Michael Jackson Death Hoax Investigators
Persons Of Interest => The Jackson Family & Kids => Janet Jackson => Topic started by: Love4Michael on August 03, 2012, 08:01:56 PM
-
Just noticed this hit Twitter...
http://www.janetjackson.com/story/news/statement-of-blair-g-brown-on-behalf-of-janet-jackson-randy-jackson-and-rebbie-jackson (http://www.janetjackson.com/story/news/statement-of-blair-g-brown-on-behalf-of-janet-jackson-randy-jackson-and-rebbie-jackson)
(http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r303/SCLady8/HOAX/STATEMENT.jpg)
-
Thank you for sharing this with us. Is it common for an attorney to create letters of this nature to be posted on websites? Maybe? IDK? Hmmm...
I saw a typo and the layout just didn't feel very professional. JMO. I know that in my hurried state that I also have typo's and grammatical errors but this is a professional document, not a post on a forum. So, if this is part of the hoax what message are we left with?
I think what stands out for me is the last sentence. Janet, Randy, and Rebbie will continue to press forward in their search for the truth in order to carry out the wishes of their brother Michael.
Now - if the Branca and group have accomplished everything that we hear they have done, how is this not in keeping with the best interests of K and the kids? Who in the world could do any better of a job? So, is this for real? I can't imagine that it is but maybe we aren't seeing everything that is being done behind the scenes.
Blessings
-
I'm thinking... that the negative media campaign was started by MJ and family to draw attention to the fake will and executors. They want the truth brought to light in a very public way... maybe now they're trying to get the executors in a position where they have to take some sort of legal action...or declaration of their own? They must have something on them and want the estate to make the next move...hopefully a really stupid one. Maybe it's MJ's trap.
-
I agree, and due to all the previous controversy, eyes are on the Jacksons=safety of some kind? We are watching
-
I would guess that's it's not totally uncommon for an attorney to prepare a statement given the fact that the people who are being challenged are attorneys themselves. I thought it was odd that it's from a firm in DC though. Maybe I'm not up on all things Janet but given the little I know I would have expected a firm from LA, NYC or even Atlanta. You read it better than I if you caught a typo though...lol...I don't remember seeing one.
I still haven't totally wrapped my head around the end game for all of this either. There's been lots of discussion about the aspect of playing the media and the casual spectators for the fools that they are...(okay...mission accomplished there)...but this story is still being given "legs" with each additional volley from an opposing camp. This letter still states that they are pushing for invalidation of the Will to force removal of the executors. Even if that happened...THEN what??? Who was listed as Executor in the prior Will...anybody know? If that's been revealed before then I missed it. The distribution outlined in it is said to have been the same with the exception of Blanket not being named specifically (but he would inherit per stirpes anyway) so the only big change could be in guardianship or executor appointments. That just might make for a big cha-ching in somebody's pocket or at least put someone in control that they deem more flexible to their (the whole family) wishes. I won't disparage anyone without merit but there have been a whole bunch of ideas floated using the platform of tributes or memorials that have been shot down by the "Estate" and I'm sure there were some individuals hoping to make a buck or two off of them. There has to be something more to this for them to keep pushing it. Michael can't be aligned with and directing the Estate as some have suggested AND be 100% aligned with all the family members. There has to be a real target in this. We're still missing something here I think. And why NOW??? If the Executors are the target why not make a stink like this right after the deal with Sony. I read a bunch of tweets earlier today from a now closed account that seemed to lend some credibility to the possibility that it wasn't always jovial in Jacksonland. They weren't angry like so many are...they were really kinda sad. Maybe all of that is just weighing on my mind and clouding my judgment today. It seems right when I make some progress on this puzzle...somebody comes along and knocks it off the table. :icon_rolleyes: :icon_e_sad:
Dammit Michael...we need score cards!!! :Pulling_hair: SMDH
-
I'm thinking... that the negative media campaign was started by MJ and family to draw attention to the fake will and executors. They want the truth brought to light in a very public way... maybe now they're trying to get the executors in a position where they have to take some sort of legal action...or declaration of their own? They must have something on them and want the estate to make the next move...hopefully a really stupid one. Maybe it's MJ's trap.
I still think that the Jacksons and the executors are on the same team but it's meant to appear as though they are not. The letter emphasizes that there is no financial gain in doing this, maybe they are wanting some sort of public demand to look into the validity of the will. Maybe they want the public to look into all the events surrounding MJ's "death" and see what they come up with. MJ's coming back and so perhaps he's giving everyone the opportunity to figure it out for themselves, or perhaps to confuse people more and wonder WTF is going on.
Love4Michael:
I would guess that's it's not totally uncommon for an attorney to prepare a statement given the fact that the people who are being challenged are attorneys themselves. I thought it was odd that it's from a firm in DC though. Maybe I'm not up on all things Janet but given the little I know I would have expected a firm from LA, NYC or even Atlanta. You read it better than I if you caught a typo though...lol...I don't remember seeing one.
My understanding is that Washington DC is NOT technically part of the U.S. and therefore has it's own set of laws. The letter originating from a lawyer's office there could have something to do with that.
-
Katherine contested the will before the application for probate was heard in court. But for some reason, changed her mind.(threatened)
Joe Jackson contested the will and its valididity also, but it was too late for anyone to contest it...
Now, three years later, we have the Jackson siblings exposing the fake will..
So, the why now questions are invalid....This has been an ongoing drama.
Maybe when both parents contested it, it didn't gain as much attention...so in typical "MJ style", it had to be executed with alot of drama and contraversy...IMO.
Lets not forget, that the WILL can only take affect when a person dies.. Another reason for a fake death scenario, cathcing out the devils that surrounded Michael for most of his life......
Why else would the family risk having their reputations ruined and lose their followers??? Think about it.
This time, we have concrete evidence, so why does it have to be so complicated. Sticking to the facts, I would have to say the executors are criminals.........They have 20 million reasons for faking MJ's signature...and probably intend to sell off Michaels catalogue.
Thats the role of executors.......the settled debts first, the sell of all assets and estates and distribute to the heirs...which in this case are Katherine(40%) , Paris, Prince and Blanket (40% shared) and Charity gets 20%. The executors get a certain percentage of the sales!!!
In most states...executors only have four years to get it right....then they are no longer needed...
Another reason for the Jacksons to take action now, before it's too late...
That's why
(http://htmlimg2.scribdassets.com/4lq8vypf9c11fhvk/images/2-e7102c9fad.jpg)
-
@mindseye:
I'm thinking... that the negative media campaign was started by MJ and family to draw attention to the fake will and executors.
Oh my I think you're right.
-
@mindseye:
I'm thinking... that the negative media campaign was started by MJ and family to draw attention to the fake will and executors.
Oh my I think you're right.
Because once its all settled and monies distrubuted to the heirs (Katherine, Prince, Paris and Blanket) they can't do anything about it...and that includes working out what to do with MJ's biggest assest..his catalogue..I believe the executors (in this situation because it is such a large job) have only four years to complete their job.....from the date of applying for a probate to be accepted as executors through the courts, at which time Katherine attempted to contest the will siggesting Michael couldn't have signed it, but the courts didn't find anything wrong with the wills valididity back then and denied the contest by Katherine)
Then Joe and Leonard tried the same thing, but once again, where denied...
Its not about the money.......The executors stand to make much more from the estate....but who gave them power to deny access of the siblings who contested the will??? Thats not ethical and not legal...
Four years to get it right, otherwise its irreversable..............hmmmmmmmm
Duties of the executor
The executor is responsible for taking care of legal and financial matters related to the deceased person's death. She lodges the will to seek probate, examines financial records and files all tax documents. The executor must first pay the estate’s liabilities. If there are assets left over after paying off taxes and debts, the executor distributes the assets in accordance with the deceased person's will.
Real Estate and other property
Sometimes the executor is called upon to make decisions about what to do with real estate or other property. If the deceased left behind property, the executor must decide whether to sell it. The executor must also decide what to do with securities and investments the deceased person left behind.
The executor's primary duty is to pay off as much of the estate's debts as possible, so if the estate owes a lot of money, the executor may have to sell the deceased's home or other assets to satisfy the debts.
Tying up loose ends
The executor must also tie up loose ends left behind. For example, if the deceased owned credit cards solely in his name, the executor should cancel the cards. If there's any balance on the cards at the time of death, the estate must pay it, however this debt is of lower priority than secured debts such as mortgages or car loans.
Settling the estate
The executor pays various bills out of the estate's funds and then distributes the inheritances. First, the executor pays funeral costs and outstanding medical bills. Next, he pays the deceased's employees any money owed to them. Secured debts such as a mortgage or car loan are paid as well as taxes. Finally, the executor pays unsecured debts if possible. After all debts and taxes are paid, the executor must distribute the rest of the estate's assets according to the will. If the estate was insolvent, heirs will not receive inheritances. Where a deceased person is elderly and their financial affairs are in order the liabilities are most often satisfied and the inheritances paid.
-
I've been an Executor before @2good so I'm well aware of the role and responsibility to both heirs and the court. The "Estate" has a limited duration but in this case we have an ongoing Trust as well. Branca et al would be hard pressed to justify any sale of the "catalogue" at this point in time having already rebounded the net worth of the Estate. Under normal circumstances assets are sold outright so that there is a finite liquid valuation that can be distributed among the beneficiaries and the estate is then settled. In this case there is future income producing artistic/intellectual property and other holdings that can and should be transferred into the Trust for the future benefit of the heirs as per the Will. There is a time limit for estate settlement but that doesn't dictate that all assets must be sold...they can be re-titled into the Trust. Papers are simply drafted that would transfer any interest owned by Michael personally to "The Jackson Family Trust" or whatever it's called. I guess I need to look at the two documents again and pay closer attention to the names, duties, authorities and compensation breakdowns of the roles as Executors versus the role of Trustees (though they are usually quite similar). Maybe that's the issue here. Maybe they are trying to force settlement of the Estate and full implementation of the Trust for some reason. But weren't Branca and crew listed as the ones in authority in both documents? I'm confuzzled...lol...it's late here.
-
So, we are back to thinking this is a sting against the Estate? If that is the case then MJ is taking a huge risk by putting the catalog and all of his assets in the hands of those he's trying to slip up. This would mean that MJ is not in total control? This would mean that the estate doesn't know that MJ is alive...I think they are too smart for that IMO.
I know that Katherine contested the will and I also know that Joe did. I also think there were some statutes of limitations with how long one could file a claim as well as (I thought) how long one could contest the will. Maybe I'm thinking of some other lawsuit...?
MJ could very well have the 4 year deadline in his sight and connected to the will but not because he's trying to catch the Estate. Maybe they are trying to catch someone else who knows that the attorneys need to dissolve the estate in 4 years? Just trying to come up with ideas...
Blessings
EDIT: Love4Michael - thank you. Someone needs to have ongoing responsibilities over the trust, right? It's not just a matter of the lawyers dissolving everything and walking away to leave the heirs with their portions. I look forward to hearing if you come up with any other thoughts after looking at the documents.
-
Thanks 2good2btrue and Love4Michael for the details on duties of an executor etc. Good to keep in mind in this ongoing controversy. :icon_e_smile:
-
Thanks 2good2btrue and Love4Michael for the details on duties of an executor etc. Good to keep in mind in this ongoing controversy. :icon_e_smile:
(http://htmlimg4.scribdassets.com/1en57otb0gbha35/images/1-fb53787379.jpg)
(http://htmlimg3.scribdassets.com/1en57otb0gbha35/images/2-cbf42a0652.jpg)
(http://htmlimg4.scribdassets.com/1en57otb0gbha35/images/3-05b8242547.jpg)
(http://htmlimg2.scribdassets.com/1en57otb0gbha35/images/4-99465bc7ba.jpg)
(http://htmlimg4.scribdassets.com/1en57otb0gbha35/images/5-9612548158.jpg)
ancillary administration n. administration of an estate's assets in another state. An "ancillary administrator" is chosen by the executor or administrator of an estate to handle the property (primarily real estate) of the deceased estate in a state other than the one in which the estate is probated. Example: John dies in Montana where he had been living, and leaves a parcel in downtown Columbus, Ohio, then there has to be ancillary administration in Ohio to obtain Ohio court approval and tax agency clearance. Technically ancillary means "aiding" or "subordinate." (See: probate)
-
Another undated document! Unsigned too! Perhaps MJ wants to highlight dates and signatures for those who haven't caught on yet!
I'm just trusting MJ in all this. Remember, he's not dead, so IMO he's planned these twists and turns. And if by any chance he hasn't planned them and he just set things in motion by 'dying', and is sitting back watching like the rest of us, then if things are not going the way he wants, he can put an end to it all in an instant by 'coming back'.
-
I also believe that we are being directed to 'study' the will....I'm just confused as to the 'why'. The will was contested soon after the 'death', so it's nothing new...but it seems like lately a big spotlight is being shed on it, intentionally trying to draw attention to it. I think that perhaps we're missing something...just can't figure out what. We were told early on to 'follow the money'...and although the siblings may not stand to gain anything by contesting it (I don't believe they are doing this for money)...the will IS all about money. I'm reminded of TS' levels and how we were shown how to dissect even the smallest of details...perhaps we're supposed to now use those skills to 'study' the will? I'm also reminded of Level 7 and how it's still 'unfinished'...the why and/or possible stings still missing some pieces. Considering the timing of recent events and this (I believe, intentional) spotlight on the will....mixed in with TS' deadline of a BAM...I'm thinking that the will, and the issues around the will, may be the final piece to the puzzle.
The problem I'm having (one of many lol) with this whole 2002 will issue...is I'm finding it very hard to believe that Mike knew nothing about it. In the 2002 will, Mike appointed Barry Siegel---along with Branca and McClain---as executors. Radaronline recently posted an article where they showed a letter written by Siegel in August 2003 where he declined his role as executor. Would Mike not have received a copy of this letter? Even if the lawyers conspired and 'hid' the letter from Mike...wouldn't it have come up in conversation between Barry and Mike at some point? I mean, being appointed an executor (especially by Mike) is an honor....I would think, at the very least, that if Barry declined the role he'd give Mike an explanation as to why he's declining. That convo would then have triggered Mike to know about this supposed 2002 will...if he didn't know about it before then (again, something I find hard to believe).
Another problem with contesting the executors is that they are also listed in the Family Trust document filed in March 2002 and signed by Mike (supposedly). Are they saying that that document is also fake? If not, then we have another legal document where Mike chose those specific executors....and where he chose NationsBank (Bank of America) to be executors should Branca and McClain be unable to (i.e. he didn't choose any of his siblings as backup).
So...I'm having a hard time understanding the motives behind recent events. Even if they can prove that the 2002 will is fake, there is still the Family Trust document to contend with (although I'm not even sure about Mike's signature on that...it looks 'different'). Hopefully this will all start to make more sense soon....cause I'm completely baffled by it.
Here's a copy of the (supposed) Family Trust document. Does anyone know if this was ever contested as being 'fake'?
http://www.sofloridaestateplanning.com/uploads/file/JacksonTrust.pdf (http://www.sofloridaestateplanning.com/uploads/file/JacksonTrust.pdf)
With L.O.V.E. always.
-
Slightly off topic ....
Is anyone else wondering how long it will be before the death certificate is challenged? :animal0017: Just kid of a feeling only at the moment. After all we have been thiking the will was fake for 3 years! :icon_e_geek:
:icon_eek:
-
Maybe they're trying to point out that this is the death hoax will and not the actual will of Michael JOE Jackson.
-
Here's a 'summary' of the will....not sure how qualified the author is. Maybe something will 'pop out' at someone in helping to connect some dots...
When Michael Jackson died unexpectedly on June 25, 2009, he left behind three minor children, Michael Joseph "Prince" Jackson, Jr., Paris Katherine Michael Jackson, and Prince Michael "Blanket" Jackson II, and, fortunately for them, an estate plan including a Last Will and Testament and a Revocable Living Trust.
