Latest on MJJC
- Latest Michael Jackson News
- Click Here to Join Our Community
- Follow us on X
- Wanna talk Michael? Come join the chat rooms
- The Michael Jackson Chart Watch
- Become an MJJC Patron
- Join the Premium Member Group and Get Lot's of Extra's
- Major Love Prayer - Worldwide Monthly Prayer Every 25th
- MJJC Exclusive Q&A - We talk to the family and those in and around Michael
- Join us in the Chat Rooms
- Find us on Facebook
Oct 26 Update: Court Rejects Joe's Appeal / Joe Jackson appeals to remove estate executors
- Thread starter ivy
- Start date
marc_vivien
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,176
- Points
- 38
Review by the California Supreme Court is extremely rare. It only grants review in 4-5% of cases each year. Unlike the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court is not required to hear all cases filed before it. The review process allows the Supreme Court to choose the cases it wants to hear. Generally, the granting of review is limited to cases that present issues that have never come before the courts before (issues of first impression), or that have an effect on large portion of the California population, or that have conflicting opinions in the various Courts of Appeal throughout the state.
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp/other/appeals-petitions.htm#5
Oxman has NO chance here
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp/other/appeals-petitions.htm#5
Oxman has NO chance here
Re: Update: Hearing date set to October 6th / Joe Jackson appeals to remove estate executors
for a moment I thought that you were joking but then I saw the news. Oxman never cease to amaze me.
true he can take it to supreme court but I see that as an impossible to win type of scenario. I think you'd agree to that as well.
for a moment I thought that you were joking but then I saw the news. Oxman never cease to amaze me.
true he can take it to supreme court but I see that as an impossible to win type of scenario. I think you'd agree to that as well.
Memefan
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 5,382
- Points
- 0
Is it me or Alan Duke, the cnn.com reporter is a "media mule" for Joe & Oxman. I find it suspicious that he often has direct quote from them and he is the only journalist who included this in his report:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/celebrity.news.gossip/10/26/michael.jackson.probate/
He was also the 1st reporter with pictures of MJ's 3 kids' signed belt.
True but..it is a hassle for the estate. And cost a lot of money. The estate will be tie in the probate court system for years.
Well, It will be Katherine's lost. She is the oldest beneficiary....and the one that might lose the most by this dragged out fight with Joe. I wish her a long life, but if Joe continues on this path, she might leave this earth before the estate is out of Probate.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/celebrity.news.gossip/10/26/michael.jackson.probate/
He was also the 1st reporter with pictures of MJ's 3 kids' signed belt.
True but..it is a hassle for the estate. And cost a lot of money. The estate will be tie in the probate court system for years.
Well, It will be Katherine's lost. She is the oldest beneficiary....and the one that might lose the most by this dragged out fight with Joe. I wish her a long life, but if Joe continues on this path, she might leave this earth before the estate is out of Probate.
Annie123
Proud Member
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2009
- Messages
- 566
- Points
- 0
No, you are not the only one who has noticed this apparent connection.
Vici
Proud Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2009
- Messages
- 2,758
- Points
- 48
LOS ANGELES, Calif. --
A California appeals court rejected a bid Tuesday 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 unanimously affirmed a probate judge’s ruling that Joe Jackson didn’t have standing to intervene in his son’s estate.
A copy of the opinion was not immediately available.
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. The panel questioned several steps taken by Joe Jackson in the case, including withdrawing his request for a monthly stipend.
The panel also questioned why his attorney, Brian Oxman, didn’t mention during a lengthy hearing in November that he might file a wrongful death lawsuit.
A phone message for Oxman was not immediately returned.
http://www.accesshollywood.com/_article_38857
A California appeals court rejected a bid Tuesday 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 unanimously affirmed a probate judge’s ruling that Joe Jackson didn’t have standing to intervene in his son’s estate.
A copy of the opinion was not immediately available.
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. The panel questioned several steps taken by Joe Jackson in the case, including withdrawing his request for a monthly stipend.
The panel also questioned why his attorney, Brian Oxman, didn’t mention during a lengthy hearing in November that he might file a wrongful death lawsuit.
