Michael Jackson Death Hoax Investigators
Latest News => Michael Jackson News => Topic started by: peterpanswendy on February 17, 2010, 09:10:44 PM
-
According to MJHOAXLIVE who spoke with Brian Oxman today, Branca was never rehired and Michael would never do anything like that, here is the link where you can read the letter that Branca was fired and never meant to be hired again. I don't know anymore details besides that, but Hasil and Twiggy want this letter to get around.
Here is the link to the letter: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_NiWiL9dw-Po/S ... letter.jpg (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_NiWiL9dw-Po/Sv-luFZolXI/AAAAAAAAAZ4/bWWY0ZOwf2s/s1600-h/jacksonfiringbrancaletter.jpg)
the link to Twiggy's blog: http://www.mjhoaxlive.blogspot.com (http://www.mjhoaxlive.blogspot.com)
Direct any questions there because unfortunately I can't answer
XOXO
-
that's right and that's why I know that he is a snake. I believe he and other SONY execs infinitely plans to take control of Michael's music catalogs and the courts aren't willing nor interested in doing anything about it. Branca should not have any kind of interest over Michael's estate, much less be executor over it. His ass should be in jail. That is suicide for Michael's interest. He, Matolla, and Tohme Tohme, in my opinion, are made up of the same fabric. And McClain, what can I say. I see what they are planning as if they'd drawn a map to it. The will is bogus. They are crooks. I am sure that they had been (and likely still are) living large at Michael's expense for a long time before this ever came to light. SONY is shyster! These mobsters need to be taken down. I can understand why Michael had to get away from them. They were bleeding him dry and trying to make him think he was broke on his own accord. They disrespected Michael's authority and was given the go ahead by the courts failing to remedy the situation. I have no respect for any of them.
-
With the Oxman bombshell regarding the ambulance photo and now this news of John Branca! All I can say is Praise Jesus! ;) I have been praying to God this week that he would bring to light all involved in the horrible plot against our beloved MJ! I know that God hears my prayers! :) I do wonder about a document that Branca and McClain presented in court against Katherine Jackson. The document that gave the Jackson Estate control over MJ's affairs. I believe I read this letter was written eight days before MJ's supposed death on June 25th. I have always wondered about the validity of that document. :?: :?: :?: :?:
-
:o well it look like the s@%t about to hit the fan :lol: :lol:
-
This letter was written from a law firm in Aventura, Fl. Did the firing take place while MJ was friends with Malnik? There was also a problem with that friendship from what I remember. MJ thought Malnik was in on taking the Beatles catalog from him along w/ Motola. What a tangled web he weaved with all these mobsters!! They took advantage of his niceness. The more I read things like this - the more Ibfeel Sony is behind most of this. And I think MJ is playing them all behind the scenes or he has been forced to do this by them. Just my thoughts. :| I think it's all going to be blown out of the water soon.
-
that's right and that's why I know that he is a snake. I believe he and other SONY execs infinitely plans to take control of Michael's music catalogs and the courts aren't willing nor interested in doing anything about it. Branca should not have any kind of interest over Michael's estate, much less be executor over it. His ass should be in jail. That is suicide for Michael's interest. He, Matolla, and Tohme Tohme, in my opinion, are made up of the same fabric. And McClain, what can I say. I see what they are planning as if they'd drawn a map to it. The will is bogus. They are crooks. I am sure that they had been (and likely still are) living large at Michael's expense for a long time before this ever came to light. SONY is shyster! These mobsters need to be taken down. I can understand why Michael had to get away from them. They were bleeding him dry and trying to make him think he was broke on his own accord. They disrespected Michael's authority and was given the go ahead by the courts failing to remedy the situation. I have no respect for any of them.
Amen!
-
This letter was written from a law firm in Aventura, Fl. Did the firing take place while MJ was friends with Malnik? There was also a problem with that friendship from what I remember. MJ thought Malnik was in on taking the Beatles catalog from him along w/ Motola. What a tangled web he weaved with all these mobsters!! They took advantage of his niceness. The more I read things like this - the more Ibfeel Sony is behind most of this. And I think MJ is playing them all behind the scenes or he has been forced to do this by them. Just my thoughts. :| I think it's all going to be blown out of the water soon.
Randy Jackson is also implicated in this, i believe.
-
No one hand delivers a letter like that. A letter of that nature would need to be sent certified mail with delivery confirmation and signature required. Even if it's to the occupant of the desk right next to you. Period.
Else it's not legal and the simple defense is "I didn't get it", making the contents not applicable by law.
Look deeper. This is another punk by Michael, except this time, some of US got punked.
LOOK DEEPER.
-
Where is the PROOF Branca wasn't rehired??? Termination letter dated 2003, who can prove with documents, that Branca wasn't infact rehired when he says he was?? Were you all in the court room when a judge deemed Branca appropriate to be the executor of MJ's estate?? well neither was I! So where is the proof??
-
Apart from the media-bashing that seems an obvious consequnce of the hoax, the other purposes are quite blurry at the time.........
We have the Jacksons blaming Branca and DiLeo for helping/using Murray as an instrument to execute MJ's killing.....
The thing that baffles me is that if all of this is part of the script......Then why would these 2 (Branca and DiLeo) , who are supposedly with MJ on this hoax, risk defaming themselves simply because Michael wants to carry out a hoax? Whats in it for thm apart from money?? I dunno if Branca is part of this but DiLeo SURE is.....He has to be part of this hoax....without hm this would be incomplete.
But thats the question......Why risk being portayed as criminals/puppet masters in the eyes of the public just for the sake of Micahel's novel endeavour?
They arent THAT UNSELFISH ARE THEY?
