0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

lisap27

Re: Well, Well, Well!!!Check This Out!!!!
December 13, 2009, 03:02:56 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, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Serenitys_Dream

  • Guest
Re: Well, Well, Well!!!Check This Out!!!!
December 13, 2009, 03:08:21 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, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Serenitys_Dream

  • Guest
Re: Well, Well, Well!!!Check This Out!!!!
December 13, 2009, 03:14:35 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."

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

*

juliet

Re: Well, Well, Well!!!Check This Out!!!!
December 14, 2009, 06:39:51 AM
January 28 will be a big day.  Can't wait to see MJ in the flesh
Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Re: Well, Well, Well!!!Check This Out!!!!
December 14, 2009, 07:01:42 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, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Re: Well, Well, Well!!!Check This Out!!!!
December 14, 2009, 07:32:15 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, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Re: Well, Well, Well!!!Check This Out!!!!
December 14, 2009, 08:04:42 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.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Re: Well, Well, Well!!!Check This Out!!!!
December 14, 2009, 09:37:58 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, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

*

lisap27

Re: Well, Well, Well!!!Check This Out!!!!
December 14, 2009, 01:26:59 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, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Guest

  • Guest
Re: Well, Well, Well!!!Check This Out!!!!
December 14, 2009, 01:52:00 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, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

*

mjboogie

Re: Well, Well, Well!!!Check This Out!!!!
December 14, 2009, 08:57:22 PM
What about the administrators of the estate could they be the ones to revoke the will? Branca and McClain? I am not a legal person so pardon me. Ummmmmm guys? Who the bleep is Billie Jean Jackson? And Prince Malachi Jet? Also why is the list soooooo long? January is going to be a lot of things going on regarding MJ! This is getting really scary! I just feel like something is going to happen I dont' know if it is good or bad. You know how you can feel a tornado coming? ( sounding like a freight train getting closer and closer!) That is what all of this feels like since June! :?  :?
Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Serenitys_Dream

  • Guest
Re: Well, Well, Well!!!Check This Out!!!!
December 14, 2009, 09:14:54 PM
Quote from: "mjboogie"
What about the administrators of the estate could they be the ones to revoke the will? Branca and McClain? I am not a legal person so pardon me. Ummmmmm guys? Who the bleep is Billie Jean Jackson? And Prince Malachi Jet? Also why is the list soooooo long? January is going to be a lot of things going on regarding MJ! This is getting really scary! I just feel like something is going to happen I dont' know if it is good or bad. You know how you can feel a tornado coming? ( sounding like a freight train getting closer and closer!) That is what all of this feels like since June! :?  :?

Revocation of a Will

A will is ambulatory, which means that a competent testator may change or revoke it at any time before his death. Revocation of a will occurs when a person who has made a will takes some action to indicate that he no longer wants its provisions to be binding and the law abides by his decision.

For revocation to be effective, the intent of the testator, whether express or implied, must be clear, and an act of revocation consistent with this intent must occur. Persons who wish to revoke a will may use a codicil, which is a document that changes, revokes, or amends part or all of a validly executed will. When a person executes a codicil that revokes some provisions of a previous will, the courts will recognize this as a valid revocation. Likewise, a new will that completely revokes an earlier will indicates the testator's intent to revoke the will.

Statements made by a person at or near the time that he intentionally destroys his will by burning, mutilating, or tearing it clearly demonstrate his intent to revoke.

Sometimes revocation occurs by operation of law, as in the case of a marriage, Divorce, birth of a child, or the sale of property devised in the will, which automatically changes the legal duties of the testator. Many states provide that when a testator and spouse have been divorced but the testator's will has not been revised since the change in marital status, any disposition to the former spouse is revoked.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

An anonymous poster on the LA Hoax chat posted this:
"did anyone notice that the confidential document was filed by a claimant. Not a petitioner. So whatever led to revocation of will was filed by one of the claimants. joe is listed as petitioner and oxman as attorney for petitioner"
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Nothing I have found on the revocation (revoking) a Will says anything about anyone but the testator (the creator of the Will) revoking it. We also have confidential documents being filed by a claimant and not a petitioner which is very intriguing. We have no way to know at this point what these documents are or who filed them. January may be an interesting month indeed.
Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Re: Well, Well, Well!!!Check This Out!!!!
December 16, 2009, 12:42:58 AM
I just found out that the Ranjack Group listed is Randy Jackson's company...so he's suing MJ's estate too.  I don't know what to think about that.  :?
Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
I will always love you Michael!

*

Datroot

Re: Well, Well, Well!!!Check This Out!!!!
December 16, 2009, 01:22:15 PM
Who on earth is Billie Jean Jackson?
Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions


I'M A LOVER, NOT A FIGHTER

Serenitys_Dream

  • Guest
Re: Well, Well, Well!!!Check This Out!!!!
December 16, 2009, 02:12:37 PM
Quote from: "Datroot"
Who on earth is Billie Jean Jackson?

Billie Jean Jackson Michael Jackson Lawsuit
December 22nd, 2008 by Castina

According to court documents filed in Los Angeles last Friday, Billie Jean Jackson, whose real name is believed to be Lavon Powlis, claims she’s married to Michael Jackson and is seeking joint custody of the pop legend’s youngest child, 6-year-old Blanket.
Billie Jean claims she is Blanket’ birth mother.
Billie Jean, 60, is suing the singer for $1 billion dollars “in support of Blanket.” According to the Associated Press, in 1987, the same woman filed a $150 million paternity lawsuit against the singer.
Back then she claimed Michael had fathered three of her children and would not pay child support.
In March of 2008, she was arrested by Santa Barbara County sheriff’s deputies for trespassing on Michael’s Neverland Ranch in the Santa Ynez Valley.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
1143 Views
Last post December 17, 2009, 01:48:09 AM
by wilds
6 Replies
1502 Views
Last post February 06, 2010, 12:42:25 PM
by Michaelangela
32 Replies
3899 Views
Last post March 12, 2010, 04:38:13 PM
by loma
27 Replies
3743 Views
Last post March 20, 2010, 11:36:57 PM
by CC
32 Replies
4911 Views
Last post December 14, 2010, 01:10:07 AM
by ibelieveinmj

SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal