, he was the first one on television talking about the will and lawyers meeting to discuss it and he did this while the Jackson family was still looking for the will. Did you guys notice that? Look at what he said the next day after MJ died.

“There’s so much speculation as to a will – there is a will. A team of lawyers are gathering today and we’ll sort through all the stuff for the children...”

Notice that he said we'll sort through.

A Jackson needs to be involved in anything that is being sorted through for the children because the children are Jacksons just as Michael is a Jackson. Michael started off his career as a member of the Jackson family act and Frank was nowhere around during that time. MJ started off creating with his family, and what he has created on his own, and has now left behind, goes to his family members. It's very simple.

 

[Lacey]

The Jackson family has more right to have Michael's personal belongings than anyone outside of their family.

Let's be thankful that Michael's family immediately went over to the house to get his personal belongings. If they did not, the people that were around him when he was alive would have been taking things and I think Michael would prefer for his things to be with his family.

A Jackson needs to be involved in anything that is being sorted through for the children because the children are Jacksons just as Michael is a Jackson. Michael started off his career as a member of the Jackson family act and Frank was nowhere around during that time. MJ started off creating with his family, and what he has created on his own, and has now left behind, goes to his family members. It's very simple.

Only my opinion, but I believe that what Michael created on his own should belong only to his children.

 

[Lily]

“There’s so much speculation as to a will – there is a will. A team of lawyers are gathering today and we’ll sort through all the stuff for the children...”

:huh: Who's team of lawyers and who are "we'll"? Why are people sorting through stuff before the will was accepted by the court and the administrators being temporarily appointed? Who outside of the family legally had a right to sort through ANYTHING and make decisions before that first probate hearing? Certainly not DiLeo and why is DiLeo even involved in any of this? WHO'S HIS MOLE keeping him in the loop and informed in all of this, when he has no right to be????? They don't want Mrs. Jackson in on anything, yet DiLeo is kept informed, PLEASE SUCH BULLSHIT! Is the "stuff" they are sorting through being looked at and picked over by certain people for a reason? There needs to be a family member or a legal representative for the family involved in all of this NOW imo. -_-

 

[micaro7]

:huh: Who's team of lawyers and who are "we'll"? Why are people sorting through stuff before the will was accepted by the court and the administrators being temporarily appointed? Who outside of the family legally had a right to sort through ANYTHING and make decisions before that first probate hearing? Certainly not DiLeo and why is DiLeo even involved in any of this? WHO'S HIS MOLE keeping him in the loop and informed in all of this, when he has no right to be????? They don't want Mrs. Jackson in on anything, yet DiLeo is kept informed, PLEASE SUCH BULLSHIT! Is the "stuff" they are sorting through being looked at and picked over by certain people for a reason? There needs to be a family member or a legal representative for the family involved in all of this NOW imo. -_-

That's one of the things I can't understand why does he keep saying "we"
He did the same thing on LK. Is he apart of the estate? I'm confused of what his role is and he seems to be as well.
From his mouth he said MJ put him on the BOD for the SonyATV catalouge so I can understand that part of his interest but beyond that Frank seems to be too involved.

 

[JustaFan2009]

Only my opinion, but I believe that what Michael created on his own should belong only to his children.

I agree with you from an emotional point of view but legally, I don't think that is true.

Michael left all of his assets to the trust which includes his personal property, even his sweaters. MJ's "personal property" is worth millions and it will be distributed by the terms of the trust - ie 40% to his mom, 40% to his kids and 20% to his charities.

 

[Choo Choo]

ohh sorry, I didnt see that this LA times article was already posted here. I posted the same article I think in the newsbytes thread, only the one I posted mentioned Dr. Tohomes name as being on the policy. Its all the way at the end of the article. I can delete mine in the newsbytes threads if the mods want me to?


Here is the last paragraph from the one I posted:

The policy, finalized in April, also covered Jackson's then-manager, Dr. Tohme Tohme.

"I think they put me on the insurance because we were traveling together and we were going to be together," the businessman said.

harriet.ryan@latimes.com

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-jackson-insurance7-2009aug07,0,5290158.story

 

[man_in_the_mirror]

wow how do u know about all that stuff???

a lot of studying on his music i am told there is over 500 un realised songs and the new albumwas 80% complete

 

[Aengil]

Same question about his mother - does she really "own" 40% of the estate or does she just share in the income and when she dies, her 40% reverts back to MJ's kids?

Anyone know for certain? Trusts usually are made public are they?

There's no legal requirement for trusts to be made public, privacy can be one of the reasons to use them.

Hence, there's no way for us to know what the trust actually says unless it's leaked. In general, the assets of the trust are distributed to beneficiaries by the trustees according to the standards defined in the trust. It's been reported that his mother gets 40% - that doesn't mean she owns 40%, it could mean that some assets in the trust are to be immediately sold and the proceeds of that split, or it could mean income to the estate is split, or (probably) some mix of the two. But when she dies, everything in the trust remains in the trust and isn't taxed again - what happens to her 'share' at that point, and what happens as the children get older, etc., will all depend on what the trust says.

Those are a couple of the advantages of using a trust, privacy and control. By keeping your assets in a trust, and having strict standards and rules as to what happens to them to be applied by your trustees, you can have more privacy and keep more control than you could by simply leaving your assets to individuals directly in a will.

Also on this subject, on the lack of an update to the will, MJ could, and quite possibly has, been updating the trust rather than the will. Once the will was drawn up, the only real reasons to change it would be if he got married again, had more children, to change executors, or to change the nominated guardian of his children. Everything else could be done in the trust - there'd be no need to update the will at regular intervals.

As for the hard drives, they legally have to go the executors - everything in MJ's estate goes to the trust. What happens to them as part of the trust would be in the terms of the trust. In theory I think MJ could have put anything in there - what he wanted to happen to particular recordings, or if he wanted them to just go to his children (possibly at a particular age), he could have specified all that in the trust.

Anyway, I imagine everything will be handed over in due course (if it's even true that the family has them - I'm not about to take a Rolling Stone interview with Dileo as gospel). They're probably just waiting for the dust to settle.

 

[Soso Deaf]

damn all these numbered posts that i have to keep scrolling up to re-reference.

sorry but no one in that damn estate board needs to have that stuff. it's for hi skids to decide what's to happen to it.

i know he's got unreleased songs he did while making every album. he records 100 songs per album and whittles it down. so sony can exploit that shit. leave this alone

like i said, what disk? and then find the 'disk' when blanket is 18. like 'oh snap u mean this one? my bad?'