Oct 26 Update: Court Rejects Joe's Appeal / Joe Jackson appeals to remove estate executors

[ginvid]

Re: Update: Hearing date set to October 6th / Joe Jackson appeals to remove estate executors

A few things:

1. This is about Joe Jackson's appeal to move the executors. That alone. Not whether MJ was against Sony or not. There are other threads discussing this. It shant be done here.

2. If you do not have documented proof about something you are saying, don't post it here as fact. Despite what you may think, they are differing opinions about who MJ was talking about when going against Sony, who was involved in his death, etc. Because we do not have all of the facts all we can do is speculate...up to a certain level. Once the level reaches conspiracy take it to the Conspiracy forum.

3. If you have something to discuss off topic with another member, take it to PM and do not derail the thread.

Ivy has stated it, I have stated it, and Sophielo has stated it. And all of us have been ignored. No more. Can everyone please stick to what has been asked. We are not being unreasonable. If you do not have documented proof of what you are saying, then it is not a fact and it does not belong here.

The conspiracy forum is is there for people to use, but instead of taking advantage of a provision made exclusively to encourage dialogue about such things, people want to put their theories in the main forum. Uh, no more. If you feel something more can be done to help with the conspiracy section, let us know. But again, do not, I repeat, do not post conspiracy theories outside of the conspiracy section.

 

[Butterfly26]

Re: Update: Hearing date set to October 6th / Joe Jackson appeals to remove estate executors

Thank you Ivy! Branca has done a fine job. To think that any one else would step into those shoes makes me shudder. Michael knew what was best and who should be sailing the ship for his children.

 

[Autumn II]

Re: Update: Hearing date set to October 6th / Joe Jackson appeals to remove estate executors

In terms of the topic of this thread (Joe's attempt to remove the executors), here are some facts. The executor (one of two), John Branca, was fired during the trial, and an investigation was done as to whether or not he'd been skimming Michael's money into an offshore account, and whether or not he was double-dipping, by also being employed by Sony. An offshore account was discovered, but Branca's name attached to that, was never proven. Double-dipping would have been a clear conflict of interest, if it was true. That has not been for public knowledge.

Branca turned up with the copy of the will that is being used. When Branca was fired, he was asked, in writing, to return any and all documents he might have about Michael's personal or professional life. The following are NOT facts, but questions:

Either Branca:

1. Returned the copy of the will, naming him as executor, when requested.

2. OR, he did not return the copy of the will. (that would have been unethical)

3. OR, he did return the copy of the will, and in the eight days he had returned, Michael found it necessary to return that OLD copy of the will, to him.

4. OR, Michael had a newer copy of his will, and some other attorney had it.

5. OR, the attorney who might have had it, is now dead.

It's one of these, isn't it? Which one, we do not know.

Carry on. . . ..

 

[Memefan]

Re: Update: Hearing date set to October 6th / Joe Jackson appeals to remove estate executors

In terms of the topic of this thread (Joe's attempt to remove the executors), here are some facts. The executor (one of two), John Branca, was fired during the trial, and an investigation was done as to whether or not he'd been skimming Michael's money into an offshore account, and whether or not he was double-dipping, by also being employed by Sony. An offshore account was discovered, but Branca's name attached to that, was never proven. Double-dipping would have been a clear conflict of interest, if it was true. That has not been for public knowledge.

Branca turned up with the copy of the will that is being used. When Branca was fired, he was asked, in writing, to return any and all documents he might have about Michael's personal or professional life. The following are NOT facts, but questions:

Either Branca:

1. Returned the copy of the will, naming him as executor, when requested.

2. OR, he did not return the copy of the will. (that would have been unethical)

3. OR, he did return the copy of the will, and in the eight days he had returned, Michael found it necessary to return that OLD copy of the will, to him.

4. OR, Michael had a newer copy of his will, and some other attorney had it.

5. OR, the attorney who might have had it, is now dead.

It's one of these, isn't it? Which one, we do not know.

Carry on. . . ..

hmmmmmm...can't wait for winter.

 

[Autumn II]

Re: Update: Hearing date set to October 6th / Joe Jackson appeals to remove estate executors

hmmmmmm...can't wait for winter.

Ah, yes. Winter is delightful, and also difficult. There is usually snowfall here. It's great? I make tea, cook in the crock-pot, and generally, tuck-in. Winter can also be brutal. Too many snowfalls, and I fall short of food, for myself and the animals, and then must struggle to the store.

This has all gone on, for too long. My love for Michael, will NEVER fade, and he deserves justice. If not in our lifetimes, then God (if one believes in that, which I do) will take care of it. . ...

 

[Justthefacts]

Re: Update: Hearing date set to October 6th / Joe Jackson appeals to remove estate executors

How about a lawyer that worked for Branca's firm had the will? I mean goodness if he was fired or not Michael never took his name off as an executor. That is all that matters. And someone please tell me when was Branca fired? Because even if he was he was back again in 05

 

[Autumn II]

Re: Update: Hearing date set to October 6th / Joe Jackson appeals to remove estate executors

How about a lawyer that worked for Branca's firm had the will? I mean goodness if he was fired or not Michael never took his name off as an executor. That is all that matters. And someone please tell me when was Branca fired? Because even if he was he was back again in 05

John Branca was fired in 2003, and there is a letter from Michael to that effect. The letter states that he was to return ALL materials relating to Michael, TO Michael (that would include the will). There is no equivalent letter, confirming any rehiring.

In the couple of years before Michael's death, the attorney Michael was working with, and trusted, was named Peter Lopez. He died, and his death was ruled, immediately, a suicide. Interviews with his family and friends revealed that they were shocked, and had no indication that he was, at all, depressed. And that was the end of that. . . .

 

[Justthefacts]

I copied this from another board it goes back to 05 it is of course by now gone but here is the story. Read it and look fot he name John Branca


http://www.hitsdailydouble.com/news/rumormill.cgi

How does Katz fit
into Jackson's latest
gambit?

MICHAEL, JOEL, THE PRINCE & L.A.: Showbiz newshound Roger Friedman of FoxNews.com has sniffed out a secret pow-wow at London’s Dorchester Hotel that included Michael Jackson, his homie the Prince of Bahrain, Atlanta attorney Joel Katz and IDJ chief L.A. Reid. Writes Friedman: “My sources say that Katz has come to represent the Prince in a deal that would fund a record label for Jackson at Island Def Jam’s parent, Universal Music Group. Katz is not new to the Jackson picture. I’m told he represented Jackson’s brother Jermaine for many years in the mid-'80s... Coincidentally—that is, if you believe in coincidences—Katz represents Reid as well (Jackson probably does not know this. Maybe someone at the Dorchester can show him this column). It was Katz who negotiated Reid’s deal that made him head of Arista Records in 2000. He also got him out of that deal and made the current one at Universal.” (10/6a)

THE EMANCIPATION OF Jackson: The above is intriguing stuff, although it was actually Allen Grubman who made Reid's current deal at IDJ. Katz did indeed rep Reid when the latter was living in Atlanta running LaFace, and they remain good friends. It should also be noted that John Branca continues to function as Jackson's music biz attorney. The most intriguing part is this: If Jackson made a deal with IDJ and actually listened to Reid about the making of his next record, he could conceivably have hits again—look what this ace A&R man did for Mariah Carey and her prolonged slump. Reid gets the urban/pop world as well as anybody ever has, and this dialed-in dude could be the answer to Jackson’s career problems. (10/6a)

 

[Autumn II]

Re: Update: Hearing date set to October 6th / Joe Jackson appeals to remove estate executors

I would not accuse anyone, in this situation. I'm just posing the question, did, or did not, Branca return all documentation concerning Michael, when he was fired in 2003? At that time, he was asked, in writing, to return everything. No offshore account with his name on it was ever proven. . . . . And a further question, if he did, indeed, comply and return everything, why did he have possession of the only will? There are many unanswered questions, and it's possible that this lawsuit (and Katherine's) will answer them. . .

 

[Memefan]

Re: Update: Hearing date set to October 6th / Joe Jackson appeals to remove estate executors

I would not accuse anyone, in this situation. I'm just posing the question, did, or did not, Branca return all documentation concerning Michael, when he was fired in 2003? At that time, he was asked, in writing, to return everything. No offshore account with his name on it was ever proven. . . . . And a further question, if he did, indeed, comply and return everything, why did he have possession of the only will? There are many unanswered questions. . .

