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

[ivy]

IMO this is no longer a case of what we may personally think about the will

Be truthful you known the will has to many flaws in it to just let it go

even though for the sake of argument that I accept that the will has flaws and errors (side note: in reality all those errors can be reasonably explained and do not invalidate the will), the question is still the same "if the will had that many flaws then why no one challenged the will?"

see below:

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?

quoted for truth.


the minute the 120 day deadline passed and no one challenged the will, all these talk about whether or not Michael's will is valid became a moot point. Like it hate it, support it reject it it doesn't matter, that's the valid last will of Michael Jackson.

and I have to quote this just to remind everyone

ITS NOT WHAT MICHAEL WANTED

 

[Diplomate]

I am confused

Can those who want Joe to take control of Michael's estate not realise one thing,

ITS NOT WHAT MICHAEL WANTED

Its Michael's wish that he chose the executers of his estate.

What part of that do we not understand.

And don't even try with the will is forged ish, I've been in this loop listening to Mike and seeing what his actions have been to know full well he was sick of being used for his popularity and seen as everyone's meal ticket.

And to me the will is just one more example of a man speaking even in death.

Amen.

 

[Memefan]

I am confused

Can those who want Joe to take control of Michael's estate not realise one thing,

ITS NOT WHAT MICHAEL WANTED

Its Michael's wish that he chose the executers of his estate.

What part of that do we not understand.

And don't even try with the will is forged ish, I've been in this loop listening to Mike and seeing what his actions have been to know full well he was sick of being used for his popularity and seen as everyone's meal ticket.

And to me the will is just one more example of a man speaking even in death.

Exactly. I think these so-called fans are disrespecting Michael's memory by questioning his last wishes.
Even if the 2002 Will has flaws...what about the first one? They are EXACTLY the same, with only Paris' & Blanket's names added to the most recent one.

And Los Angeles was written, NOT AS the place where the will was signed by MJ, but as his place of residence.


smdh

 

[blueocean]

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!

To me there is not debate the will is flawed that's obvious and joe is trying to point this out in his case joe just need a judge that cares about looking into his case and no one can denie that the will is not flawed starting with were the will state it was signed by mj thats a lie, mj kids names are not correct in the will and his body guards were with mj in new york and said mj did not sign any will according to the body guards. how do you think this looks to us fans knowing this we want joe and the jackson family to prove that the will is fake in the courts no matter they bring this up, us fans will not rest till we have justice for michael and correct this wrong along with murray and others. and what I dont understand how can you say the will is not a fake when michael did not sign that will in california or in new york how can you answer that?

 

[blueocean]

I am confused

Can those who want Joe to take control of Michael's estate not realise one thing,

ITS NOT WHAT MICHAEL WANTED

Its Michael's wish that he chose the executers of his estate.

What part of that do we not understand.

And don't even try with the will is forged ish, I've been in this loop listening to Mike and seeing what his actions have been to know full well he was sick of being used for his popularity and seen as everyone's meal ticket.

And to me the will is just one more example of a man speaking even in death.

The way I see this michael did not sign the will in california cause mj was not there to sign it there, and he did not sign it in new york according to mj body guards,so to have a signature that mj did not give would make that forgery. so I would want joe and the jackson family to be incontrol of the estate meaning the lawyers that they would choose. branca should not be incharge if the will is a fake this can not be pushed under the rug and disregarded we want real justice for michael. and we believe the real truth will be proven.

 

[blueocean]

IMO this is no longer a case of what we may personally think about the will



even though for the sake of argument that I accept that the will has flaws and errors (side note: in reality all those errors can be reasonably explained and do not invalidate the will), the question is still the same "if the will had that many flaws then why no one challenged the will?"

see below:



quoted for truth.


the minute the 120 day deadline passed and no one challenged the will, all these talk about whether or not Michael's will is valid became a moot point. Like it hate it, support it reject it it doesn't matter, that's the valid last will of Michael Jackson.

and I have to quote this just to remind everyone

There are many fans that support the jackosn family and we can obviously see the will is flawed it can not be excused away, the way you want to do for some reason. we can see clear, and we know the jackson family is trying to shed light on the will being fake in there suits.