-
No one hand delivers a letter like that. A letter of that nature would need to be sent certified mail with delivery confirmation and signature required. Even if it's to the occupant of the desk right next to you. Period.
Else it's not legal and the simple defense is "I didn't get it", making the contents not applicable by law.
Look deeper. This is another punk by Michael, except this time, some of US got punked.
LOOK DEEPER.
why to you make these comments, with respect you can terminate a retainer - by just sending a letter by hand delivery - why do you make these comments - you are wrong
-
Where is the PROOF Branca wasn't rehired??? Termination letter dated 2003, who can prove with documents, that Branca wasn't infact rehired when he says he was?? Were you all in the court room when a judge deemed Branca appropriate to be the executor of MJ's estate?? well neither was I! So where is the proof??
exactly
if the will was invalid the beneficiaries would have fought for a declaration to that effect, it would be in their interests, they did not pursue it - why?
-
how does his fit in with the hoax
a non hoax believer would say that if mj is alive and well, then he would not let the scum bags take the money - just playing devils advocate.
-
[youtube:3qy8fpyu]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kvu301ATe_0[/youtube:3qy8fpyu]
[youtube:3qy8fpyu]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXjSmUUJuPo[/youtube:3qy8fpyu]
[youtube:3qy8fpyu]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVGHcdZEHIs[/youtube:3qy8fpyu]
-
above vids disabled?
-
http://mjhoaxlive.blogspot.com/ (http://mjhoaxlive.blogspot.com/)
Please read this link, maybe many of you already know.
They say very interesting things like John Branca and Tommy Mottola, stole Michael diverting money to offshore accounts in the Caribbean. If this is true, as Michael would hire another to this man, besides knowing that it is close to Mottola? :evil:
-
http://mjhoaxlive.blogspot.com/
Please read this link, maybe many of you already know.
They say very interesting things like John Branca and Tommy Mottola, stole Michael diverting money to offshore accounts in the Caribbean. If this is true, as Michael would hire another to this man, besides knowing that it is close to Mottola? :evil:
look i am only playing devils advocate - nothing more - thinking out of the box throws things up ---
but if (lets hope) that this is a hoax why didnt mike get his house in order with a subsquent will?
-
why leave his family in such a position - there is no control
the family do not have the equipment to fight
they have lost control
they are puppets
they have to bow to these pp - mike would not have wanted this - so if a hoax why not prepare?
-
I'm still convinced it's a hoax, and i'm more convinced that MJ did infact re hire Branca , I'm thinking i don't like Joe or Oxman and they're allways the ones to kick up a stink...Like with the ambu-pic (soory bit off topic but it's to make a point sorta) not even few weeks ago we hear Joe is going to sue those who published the ambu-pic (violation of privacy and all that) yet now we have Oxman who is Joe's lawyer, saying the pic is fake...He's kind of taken away Joe's only do-able lawsuit with saying stuff like that is'nt he? Like if the pic is fake , Joe can't sue for violation of privacy , can he??
-
Where is the PROOF Branca wasn't rehired??? Termination letter dated 2003, who can prove with documents, that Branca wasn't infact rehired when he says he was?? Were you all in the court room when a judge deemed Branca appropriate to be the executor of MJ's estate?? well neither was I! So where is the proof??
exactly
if the will was invalid the beneficiaries would have fought for a declaration to that effect, it would be in their interests, they did not pursue it - why?
I was under the impression that Katherine didn't contest the wil because of the stipulation with any contestation the heir would not receive anything.
-
well she must have a weak case or rubbish lawyers
-
above vids disabled?
No, you just have to click a second time to watch on youtube. Embedding has been disabled is all. Which I did not notice when I originally posted them. Not really a big deal actually though just click the thing that says watch on youtube that comes up.
-
LA Times Article about the "legal mess" after June 25 th 2009 quotes his then attorney MacMillian that it might be possible that MJ rehired John Branca at June 17th.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/01 ... son-legal1 (http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/01/local/me-jackson-legal1)
(read all three pages!)
-
The truth I'm a little confused, maybe this is a way to expose people who want to do harm to Michael, and who better than your family to help remember what he said La Toya of a conspiracy. And if someone really would have wanted to kill him? :shock:
-
but to lose control of your money
-
The truth I'm a little confused, maybe this is a way to expose people who want to do harm to Michael, and who better than your family to help remember what he said La Toya of a conspiracy. And if someone really would have wanted to kill him? :shock:
Yeah, agree. Quite plausible!
-
http://www.tmz.com/2009/10/01/michael-j ... an-oxman/8 (http://www.tmz.com/2009/10/01/michael-jackson-john-branca-probate-howard-weitzman-katherine-jackson-brian-oxman/8)
Attorney Brian Oxman -- the lawyer who pops up from time to time in the Jackson saga -- says he has a document proving Jackson fired Branca.
Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2009/10/01/michael-j ... z0fvG8QSwn (http://www.tmz.com/2009/10/01/michael-jackson-john-branca-probate-howard-weitzman-katherine-jackson-brian-oxman/8#ixzz0fvG8QSwn)
Branca served as Jackson's lawyer on and off for 29 years. Sources connected to Branca freely admit Jackson fired the lawyer in 1990, but rehired him 3 years later. We're also told Branca quit Michael in 2006 because Jackson insisted on hiring "advisors" Branca believed would do great harm to MJ.
A month before Jackson died, he began conversations with Branca, saying he wanted him back in the fold. We've learned on June 17, eight days before Jackson died, Jackson signed a letter hiring Branca back as his lawyer.
Howard Weitzman, a lawyer for the estate, confirmed, "In mid-June, Michael Jackson retained John Branca to represent him as general and entertainment counsel in his business and personal affairs." Weitzman added, "The letter retaining Branca was shared with lawyers for Katherine Jackson very early in the probate proceedings."