Who knows...the point is he came back to work for MJ AFTER 2003.

Get with the program already.

 

[Autumn II]

Re: Update: Hearing date set to October 6th / Joe Jackson appeals to remove estate executors

Who knows...the point is he came back to work for MJ AFTER 2003.

Get with the program already.

The "program" is justice for someone we all loved, and to keep open minds, and to continue to question what is not clear, and ONLY that. Michael is gone, and we are not fans of his family, or lawyers, or hair-dressers, or the many managers, or the "spiritual advisers," or body guards, or anyone but him. Michael deserves our very best.

peace. . .

 

[Justthefacts]

Re: Update: Hearing date set to October 6th / Joe Jackson appeals to remove estate executors

It does not even matter if Branca was fired in 03 Michael kept him as an executor and he is one now. Stop and think about it for a second who is to say Branca had Michael's will? I am sure he is not the only lawyer at his firm. That lawyer could of had it. If he returned papers or not is not even an issue. Lets not beat a dead horse I already showed you that he was bought back not long after you said he was fired. So lets get with the program he is an executor he is doing a great job end of it. Give the man some credit. Conrad Murray killed Michael but some of you act like Branca gave him the Propofol

 

[Justthefacts]

Re: Update: Hearing date set to October 6th / Joe Jackson appeals to remove estate executors

The "program" is justice for someone we all loved, and to keep open minds, and to continue to question what is not clear, and ONLY that. Michael is gone, and we are not fans of his family, or lawyers, or hair-dressers, or the many managers, or the "spiritual advisers," or body guards, or anyone but him. Michael deserves our very best.

peace. . .

Michael deserves to have his wishes followed

 

[Autumn II]

Re: Update: Hearing date set to October 6th / Joe Jackson appeals to remove estate executors

Michael deserves to have his wishes followed

Absolutely, he does. Whatever they might have been. I agree, there were other attorneys in that firm. The letter Michael wrote was not addressed to them, though. I doubt this will all ever come to light, what really was the case, anyway, and we'll just have to wait and see what documentation the Panish firm might have in the lawsuit?

 

[Justthefacts]

Re: Update: Hearing date set to October 6th / Joe Jackson appeals to remove estate executors

That lawsuit has nothing to do with John Branca.

 

[Autumn II]

Re: Update: Hearing date set to October 6th / Joe Jackson appeals to remove estate executors

The lawsuit that is the topic of this thread is the one concerning Joe Jackson's attempt to remove the executors of the estate. The executors are Branca and McClain. I doubt this civil suit will fly, regardless, for a variety of reasons -- one being that Brian Oxman is Joe's attorney.

There are two ongoing civil suits -- Katherine's, and Joseph's. Doesn't look like they are on the same page? Regardless, the lawsuits have some overlap, and in particular, they will use some of the same evidence/documents. For that, we'll just have to see what physical evidence is produced in court.

 

[ivy]

Re: Update: Hearing date set to October 6th / Joe Jackson appeals to remove estate executors

John Branca was fired in 2003, and there is a letter from Michael to that effect. The letter states that he was to return ALL materials relating to Michael, TO Michael (that would include the will).

yes Branca was fired during 2003 but he was rehired several months later in 2003 and was working with Michael until 2006.

You can read it in detail on this blog : http://mjandjustice4some.blogspot.com/2010/07/john-branca-2003-2006.html

some highlights from the above blog includes :
- Branca and Koppelman negotiating CBS 60 minutes interview, Branca attending a 2004 MJ legal team meeting, Branca saying that Michael is the biggest artist in the world and Branca and Koppelman advising Michael about Sony/ATV refinancing.

so perhaps Branca returned all the documents like the 2003 firing letter said and later Michael returned him all after he rehired him.

Also we know that Branca filed the will with the court in 2009 but we don't know whether it was in his possession between 2003 and 2009. Like you said another lawyer or person could have the will and give it to Branca when Michael died. The law says after a person dies and if you have the will you either file it with the court or give it to the executor of the will.