A phone message for Oxman was not immediately returned.
http://www.accesshollywood.com/_article_38857
Last edited:
elusive moonwalker
Guests
is it me or does that quote imply some of the siblings are benificiaries when they arent
i presume joes stunt is all about trying to get rid of the executors so he can put his name down and become one himself.the above shows that he wouldnt beable to cause hes not a benificiary.is it saying the benificary can have a say on who a new executor would be? so he puts pressure on katherine instead
christy
Proud Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2003
- Messages
- 1,210
- Points
- 38
Joe's clutching straws.
He saw this coming when he knew he'd shot himself in the foot opposing the current executors.
Throw everything into the kitchen sink something's bound to stick. Or so he thinks.
Funny how Katherine's AEG suit came hot on the heels after his was thrown out first time around.....
h34r:
He saw this coming when he knew he'd shot himself in the foot opposing the current executors.
Throw everything into the kitchen sink something's bound to stick. Or so he thinks.
Funny how Katherine's AEG suit came hot on the heels after his was thrown out first time around.....
h34r:blankyluvdoodoo
Proud Member
*shake my head until it falls down*
well seems like Oxman plans to ask for a reevaluation of this one. He has the lawsuit against Murray and complaint against AEG filled with medical board.
I think by beneficiaries they want to imply the charities and the contingent beneficiaries - not the siblings.
isn't that pretty obvious by the documents?. One of the main arguments was that he would have the priority appointment of administrator/ executor if the current executors were removed.
courts determined that he wouldn't have priority and actually he wasn't even in the line to be an executor.
if Michael died without a will or his will was invalidated Katherine would be in the position to be an executor and/or have a say in determining the executors (however I think the court would still approve a co-executor lawyer to look out for the minor children).
Petrarose
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2009
- Messages
- 9,574
- Points
- 0
I feel very sad that elderly, Joe is making such a fool of himself. I wish his family would talk to him and help him be a little more dignified. Certainly, a senior citizen should not be going through this drama. He needs someone to counsel him better.
I love the fact that Joseph is making a fool out of himself again and again, time after time, it's like he wants to prove that he is the biggest fool around LOL!
Joe should sit his ole ass down and enjoy his last couple of years on planet earth, instead of acting greedy n ungrateful, running nearly amok b/c of money.
Joe should sit his ole ass down and enjoy his last couple of years on planet earth, instead of acting greedy n ungrateful, running nearly amok b/c of money.
Justice_MJ
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 388
- Points
- 0
What Joe needs is another attorney.
Even I would probably be more successful in winning a case than Oxman.
Even I would probably be more successful in winning a case than Oxman.
Petrarose
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2009
- Messages
- 9,574
- Points
- 0
Yes, I agree that he should be sitting down, etc., but he is not doing it, and I want someone to tell him to do so. Better yet, show him how to do it, because this is getting embarrassing and I am not even related to him. I cannot think what his children are thinking about, with their dad making a fool of himself.
StephluvsMJ
Proud Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2007
- Messages
- 2,154
- Points
- 63
I don't understand what Joe is trying to do. How does he intend to take the role of executor? Is Oxman serious?! Whatever way you look at it, Joe can not have a say in who runs Michael's the estate. For several reasons...
a) Joe has no legal standing. He is not a beneficiary. What Branca and McClain do with Michael's estate, assets and money have no impact on him.
b) Katherine and the children's ad litem have stated that they don't approve of what Joe is doing. So, not only is Joe and Oxman trying to fight against Michael's will and estate, but also the beneficiaries. He will not win.
c) Even if he does invalidate the will and the trust, and all the previous wills and trusts, he still wont have a say in the estate, because intestacy law comes in which puts the children in charge, not Joe.
