Well, Well, Well!!!Check This Out!!!!

  • 50 Replies
  • 6860 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline alive

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 369
    • Show only replies by alive

Well, Well, Well!!!Check This Out!!!!

  • on: December 13, 2009, 09:51:02 AM
Found this on MJHD.net Credit goes there  :)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by MizBliss » Sun Dec 13, 2009 3:47 am

01/28/2010 at 08:30 am in department 5 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Revocation of Will

http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/probate/

WTH???
I found this while looking at the cases coming up on MJ.
Case number-BP117321


I'm not an attorney, so I can't say what is up with the revocation of the will. I did search around and according to California laws, it can't be revoked unless there is a newer will revoking the old one OR the person who wrote it wants it revoked.



Very interesting !!!! Hang on everyone...It ain't over yet!!! :)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline lucrecia

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 59
    • Show only replies by lucrecia

Re: Well, Well, Well!!!Check This Out!!!!

  • on: December 13, 2009, 10:08:54 AM
wowwwwwwwww!january is going to be a very busy month!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline GirlSaturday

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 1020
    • Show only replies by GirlSaturday

Re: Well, Well, Well!!!Check This Out!!!!

  • on: December 13, 2009, 10:16:09 AM
Can someone please brief me on what this means? I am not a lawyer nor do I understand legal talk. What is the BAM from this  information regarding the Will?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline alive

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 369
    • Show only replies by alive

Re: Well, Well, Well!!!Check This Out!!!!

  • on: December 13, 2009, 10:23:55 AM
Quote from: "GirlSaturday"
Can someone please brief me on what this means? I am not a lawyer nor do I understand legal talk. What is the BAM from this  information regarding the Will?


It basically means there is a hearing to throw out MJ's will. According to California law, this can happen only if 1)There is a more recent will found or 2)The person who wrote the will wants it revoked.  I hope it's number 2  :D
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Secret Dove

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 412
    • Show only replies by Secret Dove

Re: Well, Well, Well!!!Check This Out!!!!

  • on: December 13, 2009, 11:08:44 AM
Quote from: "alive"
Quote from: "GirlSaturday"
Can someone please brief me on what this means? I am not a lawyer nor do I understand legal talk. What is the BAM from this  information regarding the Will?


It basically means there is a hearing to throw out MJ's will. According to California law, this can happen only if 1)There is a more recent will found or 2)The person who wrote the will wants it revoked.  I hope it's number 2  :D

I hope you're right. But why would the person who wrote the will wants to revoke it? What would that mean if it happens. I'm confused... :?

What happens if they find a more recent will? I herd that they're might  be one. But that was from Ian Liar Halperin, so who knows if that's true. I guess we'll have to wait till the end of January to find out. :?  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »


Keep the faith. The truth will prevail! :lol: it could mean it is soon gonna be party time mj getting ready for the return :D
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Nathalia

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 340
    • Show only replies by Nathalia

Re: Well, Well, Well!!!Check This Out!!!!

  • on: December 13, 2009, 02:55:11 PM
:shock:  :shock:  :shock:
oh my! this is a very good find!!!!!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline hesouttamylife

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 5393
    • Show only replies by hesouttamylife

Re: Well, Well, Well!!!Check This Out!!!!

  • on: December 13, 2009, 03:29:52 PM
I have NEVER believed this was Michael's official will.  As I stated on another thread, I sincerely feel he would not have completely left his father out (though I could see why he would) plus I just don't see him seriously considering Diana Ross as an alternate guardian for his children or giving the Executor ship to those folk who seem to be in charge.  But as always family, this is MY OPINION.  So please don't get it twisted.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
"Don't stop this child, He's the father of man
Don't cross his way, He's part of the plan
I am that child, but so are you
You've just forgotten, Just lost the clue.”

MJ "Magical Child"
Still Rocking my World…
   and leaving me Speechless!

“True goodbyes are the ones never said

Offline lisap27

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 1100
    • Show only replies by lisap27

Re: Well, Well, Well!!!Check This Out!!!!

  • on: December 13, 2009, 03:31:33 PM
oooo if its option 1.. he might have changed it after watchin everyone make a mess of everything and revealing stuff clues etc or not doing enough!!

or adding people into it for helping like his dad for not even talking about it, an basically ignorin what has happend even acting like it hasn't.. an just promoting his record label instead!! you never know!!  :shock:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Serenitys_Dream

  • *
  • Guest
    • Show only replies by Serenitys_Dream

Re: Well, Well, Well!!!Check This Out!!!!

  • on: December 13, 2009, 03:40:13 PM
Here is the actual file information:

Case Summary

Case Number: BP117321
JACKSON, MICHAEL JOSEPH - DECEDENT

Filing Date: 06/29/2009
Case Type: Letters of Administration (General Jurisdiction)
Status: Judgment by Court-Petition denied 11/17/2009

Future Hearings

01/11/2010 at 08:30 am in department 5 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
STATUS HEARING (RE FAMILY ALLOWANCE ORDER)

01/28/2010 at 08:30 am in department 5 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Revocation of Will
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 A4V DIGITAL INC. - Claimant

ABRAMS MICHAEL L. ESQ. - Attorney for Petitioner

ADU NONA - AKA

AEG LIVE LLC - Petitioner

ARNOLD & PORTER LLP - Claimant

ATKINS GRAHAM - Claimant

ATKINS THOMSON SOLICITORS - Claimant

AYSCOUGH & MARAR - Claimant

BENNETT ROBERT E. ATTORNEY AT LAW - Attorney for Claimant

BONDER TODD W. ESQ. - Attorney for Petitioner

BONE WILLIAM - Claimant

BRANCA JOHN - Petitioner

BRAVADO INTL GROUP MERCHANDISING SVC INC - Petitioner

BUA JOSEPH D. SR. - Probate Referee

BUIE CHARLENE - Objector

CANNON & COMPANY CPAS LLP - Claimant

CHARNLEY RICHARD L. - Attorney for Claimant

COHEN JERYLL S. ESQ. - Attorney for Petitioner

DANIELSON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY - Surety Company

FEINSWOG KENNETH A. ESQ. - Attorney for Petitioner

FELDMAN MILES J. - Attorney for Claimant
 GRIM LERUE - Attorney for Petitioner

HANSELL DEAN ESQ. - Attorney for Petitioner

HARRIS-SCOTT HELEN M. - Claimant

HOFFMAN PAUL GORDON ESQ. - Attorney for Petitioner

HORNBERGER NICHOLAS W. ESQ. - Attorney for Claimant

IGLESIAS ANER - Claimant

IN PRO PER - Attorney for Petitioner

JACKSON BILLIE JEAN - Petitioner

JACKSON JOSEPH WALTER - Petitioner

JACKSON KATHERINE ESTHER - Petitioner

JACKSON MICHAEL - AKA

JACKSON MICHAEL JOSEPH - Subject Person

JACKSON NONA PARIS LOLA ANKHESENAMUN - Claimant

JACKSON NONA PARIS LOLA ANKHESENAMUN - Petitioner

JACKSON PRINCE MICHAEL MALACHI JET - Claimant

JOHNSON DANIEL ALBERT - Attorney for Claimant

JORRIE KATHY A. - Attorney for Petitioner

KLEIN ARNOLD W. M.D. - Claimant

LAINER SIDNEY ESQ. - Attorney for Petitioner

LANDIS JOHN - Claimant

LAPOINTE RICHARD - Claimant

LEVITCH BURT ATTORNEY AT LAW - Former Attorney for Pltf/Petn

LEVITSKY PRODUCTIONS INC. - Claimant

LODISE MARGARET G. ESQ. - PVP Attorney

MALINGAGIO PAUL S. ESQ. - Attorney for Claimant

MAYER & M&J INC. DBA VIDEO & AUDIO CNTR - Claimant

MCCLAIN JOHN - Petitioner

MILLER-GINSBURG CATHY S. ESQ. - Attorney for Claimant

MILLET PATRICIA A. ESQ. - Attorney for Petitioner

NEWT RONNIE L. - Petitioner

OXMAN BRIAN - Attorney for Petitioner

PARRISH LYNDA L. - Claimant

RANJACK GROUP INC. - Claimant

RAY OLA - Claimant

REIMANN NANCY B. ESQ. - Attorney for Claimant

RONAY PETER E. LAW OFFICE OF - Attorney for Petitioner

SCHREIBER JOHN E. - Attorney for Petitioner

SEGAL LAWRENCE ESQ. - Attorney for Claimant

SHERIDAN LYNDA - Claimant

SMITH LAVELLE JR. - Claimant

STABLER & ASSOCIATES INC. - Claimant

STINKYFILMS INC. - Claimant

STREISAND ADAM F. LAW OFFICES OF - Attorney for Petitioner

SUPERIOR COURT - Court
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline lisap27

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 1100
    • Show only replies by lisap27

Re: Well, Well, Well!!!Check This Out!!!!

  • on: December 13, 2009, 03:46:07 PM
here we go again with this MICHAEL JOSEPH JACKSON!!

an who is this     JACKSON NONA PARIS LOLA ANKHESENAMUN

is this his secret wife or not from years ago!! cos he said on his interviews he'd already had two ugly divorces meaning Lisa Marie an Debbie Rowe..

i've seen this name pop up a few times!! JACKSON NONA PARIS LOLA ANKHESENAMUN :shock:

WHO IS IT!!  :?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline SPAKKLE29FUL

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 1148
    • Show only replies by SPAKKLE29FUL

Re: Well, Well, Well!!!Check This Out!!!!

  • on: December 13, 2009, 03:49:52 PM
Quote from: "lisap27"
here we go again with this MICHAEL JOSEPH JACKSON!!

an who is this     JACKSON NONA PARIS LOLA ANKHESENAMUN

is this his secret wife or not from years ago!! cos he said on his interviews he'd already had two ugly divorces meaning Lisa Marie an Debbie Rowe..

i've seen this name pop up a few times!! JACKSON NONA PARIS LOLA ANKHESENAMUN :shock:

WHO IS IT!!  :?
:lol:  :lol: ON THE OTHER THREAD SHE MARRIED MJ WHEN SHE WAS 12 :lol:  :lol: ARE YOU STILL STANDING :lol:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline lisap27

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 1100
    • Show only replies by lisap27

Re: Well, Well, Well!!!Check This Out!!!!

  • on: December 13, 2009, 03:51:52 PM
Quote from: "SPAKKLE29FUL"
Quote from: "lisap27"
here we go again with this MICHAEL JOSEPH JACKSON!!

an who is this     JACKSON NONA PARIS LOLA ANKHESENAMUN

is this his secret wife or not from years ago!! cos he said on his interviews he'd already had two ugly divorces meaning Lisa Marie an Debbie Rowe..

i've seen this name pop up a few times!! JACKSON NONA PARIS LOLA ANKHESENAMUN :shock:

WHO IS IT!!  :?
:lol:  :lol: ON THE OTHER THREAD SHE MARRIED MJ WHEN SHE WAS 12 :lol:  :lol: ARE YOU STILL STANDING :lol:

hahahahahahaha.. i actually laughed out loud then!!! thanks for that..  :lol:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Serenitys_Dream

  • *
  • Guest
    • Show only replies by Serenitys_Dream

Re: Well, Well, Well!!!Check This Out!!!!

  • on: December 13, 2009, 03:55:07 PM
REVOKING A WILL
A testator may fully revoke or partially revoke their Will anytime before death. Revoking a Will is not as simple as stating that your Will no longer represents your wishes or telling your friend Mary that you no longer wish to leave her your house as per your Will. Instead, certain actions must be taken in order for your Will to be fully or partially revoked. Below is an overview of some of the ways your Will may be revoked or partially revoked.


Testator: One who has made a testament or will

http://www.olealawyers.com/2009/08/revoking-a-will/
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Christiana

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 626
    • Show only replies by Christiana

Re: Well, Well, Well!!!Check This Out!!!!

  • on: December 13, 2009, 03:57:27 PM
Quote from: "lisap27"
here we go again with this MICHAEL JOSEPH JACKSON!!

an who is this     JACKSON NONA PARIS LOLA ANKHESENAMUN

is this his secret wife or not from years ago!! cos he said on his interviews he'd already had two ugly divorces meaning Lisa Marie an Debbie Rowe..

i've seen this name pop up a few times!! JACKSON NONA PARIS LOLA ANKHESENAMUN :shock:

WHO IS IT!!  :?


JACKSON NONA PARIS LOLA ANKHESENAMUN
is some poser who's trying lay claim to MJ's estate. That name isn't even real. It's based on on the Egyptian wife of King Tut.

I've been checking the probate notes for months. It's a good way to keep up on what's going on in court/what has gone on etc.

We don't know which will is referenced there. We know there were 2, so most like they are revoking the original older one, since the newer/most recent one is always the one considered valid and takes precedence. This info can be found in Wills Online:

An old will "remains alive and it will be admitted to probate along with your new will. In that event, the court will try to dispose of your estate pursuant to the terms of both wills, and if there is an inconsistency between the two, the terms of the most recent will take precedence. All the remaining provisions of the old will are still given effect, provided they do not conflict with the new will!" So the revocation of the older will is logical.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.  ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson

(Translation = Just because I might disagree with you does not mean I\'m attacking you.)

Offline lisap27

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 1100
    • Show only replies by lisap27

Re: Well, Well, Well!!!Check This Out!!!!

  • on: December 13, 2009, 04:02:56 PM
JACKSON NONA PARIS LOLA ANKHESENAMUN this name always reminded me of the woman out of the film THE MUMMY!!

but wasn't there a letter or somthing where Michael apparently written he is going to live his life with the woman who loves him ANKHESENAMUN there was a print of it somewhere!! its getting crazy i think..  :?

even though he didn't go anywhere really.. i dunno i'm confused.. so many people trying to cash in i'm lost with it all.. :(
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Serenitys_Dream

  • *
  • Guest
    • Show only replies by Serenitys_Dream

Re: Well, Well, Well!!!Check This Out!!!!

  • on: December 13, 2009, 04:08:21 PM
Quote from: "Christiana"
[I've been checking the probate notes for months. It's a good way to keep up on what's going on in court/what has gone on etc.

We don't know which will is referenced there. We know there were 2, so most like they are revoking the original older one, since the newer/most recent one is always the one considered valid and takes precedence.

I can`t find any information on two wills being submitted to the probate court. A newer Will cancels out an older one so a hearing to `revoke` the Will would not be concerning an older one. The hearing would be in regards to the Will presently in probate court.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Serenitys_Dream

  • *
  • Guest
    • Show only replies by Serenitys_Dream

Re: Well, Well, Well!!!Check This Out!!!!

  • on: December 13, 2009, 04:14:35 PM
Quote from: "lisap27"
JACKSON NONA PARIS LOLA ANKHESENAMUN this name always reminded me of the woman out of the film THE MUMMY!!

but wasn't there a letter or somthing where Michael apparently written he is going to live his life with the woman who loves him ANKHESENAMUN there was a print of it somewhere!! its getting crazy i think..  :?

even though he didn't go anywhere really.. i dunno i'm confused.. so many people trying to cash in i'm lost with it all.. :(

No I can say that I don`t thinks so...lol

First Crazy Claim in Jackson Case
Posted Jul 1st 2009 2:45PM by TMZ Staff

Michael Jackson was married and his wife is demanding all of his property -- this according to a woman who just filed a petition in L.A. County Superior Court.
Nona Paris Lola Ankhesenamun Jackson, who lives in London, asks "that all my husband's properties, monies and assets must be transferred to me immediately" and "my husband's body must be returned to the coroner's body [sic] or the mortuary immediately."
Of course, there is no evidence this woman had any relationship whatsoever to Michael Jackson. She's had an active court case since December of last year, claiming she was married to the singer.
Nona also claims all of Michael's children are hers and that she didn't authorize them to live with Katherine Jackson.
She now claims, "Though he died to this earth he lives with my father [Satan the Devil] Khalid Lucifer."
The doc says "For any questions, I can be contacted at [email address removed] or leave my children alone."

http://http://www.tmz.com/2009/07/01/michael-jackson/
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline juliet

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 491
    • Show only replies by juliet

Re: Well, Well, Well!!!Check This Out!!!!

  • on: December 14, 2009, 07:39:51 AM
January 28 will be a big day.  Can't wait to see MJ in the flesh
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline lucrecia

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 59
    • Show only replies by lucrecia

Re: Well, Well, Well!!!Check This Out!!!!

  • on: December 14, 2009, 08:01:42 AM
Quote from: "juliet"
January 28 will be a big day.  Can't wait to see MJ in the flesh

I thought the same, Maybe is revoked because its not time to use it yet. I mean, the will.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline mjthelegendlives

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 505
    • Show only replies by mjthelegendlives

Re: Well, Well, Well!!!Check This Out!!!!

  • on: December 14, 2009, 08:32:15 AM
Quote from: "Christiana"
Quote from: "lisap27"
here we go again with this MICHAEL JOSEPH JACKSON!!

an who is this     JACKSON NONA PARIS LOLA ANKHESENAMUN

is this his secret wife or not from years ago!! cos he said on his interviews he'd already had two ugly divorces meaning Lisa Marie an Debbie Rowe..

i've seen this name pop up a few times!! JACKSON NONA PARIS LOLA ANKHESENAMUN :shock:

WHO IS IT!!  :?


JACKSON NONA PARIS LOLA ANKHESENAMUN
is some poser who's trying lay claim to MJ's estate. That name isn't even real. It's based on on the Egyptian wife of King Tut.

I've been checking the probate notes for months. It's a good way to keep up on what's going on in court/what has gone on etc.

We don't know which will is referenced there. We know there were 2, so most like they are revoking the original older one, since the newer/most recent one is always the one considered valid and takes precedence. This info can be found in Wills Online:

An old will "remains alive and it will be admitted to probate along with your new will. In that event, the court will try to dispose of your estate pursuant to the terms of both wills, and if there is an inconsistency between the two, the terms of the most recent will take precedence. All the remaining provisions of the old will are still given effect, provided they do not conflict with the new will!" So the revocation of the older will is logical.

Can you just use a pseudonym for legal matters? Cause if this is true, then we have our answer to the Michael Joseph and Michael Joe controversy. I know the woman has mental issues, but I suppose she at least needs her real name and proof of it, if she wants to be taken seriously in court.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline mjthelegendlives

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 505
    • Show only replies by mjthelegendlives

Re: Well, Well, Well!!!Check This Out!!!!

  • on: December 14, 2009, 09:04:42 AM
Changing a Will after death

If someone dies with or without a valid Will it is possible to change their Will with regard to distribution of their assets.  In some circumstances, it is beneficial for beneficiaries to change a Will for tax purposes after the deceased's death.  This can be done through a Deed of Variation, sometimes referred to as a Deed of Family Arrangement.  This must take place within two years of the death and can only take place if all the beneficiaries agree to the changes.  A Deed of Variation must be done in writing and signed by the beneficiaries agreeing to the changes, and if more tax is payable as a result of the Deed, the executors will also be required to sign the document.

The most common reasons for changing a Will after death are:

To reduce the amount of Inheritance Tax payable.
To provide for a person who has been omitted from a Will or who has not been adequately provided for in a Will (such as new grandchildren).
To provide for someone who has a legal claim on the estate.
To redirect a property held in a joint tenancy which would otherwise pass to the surviving joint tenant.
 To resolve any uncertainties or defects in the Will.
The beneficiaries should be certain that they want to redirect their inheritances as once they have done so, they will not be able to get them back.  Once a Deed of Variation has been signed, it cannot be altered.  A Deed of Variation does not enable the executors or beneficiaries to reduce the assets or money given to anyone under eighteen years of age.  Children under the age of eighteen cannot consent to a Deed of Variation but an application can be made to the courts for consent to be obtained on their behalf.

The most common reason for using a Deed of Variation is to avoid a large inheritance tax bill.  If someone dies leaving their entire estate to their partner, then when the other spouse dies the family members may be left with a large inheritance tax bill, as the first spouse will have effectively wasted their nil-rate band.  A Deed of Variation may also be used if assets are passed to a family member who has inheritance tax problems themselves and wishes to pass on the assets to their children to reduce their estate.  By redistributing a person’s assets, it is possible to reduce the estate below the nil-rate band so that inheritance tax is not due.  Assets can be given to another family member, individual or trust to reduce significantly the value of an estate.

Even though using a Deed of Variation can be very useful, it should not be relied upon for estate planning.  Ideally, inheritance tax should be considered when planning the original Will, to ensure the lowest amount will be charged.  This can be done through giving certain gifts that are tax-free and taking advantage of inheritance tax exemptions.  By planning for inheritance tax carefully and considering the nil-rate band, it is possible to avoid the need for executors to execute a Deed of Variation.  Reviewing your Will regularly in relation to the changes in the inheritance tax threshold can eliminate the need for a Deed of Variation.  

For a Deed of Variation to be valid and take effect it must involve significant changes to the way the assets are to be distributed.  It is not permissible to transfer assets to another person on paper while the original beneficiary continues to benefit from them.  Spouses cannot pass on assets to their children that are later passed back to the parent, as a means of avoiding inheritance tax charges.  There should be no reciprocity at all when setting up a Deed of Variation.


I dont know if this is whats going on with MJ's estate, but I thought it is good information.

http://www.makingawill.org.uk/changing- ... fter_death
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline whateverhappens

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 304
    • Show only replies by whateverhappens

Re: Well, Well, Well!!!Check This Out!!!!

  • on: December 14, 2009, 10:37:58 AM
hi,
when i read the name of that woman

ANKSEHNAMUN :?:

it remended me of the film " THE MuMMY" :o

the mummy wanted to seek unconditional love, but as far as i can remember this girl betrayed him
and did not save him in the end

sorry for being off topic
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline lisap27

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 1100
    • Show only replies by lisap27

Re: Well, Well, Well!!!Check This Out!!!!

  • on: December 14, 2009, 02:26:59 PM
Quote from: "whateverhappens"
hi,
when i read the name of that woman

ANKSEHNAMUN :?:

it remended me of the film " THE MuMMY" :o

the mummy wanted to seek unconditional love, but as far as i can remember this girl betrayed him
and did not save him in the end

sorry for being off topic

no its not off topic i mentioned this a couple of posts up ^^.. great minds.. hahaha
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Guest

  • *
  • Guest
    • Show only replies by Guest

Re: Well, Well, Well!!!Check This Out!!!!

  • on: December 14, 2009, 02:52:00 PM
Quote from: Serenitys_Dream

JACKSON BILLIE JEAN - Petitioner... :?  :?:

JACKSON JOSEPH WALTER - Petitioner

JACKSON KATHERINE ESTHER - Petitioner

JACKSON MICHAEL - AKA

JACKSON MICHAEL JOSEPH - Subject Person

JACKSON NONA PARIS LOLA ANKHESENAMUN - Claimant

JACKSON NONA PARIS LOLA ANKHESENAMUN - Petitioner

JACKSON PRINCE MICHAEL MALACHI JET - Claimant
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
234 Views
Last post December 17, 2009, 02:48:09 AM
by wilds
3 Replies
224 Views
Last post December 19, 2009, 07:54:33 PM
by Aintnosunshine
6 Replies
476 Views
Last post February 06, 2010, 01:42:25 PM
by Michaelangela
32 Replies
1812 Views
Last post March 12, 2010, 05:38:13 PM
by loma
27 Replies
1740 Views
Last post March 21, 2010, 12:36:57 AM
by CC