There are a lot of possibilities to know for sure.

There is no equivalent letter, confirming any rehiring.

Partially true. True that Oxman only included the 2003 firing letter in his documents but that doesn't mean that there's not a hiring letter. It's just not been filed with the court and/or become public. Btw the 2009 hiring letter of Branca is filed with the court and given to Katherine. - Not that it matters though - You don't need to be an employee to be an executor.

Howard Weitzman, a lawyer for the estate, confirmed, "In mid-June, Michael Jackson retained John Branca to represent him as general and entertainment counsel in his business and personal affairs." Weitzman added, "The letter retaining Branca was shared with lawyers for Katherine Jackson very early in the probate proceedings."

http://www.tmz.com/2009/10/01/micha...oward-weitzman-katherine-jackson-brian-oxman/

4. Michael had a newer copy of his will, and some other attorney had it. 5. OR, the attorney who might have had it, is now dead.

If anybody had a will they have 30 days to file it with court. If we are talking about Lopez, he was alive in that 30 day period. If he had it he would have filed it.

 

[Autumn II]

Re: Update: Hearing date set to October 6th / Joe Jackson appeals to remove estate executors

so perhaps Branca returned all the documents like the 2003 firing letter said and later Michael returned him all after he rehired him.

That is certainly possible. The thing is, I have not much trust in Oxman's skill as an attorney, and if he has any documentation to whatever claims he will make in court? Mostly, I think Joe's lawsuit muddies the water for Katherine's civil suit. She has the more credible attorneys, for sure.

Also we know that Branca filed the will with the court in 2009 but we don't know whether it was in his possession between 2003 and 2009. Like you said another lawyer or person could have the will and give it to Branca when Michael died. The law says after a person dies and if you have the will you either file it with the court or give it to the executor of the will.

There are a lot of possibilities to know for sure.

Right. The problem with this lawsuit (one of the problems) is that Oxman probably doesn't have much, at all, in the way of physical evidence, and even a civil suit can't depend on hearsay evidence.

Partially true. True that Oxman only included the 2003 firing letter in his documents but that doesn't mean that there's not a hiring letter. It's just not been filed with the court and/or become public. Btw the 2009 hiring letter of Branca is filed with the court and given to Katherine. - Not that it matters though - You don't need to be an employee to be an executor.

(See above.) Whatever evidence there might be, i.e. a hiring letter, or other correspondence, could be in the possession of the LAPD, or the Panish law-firm? I'm pretty sure Oxman is flying blind, here. There may be some overlap between Joe's and Katherine's lawsuits, and IMHO, Joe should step away from this. Even if he wins and discredits both the will and the executors, there is a will from 1997 that is virtually the same, and he gains nothing. Not really sure what Oxman is thinking, here?

Howard Weitzman, a lawyer for the estate, confirmed, "In mid-June, Michael Jackson retained John Branca to represent him as general and entertainment counsel in his business and personal affairs." Weitzman added, "The letter retaining Branca was shared with lawyers for Katherine Jackson very early in the probate proceedings."

http://www.tmz.com/2009/10/01/micha...oward-weitzman-katherine-jackson-brian-oxman/

We know that Katherine tried to challenge the will early-on, but was prevented because of the clause that does not allow heirs to challenge. The letter would have, maybe, been written during the time Frank DiLeo was Michael's manager? Typically, Michael gave POA to management. I think that initially, Weitzman was named as another executor, but stepped down from that and instead took the role of attorney for the estate? (not sure why he stepped down, though.)

If anybody had a will they have 30 days to file it with court. If we are talking about Lopez, he was alive in that 30 day period. If he had it he would have filed it.

One would think so?

 

[ivy]

Re: Update: Hearing date set to October 6th / Joe Jackson appeals to remove estate executors

I agree everything that you said about Oxman. I don't think that he's a good lawyer either. I also think he either has limited info (not all the hiring - firing etc) or purposefully omits some things.

We know that Katherine tried to challenge the will early-on, but was prevented because of the clause that does not allow heirs to challenge.

I want to clarify one thing here (for general info). No contest clause doesn't mean that you cannot contest a will. No contest clause means that you need to prove your claim or you lose your inheritance. So if you have a legit provable claim you can contest the will regardless of the no contest clause. and you'll only lose your heir status if you are unsuccessful in proving your claim.

Plus Beckloff allowed Katherine to challenge the executors without losing her beneficiary position. She decided not to use that option either.

 

[Autumn II]

Re: Update: Hearing date set to October 6th / Joe Jackson appeals to remove estate executors

I want to clarify one thing here (for general info). No contest clause doesn't mean that you cannot contest a will. No contest clause means that you need to prove your claim or you lose your inheritance. So if you have a legit provable claim you can contest the will regardless of the no contest clause. and you'll only lose your heir status if you are unsuccessful in proving your claim.

Plus Beckloff allowed Katherine to challenge the executors without losing her beneficiary position. She decided not to use that option either.

Thanks for explaining. But, that's an incredible risk then, isn't it? Or it would have been if Beckloff hadn't allowed possibility of a challenge without penalty?

Then what we must have here is a situation where Joseph and Katherine are at odds. We can only imagine the discussions (arguments?) behind closed doors? :bugeyed

 

[CherubimII]

Re: Update: Hearing date set to October 6th / Joe Jackson appeals to remove estate executors

Joe is trying to do just one thing:
"Get Michael's children's Money. "
I pray he does not succeed. :angel:

 

[ivy]

Re: Update: Hearing date set to October 6th / Joe Jackson appeals to remove estate executors

Thanks for explaining. But, that's an incredible risk then, isn't it? Or it would have been if Beckloff hadn't allowed possibility of a challenge without penalty?

Then what we must have here is a situation where Joseph and Katherine are at odds. We can only imagine the discussions (arguments?) behind closed doors? :bugeyed

Depends on the claim.

For example we know that Oxman argues that Michael wasn't in Los Angeles when the will was signed , he was in New York. We all know it is true and he can easily prove it. But you also have 3 witnesses that gave affidavits to court (standard procedure by the way) saying that they saw him sign it and the place was just an error. So using this claim to invalidate the will is quite a risk.

However putting the will aside, Katherine could have filed all Joe's claims about Branca (that he was fired, that he worked for Sony as well, at there was a conflict of interest, fraud etc etc) with no consequences whatsoever to her heir position as Beckloff allowed it. Like I said before she withdrew her opposition after Streisand (a decent lawyer btw) was hired.

 

[marc_vivien]

Re: Update: Hearing date set to October 6th / Joe Jackson appeals to remove estate executors

Joe can NOT contest the will, even if the appellate court reverses the court's order.
the court's order is about appointment of executor.

If the will is invalid, the 97 will stands. if the 97 will is invalid, the intestacy laws stand.

In any case, Joe will get no assets. It's why he can not contest.

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.

http://www.lawlink.com/research/CaseLevel3/48267

that only person interested may contest a will, either before or after probate, it has been held that "An 'interested person' is one who has such a pecuniary interest in the devolution of the testator's estate as may be impaired or defeated by the probate of the will or be benefited by having it set aside." (Estate of O'Brien, 246 Cal.App.2d 788, 792 [55 Cal.Rptr. 343].) In the early case of Estate of Baker, 170 Cal. 578, 586-587 [150 P. 989], it was held that the right of an interested person to contest a will is fundamentally based upon the loss of property or property rights resulting from the recognition of an invalid instrument depriving him that the purpose of a will of those rights; that the purpose of a will contest is to establish a violation of the contestant's right of property; that in its essence the contest is an action for the recovery of property unlawfully taken or about to be taken from the ownership of the contestant.

http://www.lawlink.com/browse_codes.aspx?caselevel3=66263

To contest a will before or after probate, the would-be contestant must be an "interested person." (?? 370, 380.) [4] "The courts do not favor will contests." (3 Koontz, op. cit. supra, ? 22.4, p. 22-8.) [5a] Accordingly, the courts have long and steadfastly limited the right to contest the probate of a will to those who have "'such a pecuniary interest in the devolution of the testator's estate, as would be impaired or defeated by the probate of a will or be benefited by the setting aside of the will.' [Citations.]" (Estate of Molera (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 993, 998 [100 Cal.Rptr. 696].)

In the seminal case of Estate of Land (1913) 166 Cal. 538 [137 P. 246], the California Supreme Court noted "'the statute contemplates a legal interest and not merely a grievance to the feelings of propriety or sense of justice.'" (At p. 543.) [6] The purpose of restricting who may contest probate is to avoid "delaying the settlement of the estate." (Estate of Plaut (1945) 27 Cal.2d 424, 429 [164 P.2d 765, 162 A.L.R. 837].)

[7a] As "only an interested person may properly be a contestant" (Estate of Powers (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 715, 719 [154 Cal.Rptr. 366], italics in original), appellant must allege his standing as an interested person. [5b] That is, he must allege he would take under another will or by intestacy in the event of a successful contest to the purported will.(Id., at p. 720.)

Joe must prove that he will get assets in the estate if the will is invalid.
Good luck to him. because it's impossible.

the kids, by intestacy laws, will get 100 % of the estate and Joe 0 %. So, Joe can NOT contest the will.

In probate courts, priorities are given to beneficiaries or heirs, not those who think they deserve to be executors.

I made some researches. and nobody can contest the will because he wants to be executor, he must allege a portion of assets in the estate.

even if the will is invalid, Katherine has priority for appointment (because she is guardian of the kids), not Joe.

 

[Agent M]

Re: Update: Hearing date set to October 6th / Joe Jackson appeals to remove estate executors

Oral Arguments Presented in Joseph Jackson's Appeal Over Denial of Hearing

I think anal arguments will also be presented in Joseph Jackson's appeal over denial of hearing!

 

[ivy]

Re: Update: Hearing date set to October 6th / Joe Jackson appeals to remove estate executors

10/08/2010 Received: Oral argument CD request from Charles Peckham. [CD sent via requesting party's FedEx envelope on October 12, 2010.]

 

[marc_vivien]

Re: Update: Hearing date set to October 6th / Joe Jackson appeals to remove estate executors

10/26/2010 Opinion filed. (Signed Unpublished)
The probate court's judgment dismissing Joseph's objection to the appointment of the executors is affirmed. Respondents are awarded their costs on appeal. 21 pages; ZWJ


Description: Affirmed in full
Date: 10/26/2010
Status: Final
Publication Status: Signed Unpublished
Author: Zelon, Laurie D.
Participants: Jackson, Frank Y. (Concur)
Woods, Fred (Concur)
Case Citation: none



http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=2&doc_id=1926317&doc_no=B220404


document soon,


it's over for Joe and Oxman

 

[ivy]

Re: Update: Hearing date set to October 6th / Joe Jackson appeals to remove estate executors

so Joe lost the appeal.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: Update: Hearing date set to October 6th / Joe Jackson appeals to remove estate executors

good. is this as far as he can take it or is there another appeal process?

 

[kasume]

Re: Update: Hearing date set to October 6th / Joe Jackson appeals to remove estate executors

it's okay, Joe.

Nous gangera cette guerre.

 

[ivy]

Re: Update: Hearing date set to October 6th / Joe Jackson appeals to remove estate executors

Court Rejects Michael Jackson Father's Appeal

CA appeals court rejects bid by Michael Jackson's father to challenge estate administrators
The Associated Press
Post a Comment By ANTHONY McCARTNEY AP Entertainment Writer
LOS ANGELES October 26, 2010 (AP)


A California appeals court has rejected a bid by Michael Jackson's father to challenge the administration of his son's lucrative estate.

A three justice panel of the California Second District Court of Appeal issued its ruling Tuesday in Los Angeles.


The justices affirmed a probate judge's ruling that Joe Jackson didn't have standing to intervene in his son's estate.

Despite being excluded from his son's 2002 will, Joe Jackson had been seeking a say in the financial affairs.

The appeals court heard arguments in the case on Oct. 6.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=11974663

good. is this as far as he can take it or is there another appeal process?

as far as this claim and lawsuit goes - it's over. Joe has no standing to challenge the will & executors as he's not a beneficiary.

who knows whether or not Oxman can pull another claim and another lawsuit from his bag.