Because Michael Jackson's estate plan is a "trust-based estate plan," as opposed to a "will-based estate plan," his Last Will and Testament, referred to by estate planning attorneys as a "Pour Over Will," is a relatively short document consisting of only five pages. The King of Pop signed his Last Will and Testament on July 7, 2002, and below you will find a summary of its brief contents.
Summary of the Provisions of the Last Will and Testament of Michael Joseph Jackson
1. As mentioned above, Michael Jackson signed his will on July 7, 2002.
2. All prior wills made by Michael Jackson are revoked in their entirety.
3. Michael Jackson's estate is left to the "Trustees of the Michael Jackson Family Trust, an amended and restated Declaration of Trust executed on March 22, 2002." This is the "pour over" aspect of Jackson's trust-based estate plan - in other words, the will "pours over" the assets of Jackson's estate into the hands of the Trustees of the Michael Jackson Family Trust. Note that the Michael Jackson Family Trust is a revocable living trust, not a special type of irrevocable trust that is sometimes referred to as a family trust and is used by married couples to reduce estate taxes.
4. A long time attorney for the Jackson family, John Branca, music executive John McClain, and accountant Barry Siegel are named to serve as Co-Executors of the will. Since Mr. Siegel signed a letter on August 26, 2003, in which he declined to serve as an executor, only John Branca and John McClain were appointed to serve as the Co-Executors and are still currently serving as such.
5. Michael Jackson's former wife and mother of Prince Jackson and Paris Jackson, Deborah Jean Rowe Jackson, is intentionally omitted as a beneficiary of the will. Jackson and Rowe were married in November 1996 and divorced in October 1999.
6. Michael Jackson's mother, Katherine Jackson, is named to serve as the guardian for Jackson's minor children.
7. If Katherine Jackson is unable or unwilling to serve as the children's guardian, then Diana Ross (yes, that Diana Ross) is named to serve as the back up guardian. What about Debbie Rowe, who is the natural parent of two of Jackson's three children? She and Katherine Jackson reached an agreement in August 2009 which allowed Katherine Jackson to serve as the guardian for all three of the children, and she still serves as their guardian today.
8. The will appears to be signed by John McClain and Barry Siegel as two of the three witnesses.
9. As required by California law, the related "Petition for Probate" lists all of the beneficiaries and fiduciaries named in the will and in the Michael Jackson Family Trust. Blatantly omitted from the list is Michael Jackson's father, Joe Jackson.
10. Contrary to popular belief, a will is not required to list anything about the nature of the testator's assets or net worth, and such is the case for Michael Jackson's will.
Who Will Inherit Michael Jackson's Estate and When?
OK, so Michael Jackson's will "pours over" his estate into the hands of the Trustees of the Michael Jackson Family Trust - what does this mean? With a trust-based estate plan, it is the trust agreement, not the pour over will, that dictates who will inherit what and when they will inherit it. Thus, if you want to know who stands to inherit Michael Jackson's estate, then you will need to read a copy of the 21-page Michael Jackson Family Trust. If you do not want to read the agreement for yourself, then fortunately I have also taken the time to create a summary of the contents of the trust: What Does the Michael Jackson Family Trust Say?
And here's a 'summary' of the trust:
Summary of the Provisions of the Michael Jackson Family Trust
1. Michael Jackson signed the original trust agreement on November 1, 1995. Regardless, the governing trust agreement that existed at the time of Jackson's death back in June 2009 was a fully amended and restated version signed by him on March 2, 2002.
2. A long time attorney for the Jackson family, John Branca, music executive John McClain, and accountant Barry Siegel were named to serve as Co-Trustees of the trust. Nonetheless, Barry Siegel signed a letter on August 26, 2003, in which he declined to serve as a Co-Trustee, leaving Branca and McClain to serve as the Co-Trustees. Both still serve in this capacity today as well as Co-Executors of Michael Jackson's estate.
3. The first 20% of Michael Jackson's estate is to be left to one or more children's charities selected by a committee consisting of Jackson's mother, Katherine Jackson, and Co-Trustees John Branca and John McClain. The committee can choose among existing charities or establish one or more charities in order to satisfy this bequest.
4. The balance of the trust assets remaining after the payment of estate taxes, medical bills, funeral expenses, attorney's fees, and other costs incurred in settling Jackson's estate is to be distributed 50% equally among Jackson's three children, Prince, Paris and Blanket, and 50% to Katherine Jackson.
5. Katherine Jackson's 50% share is to be held in a lifetime trust for her benefit with John Branca and John McClain serving as Co-Trustees. The Co-Trustees have the complete discretion as to when income and principal may be distributed to provide for Katherine Jackson's "care, support, maintenance, comfort and well being." Upon Katherine Jackson's death the balance of her trust is to be divided equally among Prince, Paris and Blanket.
6. The children's shares will be held in separate trusts also with John Branca and John McClain serving as Co-Trustees. Until each child reaches 21, distributions are left in the complete discretion of the Co-Trustees. At 21, each child will receive all of the net income from his or her own trust and principal if the Co-Trustees determine that the net income is not sufficient to provide for the child's "reasonable care, support, maintenance and education." Each child will receive 1/3 of the remaining trust principal outright at 30, another 1/2 outright at 35, and the remaining balance outright at 40. In addition, the Co-Trustees are given discretion to accelerate principal distributions if a child is in need of funds to buy a home, start a family, or start a business. This will leave Katherine Jackson, who was named as the children's guardian in August 2009, at the mercy of the Co-Trustees when it comes to asking for funds to support the children.
7. If Michael Jackson was not survived by his mother or any children or other descendants (such as grandchildren or great grandchildren), then after the 20% carved out for children's charities the balance was to be divided equally among three of Jackson's cousins - Levon Jackson, Elijah Jackson and Anthony Jackson - and three of his nephews (the children of his brother, Tito) - Taj Jackson, Taryll Jackson and T.J. Jackson. These shares were to be held in separate trusts in the same manner as provided for Jackson's children.
8. If Branca, McClain and Siegel were all not available to serve as Trustees, then NationsBank, now known as Bank of America, was named to serve as the successor Trustee. Since Branca and McClain were available to serve and are in fact serving, they have the power to name one or more individuals to serve as their successors, thereby eliminating Bank of America's right to serve as the successor Trustee.
With L.O.V.E. always.
-
The will is invalid. The trust thought might be vaild or invalid. Both documents do not contain Michael Jackson's true birth name which is Michael Joe Jackson. Now, Michael Jackson might have a will and trust under the name Michael Joe Jackson. Who ever finds those can turn those in to the court and those would override the previous will and trust. Since the 2002 will is connected to the trust, saying this will is invalid might implicate that the the trust is invalid as well. I hope not though.
Anyways, I hope all gets worked out between John Branca and John McClain and Michael Jackson's siblings.
-
It is my belief that after the 2005 trials, Michael probably re-wrote or amended the 2002 will which would nullify this one. The 2002 will in question is used only for the hoax because Michael is not dead. But to make the hoax death work, something has to be executed for the children’s care, the Estate, etc. to make it appear he is dead. Once the will is examined in court and found to be fraudulent, no one will be at fault, the executors will no longer be needed so they will be discharged and the care of Michael’s children will naturally revert back to him.
-
I am attempting to attach a copy of Farrah Fawcett’s Revised Trust for comparison purposes. I hope it works. So much more detail as I would think Michael’s would be with all the assets attached to him.
:icon_e_confused: Well that didn’t work. Let me try it this way.
http://wills.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=wills&cdn=money&tm=13&f=00&su=p284.13.342.ip_&tt=2&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.radaronline.com/sites/default/files/FarrahFawcettWillREVISED.pdf (http://wills.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=wills&cdn=money&tm=13&f=00&su=p284.13.342.ip_&tt=2&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.radaronline.com/sites/default/files/FarrahFawcettWillREVISED.pdf)
-
@mindseye:
I'm thinking... that the negative media campaign was started by MJ and family to draw attention to the fake will and executors.
Oh my I think you're right.
:suspect: :ghsdf: :beerchug:
-
Just a few quick points (and lots of copy/paste)...little time at the moment.
1. I saw somewhere (trying to locate it again) what was supposed to be the final page of the Will where the witness signatures weren't redacted. McClain and Siegel appeared to have signed as witnesses on that page. I'm thinking that it's not real kosher to have parties named IN such an important document to also be the witnesses to the signing of such. Not to mention that more of the description of the document that they are witnessing to should be listed on the same page as the witness signatures. Without that who's to say WHAT document was witnessed as signed and by whom. The witness signature page could be part of any other 5 page document and the actual witness signatures to this Will could be totally different. Pretty sloppy compared to what I've seen personally...but then again who's to say any of it was authentic?
2. While the Trust doc that some claim is real did name a financial institution as a successor Trustee...the Will that's been floating all over the internet only names the 3 (Branca/McClain/Siegel) as Executors without naming a Successor should ALL THREE become unable to serve. Siegel already removed himself years ago and now the push is to get the other two bounced. Theoretically (if fraud was proven and the appointments were nullified) anyone related with a possible interest in the Estate could then produce another Will and/or petition for new Letters of Appointment to take control of the Estate prior to everything being funneled into the Trust. Here's what the CA Probate Code says...
PROBATE CODE
SECTION 8500-8505
8500. (a) Any interested person may petition for removal of the
personal representative from office. A petition for removal may be
combined with a petition for appointment of a successor personal
representative under Article 7 (commencing with Section 8520). The
petition shall state facts showing cause for removal.
(b) On a petition for removal, or if the court otherwise has
reason to believe from the court's own knowledge or from other
credible information, whether on the settlement of an account or
otherwise, that there are grounds for removal, the court shall issue
a citation to the personal representative to appear and show cause
why the personal representative should not be removed. The court may
suspend the powers of the personal representative and may make such
orders as are necessary to deal with the property pending the
hearing.
(c) Any interested person may appear at the hearing and file a
written declaration showing that the personal representative should
be removed or retained. The personal representative may demur to or
answer the declaration. The court may compel the attendance of the
personal representative and may compel the personal representative to
answer questions, on oath, concerning the administration of the
estate. Failure to attend or answer is cause for removal of the
personal representative from office.
(d) The issues shall be heard and determined by the court. If the
court is satisfied from the evidence that the citation has been duly
served and cause for removal exists, the court shall remove the
personal representative from office.
8501. On removal of a personal representative from office, the
court shall revoke any letters issued to the personal representative,
and the authority of the personal representative ceases.
8502. A personal representative may be removed from office for any
of the following causes:
(a) The personal representative has wasted, embezzled, mismanaged,
or committed a fraud on the estate, or is about to do so.
(b) The personal representative is incapable of properly executing
the duties of the office or is otherwise not qualified for
appointment as personal representative.
(c) The personal representative has wrongfully neglected the
estate, or has long neglected to perform any act as personal
representative.
(d) Removal is otherwise necessary for protection of the estate or
interested persons.
(e) Any other cause provided by statute.
8503. (a) Subject to subdivision (b), an administrator may be
removed from office on the petition of the surviving spouse or a
relative of the decedent entitled to succeed to all or part of the
estate, or the nominee of the surviving spouse or relative, if such
person is higher in priority than the administrator.
(b) The court in its discretion may refuse to grant the petition:
(1) Where the petition is by a person or the nominee of a person
who had actual notice of the proceeding in which the administrator
was appointed and an opportunity to contest the appointment.
(2) Where to do so would be contrary to the sound administration
of the estate.
This ^^^ is why I'm guessing that attempts were shot down before.
But even more time has passed so nothing changes unless fraud can be proven.
8504. (a) After appointment of an administrator on the ground of
intestacy, the personal representative shall be removed from office
on the later admission to probate of a will.
(b) After appointment of an executor or administrator with the
will annexed, the personal representative shall be removed from
office on admission to probate of a later will.
8505. (a) A personal representative may be removed from office if
the personal representative is found in contempt for disobeying an
order of the court.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, a
personal representative may be removed from office under this section
by a court order reciting the facts and without further showing or
notice.
PROBATE CODE
SECTION 8520-8525
8520. A vacancy occurs in the office of a personal representative
who resigns, dies, or is removed from office under Article 6
(commencing with Section 8500), or whose authority is otherwise
terminated.
8521. (a) Unless the will provides otherwise or the court in its
discretion orders otherwise, if a vacancy occurs in the office of
fewer than all personal representatives, the remaining personal
representatives shall complete the administration of the estate.
(b) The court, on the filing of a petition alleging that a vacancy
has occurred in the office of fewer than all personal
representatives, may order the clerk to issue appropriate amended
letters to the remaining personal representatives.
8522. (a) If a vacancy occurs in the office of a personal
representative and there are no other personal representatives, the
court shall appoint a successor personal representative.
(b) Appointment of a successor personal representative shall be
made on petition and service of notice on interested persons in the
manner provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 8110) of
Chapter 2, and shall be subject to the same priority as for an
original appointment of a personal representative. The personal
representative of a deceased personal representative is not, as such,
entitled to appointment as successor personal representative.
8523. The court may make orders that are necessary to deal with the
estate of the decedent between the time a vacancy occurs in the
office of personal representative and appointment of a successor.
Those orders may include appointment of a special administrator.
8524. (a) A successor personal representative is entitled to
demand, sue for, recover and collect all the estate of the decedent
remaining unadministered, and may prosecute to final judgment any
suit commenced by the former personal representative before the
vacancy.
(b) No notice, process, or claim given to or served on the former
personal representative need be given to or served on the successor
in order to preserve any position or right the person giving the
notice or filing the claim may thereby have obtained or preserved
with reference to the former personal representative.
(c) Except as provided in subdivision (b) of Section 8442
(authority of administrator with will annexed) or as otherwise
ordered by the court, the successor personal representative has the
powers and duties in respect to the continued administration that the
former personal representative would have had.
8525. (a) The acts of the personal representative before a vacancy
occurs are valid to the same extent as if no vacancy had later
occurred.
(b) The liability of a personal representative whose office is
vacant, or of the surety on the bond, is not discharged, released, or
affected by the vacancy or by appointment of a successor, but
continues until settlement of the accounts of the personal
representative and delivery of all the estate of the decedent to the
successor personal representative or other person appointed by the
court to receive it. The personal representative shall render an
account of the administration within the time that the court directs.
I found this interesting though in light of reports of personal profits made on deals cut that's been alleged
9657. The personal representative shall not make profit by the
increase, nor suffer loss by the decrease or destruction without his
or her fault, of any part of the estate.
Obviously a huge unknown in all of this and a key component is how much of his interests or holdings did he title over into the Trust when he initiated it. It's my understanding that anything already held in the Trust would not be subject to probate or control of the Estate exactly...but under the control of the Trustee. It's a little harder to maneuver assets in a Trust I think. I know that Branca & McClain wear both hats but they are slightly different in responsibility.
-
But didn't the executors claim there wasn't a will....and them couldn't find the last page (5) and only came up with it much later on....??You can clearly see that the witness signatures have to be on the same !!! :affraid: :affraid:
This is the original copy of Whitney Houstons Will.....I can see how the signatures have to be on the same page.........and the dates are typed, not handwritten
(http://www.gistexpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/wh.jpg)
(http://www.gistexpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/wh2.jpg)
(http://www.gistexpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/wh3.jpg)
http://www.gistexpress.com/2012/03/08/original-copy-of-last-will-and-testament-of-whitney-houston-released/
-
This is the last page of James Brown's will...the rest of the pages (7) are available on the link below..
(https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdocuments.jdsupra.com%2F2a53efef-5c8e-409d-81ba-fb410746559b.pdf&docid=120317540f4c51ca10af8db219c80e87&a=bi&pagenumber=9&w=667)
http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/last-will-of-james-brown-in-re-the-estat-07749/
-
To be honest, when all the probate stuff started coming out back then I wasn't focusing on the financial aspect so the scenario you outlined could be true I guess. I remember the media saying that no will had been presented for a few days but don't remember any claims that he may have "died" intestate. But you have pointed out great examples of what I was talking about in regard to the witness statement and signatures for legal documents. The fill-in-the-blank for the date forms usually only are used in one of two instances...
1. To save time and money - but I doubt these high priced firms are shy of racking up billable hours...lol. They could obviously afford to have someone prepare and reprint the necessary pages of the document for final signatures with the correct dates inserted.
2. The document is prepared well in advance and its unknown exactly when it will be formalized with signatures. Especially in this scenario I would think that it's inappropriate for the witness signatures alone to be on the trailing page with no part of the witness statement.
Bottom line though...the dates being handwritten in rather than typed doesn't change the validity of the document.
-
IMO the will is simply another prop in this giant production, along with the death certificate and autopsy report. All with intentional 'mistakes' to lead enquiring minds to the same conclusion ...... nothing's real ...... because .......he's not dead!
-
BeTheChange quoted
5. Michael Jackson's former wife and mother of Prince Jackson and Paris Jackson, Deborah Jean Rowe Jackson, is intentionally omitted as a beneficiary of the will. Jackson and Rowe were married in November 1996 and divorced in October 1999.
Lisa Marie was not mentioned. And the marriage to Lisa was with the wrong name Michael Joseph Jackson, as was the 3 children's birth certificates.
-
My brain is disturb by Janet taking part in this "3 years after". I really wonder. I don't know what to think.
-
My brain is disturb by Janet taking part in this "3 years after". I really wonder. I don't know what to think.
Why? what is disturbing you? I think everybody has their role at their own time.
-
i don't remember janet took part in the hoax. This is why the fact that she's now playing a role make me wonder. There is a lot of move since few weeks
-
i don't remember janet took part in the hoax. This is why the fact that she's now playing a role make me wonder. There is a lot of move since few weeks
Those last moves validates the hoax, maybe Janet was busy at the beginning and now she got her role, remember the hoax is at its end so the entire family has something to say what it means that all of them have been supporting Michael's hoax from the beginning till the end.
-
If there is a sting involved, Janet being such a big name in the music industry and continuing to work over the last three years, may have had to wait until right up to the last moment to involve herself. Maybe for her own protection as well as for her career. It all depends on who the target is and what he is involved in. I am just throwing around some ideas....but it does make one wonder who is being knocked down from their high horse behind the scenes. I guess we'll just have to do more of the same....wait and keep watching.
-
i don't know. To me, if Janet gets in, that might be soon the end of something.
End of the hoax,and of our hopes, i don't know, but seeing her taking part in it as a big meaning for me. i cannot explain but i think she has a powerful place in Michael's decision or plans. If she is now in on it, i have the feeling it means something.
It's just a feeling, i can't really explain.
-
To be honest, when all the probate stuff started coming out back then I wasn't focusing on the financial aspect so the scenario you outlined could be true I guess. I remember the media saying that no will had been presented for a few days but don't remember any claims that he may have "died" intestate. But you have pointed out great examples of what I was talking about in regard to the witness statement and signatures for legal documents. The fill-in-the-blank for the date forms usually only are used in one of two instances...
1. To save time and money - but I doubt these high priced firms are shy of racking up billable hours...lol. They could obviously afford to have someone prepare and reprint the necessary pages of the document for final signatures with the correct dates inserted.
2. The document is prepared well in advance and its unknown exactly when it will be formalized with signatures. Especially in this scenario I would think that it's inappropriate for the witness signatures alone to be on the trailing page with no part of the witness statement.
Bottom line though...the dates being handwritten in rather than typed doesn't change the validity of the document.
Especially being that when the will was presented to the courts the last page was “conveniently” missing. :icon_rolleyes:
-
IMO the will is simply another prop in this giant production, along with the death certificate and autopsy report. All with intentional 'mistakes' to lead enquiring minds to the same conclusion ...... nothing's real ...... because .......he's not dead!
I think the same. THIS ^^ is why the will is invalid. I really think that MJ is giving everyone every opportunity he can to figure out he's alive. There will obviously be people who will be upset when he returns (for whatever reasons) but Michael will have done basically everything to can to let them figure it out for themselves, apart from literally spelling it out for them.
-
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and feelings. I must be missing something about Janet. Why do we think she is just now joining the hoax?
It was Janet who appeared at the awards show 2 days after the "d**th* to give the famous statement "To you he was an icon. To us he was family". Or, something of that nature.
It was Janet who performed SCREAM at another award show that so many thought Michael was there for or possibly even performing in the background.
It was Janet who performed on American Idol where an extra person showed up in the background.
It was Janet who gave conflicting stories about where she was that day when she found out.
It was Janet who stood by Paris for support and guidance in her famous memorial speech.
It was Janet who gave that interview where she couldn't quit smiling.
It was Janet who said she'd wear black for a year in honor of Michael yet a couple of months (or even weeks) later she was seen wearing all white and out partying with her sister LaToya for New Years.
It was Janet who cut off her hair to resemble Michael in that picture with his eye colored blue.
It was Janet who showed up at court wearing that man's suit.
It was Janet who showed up at Forest Lawn on the 1 year anniversary along with Randy and Jermaine when they had that small private service.
It goes on - but Janet didn't just "show up". She's been there since the start. It's just that her role in this has gone from passive to aggressive. Hang in there - you've made it this far. Let's see it through to the end.
Blessings
-
Agreed Voice, nice recap. Janet's definitely doing her part, it's a family effort.
-
Wow thanks for posting. This letter is definitely not the kind one generally posts on a website lol.
It certainly makes me question my initial thoughts on executors...
-
@voiceforthesilent....
are we sure it was Janet?
:icon_eek: :icon_lol:
Great summary!
Thank you...it's really amazing to read all those......
Blessings!
-
@wishingtar - LOL
I guess it's in the "eye of the beholder". I have thought that Janet in the man's suit could have been MJ but it's probably not so. :)
-
@voice....
Yeah....there are times, I'm like, "Dang! She looks like her brother!" But then reality comes back to me and I think no way....
I get the same feeling sometimes with LaToya. Too funny.......could you imagine?
I do love that list of yours here.....
it was Janet that we have seen much of. I still love that interview too, the one where she is smiling so much.
Do you remember who was interviewing at the time?
As far as this statement on her site, it's another Janet Moment for sure. I am wondering if those videos she and Randy were making with their phones, the day in the driveway, will surface. Will TMZ or RadarOnline suddenly "obtain" them, lol......why were they video taping that with their phones anyways? Has she said?
LOVE
-
I've thought the same thing Wishy abou Latoya. There is a picture of her in a big brimmed hat and it sure looked more like MJ than her under that hat...but who are we to say. We're just the spectators in all of this.
Here is a hoax video done with Janet's "smile" moment. I watch it every now and then just for a pick me up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dljN2Ctp_f0&feature=plcp
It was Robin Roberts of ABC (I think) that did the interview.
Blessings
-
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and feelings. I must be missing something about Janet. Why do we think she is just now joining the hoax?
It was Janet who appeared at the awards show 2 days after the "d**th* to give the famous statement "To you he was an icon. To us he was family". Or, something of that nature.
It was Janet who performed SCREAM at another award show that so many thought Michael was there for or possibly even performing in the background.
It was Janet who performed on American Idol where an extra person showed up in the background.
It was Janet who gave conflicting stories about where she was that day when she found out.
It was Janet who stood by Paris for support and guidance in her famous memorial speech.
It was Janet who gave that interview where she couldn't quit smiling.
It was Janet who said she'd wear black for a year in honor of Michael yet a couple of months (or even weeks) later she was seen wearing all white and out partying with her sister LaToya for New Years.
It was Janet who cut off her hair to resemble Michael in that picture with his eye colored blue.
It was Janet who showed up at court wearing that man's suit.
It was Janet who showed up at Forest Lawn on the 1 year anniversary along with Randy and Jermaine when they had that small private service.