I honestly would have thought people like GH would have known all this having been a legal secretary and all. Joe is going to lose money like crazy, and the estate being in probate for 120 years is going prevent the beneficiaries from receiving their inheritance. This is, quite frankly, a no win situation. Brian Oxman is crazy for pushing it.
a) Joe has no legal standing. He is not a beneficiary. What Branca and McClain do with Michael's estate, assets and money have no impact on him.
b) Katherine and the children's ad litem have stated that they don't approve of what Joe is doing. So, not only is Joe and Oxman trying to fight against Michael's will and estate, but also the beneficiaries. He will not win.
c) Even if he does invalidate the will and the trust, and all the previous wills and trusts, he still wont have a say in the estate, because intestacy law comes in which puts the children in charge, not Joe.
I honestly would have thought people like GH would have known all this having been a legal secretary and all. Joe is going to lose money like crazy, and the estate being in probate for 120 years is going prevent the beneficiaries from receiving their inheritance. This is, quite frankly, a no win situation. Brian Oxman is crazy for pushing it.
Last edited:
Well to these questions
there's one simple answer
"because Michael didn't want Joe to have anything to do with / get anything from his estate".
and I know the response I'm going to get from some people
"well that will is a forgery".
then I'm going to ask
"if that's the case why no one including Joe actually challenged the will?" (please read the documents)
regardless of any answer I may or may not get I'll finish with a quote from the documents
"Even if Jackson's will were successfully challenged,estate would devolve to Jackson's children under California's intestate statute."
and it's as simple as that.
quoted for truth
there's one simple answer
"because Michael didn't want Joe to have anything to do with / get anything from his estate".
and I know the response I'm going to get from some people
"well that will is a forgery".
then I'm going to ask
"if that's the case why no one including Joe actually challenged the will?" (please read the documents)
regardless of any answer I may or may not get I'll finish with a quote from the documents
"Even if Jackson's will were successfully challenged,estate would devolve to Jackson's children under California's intestate statute."
and it's as simple as that.
quoted for truth
Rasta Pasta
Proud Member
If Michael had left out any of his children or his mother.. I would be suspect of that will...
but be it ..its Joe that's left out...sorry.. go sit down...it just seems that all Joe is thinking about is Joe.. and not Michael's children...
and one of the documents Joe submitted for this case said Michael supported him thru his wife...
well, if Michael didn't directly give you money/support in life.. why would he name you to directly get his money in death...
but be it ..its Joe that's left out...sorry.. go sit down...it just seems that all Joe is thinking about is Joe.. and not Michael's children...
and one of the documents Joe submitted for this case said Michael supported him thru his wife...
well, if Michael didn't directly give you money/support in life.. why would he name you to directly get his money in death...
Big Apple2
Proud Member
I don't think Joe Jackson wants another attorney.
First of all, he would have to pay a new attorney (LOL) and secondly a new attorney would tell Joe Jackson that his quest to get rid of the present executors, and be an executor himself, is fruitless.
Oxman is free and is apparently telliing Joe Jackson exactly what he wants to hear, i.e. "stick with me and MJ's estate will be all yours." (I shudder even typing that!)
blueocean
Proud Member
Be truthful you known the will has to many flaws in it to just let it go, the jackson family and many fans are not crazy, the obvious lie about mj signing the will in california, when mj was in new york and oxman has a statement from mj body guard saying mj did not sign any will, this need to be herd and taken serious and if they have to get another judge that care weather the will is real or fake joe then be it joe case needs to be heard in court.
Big Apple2
Proud Member
I believe that Oxman's "bodyguard statement" could only say that Michael was in New York. And to be honest, no statement is necessary, folks basically KNOW that Michael was in New York during that time period. No big revelations there.
Like Ivy pointed out, if the will is so fake, how come NOBODY in the family, filed a case regarding same? Joe Jackson filed a case trying to remove the executors, but he NEVER filed a case stating that the will is fake. Why is that?
In my opinion, those who question Michael's will know it's not fake, they're just upset that they are not named in Michael's will. Is that the FLAW you're referring to? LOL!
Last edited:
marc_vivien
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,176
- Points
- 38
You can not pick the judge.
the case is assigned to Beckloff.
And the time to constest the will is 120 days. Too late now. And Joe has NO standing to contest.
the case is assigned to Beckloff.
And the time to constest the will is 120 days. Too late now. And Joe has NO standing to contest.