Latest on MJJC

Alleged MJ Love Child Surfaces -- Wants Money -

twinklEE

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2007
Messages
7,862
Points
83
Location
LONDON
Alleged MJ Love Child Surfaces -- Wants Money

7/27/2010 11:42 AM PDT by TMZ Staff
A woman who claims to be Michael Jackson's illegitimate love child -- conceived when MJ was a minor -- has filed legal documents claiming there was a diabolical plot to cover up her existence ... involving murder, abduction and Diana Ross' sister.

0727-daughter-mj-ex-getty-01.jpg


The alleged MJ spawn -- Mocienne Petit Jackson -- has filed documents with L.A. County Superior Court claiming she will surely be in line for a serious inheritance check ... if a judge will give the go-ahead on a DNA test.

Here's the story -- MPJ claims back in 1975, 17-year-old Michael Jackson secretly impregnated her mother Barbara ... who happens to be Diana Ross' sister.

MPJ claims when she was 9 years old, Katherine Jackson hatched a plan to "abduct" MPJ and send her to Belgium to protect Michael's "reputation." She claims all 7 of her abductors were later murdered.

Now MPJ -- who currently lives in the Netherlands -- has decided to come forward with her story ... so she can "formally claim my part of my father's inheritance." She also wants custody of MJ's kids so she can give them a "more normal life."

MPJ also claims she was diagnosed with Vitiligo ... so, there's that.

Calls to Diana Ross, Barbara Ross and MJ's camp have not been returned.


this is epic LSa stans will go crazy over this jjmj the II :hysterical:
 
i think it is old news ,she came out before .i guess tmz has nothing new on mj so lets just put old one ,harvey is pathetic with his bunch of loser clowns. they all need to get out and do some real job.SMH
 
blankyluvdoodoo said:
i think it is old news ,she came out before .i guess tmz has nothing new on mj so lets just put old one ,harvey is pathetic with his bunch of loser clowns. they all need to get out and do some real job.SMH
Click to expand...
agree harvey and his clowns are scum.. if this is tabloid trash sorry for posting it in the wrong section
 
you know, at least, these assholes could be more inventive, and come up with a different last name, like most children who leave their progeny, to seek their own identity. but when it comes to wanting money, they suddenly adapt the last name of the supposed father or mother. this is why i hate the media, cus they know there are a lot of insane people out there, and i know the media caters to them. the media created the atmosphere that made people want to go after Michael's money, just like they created the atmosphere that made John Lennon look like a political zealot, and made an insane person feel they had the 'righteous' right to kill him.
 
who? this is nonsense geez she could at least make the story sound believable.
 
Here we go again. -_-


I wish people would just stop. Nobody believes this crap...I hope.
 
LOl the woman doenst even look like michael, not the slightest bit!

PFFTT! :doh: :lol:
 
She really has severe mental problems. For one thing She is NOT Diana Ross's sister daughter.
She claims Katherine had her abducted and 7 of her abducters were murdered
She has even had her own child taken from her becuase she is Unstable

This is her website _ The woman is not right in the head
http://www.mpjjacksonrevelation.com/content/michael
 
Barbara Ross about Mocienne Petit 'Jackson'

This is meant for the tabloid section. Feel free to post/merge/move there. Or just delete, whatever suits best :) I don't have access there.

This is an interview with Diana Ross' sister Barbara Ross, about that woman, Mocienne Petit 'Jackson', who claims she is MJ's secret daughter. Ross calls her 'delusional' and explains why she thinks so:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWE0pnPq6dU
 
Re: Barbara Ross about Mocienne Petit 'Jackson'

oh well....
:smilerolleyes:
 
Re: Barbara Ross about Mocienne Petit 'Jackson'

Could someone post the transcript please? Thankyou.
 
Re: Barbara Ross about Mocienne Petit 'Jackson'

and please, could you give some more info on the source of this interview?
thanks!
 
MJ's Alleged Baby Mama: The Kid is NOT My Daughter
7/28/2010 9:20 AM PDT by TMZ Staff

Michael Jackson's alleged illegitimate daughter just suffered a devastating blow to her far-fetched claims ... because the woman who supposedly gave birth to her -- Diana Ross' sister -- says it's all a bunch of BS.


TMZ just spoke to Dr. Barbara Ross-Lee, who tells us she's pretty damn sure that Mocienne Petit Jackson "is not my daughter" -- adding MPJ is "delusional" and calls the situation nothing short of "bizarre."

Dr. Ross-Lee also points out a major hole in MPJ's story -- saying it would have been impossible for her to have conceived a baby with Michael back in 1975 ... because she never even met the guy.

Dr. Ross-Lee says there was a time when MPJ "was really harassing me at my office" -- and was forced to have her employer contact the police to get MPJ to stop.

According to Dr. Ross-Lee, she responded to one of MPJ's emails a few years ago to tell her she was mistaken and to wish her well.

As we first reported, MPJ filed documents yesterday requesting a judge allow her to take a DNA test to prove she's MJ's daughter ... and therefore lay claim to part of his fortune and be granted custody of his kids.

Good luck with that ...

Last night, MJ's brother Randy Jackson also commented on the situation, saying the whole thing "sounds kinda crazy."
 
wowow... Michael had so many lost children. I wonder if I am one of those... :scratch:

this people are really annoying :angry:

but the worst of all things was to see today at other place, a fan wishing this woman was really his daughter and other claiming if MJ ever had a "secret" child, that would be just out of L.O.V.E.
:doh:

(with those "loving fans" on our side... :brow: )
 
I have a question about this - doesn't Michael's will/trust specifically state that his estate is being split between his mother and his three children, who are named in the documents? So, even if DNA tests proved that he had other children, why would they have any claim on his estate?

BTW - I don't think he had any other children. I'm just curious about what the end result would be if it was proven that he did. It seems like it would just be a big tabloid story, but the division of the estate wouldn't change.
 
diana79 said:
I have a question about this - doesn't Michael's will/trust specifically state that his estate is being split between his mother and his three children, who are named in the documents? So, even if DNA tests proved that he had other children, why would they have any claim on his estate?

BTW - I don't think he had any other children. I'm just curious about what the end result would be if it was proven that he did. It seems like it would just be a big tabloid story, but the division of the estate wouldn't change.
Click to expand...

It's a several step process

1) in his will Michael declares that he doesn't have any other children - meaning that he doesn't acknowledge any other children. (it makes it harder for other people to claim a share in the estate) so the proof of the burden lies with the kids and the mothers.

2) paternity can be established through

a) clear and convincing evidence that the alleged father “has openly held out the child as his own.” - which means that he told people that the kid was his, supported the child, provided for him/her etc. (this would be hard as in his will Michael doesn't acknowledge any other kids).

b) through DNA test.

However DNA test isn't done that easily either. a court has to see sufficient evidence as the kid being a possibility. For example generally speaking an ex-girlfriend who lived with the alleged father for 2 years and have proof of the relationship and that they have been intimate (letters,photos etc) could probably get a paternity test where as an one night stand claiming to be intimate with no hard proof will most probably will not be able to get a DNA test done.

In this instance I'll say that this woman doesn't stand a chance for a DNA test as the alleged mother Barbara Ross is saying that she's not the mother and she was never intimate with Michael.


3) and finally for any alleged child if the above steps happen and if they were able to get a DNA/paternity test and if it proves the paternity , then the answer is yes they'll be entitled to a share from the estate. Because California law (and in many states) it says that if a person dies without a will, their next of kin will get the estate in equal shares. On the basis of this any child would be able to challenge the will saying that they are legally entitled to their father's inheritance and the court will determine their share.
 
^^^But CA law says if a "parent dies without a will" a child can get an equal share. But MJ died with a will so even if paternity is est. the fact that MJ excludes anyone else from taling part in his estate should deem that matter null and void.
 
ginvid said:
^^^But CA law says if a "parent dies without a will" a child can get an equal share. But MJ died with a will so even if paternity is est. the fact that MJ excludes anyone else from taling part in his estate should deem that matter null and void.
Click to expand...

I think I wasn't quite clear.

Any new child with paternity established will not automatically get a share from a will, but they would get a right to contest the will.

A will can be contested by
a) the current beneficiaries,
b) previous beneficiaries in the previous wills and
c) people that would be beneficiaries if there was no will.

Example
a) one child was left 10% another child was left 90% - first child can contest the will saying that the shares are not fair and legally they should get 50%
b) a relative was mentioned in the first will but left out in the second will - the relative can contest the will saying that the reason he was taken out was because someone influenced the person to do so
c) one child is mentioned in the will, the other wasn't - the other child can sue based on intestacy statutes saying that if there was no will they would get 50% of the estate.

Here situation C applies to our discussion. after the will is contested then the judge will decide whether they have a standing and should get a share.

for example if Michael has another child and he knew about the child and still he wrote "he didn't have any other children" , then the child wouldn't get anything as he knowingly and explicitly left the child out of his will.

however if he had another child, didn't know about the child and the child could argue with enough proof that "if he knew he would include him/her in this will" then they could get a share.

so technically it's possible for a legitimate child to get a share from the estate but by no means it's not an easy process. Most probably for 99% of the time they wouldn't be even able to get a court to order a paternity/DNA test.
 
Last edited:
^^^Ur too much. But yeah, that was my first reaction.
 
Thanks for the explanation, Ivy. I didn't know that people who would have been beneficiaries if there was no will can challenge a will.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top