It goes on - but Janet didn't just "show up". She's been there since the start. It's just that her role in this has gone from passive to aggressive. Hang in there - you've made it this far. Let's see it through to the end.
Blessings
:bowdown: :LolLolLolLol:
-
Thank you Voice. You nailed my idea : she's been there but there was nothin "trashy" about things she did. Now we are told she called Paris bad names and that there was argue with cell phones or something like that.
I agree she's been there since beginning, but there has been nothing like this before.
-
Any ideas on what this latest tweet could mean? It was made about 40 minutes ago.
Janet Jackson @JanetJackson
LET'S DO THIS
Expand
Reply Retweet Favorite
-
Sorry I post it here cause I don't think I should open a new thread just for this:
Janet Jackson promoting Skyfall (the same as Prince) and Life of Pi (we have been talking so much about this Pi number):
http://www.janetjackson.com/janet#movies
-
@mindseye:
I'm thinking... that the negative media campaign was started by MJ and family to draw attention to the fake will and executors.
Oh my I think you're right.
Totally agree.
-
BeTheChange quoted
5. Michael Jackson's former wife and mother of Prince Jackson and Paris Jackson, Deborah Jean Rowe Jackson, is intentionally omitted as a beneficiary of the will. Jackson and Rowe were married in November 1996 and divorced in October 1999.
Lisa Marie was not mentioned. And the marriage to Lisa was with the wrong name Michael Joseph Jackson, as was the 3 children's birth certificates.
In California, an ex-wife is still considered a beneficiary unless explicitly implied that she is excluded (which is why that clause is on the will). Lisa Marie would not have been mentioned as an ex-wife because the subsequent marriage to Debbie Rowe would have validated the divorce between Michael and Lisa Marie (He would not have been able to marry Debbie otherwise).
But this does raise some interesting questions....the whole Michael "Joe versus Joseph" Jackson.
How deep does it really go?
1) He married Debbie Rowe as "Michael Joseph Jackson"
2) He married Lisa Marie as "Michael Joseph Jackson"
3) The children's birth certificates all bear "Michael Joseph Jackson" as their father
So if we accept the theory that "Joe" is his legal middle name, then none of the above events are true. :icon_e_confused:
As for the will....
[ *In 1990, a reportedly tearful Jackson split from Branca; it was said at the time that mogul David Geffen had warned Jackson that Branca had too much influence on his life. Branca and Jackson reunited three years later, when Jackson was facing a suit for alleged child molestation. In 1997, Branca's firm drafted Jackson's will, which was redone in 2002 after the birth of Jackson's third child, Prince Michael Jackson II. Branca has said he played no role in drafting those documents and they were handled by others at his firm.] Legal "loophole"--->plausible deniability.
http://newsone.com/2026196/michael-jackson-will/
Controversial details in Michael’s will include that the sole beneficiaries are Michael’s mother, Katherine, and his children, Paris, 14; Prince, 15; and Blanket, 10 — which effectively disinherits the rest of the Jackson clan — and that the signature and location of the signing — July 7, 2002, in Los Angeles — are impossible.
[UPDATE] In a NewsOne Exclusive, sources close to Rev. Al Sharpton‘s National Action Network support the Jacksons’ allegation that the signature is fake: On the weekend of July 5, 2002, Michael was hosted by Sharpton’s organization in New York City, where Michael spoke about his feelings toward Sony executive Tommy Mottola and the record industry.
According to Rebbie, Janet, Randy, Tito, and Jermaine (pictured from left, with Jermaine appearing last) yet another detail that makes them suspicious of the will is the fact that Michael also “despised” the lawyers:
Our brother told us, in no uncertain terms and without hesitation in the months prior to his death, that he despised both of you and he did not want either of you to have anything to do with his life or estate for that matter.
For the Jacksons, the will issue isn’t just affecting them; they also claim that the issue is affecting their mother’s health:
Your [the lawyers'] actions are affecting her health, and on top of that, we’ve just found out she recently had a mini-stroke, the Jacksons wrote. Please understand, she’s not equipped to handle the stress load you are putting on her.
Naturally, both McClain and Branca have rejected the Jacksons’ claims, saying that the clan is just disgruntled because they were not a part of the will:
Any doubts about the validity of Michael’s will and his selection of executors were thoroughly and completely debunked two years ago when a challenge [by the siblings] was rejected by the Los Angeles County Superior Court, the California Court of Appeals and, finally, the California Supreme Court,” the lawyers said in a statement Thursday.
We are saddened that false and defamatory accusations grounded in stale Internet conspiracy theories are now being made by certain members of Michael’s family whom he chose to leave out of his will.
Interestingly enough, the lawyers have an unlikely ally in their defense: Paris recently countered some of her relatives’ claims on Twitter, writing:
I will defend my beloved family members with all I have, even if it means from other family members,” she tweeted. “I am going to clarify right now that what has been said about my grandmother is a rumor. … She is completely fine.
To her Uncle Randy, she reportedly snapped:
I don’t appreciate you telling everyone things that aren’t true. Maybe he should have respect for his mother.
Reportedly, the tweet was later deleted.
At this point, it is unclear what steps the Jackson family will take to further challenge the validity of the will.
-
My reasons for sticking to Branca being in the hoax with MJ is:
MJ told him 20 some years ago that he wanted him to help him make his life the greatest show on earth.
Branca got the catalogue for him, which is a big part of the hoax drama--'My life is in danger, they're going to kill me for my catalogue." (Just as the Pepsi fire sets the stage for the supposed drug abuse leading to 'death day' June 25.)
We think it was MJ in disguise seated beside Branca at X-factor.
Voice, great list on Janet’s involvement in the hoax. Yeah, she said she tended to smile or laugh when she was feeling sad. Haha!
On Barry Siegel, I came across this interesting video:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBRR1amSZhQ&list=UL[/youtube]
-
MJ told him 20 some years ago that he wanted him to help him make his life the greatest show on earth.
Branca got the catalogue for him, which is a big part of the hoax drama--'My life is in danger, they're going to kill me for my catalogue." (Just as the Pepsi fire sets the stage for the supposed drug abuse leading to 'death day' June 25.)
We think it was MJ in disguise seated beside Branca at X-factor.
+1 couldn't agree more! :bowdown:
-
delete
-
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and feelings. I must be missing something about Janet. Why do we think she is just now joining the hoax?
It was Janet who appeared at the awards show 2 days after the "d**th* to give the famous statement "To you he was an icon. To us he was family". Or, something of that nature.
It was Janet who performed SCREAM at another award show that so many thought Michael was there for or possibly even performing in the background.
It was Janet who performed on American Idol where an extra person showed up in the background.
It was Janet who gave conflicting stories about where she was that day when she found out.
It was Janet who stood by Paris for support and guidance in her famous memorial speech.
It was Janet who gave that interview where she couldn't quit smiling.
It was Janet who said she'd wear black for a year in honor of Michael yet a couple of months (or even weeks) later she was seen wearing all white and out partying with her sister LaToya for New Years.
It was Janet who cut off her hair to resemble Michael in that picture with his eye colored blue.
It was Janet who showed up at court wearing that man's suit.
It was Janet who showed up at Forest Lawn on the 1 year anniversary along with Randy and Jermaine when they had that small private service.
It goes on - but Janet didn't just "show up". She's been there since the start. It's just that her role in this has gone from passive to aggressive. Hang in there - you've made it this far. Let's see it through to the end.
Blessings
@ voice. great post. I somehow missed it back in Aug... Yes Janet DEF there from the start. Conflicting stories about where she was and how she heard the news were the first sign.
Can u pls explain (briefly) if you are inclined, 'the mans suit' I missed that and call me daft, but I fail to make the connect..
cheers
-
Just noticed this hit Twitter...
http://www.janetjackson.com/story/news/statement-of-blair-g-brown-on-behalf-of-janet-jackson-randy-jackson-and-rebbie-jackson (http://www.janetjackson.com/story/news/statement-of-blair-g-brown-on-behalf-of-janet-jackson-randy-jackson-and-rebbie-jackson)
(http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r303/SCLady8/HOAX/STATEMENT.jpg)
I don't saw the treat untill now and i wonder about this statement..