I know that MJ would hire/fire staff as he did with Grace, but we have information that he fired Tohme Tohme and John Branca, but right before his death both are back as being rehired by Michael and are in total control of his Estate while blocking his family from seeing medical records etc???? I just believe all this is from Howard Weitzman's doing who is the lawyer for the estate and also mob affiliated as well. Which in my opinion connects them all back to Tommy Mottola.
Just a little info on Weitzman[attachment=0:mtnmw7kx]Howard Weitzman.jpg[/attachment:mtnmw7kx]
Courtney Love Cobain has made statements that point to Howard Weitzman and others being behind the theft of her and Frances Bean Cobain's assets. Weitzman is listed in this civil case as the co-signer with Love setting up the Frances Cobain Irrevocable Trust. The case was recently dismissed at First Republic Bank's request. Love and Laird Norton Tyee Trust Company seem to have come to some sort of agreement.
Interesting, this Howard Weitzman and his entertainment business having been council for many well known clients. Weitzman seems to have had some real relationships with convicted organized crime folks or used their services in at least one of his cases, something which we will get into more with upcoming posts. He worked at MCA which has many reported incidents of being in league with the mafia. (We'll definitely being getting to that in an upcoming blog).
He's currently serving as the attorney for the trustees of the Michael Jackson estate.
Howard Weitzman, a lawyer for the men who now control the estate, told the judge the contracts were "aggressively negotiated and reflect the exhaustion of all parties on give and take, and greatly benefit the estate."
"I don't believe there is room for more negotiation," he said.
The judge previously has said he may approve the contracts even over Katherine Jackson's objection.
Bottom line.....I do not believe that MJ rehired either of these men.
-
is the question whether mike rehired Branca to handle general matter? or is it whether he is the executor of his estate. if mike did not make another valid will then the last will stands.
so Branca retains his position until he relinquishes it or he is removed by the court
-
the point i was raising is, why did mike not make a further will, to ensure that Branca could not be the executor of his estate/trust?
-
The document was produced by John Branca, a lawyer who began to represent Jackson in 1980. Branca and Jackson broke up in 2006 by a disagreement over other advisers, but on June 17 - eight days before his death - Jackson signed a letter once more keep Branca as his lawyer, according to a source close to the relationship.
Be careful when you read the news as simpre talk of a "source" has no name :?:
McMillan said the singer never told him that Branca had hired again, but he said "It's Possible." :?:
An executor role would give Branca and McClain power to manage Jackson's finances while the court is settling his affairs, a process that could take years. Jackson, 50, died with more than $400 million in debt, but his assets -- including his musical catalog and his partial ownership of the Sony-ATV catalog -- outweigh his debts by hundreds of millions of dollars.
"You could give" power to manage Branca, Mc Clain ,.... "could" do not know ...... :?:
-
the will
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/image ... n.will.pdf (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/07/01/michael.jackson.will.pdf)
-
http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interacti ... n_will.pdf (http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_documents/jackson_will.pdf)
attachments name all the beneficiaries to the trust
-
details of the trust not made public
http://www.accesshollywood.com/report-m ... icle_20130 (http://www.accesshollywood.com/report-michael-jacksons-trust-to-split-assets-three-ways_article_20130)
"The late singer’s will omitted details of how his funds would be divided, leaving that instead to the Michael Jackson Family Trust – a document that has not been made public. However, a source familiar with the details of the trust told the Associated Press that it would be split between his mom, Katherine Jackson, who would get 40 percent, his three children, who collectively get 40 percent, and charities for children, which would get the remaining 20 percent"
-
http://wills.about.com/b/2009/07/08/est ... -trust.htm (http://wills.about.com/b/2009/07/08/estate-planning-terms-what-is-a-family-trust.htm)
"The Michael Jackson Family Trust - So What is a Family Trust?
Wednesday July 8, 2009
OK, enough already about Michael Jackson's estate, but unfortunately I think that his estate plan has created some confusion when it comes to understanding a basic estate planning term - "Family Trust."
Traditionally in the estate planning arena a "Family Trust" is another term used for the "B Trust" in an AB Trust system that is commonly used by married couples to maximize the use of each spouse's exemption from federal estate taxes. In fact, Family Trust is the term that I use in my clients' estate planning documents, but at my last firm they used the term "Bypass Trust" and at the firm before that they used "Credit Shelter Trust." No big deal - all of these terms refer to the B Trust in an AB Trust plan.
So leave it to Michael Jackson to create confusion by naming his Revocable Living Trust the "Michael Jackson Family Trust." No, Michael Jackson's "Family Trust" isn't a B Trust, Bypass Trust, Credit Shelter Trust, or even a Family Trust in the traditional sense of the term - it's simply the name Michael Jackson decided to use for his Revocable Living Trust (or more likely what his estate planning attorney decided to name the trust). He could have named it the "Michael Jackson Revocable Trust" or the "Michael Jackson Living Trust" or even the "Thriller Trust" - in other words, the name of a Revocable Living Trust, or of any trust for that matter, really isn't important. Instead, what is important is what the written trust agreement says.
So the bottom line is don't let Michael Jackson's estate plan confuse you - his Family Trust has nothing to do with saving on estate taxes in the traditional sense of a Family Trust - it's just a name."
-
http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... ntrol.html (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1900702/michael_jackson_family_trust_will_control.html)
"The Michael Jackson Family Trust Will Control All of Michael Jackson's Assets
2 The Michael Jackson Family Trust is going to draw a lot of attention very soon. The Michael Jackson Family Trust has been set up as an entity to be used to help out Michael Jackson and recipients in his will, but most importantly the Michael Jackson Family Trust will control Michael Jackson's estate. As is dictated in the Michael Jackson will, MJ is giving his entire estate to the Michael Jackson Family Trust, where all of the assets will be managed together rather than as separate entities. The will makes things easier for the executors, and having the Michael Jackson Family Trust in place will help his children long-term as well.
In Michael Jackson's will, he outlines exactly what will take place, and in section III of the 2002 will, he enables the executors to put into action the Michael Jackson Family Trust. The will states, "I give my entire estate to the Trustee or Trustees then acting under that certain Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust executed on March 22, 2002 by me as Trustee and Trustor which is called the MICHAEL JACKSON FAMILY TRUST, giving effect to my amendments thereto made prior to my death. All such assets shall be held, managed and distributed as a part of said Trust according to its terms and not as a separate testamentary trust."
What this all boils down to mean, is that the Trustees of the Michael Jackson Family Trust will have a lot of power when it comes to Michael Jackson's assets, but reading between the lines, it means that they will also over-see how much of the monetary assets, and at what intervals, Michael Jackson's kids will see the funds. Trusts like these are set up in order to help out people who are awarded monetary and physical assets in a will, and it will allow the Trustees to help advice the kids, and disperse the assets at the right time. His mother, Katherine Jackson, will also retain some rights as guardian of the children, and thus a vested interest in the Michael Jackson estate."
-
Too much control - to people he did not trust
strange?
-
http://www.sofloridaestateplanning.com/ ... -provides/ (http://www.sofloridaestateplanning.com/2009/07/articles/chartiable-planning/speculating-on-what-the-michael-jackson-family-trust-provides/)
"Posted on July 3, 2009 by David Shulman
Speculating on what the Michael Jackson Family Trust Provides
Email This
Print
Comments (3)
Trackbacks It’s not my intention to turn this blog in to a celebrity gossip site. However, there are a number of legal issues regarding Michael Jackson’s estate that are continuously being reported on by reporters who do not fully understand (or do not care about) the nuances involved. The latest batch of confusion involves the disposition of Jackson’s assets in the Michael Jackson Family Trust.
As I previously posted, on July 1, Jackson’s Will was filed with the Cour along with a Petition for Probate. His will is what is known as a “Pourover Will” because it pours over any assets that Jackson owned in his individual name and not in the name of the Michael Jackson Family Trust, into the Trust. The Petition for Probate listed Jackson’s mother Katherine and his three minor children as primary beneficiaries, along with a number of other Jacksons (who I assume are his nieces and nephews) as secondary or contingent beneficiaries.
There is no legal requirement for a Trust to be released to the public. In fact, one of the reasons to do a Trust, especially if you are very wealthy or a celebrity is to keep your affairs private after your death. That being said, like everything else involved in this case, I expect a full version of the Trust to be leaked any day now. Already the press is reporting on, as TMZ so bluntly put it, “Who Gets What”. According to the reports, “Katherine Jackson will get 40% of the assets. Michael's 3 kids will get another 40%. And the remaining 20% goes to several children's charities.”
This cannot be completely accurate. While I have not yet seen the document, I am 100% positive that each of Jackson’s mother, and his children are to receive their shares in trust, with a the trustee having the power to make or not make distributions of income or principal according to certain standards.
There are a number of reasons for this, from a tax perspective, from a creditor and asset protection perspective, and from a “Control” (yes, that’s Janet, not Michael) perspective.
Later today I’ll explain why. (I’d do it now but I have to go to a client meeting. Blogging is fun but doesn’t pay my mortgage)."
-
http://www.bayareawillsandtrustslawblog ... ily-trust/ (http://www.bayareawillsandtrustslawblog.com/tags/michael-jackson-family-trust/)
"Law Office of Karen MeckstrothServing clients in San Jose, Los Gatos, Palo Alto, Santa Clara & San Mateo Counties, & throughout the Bay Area/Silicon ValleyAboutServicesContactArchivesHome > Michael Jackson Family Trust >
Michael Jackson's Will Makes Sense in California
Posted on July 6, 2009 by Karen Meckstroth
There is nothing dramatic about the structure of Michael Jackson's basic estate plan. At least not in California. It looks like Michael Jackson set up a revocable living trust (the Michael Jackson Family Trust) and a "pour over" will (pdf). Most Californians who establish estate plans, even Californians with modest estates, use revocable living trusts to dispose of their property. The trust, not the will, directs how to distribute the individual's assets on death. The will "pours over" to the trust and, in the case of a parent, nominates guardians for minor children.
The California Bar Association's pamphlet "Do I Need a Living Trust" describes how a revocable living trust like the Michael Jackson Family Trust works:
What is a living trust? It is a written legal document that partially substitutes for a will. With a living trust, your assets (your home, bank accounts and stocks, for example) are put into the trust, administered for your benefit during your lifetime, and then transferred to your beneficiaries when you die.
The terms of the revocable living trust are private. Unlike a will, the trust is not lodged with the court. The terms of the Michael Jackson Family Trust will not become public unless there is a trust contest or other proceeding involving the trust. Or the trust is leaked to the public.
One reason Californians prefer to use a revocable living trust instead of a will to dispose of their assets is the high cost of probate in California. Probating an estate in California is usually much more costly than a trust administration. From the Bar Association's pamphlet:
How could a living trust be helpful at my death?
The assets held in your living trust could be managed by the trustee and distributed according to your directions without court supervision and involvement. This can save your heirs time and money. . . .
If your assets (those in your name alone) are not in a living trust when you die, they would be subject to probate. Probate is a court-supervised process for transferring assets to the beneficiaries listed in one's will. . . .
Probate can take more time to complete than the distribution of property held in a living trust. In addition, assets tied up in probate may not be as readily accessible to the beneficiaries as those held in a living trust. And the cost of a probate is often greater than the cost of managing and distributing comparable assets held in a living trust.
A trust alone will not avoid probate. After someone sets up a revocable living trust, he or she must take steps to transfer assets to the trust. (Some assets are not subject to probate and are not transferred to the trust -- for example, retirement plans with beneficiary designations.) Even though Michael Jackson set up the Michael Jackson Family Trust, a probate may still be necessary if "probatable" assets were left outside the trust. There are some other possibilities, short of a formal probate, such as transferring assets to the trust by means of a Heggstad petition.
From the Bar Association pamphlet:
If I have a living trust, do I still need a will?
Yes. Your will affects any assets that are titled in your name at your death and are not in your living trust or some other form of ownership with a right of survivorship. If you have a living trust, your will would typically contain a pour over provision. Such a provision simply states that all such assets should be transferred to the trustee of your living trust after your death. (This does not mean, however, that your beneficiaries can avoid going through probate for these assets.)
Michael Jackson did what most Californians do when they set up their estate plans. He established a revocable living trust and a pour over will. The Michael Jackson Family Trust, and not Michael's will, dictates how Michael's estate is to be distributed. Most likely, the Michael Jackson Family Trust establishes separate share trusts for each of his children. There may also be distributions to other family members and charity. The trusts for Michael's children may last for their lifetimes with distributions to Michael's future grandchildren. Or the trusts for his children may terminate during their lifetimes. We don't really know.
Which brings us to another reason Californians prefer revocable living trusts to wills -- privacy.
Tags: Michael Jackson Family Trust, Michael Jackson estate, Michael Jackson probate, Michael Jackson trust, Wills & Trusts"
-
we dont know what the private trust says, but the will points to the beneficiaries
why have those lawyers?
-
IF THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN POSTED, I APOLOGIZE; HOWEVER I COULD NOT FIND IT.
BECKLOFF STRIKES AGAIN
http://www.fromthewestwing.com/article/Compensation%20approved%20for%20Jackson%20estate%20admins/?k=j83s12y12h94s27k02
Compensation approved for Jackson estate admins
AP NEWS | 2010-02-03 22:54:12
Judge approves 10 percent compensation for Michael Jackson's estate administrators
Two men administering Michael Jackson's estate will receive a total of 10 percent of the its profits minus several sizable assets, a judge agreed Wednesday.
Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff approved the compensation for attorney John Branca and music executive John McClain, who have been administering the singer's estate since shortly after his death on June 25.
Branca and McClain will each receive five percent of the estate's profits, minus earnings from the recent "This Is It" movie and Jackson's interest in lucrative Sony-ATV music catalog.
Beckloff approved the arrangement after discussing it with various attorneys representing Branca, McClain, Jackson's children and the singer's mother, Katherine Jackson.
None raised any objections to the arrangement.
Howard Weitzman, an attorney for Branca and McClain, said the men would be fairly compensated but likely receive less money than if they received guideline amounts for administering Jackson's estate, which has an estimated value of more than $500 million.
"They will be fairly compensated," Weitzman said.
Katherine Jackson's attorney, Adam Streisand, agreed.
"I think that this is very reasonable," he said. "There is an incentive for the executors to grow the business and that will, of course, affect their compensation."
Weitzman noted that Branca represented Michael Jackson throughout his life and that McClain is a childhood friend of the singer.
Beckloff is retaining some oversight over the payments and scheduled a progress report for September. But he expressed faith in Branca's leadership of the estate. The judge recalled a hearing last year in which Branca testified by phone about his business connections and a deal Jackson merchandise and a memorabilia exhibition.
"I found him extraordinarily impressive," Beckloff said, noting that's not a distinction he normally draws about people from a phone conversation.
-
yes a fat everlasting pay packet
how does this affect the hoax?
-
An old joke asks the incauto why sharks refuse to eat lawyers that naufragan at sea: professional courtesy.
There is also an old "curse" gypsy says you look between lawyers. God, I believe that is all parties are considered a pest :evil:
-
I wish I could answer "how this supports or affects the hoax" but honestly guys, IDK, I'm just the messenger spreading the word
-
I think this isn't very helpful. Who even cares about Branca? Someone clearly explain what he has to do with the hoax plz. :(
Also, making your text big and rainbow gets a bit annoying after a while.
A better strategy is to bold parts you think are important.
-
I think this isn't very helpful. Who even cares about Branca? Someone clearly explain what he has to do with the hoax plz. :(
Also, making your text big and rainbow gets a bit annoying after a while.
A better strategy is to bold parts you think are important.
MJHOAX live found it important so they asked people to spread it because it could be significant, or not, that is up to others to decide, so just because you don't find it helpful, someone else may feel differently. If users rainbow colors are annoying you, don't you think you could ask a bit nicer? You seem kinda rude. Jeez.
-
MJHOAX live found it important so they asked people to spread it because it could be significant, or not, that is up to others to decide, so just because you don't find it helpful, someone else may feel differently. If users rainbow colors are annoying you, don't you think you could ask a bit nicer? You seem kinda rude. Jeez.
I'm just asking for a clear explanation for our fellow foreign hoaxers.
I didn't mean to be rude. ;)
Just trying to be direct.
-
In my humble opinion we should consider all the circumstances surrounding this story 8-)
-
Approx 2:00 p.m., July 6, 2002, New York City time, 6 hours away from LA. Now why would MJ leave after making this powerful speech, to meet with Branca on the very next day in LA to sign his will? Did he think that perhaps he felt had just signed his own death certificate by publicly outing the bad boys of Sony? I should hope not. If anything, he should've been feeling re-born. He'd just made HIStory. But I don't know. there was bad blood. You tell me.
[youtube:3my75hbu]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzGCZUT9DG4[/youtube:3my75hbu]
-
LA Times Article about the "legal mess" after June 25 th 2009 quotes his then attorney MacMillian that it might be possible that MJ rehired John Branca at June 17th.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/01 ... son-legal1 (http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/01/local/me-jackson-legal1)
(read all three pages!)
@Aintnosunshine, Thank you for answering my question in part. I have just had an AH moment! :idea:
-
Please forgive me if this has been asked or answered somewhere else, but I have a question:
If according to MJ's Will, his mother is supposed to get 40% of his assets, his children get 40%, and the other 20% goes to charities - Why are his mother and children just getting an "allowance" instead of their full inheritance?
-
Just a little info on Weitzman[attachment=0:28sbj28m]Howard Weitzman.jpg[/attachment:28sbj28m]
Courtney Love Cobain has made statements that point to Howard Weitzman and others being behind the theft of her and Frances Bean Cobain's assets. Weitzman is listed in this civil case as the co-signer with Love setting up the Frances Cobain Irrevocable Trust. The case was recently dismissed at First Republic Bank's request. Love and Laird Norton Tyee Trust Company seem to have come to some sort of agreement.
Please, I beg you not to use Courtney Love as a source for any reliable information. This is a person who repeatedly changes her stories to suit her situation and to avoid responsibility for her own actions. This is the same person who recently took to FB to publicly diss her own child b/c she can't own up to her f*cked up behavior.
In the end, it doesn't matter what we think regarding the individual players in MJ's "death." It's clear that a lot of this is being engineered, the only question really is whether MJ is also a player in this game or if he is a victim of it.
The one thing the players have succeeded in is generating plenty of confusion, which is the surest way to obscure the truth. As a result, most of this will always remain a mystery and given MJ's fondness for mysteries, if he is alive, he probably prefers to leave it that way.
-
Thanks for the update on Courtney Love, but I know nothing about her and/or her daughter and their situation. My focus was on Howard Weitzman.....and his credibility as an honest attorney for Michael Jackson's Estate. That was just part of the article tha the person wrote!
Interesting, this Howard Weitzman and his entertainment business having been council for many well known clients. Weitzman seems to have had some real relationships with convicted organized crime folks or used their services in at least one of his cases, something which we will get into more with upcoming posts. He worked at MCA which has many reported incidents of being in league with the mafia. (We'll definitely being getting to that in an upcoming blog).
He's currently serving as the attorney for the trustees of the Michael Jackson estate.
In the end, it doesn't matter what we think regarding the individual players in MJ's "death." It's clear that a lot of this is being engineered, the only question really is whether MJ is also a player in this game or if he is a victim of it.
And tell me how are you gonna get to this answer if you don't THINK about the individual players in MJ"s Death? Who he was affiliated with, who he trusted at one time, why he lost that trust, why this person is on his enemy list, why he fired some, hired others and the impact they had in his life? Isnt that what we're here for to do our own investigations??? So, in MY opinion it is important what we think of the individual players in MJ's "supposed" death.
-
Brian Oxman is not so reliable.
-
Well, just my 2 cents:
The question of who represents and represented MJ`s legal and financial affairs is not only legit but might unveil some trobled circumstances MJ was in.
If he did dismiss Branca because he learnt about a conflict of interest in 2003 (Branca is supposed to have collaborated with Mottola, allegedly secretly transferred a major part of MJ`s money to unknown offshore accounts and refusing to hand over imortant documents including "the signed will" after being fired) - there might be a real reason for mistrust, therefore why he probably did not want to rehire him and - most important - why he might not want him to represent his estate.
A similar question may arise with Weitzman. He came in during the 1993 negotiations and recommended / convinced MJ to agree to a settlement with the Chandlers. Not the wisest choice, as we know.
Te overall questions remain: Was MJ just paranoid or did he have legit reasons for feeling betrayed, somehow threatened or even fearing for his life?
Whom did he really trust? Regarding the hoax: who may help him now? Is there an investigation going on which might be a reason for him hoaxing his death? What if the will has to executed (therefore he must have "died" first) to gather evidence for a major crime (fraud)?
Of course there were many more people throughout his life he befriended first and mistrusted later (Malnik, the arab princes ...etc). We`ll probably never find out but I guess it`s worth to have a closer look at these things.
-
Please forgive me if this has been asked or answered somewhere else, but I have a question:
If according to MJ's Will, his mother is supposed to get 40% of his assets, his children get 40%, and the other 20% goes to charities - Why are his mother and children just getting an "allowance" instead of their full inheritance?
I believe it's because the money is held in trust. And all the claims need to be settled first. The executors have full power to use and distribute the money as they see fit. It's too bad MJ didn't transfer his assets into the trust because it avoids probate court which is public and that's why we've been privy to all the details and infighting. Maybe I'm mistaken about it, but it seems strange Branca wouldn't have advised him to do that. :?
-
I have a question. You believe the Death Certificate is fake because the name says "Michael Joseph Jackson". You believe the autopsy report is fake because the name says "Michael Joseph Jackson". You believe the will is valid but the name says "Michael Joseph Jackson".
Either you accept that all documents with the name "Michael Joseph Jackson" are legit or you accept all documents with the name "Michael Joseph Jackson" are fake. You can't have it both ways.
I've said from the get-go and still believe it now. That will is fake. All these claims against Branca are true. Michael had him investigated regarding the offshore accounts. It is all well documented in the 2005 court transcripts.
-
Good point. Personally, I don't think MJ's middle name makes a bit of difference to any of the documents. His name is Michael Joseph Jackson on his wedding certificate to Lisa Marie. So does that mean they didn't really get married? I think not.
I am very wary of Branca after hearing Mesereau's line of questioning, and then MJ's subsequent firing of Branca. And then with the signing of the will saying they were in LA when they were clearly in NY? And why didn't Branca come forward with the 2002 will as soon as he died...why wait until the Jacksons filed court papers that MJ died intestate? He was the one that drafted it, wasn't he? Was he making sure there wasn't a new one first so he could go ahead with his "plan"? :? I hope I'm getting ahead of myself because it scares me.
-
MJHOAX live found it important so they asked people to spread it because it could be significant, or not, that is up to others to decide, so just because you don't find it helpful, someone else may feel differently. If users rainbow colors are annoying you, don't you think you could ask a bit nicer? You seem kinda rude. Jeez.
I'm just asking for a clear explanation for our fellow foreign hoaxers.
I didn't mean to be rude. ;)
Just trying to be direct.
It's okay, I understand.
-
Good point. Personally, I don't think MJ's middle name makes a bit of difference to any of the documents. His name is Michael Joseph Jackson on his wedding certificate to Lisa Marie. So does that mean they didn't really get married? I think not.
I am very wary of Branca after hearing Mesereau's line of questioning, and then MJ's subsequent firing of Branca. And then with the signing of the will saying they were in LA when they were clearly in NY? And why didn't Branca come forward with the 2002 will as soon as he died...why wait until the Jacksons filed court papers that MJ died intestate? He was the one that drafted it, wasn't he? Was he making sure there wasn't a new one first so he could go ahead with his "plan"? :? I hope I'm getting ahead of myself because it scares me.
Mj demanded the will after 2003 from Branca several times but he refused to hand it over. On the other hand MJ did not make a newer one which would have overruled the older. At least the family and their lawyers seemed kind of surprised that Branca showed up presenting the will in early July. Joseph claims it is not legit since Branca was fired and he was not entired to keep it. Randy says it`s fake anyway (MJ was in N.Y.). And the name "Michael Joseph" - so we do have three different reasons why the will may finally be revoced. Does MJ want to create some evidence by forcing Branca to represent and act according to this "will"? Therefore he had to "die" first, of course. Time will tell...
.
-
An old joke asks the incauto why sharks refuse to eat lawyers that naufragan at sea: professional courtesy.
There is also an old "curse" gypsy says you look between lawyers. God, I believe that is all parties are considered a pest :evil:
not all lawyers are bad
-
I think this isn't very helpful. Who even cares about Branca? Someone clearly explain what he has to do with the hoax plz. :(
Also, making your text big and rainbow gets a bit annoying after a while.
A better strategy is to bold parts you think are important.
thanks for the advice
-
I think this isn't very helpful. Who even cares about Branca? Someone clearly explain what he has to do with the hoax plz. :(
Also, making your text big and rainbow gets a bit annoying after a while.
A better strategy is to bold parts you think are important.
MJHOAX live found it important so they asked people to spread it because it could be significant, or not, that is up to others to decide, so just because you don't find it helpful, someone else may feel differently. If users rainbow colors are annoying you, don't you think you could ask a bit nicer? You seem kinda rude. Jeez.
i think that this thread is important - it is different from the other recent threads -
the questions or thoughts it provokes goes to the heart of the hoax i think.
- why who was acting for mike
- questions about the will
- why mike did not make any family executors
- why didnt he change the will
- what does the private trust say
- will the children ever control the assets
-why he did not provide for other family members
- his relationship with the lawyers who would ultimately control his family
etc
that is why i rambled and asked the universe the question via the internet - how does this affect the hoax, some believers think that mike prepared everything that everything is mikes stage, i dont think that, but your will, if you are going to hoax, a will is something that you can prepare can stage - so what does his relationship with the lawyers tell us?
the colours - well the text is long and i wanted to make it a bit easier for you to tell what was a quote.
i do not know about the american legal system so that is why i searched the net, for some background, i thought you guys would appreciate the effort.
-
Thank you.
-
Brian Oxman is not so reliable.
i think your right - right to be suspicious
like the white rabbit - cute
-
Good point. Personally, I don't think MJ's middle name makes a bit of difference to any of the documents. His name is Michael Joseph Jackson on his wedding certificate to Lisa Marie. So does that mean they didn't really get married? I think not.
I am very wary of Branca after hearing Mesereau's line of questioning, and then MJ's subsequent firing of Branca. And then with the signing of the will saying they were in LA when they were clearly in NY? And why didn't Branca come forward with the 2002 will as soon as he died...why wait until the Jacksons filed court papers that MJ died intestate? He was the one that drafted it, wasn't he? Was he making sure there wasn't a new one first so he could go ahead with his "plan"? :? I hope I'm getting ahead of myself because it scares me.
Yeah I agree, the name thing doesn't make a difference to me, but many here that are claiming it's real are the same ones claimig the other doc's with the exact same name is fake.
I've thought that too about Branca waiting until after the family claimed he died intestate. If he had the real will all along, why didn't he come forward to begin with. The other thing is, people keep saying "why didn't the family come forward or fight this claim from the beginning". They have been. Check out the probate court stuff that is available and you'll see the family has been arguing this and Branca's position as executor since it was first presented.
I think there was a newer will and it has been destroyed. I don't know if anyone here remembers but Al Malnick came forward shortly after Michael supposedly died saying Michael had made him executor but he thought because he and Michael had a falling out that he may not be one anymore. All of a sudden Malnick went quiet on that front and then this will surfaced.
The family have been fighting to get the 97 will in, yet the Estate Executors are claiming it is no different to the 2002 one. If that's the case, why don't they just bring it into probate? I believe they won't because there are differences, particularly when it comes to the amount of power the Executors have.
-
How do we know 100% that the 2002 will is Michael's final will. So far we 're only going by what those over the estate are telling us and I don't believe that is Michel's final will. We can't take them at their word. Remember how long it took after his "supposed"death for the will to surface. All that I'm saying is that these men were at one time very close to Michael and know more about him than probably his family does. Tohme Tohme, Al Malnick, Tommy Mottola, Phillips, Branca, McClain, Weitzman......why are we taking the word of Branca, McClain and Weitzman as truth for Michael. I don't trust any of them and with them being in control of so much, its easy and convenient for them to claim this was his last will. It just dosen't make logical sense for Michael to put these crooked men in charge everything like that. He fears his life, but yet these men whom he believed had attempted to destroy his music career and life through child molestation charges etc. will trust all that he had financialy to dispurse his monies etc. to his children and mother?????? I believe these men are hiding, lying, and trying to cover up the real truth. Guys I'm sorry but, It just doesn't add up, it just doesn't make logical sense. They are too controlling of everything and the three Branca,McClain and Weitzman are sticking are releasing false information to us to protect and cover themselves. Maybe I'm wrong, but it appears that it's acceptable to listen to them, but when those of the Jackson Family speak up, we want to laugh and riducule everything they say. This is Michael's family and I believe they would have his best interest at heart than a bunch of men dabbling in organized crimes, regardless of their professional training. Professional training and experience doesn't make a person honest. I know that we all have a difference of opinion, and I will not knock what others believe. But on this I have to stand on whats in my heart and soul and the fact that some things that we may accidently stumble across while investigating this situation may be very hurtful.
-
imabeliever2, I can not say for legal affairs of a foreign country, but perhaps I can speak for logic, and I agree with you on your exposure, that seems very logical, as Michael would hire again to people who try to destroy it? :geek:
-
An old joke asks the incauto why sharks refuse to eat lawyers that naufragan at sea: professional courtesy.
There is also an old "curse" gypsy says you look between lawyers. God, I believe that is all parties are considered a pest :evil:
not all lawyers are bad
Thank you, Arabian Nights.
I don`t make jokes on other people`s professions either.
-
I'm not joking, if not quite all lawyers are bad ,...... :geek:
-
thinking or snoozing on this, woke up and thought, maybe as mike was asset rich and cash poor that he if reviewed the will situation pre hoax that he maybe thought that these two individuals should stand as they are greedy and would bring the cash into the estate
but then i think if he comes back - how would this sit, is it obtaining money by deception - suppose we would have to look at the marketing - the lawyers would not be involved in the hoax - professional suicide.
-
I'm not joking, if not quite all lawyers are bad ,...... :geek:
im not sure what you mean
but it takes all of us to make a community - none of us are islands
lawyers are an important part of the community and society - there are good and bad in every profession
you should look at the individual person rather than the profession
-
When Branca first appeared after this MJ "death" I checked out his credibility, and from what I found, he does not seem that crooked to me. He may be a legal beast LOL as Mez is, but I don't think he was "out to destroy" MJ. He may have been found as conflict of interest if he was employed by Sony for MJ and then asked to do things in opposition to his lawyer/client relationship. I don't know what to think of this because when MJ wasn't sober he fired alot of people who cared about his well being...
-
not sure if this is any help.. i was watching my this is it dvd last night and saw Brancas and thomme r thomme in the credits, thomme was listed as mj's personal advisor.....
-
When Branca first appeared after this MJ "death" I checked out his credibility, and from what I found, he does not seem that crooked to me. He may be a legal beast LOL as Mez is, but I don't think he was "out to destroy" MJ. He may have been found as conflict of interest if he was employed by Sony for MJ and then asked to do things in opposition to his lawyer/client relationship. I don't know what to think of this because when MJ wasn't sober he fired alot of people who cared about his well being...
i think he is a sharp lawyer and was cutting himself a big profit and mj didnt like it so he sacked him - well there you go - shot the golden goose
no one has disputed the will, no other wills have come up - so 2002 one stands - it was not destroyed or a post 2002 one executed
-
I am not too skilful in laws but have a question. You think Branca is not a good man . But i can ask what profits did he recieve from Michael's estate exept of the 10% fee?On the contrary his activity helped to enlarge the estate. As for the will, I don't think Michael was so careless that he didn't have a new will. I'm sure there is a certain plan here .Maybe in the past it was also a plan to show the audience that Michael 's money was stolen. I don't remember somebody returned money back to Michael .
It's just my thought.
-
This is interesting:
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:9D ... =firefox-a (http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:9Dyq-T933tQJ:mjpress.com/documents/complaints/joe_jackson_filing.pdf+Oxman+%26+Jaroscak&cd=7&hl=de&ct=clnk&gl=de&client=firefox-a)
:shock:
-
maybe this is all part of the plan. Maybe the fact that Branca kept refusing to hand over the 2002 will, whilst MJ was "alive", MJ wanted to bring it out to the open? And once, MJ returns he won't have to worry about it anymore and everyone will know that Branca is just plain deceptive? IDK, just throwing it out there . . . .
-
mike could have made a subsequent will - nothing has come up - so the last one stands
he could have done that at any time - there was nothing to stop him - even the retention of the 2002 will.
-
Pagu well, it shows that Michael did not contract these lawyers, and who acted in very bad faith. 8-)
-
Pagu well, it shows that Michael did not contract these lawyers, and who acted in very bad faith. 8-)
Yes. Let's see what happens. But I still have doubts about Joe. Does he really is part of the hoax? :?: How does he know so many things with so many details about how Branca is in the document the link I posted? :?: This is still strange to me. I'm so confused. :|
-
Well, I think we have to keep an eye on everything that is said about all this. 8-)
-
if Branca wasn't rehired.. and as that is not ex or co-trustee of the will. and Berry siegel didnt want to do it no more after august 26 2003...
that means only John McClain is a trustee of the will, insurance trust and MJ family trust......
-
Thanks for clearing it up guys. :)