 

[marc_vivien]

1/ Only Joe is suing, not the family

2/ You CAN NOT pick up a judge because you don't like the assigned one

3/ Read the opinion filed by the court of appeal : http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/B220404.PDF

Only a interested person can contest the will, meaning one taking assets in the estate. Joe has NO standing here.

4/ Joe NEVER contested the will
PC Section 8720(a), You have onle 120 days to contest the will. it's too late NOW.

5/ Katherine was authorized by the court to challenge executors' appointment but is supporting them now.

 

[jrsfan]

IMO this is no longer a case of what we may personally think about the will



even though for the sake of argument that I accept that the will has flaws and errors (side note: in reality all those errors can be reasonably explained and do not invalidate the will), the question is still the same "if the will had that many flaws then why no one challenged the will?"

see below:



quoted for truth.


the minute the 120 day deadline passed and no one challenged the will, all these talk about whether or not Michael's will is valid became a moot point. Like it hate it, support it reject it it doesn't matter, that's the valid last will of Michael Jackson.

and I have to quote this just to remind everyone

Just for the sake of argument, let's say Murray's team can prove the will is a forgery or at least make a good case for it. The will being signed in New York but says LA is very fishy, although can be explained. There are no pics of Trudy Green with Michael & she was his manager, she should have been with him. I would think that would be reasonable doubt for Murray to get off. Muzikfactory2 has a new vid up about MJ signature, obviously she is not an expert.

 

[Thrill]

Geraldine Hughes
Keep fighting Joe. You are entitled to fight. According to Probate Code Section 8279(a) "any interested person, OTHER THAN A PARTY TO A WILL, may petiton the court to revoke the probate of a will."

Okay and what does this mean now? "Other than a party to a will?"
Does this means that you dont have to be an interested party to file a case?

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Just for the sake of argument, let's say Murray's team can prove the will is a forgery or at least make a good case for it. The will being signed in New York but says LA is very fishy, although can be explained. There are no pics of Trudy Green with Michael & she was his manager, she should have been with him. I would think that would be reasonable doubt for Murray to get off. Muzikfactory2 has a new vid up about MJ signature, obviously she is not an expert.

120 day limit. and why would murray care about the will being fake or not?

Be truthful you known the will has to many flaws in it to just let it go

then go back to the 92 one. whats the excuse for that being fake aswell. or get rid of that and the money goes all to the kids. nothing for katherine and all the paymenys she makes to pay for the bros kids. so for family stans to argue that the will is fake is only damaging the ppl they want the money to go to cause they wont get anything whatever happens.

 

[marc_vivien]

Okay and what does this mean now? "Other than a party to a will?"
Does this means that you dont have to be an interested party to file a case?

Geraldine Hughes don't know the laws :

1/ the section 8279(a) don't even exist. The real section is 8270(a) :


8270. (a) Within 120 days after a will is admitted to probate, any
interested person, other than a party to a will contest and other
than a person who had actual notice of a will contest in time to have
joined in the contest, may petition the court to revoke the probate
of the will. The petition shall include objections setting forth
written grounds of opposition.

http://law.justia.com/california/codes/2009/prob/8270-8272.html

2/ Joe didn't file a motion for revocation of the will in Nov. 2009
So, this point is moot.