Is is a great Law Firm with several lawyers...more then i can find about Branca and so on....
But the statement has no date and no signature....everyone could have written it who has a blank paper from that office. Without date and signature it is nothing....
-
Just noticed this hit Twitter...
http://www.janetjackson.com/story/news/statement-of-blair-g-brown-on-behalf-of-janet-jackson-randy-jackson-and-rebbie-jackson (http://www.janetjackson.com/story/news/statement-of-blair-g-brown-on-behalf-of-janet-jackson-randy-jackson-and-rebbie-jackson)
(http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r303/SCLady8/HOAX/STATEMENT.jpg)
https://www.facebook.com/arnold.klein
Arnold W. Klein
Yesterday
This is not about a conspiracy this is simply about greed. Michael's catalogue brings in $700 million a year. Anyone with a double digit IQ knows this Will is a fake. So I am not here to rant because I did that long ago. I am just here to tell you the truth.
You don't say Arnie? So what's REALLY going on :icon_e_geek:
-
700 million? The truth huh... This gives us confidence in the other things he says. :-[
Zack O'Malley Greenburg, Forbes Staff
The largest jewel in Jackson’s financial crown, both in life and in death, is his 50% stake in the Sony/ATV music publishing catalog. Purchased by Jackson for $47.5 million in 1985 from the late Australian billionaire Robert Holmes a Court, it now includes hits from the Beatles, Elvis Presley and others (Jackson’s attorney quickly sold an incidental chunk of the catalog for $6 million, bringing the true purchase price even lower).
Within ten years of buying ATV, Jackson would merge the catalog with Sony’s in exchange for an upfront payment of $95 million and a 50% stake in the joint venture, Sony/ATV.
The combined entity has continued to reinvest dividends in new copyrights and is now worth at least $2 billion, judging by the recent sale of the comparable EMI catalog for $2.2 billion–and today throws off
some $50-$75 million annually.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/zackomalleygreenburg/2012/02/17/why-whitney-houston-wont-match-michael-jacksons-postmortem-earnings-part-2/
-
There is something going through my head everytime i read " They will kill me for my catalogue "
When he is dead the legacy owns his catalogue ? Right ? No other had any benefit ...only the family.
No other gets nearer to the rights of the catalogue.....so why and who wants to kill him ?
It's so difficult to explain in english....i hope you understand what i mean....it's like i want a house that i like.....i don't get it when i kill the owner because then it belongs his family.....not one step nearer...
Please tell me if i am wrong and there are contracts with other rules.
Love from germany :bearhug:
-
You explained very well underthemoon! It's similar to when people say 'follow the money' - as far as I can see MJ('s estate) is raking it in!
-
You explained very well underthemoon! It's similar to when people say 'follow the money' - as far as I can see MJ('s estate) is raking it in!
Question is are they being truthful with the figures?
{ The combined entity has continued to reinvest dividends in new copyrights and is now worth at least $2 billion}
Like in Janet's statement, [they have nothing to gain challenging the will.]
The "Estate" gets 40%
Katherine 40%
Charity 20% (you might as well call this the TAX Deduction)
So now that the bills have all been paid/settled by the "estate"......the "estate" {Branca/McClain} will continue to receive 40%? :suspect:....I'd be raising hell too!
I might be over simplifying it a bit, but clearly I can see the issue. :WTF:
-
'The Estate' is not Branca and McClain. They are merely the executors of the estate (An estate is the net worth of a person at any point in time. It is the sum of a person's assets – legal rights, interests and entitlements to property of any kind – less all liabilities at that time. The issue is of special legal significance on a question of bankruptcy and death of the person. Souce: wikipedia) and according to TMZ they get a 10% fee. Normally this would be lower, but given the fact that this is probably one of the largest and most complex estates, I don't think it's unreasonable. This is what California probate law says:
PROBATE CODE
SECTION 10800-10805
10800. (a) Subject to the provisions of this part, for ordinary
services the personal representative shall receive compensation based
on the value of the estate accounted for by the personal
representative, as follows:
(1) Four percent on the first one hundred thousand dollars
($100,000).
(2) Three percent on the next one hundred thousand dollars
($100,000).
(3) Two percent on the next eight hundred thousand dollars
($800,000).
(4) One percent on the next nine million dollars ($9,000,000).
(5) One-half of one percent on the next fifteen million dollars
($15,000,000).
(6) For all amounts above twenty-five million dollars
($25,000,000), a reasonable amount to be determined by the court.
(b) For the purposes of this section, the value of the estate
accounted for by the personal representative is the total amount of
the appraisal value of property in the inventory, plus gains over the
appraisal value on sales, plus receipts, less losses from the
appraisal value on sales, without reference to encumbrances or other
obligations on estate property.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=prob&group=10001-11000&file=10800-10805
Large and Complex Estates
The California Probate Code does not set a percentage for the executor to receive if the total value of the estate is greater than $25 million. In these cases, the court will set a reasonable fee for the executor, according to the California Probate Code. Likewise, if the estate is smaller than $25 million but is particularly complex, the probate court may set a larger fee than that calculated by the California Probate Code. The fee may be a percentage of the estate, or it may be a flat or hourly rate.
http://info.legalzoom.com/monetary-percentage-executor-california-4635.html
'The Estate' in this case is still MJ, since he is not dead. Katherine is supposed to get 40% but we all know she only gets an allowance and still didn't receive her 40% after almost 4 years, and I bet she always had that allowance, same goes for the kids. I think charities still receive what has always been donated so nothing has changed, except for the fact that the executors now handle MJ's estate as long as he's in his batcave, and they get paid to deal with all that shit. Why doesn't Katherine get her 40%? Because MJ isn't dead. Assuming the real will would state something similar.
So in other words, as I see it, 100% goes to MJ, he pays Branca & McClain the fee they agreed on for handling his estate in his absence, he still donates to charity and Katherine and the kids get their allowance. I don't see a problem.
-
If Branca/McClain are simply receiving a "fee" then why the raucous over the validity of the will? :icon_e_confused:
Statement:
[The individuals who have the most to lose by a finding that the will is invalid are, of course the executors and those on the executors payroll ]
Statement:
[What will be gained by a finding of invalidity is that the executors will be replaced and the estate and the guardianship will be managed in a manner that is in the best interest of the children, which is what Michael wanted]
If the family knows Michael is alive, then why challenge the financial set up?
If Michael is already in control of the estate (and Branca/McClain are just running it for only a "fee"), then why challenge the will to change the executors?
(From the siblings perspective they get nothing for doing so either way!)
This is the part that doesn't make sense to me. :suspect:
I can see if Michael is alive why the family wouldn't be paid the 40% (only an allowance), but if they know he's alive WHY CHALLENGE IT?
there's something not right here.....that's all I'm saying.
-
I think they challenged the will to see if anyone would catch on that fake will = fake death. Sometimes it's put out there so obviously that Michael is alive, they're giving the clues, sometimes practically shouting them. When Michael comes back, pretty much everyone will have had the opportunity to find for themselves that he never died but they ignored that chance to be a part of the greatest show on Earth.
-
I think they challenged the will to see if anyone would catch on that fake will = fake death. Sometimes it's put out there so obviously that Michael is alive, they're giving the clues, sometimes practically shouting them. When Michael comes back, pretty much everyone will have had the opportunity to find for themselves that he never died but they ignored that chance to be a part of the greatest show on Earth.
I hope that is the case, because we've read nothing but story after story of people who fleeced Michael for money (and are still trying to do so). Heck he wrote a song about it!
...the catalog alone is worth over 2 billion....what's the "fee/percentage" for managing that? hmmmm.... :icon_e_confused:
.....I just don't hold the executors exempt from the greed rule!....jmo :icon_neutral:
-
I think they challenged the will to see if anyone would catch on that fake will = fake death. Sometimes it's put out there so obviously that Michael is alive, they're giving the clues, sometimes practically shouting them. When Michael comes back, pretty much everyone will have had the opportunity to find for themselves that he never died but they ignored that chance to be a part of the greatest show on Earth.