3/ The definition of "interested person" is defined in Section 48 :

48. (a) Subject to subdivision (b), "interested person" includes
any of the following:
(1) An heir, devisee, child, spouse, creditor, beneficiary, and
any other person having a property right in or claim against a trust
estate or the estate of a decedent which may be affected by the
proceeding.
(2) Any person having priority for appointment as personal
representative.
(3) A fiduciary representing an interested person.
(b) The meaning of "interested person" as it relates to particular
persons may vary from time to time and shall be determined according
to the particular purposes of, and matter involved in, any
proceeding.

http://law.justia.com/california/codes/2009/prob/20-88.html

4/ The opinion filed by Court of Appeal said clearly, because Joe is not an heir or beneficiary,
he is not an interested person. Joe is the father but has no additionnal rights

5/ Hugues is not using legal arguments in her FB page (the estate belongs to the kids, Joe & Katherine
and the siblings).

And the problem is that some fans are failing in that trap.

 

[gerryevans]

The way I see this michael did not sign the will in california cause mj was not there to sign it there, and he did not sign it in new york according to mj body guards,so to have a signature that mj did not give would make that forgery. so I would want joe and the jackson family to be incontrol of the estate meaning the lawyers that they would choose. branca should not be incharge if the will is a fake this can not be pushed under the rug and disregarded we want real justice for michael. and we believe the real truth will be proven.

Okay, so the will is fake. So is the '97 one. There is no will. Branca and everybody currently connected are out of the picture. Children inherit everything. Joe and Katherine as grandparents are awarded joint custody of children and therefore oversee their interest and the entire estate.

Question: Do you genuinely believe Joe and Oxman would have effectively run MJ's interests as successfully as they have been run over this past year?

When you look beyond Joe or the family wanting to be in charge, and then actually see them being in charge, what do you see? I'm not asking to be a smartbutt, but I want to know what images come to your mind of how this last year would have evolved if Joe was in charge.


ETA: Just another little note of fact. Michael FIRED Joe. It was years ago, but he fired him. And NEVER contractually re-hired him to oversee his affairs. I think Joe had something to do with his website, but outside of that, Joe NEVER ran any of MJ's major interests. There was a reason for that.

Why would MJ risk his beloved children's financial future to his father or other family members when he didn't risk his own to them? I know Randy was involved with his business affairs in the last few years, but I'm not sure, but from what I understand, that didn't go so well.

 

[Laura.L.]

but I want to know what images come to your mind of how this last year would have evolved if Joe was in charge.

I'd rather not even think about such a scenario :bugeyed And I know that question wasn't for me, but here's a few images that come to my mind:

 

[twinklEE]

What part of that do we not understand.

Obviously the issue these people have is, the Jackson's being left out and getting nada. Well in my opinion if this fact pains some so much they should donate their own money to them Jackson's.

 

[Memefan]

I'd rather not even think about such a scenario :bugeyed And I know that question wasn't for me, but here's a few images that come to my mind:

couldn't have put it better.

A picture truly is worth a million words...in this case

 

[honeysucklejasmine]

8270. (a) Within 120 days after a will is admitted to probate, any
interested person, other than a party to a will contest and other
than a person who had actual notice of a will contest in time to have
joined in the contest, may petition the court to revoke the probate
of the will. The petition shall include objections setting forth
written grounds of opposition.

http://law.justia.com/california/codes/2009/prob/8270-8272.html

Thanks marc_vivien - can you (or anyone else) please clarify what the difference is between the 2 actions of
1. contesting the will and
2. petitioning to revoke probate of the will

as the above section of the probate code seems to imply they are both different processes/actions?

PS very apt pictures Laura.L.!

 

[Laura.L.]

Thanks, lol. As Memefan said; "A picture truly is worth a million words"

P.S. LMAO@Laura.L love you babe.

:happy: :cheers:

 

[marc_vivien]

Thanks marc_vivien - can you (or anyone else) please clarify what the difference is between the 2 actions of
1. contesting the will and
2. petitioning to revoke probate of the will

as the above section of the probate code seems to imply they are both different processes/actions?

PS very apt pictures Laura.L.!

Basically, it's the same thing.




There are only two procedural methods for challenging a will, a contest before a will is admitted to probate, and a contest after a will is admitted to probate. A historical discussion of these two procedures is set forth with more detail in Estate of Horn. "FormerProbate Code sections 370 and 380 provide separate procedural routes for contesting a will . Section 370 authorizes a contest before the will is admitted to probate; section 380 authorizes the contest after the will is admitted." (219 Cal.App.3d 67,69)(emphasis added, footnotes omitted.)



The term "pre-probate contest" is a term of art that refers to objections to a will before its admission to probate. This occurs before a will is admitted to probate. "When a will is contested under Section 8004, the contestant shall file with the court an objection to probate of the will." (Prob. Code § 8250).



Mr. Field's response refers to what is known as a post probate will contest. A post probate will contest is called "revocation of probate." The time for filing a post probate objection is 120 days after the will is admitted to probate. "Within 120 days after a will is admitted to probate, any interested person, other than a party to a will contest and other than a person who had actual notice of a will contest in time to have joined in the contest, may petition the court to revoke the probate of the will." (Prob. Code § 8270).




http://www.lawguru.com/legal-questi...ime-limit-contest-will-california-190544048/a


in all cases, the contest must be an "interested person" (Section 48)

 

[honeysucklejasmine]

^^ Cheers

 

[ivy]

To me there is not debate the will is flawed that's obvious and joe is trying to point this out in his case joe just need a judge that cares about looking into his case and no one can denie that the will is not flawed starting with were the will state it was signed by mj thats a lie, mj kids names are not correct in the will and his body guards were with mj in new york and said mj did not sign any will according to the body guards. how do you think this looks to us fans knowing this we want joe and the jackson family to prove that the will is fake in the courts no matter they bring this up, us fans will not rest till we have justice for michael and correct this wrong along with murray and others. and what I dont understand how can you say the will is not a fake when michael did not sign that will in california or in new york how can you answer that?

okay let's try to make this even simpler

- in order to prove the will is fake/fraud/ forgery etc, they needed to contest the will in a court of law - no one did
- you have 120 days to contest the will - it has passed
- wrong names in the wills do not matter as long as the intent is clear - when you look at the names (correct or wrong) can you understand who he's talking about? - yes it is clear as day that he's talking about his kids and mother and ex wife etc - so the intent is clear the mistakes in the names do not matter.
- witnesses to the will already given affidavits saying that they saw the will being signed and somebody wrote the wrong place - this settles that argument as well.
- those imaginary bodyguard statement won't matter because they cannot prove that they were able to see what Michael did 24/7 - for example did they follow him when he went to the restroom and watched him pee? - probably not - as you can see from this example they cannot necessarily testify that they know and saw anything and everything that Michael did.

Just for the sake of argument, let's say Murray's team can prove the will is a forgery or at least make a good case for it. The will being signed in New York but says LA is very fishy, although can be explained. There are no pics of Trudy Green with Michael & she was his manager, she should have been with him. I would think that would be reasonable doubt for Murray to get off. Muzikfactory2 has a new vid up about MJ signature, obviously she is not an expert.

as long as the probate/ estate lawsuit Murray has no standing.

Do you mean that he would try to prove such thing in the criminal case to demonstrate conspiracy? I don't think that will happen. For example Murray could have easily blamed AEG (with the claims in Katherine's lawsuit) and he didn't.

Okay and what does this mean now? "Other than a party to a will?" Does this means that you dont have to be an interested party to file a case?

you have to be an interested party but you don't necessarily have to be a beneficiary.

geraldine is mentioning Oxman's argument that if the executors are removed Joe will be the next one to be the executor therefore he's an interested party - although he's not mentioned in the will.

the problem with this is that even though the executors are removed , Joe is not in the line to be an executor.

 

[Ashtanga]

I'd rather not even think about such a scenario :bugeyed And I know that question wasn't for me, but here's a few images that come to my mind:

Yes... :fear:

 

[jrsfan]

okay let's try to make this even simpler

- in order to prove the will is fake/fraud/ forgery etc, they needed to contest the will in a court of law - no one did
- you have 120 days to contest the will - it has passed
- wrong names in the wills do not matter as long as the intent is clear - when you look at the names (correct or wrong) can you understand who he's talking about? - yes it is clear as day that he's talking about his kids and mother and ex wife etc - so the intent is clear the mistakes in the names do not matter.
- witnesses to the will already given affidavits saying that they saw the will being signed and somebody wrote the wrong place - this settles that argument as well.
- those imaginary bodyguard statement won't matter because they cannot prove that they were able to see what Michael did 24/7 - for example did they follow him when he went to the restroom and watched him pee? - probably not - as you can see from this example they cannot necessarily testify that they know and saw anything and everything that Michael did.



as long as the probate/ estate lawsuit Murray has no standing.

Do you mean that he would try to prove such thing in the criminal case to demonstrate conspiracy? I don't think that will happen. For example Murray could have easily blamed AEG (with the claims in Katherine's lawsuit) and he didn't.



you have to be an interested party but you don't necessarily have to be a beneficiary.

geraldine is mentioning Oxman's argument that if the executors are removed Joe will be the next one to be the executor therefore he's an interested party - although he's not mentioned in the will.

the problem with this is that even though the executors are removed , Joe is not in the line to be an executor.

Yes, the highlighted part is what I mean. If Murray didn't give him anything that should have killed him - to me that means that they either have to say MJ did it to himself, which the coroner said was impossible, or someone else did it. If the will is questionable that IMO could bring in reasonable doubt in at least some jurors minds.

Curious to see what Murray's defense will be. Not any kind of expert, but I don't see how MJ could possibly have given it to himself. I suppose he can still put the blame on AEG.

 

[riviera1992]

IMO, the goal of this lawsuit is/was to bring the conspiracy theory to light.

If they could show the will to be forged then what else?

Muzikfactory ain't no expert on signatures but it would be easy to get a real expert to analyse MJ signature.

There maybe a valid argument about the kids names and such but what about the Michael Joseph Jackson signature?
Michael never signed a full middle name.

 

[ivy]

Yes, the highlighted part is what I mean. If Murray didn't give him anything that should have killed him - to me that means that they either have to say MJ did it to himself, which the coroner said was impossible, or someone else did it. If the will is questionable that IMO could bring in reasonable doubt in at least some jurors minds.

Curious to see what Murray's defense will be. Not any kind of expert, but I don't see how MJ could possibly have given it to himself. I suppose he can still put the blame on AEG.

I personally expect blame the victim (MJ) defense from Murray's team one way or another.

The conspiracy/criminal case link is seems to be weak from what we know.

If we assume that there was a conspiracy and Murray was the hired killer/ fall guy theory , it doesn't seems like he has been pointing fingers to other people. As far as we know they didn't investigate any other people or charged anyone else.

If we assume that there was a conspiracy but Murray had nothing to do with it (hence the argument by Murray " I didn't do it but look to these questionable events those people could have killed him" )then the issue is Murray was the only one in the room and the only drugs in Michael's system was the ones that he gave. so the question becomes how could other people kill Michael when Murray was the only one in the room?

I'll leave an open door in my mind to surprises during the lawsuit but currently this possibility it doesn't add in my mind.

If they could show the will to be forged then what else?

well they never filed a lawsuit saying that the signature is forged. To make this clear Oxman and Joe said that the executors should be removed because they participated in fraud and forgery but they never contested the will saying that it's a forgery.

what about the Michael Joseph Jackson signature? Michael never signed a full middle name.

People generally have three signatures: formal on important papers, routine on paperwork, and informal on notes. In US actually some legal documents need full name on the signature. For example I never sign my middle name either (and I even use a shortened version of my first name) but when I went through neutralization process , the government required me to sign my full name. As the trust document lists his full name, he signed with a full name signature.

And for that middle name Joe-Joseph argument I can say this much - every legal document - including the lawsuits filed by Joseph and Katherine - lists his middle name as Joseph.