I hope that is the case, because we've read nothing but story after story of people who fleeced Michael for money (and are still trying to do so). Heck he wrote a song about it!
...the catalog alone is worth over 2 billion....what's the "fee/percentage" for managing that? hmmmm.... :icon_e_confused:
.....I just don't hold the executors exempt from the greed rule!....jmo :icon_neutral:
Of course they are greedy! The more money they fork in, the more money they will get is my bet. Greedy executors are the best if you want to double/triple/quadruple the worth of an estate. If you believe MJ is alive, then I wouldn't just assume he would hand over his billions to see them go up in smoke.
We can only assume what their fee is. Either way, Branca and McClain are two very wealthy executors.
-
So the suit against AEG scheduled for April :icon_question: :icon_e_confused:
Is that filed independent of the estate? or by the estate?
I guess what I'm trying to understand is who is fighting for who and for what? :judge-smiley:
-
Souza
'The Estate' in this case is still MJ, since he is not dead. Katherine is supposed to get 40% but we all know she only gets an allowance and still didn't receive her 40% after almost 4 years, and I bet she always had that allowance, same goes for the kids. I think charities still receive what has always been donated so nothing has changed, except for the fact that the executors now handle MJ's estate as long as he's in his batcave, and they get paid to deal with all that shit. Why doesn't Katherine get her 40%? Because MJ isn't dead. Assuming the real will would state something similar.
So in other words, as I see it, 100% goes to MJ, he pays Branca & McClain the fee they agreed on for handling his estate in his absence, he still donates to charity and Katherine and the kids get their allowance. I don't see a problem.
I like this!
Snoopy71
I can see if Michael is alive why the family wouldn't be paid the 40% (only an allowance), but if they know he's alive WHY CHALLENGE IT?
IMO it is keeping MJ's name circulating in the news; drama is entertaining to the public, and I'm sure the extended Jackson's are happy to work for their brother if they are paid well and it boosts their own music sales. From the break-down Souza provided, 10% is the legal amount Branca and Mclain should be receiving, and I think MJ thinks they are the best and trusts them. MJ knows people after all these years, unless one buys the weak gullible emaciated scared childish bankrupt drugged MJ.
-
Snoopy71
I can see if Michael is alive why the family wouldn't be paid the 40% (only an allowance), but if they know he's alive WHY CHALLENGE IT?
IMO it is keeping MJ's name circulating in the news; drama is entertaining to the public, and I'm sure the extended Jackson's are happy to work for their brother if they are paid well and it boosts their own music sales. From the break-down Souza provided, 10% is the legal amount Branca and Mclain should be receiving, and I think MJ thinks they are the best and trusts them. MJ knows people after all these years, unless one buys the weak gullible emaciated scared childish bankrupt drugged MJ.
True that!
....and MJ does like controversy, so a very public dispute over the will would serve that purpose (it definitely has my attention) :suspect:
I guess like anything else we'll have to wait and see what develops! :compute:
-
'The Estate' in this case is still MJ, since he is not dead. Katherine is supposed to get 40% but we all know she only gets an allowance and still didn't receive her 40% after almost 4 years, and I bet she always had that allowance, same goes for the kids. I think charities still receive what has always been donated so nothing has changed, except for the fact that the executors now handle MJ's estate as long as he's in his batcave, and they get paid to deal with all that shit. Why doesn't Katherine get her 40%? Because MJ isn't dead. Assuming the real will would state something similar.
So in other words, as I see it, 100% goes to MJ, he pays Branca & McClain the fee they agreed on for handling his estate in his absence, he still donates to charity and Katherine and the kids get their allowance. I don't see a problem.
Love this post. It's perfect. Exactly what I have been saying too for ages, Estate = MJ. Branca / Mclain = MJ Mouthpiece.
Also, regarding them being greedy, it does make sense. Also I am sure MJ is enjoying and will enjoy showing off his triumph post bam, that even when 'dead' he can still sell records, probably still invest and make bucket loads of money, more money than any other artist currently dead or alive. All without even making appearances. It kinda just demonstrates how invincible he really is in this industry.
-
I think they challenged the will to see if anyone would catch on that fake will = fake death. Sometimes it's put out there so obviously that Michael is alive, they're giving the clues, sometimes practically shouting them. When Michael comes back, pretty much everyone will have had the opportunity to find for themselves that he never died but they ignored that chance to be a part of the greatest show on Earth.
:th_bravo:
-
And Arnie talks a lot and says nothing :-[
-
And Arnie talks a lot and says nothing :-[
+1 :icon_lol:
'The Estate' in this case is still MJ, since he is not dead. Katherine is supposed to get 40% but we all know she only gets an allowance and still didn't receive her 40% after almost 4 years, and I bet she always had that allowance, same goes for the kids. I think charities still receive what has always been donated so nothing has changed, except for the fact that the executors now handle MJ's estate as long as he's in his batcave, and they get paid to deal with all that shit. Why doesn't Katherine get her 40%? Because MJ isn't dead. Assuming the real will would state something similar.
So in other words, as I see it, 100% goes to MJ, he pays Branca & McClain the fee they agreed on for handling his estate in his absence, he still donates to charity and Katherine and the kids get their allowance. I don't see a problem.
That's a clear story. I choose to believe this too. Obviously, there's a lot of speculation around the MJ estate fueled by the assuming media, one can only guess. Prob in April we will get to know a little more or may be not :icon_neutral:
I think they challenged the will to see if anyone would catch on that fake will = fake death. Sometimes it's put out there so obviously that Michael is alive, they're giving the clues, sometimes practically shouting them. When Michael comes back, pretty much everyone will have had the opportunity to find for themselves that he never died but they ignored that chance to be a part of the greatest show on Earth.
Exactly!
-
Yes Janet seems to be at the center of most things!
Janet was the closed to Michael as said "You see we are TWO different people"
Janet does not need Michaels money she sure has her own projects that bring her MONEY!
Janet's year is 2013! Wedding which is going to be one of the Great events of 2013!!
COULD THIS BE THE PLATFORM FOR HER BROTHERS APPEARANCE!
It's all coming together now! CAN YOU FEEL IT!
THE BEST IS YET TO COME
YOU AIN'T SEEN NOTHING YET!
THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH
Is about to take place!
-
Yes Janet seems to be at the center of most things!
Janet was the closed to Michael as said "You see we are TWO different people"
Janet does not need Michaels money she sure has her own projects that bring her MONEY!
Janet's year is 2013! Wedding which is going to be one of the Great events of 2013!!
COULD THIS BE THE PLATFORM FOR HER BROTHERS APPEARANCE!
It's all coming together now! CAN YOU FEEL IT!
THE BEST IS YET TO COME
YOU AIN'T SEEN NOTHING YET!
THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH
Is about to take place!
If you mean: Janet's wedding, WMA and Lundon's Bridge and the Three Keys, yes you are right it's all coming together now and maybe The New Year Ball Drop and the The Christmas Wreaths were just a misleading clue to keep us stuck in here.
-
I think they challenged the will to see if anyone would catch on that fake will = fake death. Sometimes it's put out there so obviously that Michael is alive, they're giving the clues, sometimes practically shouting them. When Michael comes back, pretty much everyone will have had the opportunity to find for themselves that he never died but they ignored that chance to be a part of the greatest show on Earth.
I hope that is the case, because we've read nothing but story after story of people who fleeced Michael for money (and are still trying to do so). Heck he wrote a song about it!
...the catalog alone is worth over 2 billion....what's the "fee/percentage" for managing that? hmmmm.... :icon_e_confused:
.....I just don't hold the executors exempt from the greed rule!....jmo :icon_neutral:
I had posted this on the Branca thread a while back.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/102043792/Interfor-Report-John-Branca
(http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/hoaxpic/images/brancaandm.jpg)
Something about this will business still just does not sit right with me, whatever the reasoning behind challenging it. :icon_e_confused: :suspect: