Latest on MJJC

Motions to exclude certain topics at Katherine Jackson vs AEG Trial

Status
Not open for further replies.
Petrarose said:
I don't think he sold out because it was a rarity to see him on stage, but I will leave it as your idea. If we look into the history of Michael Jackson the artist & those who were trying to get him to make deals, we will see that he sold out because he was a phenomenal artist on stage & a great entertainer. It is true that the less you see of someone the more hightened an interest is in that person, but this is not the major reason TII sold out. If that was the case The Jackson 4 would have sold out at every venue and we wouldn't see all those cancellations and empty seats. There are even other artists who have not performed in 10 years and cannot sell out the O2.

This is going to be my last defense for Michael in relation to those who want to see him as an artist that could not make a deal to tour and make substantial money after 09.
Click to expand...

Plus MJ was releasing albums and touring every 4-5 years. The fact that he was not flooding the market with products really kept interest in him alive. he was not overexposed. that was key to his popularity.
 
ivy said:
It's probable that their guardians (Katherine and/or TJ) can be the person that's managing the trusts until they are 18.
Click to expand...

Translation: Their guardians will have access to the kids cash and will spend it all relentlessly on the curbs before the kids ever get a chance.
 
jamba said:
I agree so much with this. Have they forgotten that the estate in over $200M IN DEBT!!!--Speaking of which, what about MJ's $500 million debt when he died--have they forgotten about that?

It's so obvious Michael means nothing to them. I wish he had completely broken with them when he was alive. And people can see what they are up to and they just get sick of all the Jacksons, including Michael.
Click to expand...

Jackson's don't know a s..t about debts, they have ignored their own debts for years and don't have basic understand that if you own money to someone, you have to pay it back.

He did his best to break free for them, but they were like blood sucking leeches smelling blood (money) and they couldn't let him be. I'm hugely disappointed that Katherine (so called mother), who knew that Michael spend his life time compensating his lost childhood, who knew Michael didn't want to tour (as she said in her depo), spent last Michael's remaining months pestering Michael to do tour with his brothers.
Basically, she sacrificed one cub for sake of others.
 
Last edited:
passy001 said:
Translation: Their guardians will have access to the kids cash and will spend it all relentlessly on the curbs before the kids ever get a chance.
Click to expand...

and there is a lot of cubs to support, all siblings, Joe, siblings kids, cousins.......
We will see Jermaine to buy the condo he was looking for buying after Michael died, but before the will was read out.
He found out that they were left out from the will.
Joe is going to have another go at Joe cola.
Randy is going to move Bahamas with TM and live his life happily ever after.
Janet is going to be happy that she can keep her remaining few millions so she doesn't have to pay all of the cousins, cubs of the cubs education etc.
 
Bubs said:
and there is a lot of cubs to support, all siblings, Joe, siblings kids, cousins.......
We will see Jermaine to buy the condo he was looking for buying after Michael died, but before the will was read out.
He found out that they were left out from the will.
Joe is going to have another go at Joe cola.
Randy is going to move Bahamas with TM and live his life happily ever after.
Janet is going to be happy that she can keep her remaining few millions so she doesn't have to pay all of the cousins, cubs of the cubs education etc.
Click to expand...

lol

Ok. Let's not get carried away too much.

They must first win the case, which I still believe isn't certain at this stage.

so there is a lot to play out.
 
^^ I don't think they win, but i was playing in my mind what would they if they did:)
 
passy001 said:
They must first win the case, which I still believe isn't certain at this stage.
Click to expand...

and if they dont, are we to expect new estate-attacks? This case is pretty much their last chance for some $$, right?
 
Pimboli said:
and if they dont, are we to expect new estate-attacks? This case is pretty much their last chance for some $$, right?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. They will turn their focus back on John Branca and blame him for everything that went wrong during the trial.

That is jacksons specialty: blaming others.
 
Does Alan Duke really think there will be change about telvision broadcasting of the trial?


Michael Justice ‏@RealJustice4MJ

@AlanDukeCNN Hi Alan. Is there anything that can be done further to turn (cont) http://tl.gd/lat738
Öffnen
Antworten
Retweeten
Favorisieren
Mehr

11h Alan Duke Alan Duke ‏@AlanDukeCNN

@RealJustice4MJ Yes, something is being done! Stayed tuned.
Gespräch verbergen
 
Annita;3791961 said:
Does Alan Duke really think there will be change about telvision broadcasting of the trial?


Michael Justice ‏@RealJustice4MJ

@AlanDukeCNN Hi Alan. Is there anything that can be done further to turn (cont) http://tl.gd/lat738
Öffnen
Antworten
Retweeten
Favorisieren
Mehr

11h Alan Duke Alan Duke ‏@AlanDukeCNN

@RealJustice4MJ Yes, something is being done! Stayed tuned.
Gespräch verbergen
Click to expand...

It's actually bizarre that CNN aka Alan Duke is the only party vouching for a televised trial. the judge should reject this really for good. it's purely for entertainment and of course boosting ratings for the cable channel. it's got no real benefit to society.
 
Pimboli said:
and if they dont, are we to expect new estate-attacks? This case is pretty much their last chance for some $$, right?
Click to expand...

If they don't win, cubs will be blaming Branca for ruining their case, and few months later, granny would be looking for increase for her monthly allowance.
 
passy001 said:
Translation: Their guardians will have access to the kids cash and will spend it all relentlessly on the curbs before the kids ever get a chance.
Click to expand...

^^No. When an underage child gets money in a lawsuit, the court ensures that it is kept in a trust that cannot be touched by the guardians. I have several personal experiences of that. Sometimes the court even states which bank it goes to. No guardian can get at the money until the child is of age and goes with the proper identification to withdraw the money. What can happen is that once the kid is of age, the family could beg the child for the funds, & the 18 year old could end up wasting the money by giving them amounts to do unsound financial deals.
 
Petrarose said:
^^No. When an underage child gets money in a lawsuit, the court ensures that it is kept in a trust that cannot be touched by the guardians. I have several personal experiences of that. Sometimes the court even states which bank it goes to. No guardian can get at the money until the child is of age and goes with the proper identification to withdraw the money. What can happen is that once the kid is of age, the family could beg the child for the funds, & the 18 year old could end up wasting the money by giving them amounts to do unsound financial deals.
Click to expand...


But Katherine would still be getting 1/4 of the amount, right? Because she is one of the four beneficiaries of Michael's will?
 
Billie Jean 78 said:
But Katherine would still be getting 1/4 of the amount, right? Because she is one of the four beneficiaries of Michael's will?
Click to expand...

she will be getting the 1/4 of any monetary judgment (if there's any) because she's one of the four plaintiffs.

Michael's will and the distribution in his will has nothing to do with this lawsuit.
 
ivy said:
she will be getting the 1/4 of any monetary judgment (if there's any) because she's one of the four plaintiffs.

Michael's will and the distribution in his will has nothing to do with this lawsuit.
Click to expand...

Ok, how come then that Joseph isn't the 5th plaintif?
 
Ivy, I remember you saying previously you have experience of working in the music industry.

Based on your knowledge, is it the norm for artist's earning power to increase after a tour?
 
This is really ugly.

And the only victim is Michael.

I see some people saying the Jacksons shouldn't be attacked by the fans, that we're just going along with a media narrative.

The only media narrative is to trash Michael at the literal expense of everyone else.

This family are disgusting. If MJ had named them in his will they would not have done this. It comes across like resentment towards him, one final attempt to undermine and insult and degrade and exploit him.
 
la_cienega said:
I see some people saying the Jacksons shouldn't be attacked by the fans, that we're just going along with a media narrative.
Click to expand...

Hilarious, when have mj fans ever gone along with the media narrative?

Thanks ivy for those summaries, are the actual docs online anywhere - i can't work out why the jackson side say they want to exclude paternity of ppb, don't they have to give a reason why they think it might come up in trial? I can't see why aeg wd bring it up.

ivy said:
Jacksons claim Michael would have earned $500 Million a year for the rest of his life and would give 40% of his earnings to Katherine and his kids. AEG states if you do the math to reach to the $40 billion number it would have required Michael to live 200 more years. ( Math : 40% of $500 M a year = $200 Million a year. $200 Million a year times 200 years gives $40 billion).
Click to expand...

So the jacksons in some other document have itemised their $40bn damages, and aeg have crunched the figures to work out what they mean? So according to the jacksons they claim in their legal documents that they expected mj to tour (bulk of money in the music biz nowadays) and do personal appearances until he was 250yrs old? Are the jackson lawyers really bad at maths or just insane, or maybe both?

That marvel deal the jacksons talk about was something weisner mentioned mj was going to do in 03 just before the arvizo allegations. He said the finance was in place and everything, they're really scaping the bottom of the barrel if they're bringing that up.
 
Last edited:
if they lose, expect tweets from Randy Jackson saying that the estate execs Branca and Mcclain intentionally sabotaged their case by going to the media and trying to break up the 'family':beee:
 
Thank you so much for this, Ivy. What a lot of effort to make sure MJ fans are informed about what's is going on. I understand many things much better now but at the same time find so much of this disturbing - the alcoholism, the implant, the questioning of the children's parentage, etc. AEG would do anything to get out from under this. It never ends.
 
Can you explain what you mean by "what Frank was talking about in his book". I'm assuming you're talking about F. Cascio's book which I've read twice but don't remember any reference to an implant. This Norcan thing took me completely off guard so I'm wondering what you are alluding to. Thx much.
 
Bonnie Blue said:
Hilarious, when have mj fans ever gone along with the media narrative?
Click to expand...

Oh you know, it's the media who make the Jacksons look bad. They have never ever been responsible for their own actions. It's the media.
That marvel deal the jacksons talk about was something weisner mentioned mj was going to do in 03 just before the arvizo allegations. He said the finance was in place and everything, they're really scaping the bottom of the barrel if they're bringing that up.
Click to expand...

That's what I thought. It just shows to me the Jacksons are both scraping the barrel - or just entirely clueless about MJ's life. I would not find it hard to believe that they saw this in a tabloid and now believe it was something MJ was working on in 2009.
 
The AEG lawyers better be well prepared to squash all the Jackson's arguments because some jurors may feel sorry for Katherine and give in. Hope the jurors are people who just rely on evidence & not in feelings.
 
Aquarius said:
The AEG lawyers better be well prepared to squash all the Jackson's arguments because some jurors may feel sorry for Katherine and give in. Hope the jurors are people who just rely on evidence & not in feelings.
Click to expand...

Yes. She will be sitting in front with a sad & grief-stricken look on her face, but they have to go by the facts. AEG knows she will be looking sad, so they most likely will focus on the issues at hand.
 
la_cienega said:
Oh you know, it's the media who make the Jacksons look bad. They have never ever been responsible for their own actions. It's the media.


That's what I thought. It just shows to me the Jacksons are both scraping the barrel - or just entirely clueless about MJ's life. I would not find it hard to believe that they saw this in a tabloid and now believe it was something MJ was working on in 2009.
Click to expand...

I think you are on the money here with that bolded part.
There are reports about MJ wanting to buy Marvel in late 90's
http://www.positivelymichael.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-13930.html
and last year Stan Lee was interviewed a lot, see here http://news.moviefone.com/2012/04/30/stan-lee-interview-marvel-movies_n_1465728.html?ref=moviefone

Obviously they read only some of the interviews and run with the quote that MJ wanted to buy Marvel comics, but they failed to check the year when Mj wanted to buy Marvel.

Jacksons take their info from tabloids as seemingly they don't have a first hand information.
 
Last edited:
la_cienega said:
That's what I thought. It just shows to me the Jacksons are both scraping the barrel - or just entirely clueless about MJ's life. I would not find it hard to believe that they saw this in a tabloid and now believe it was something MJ was working on in 2009.
Click to expand...

Re marvel, i don't think so, they'll have got it from wiesner. I remember where i heard weisner talk about it - it was on the piers morgan interview with joe jackson a month or 2 back. Wiesner was talking about in context of mj being a businessman and played one of mj's voice messages (probably one of the ones that he sold to the sun after mj's death - he is such scum) where mj talks about marvel. It's all after the 16min mark.

[youtube]4I-OyPEuzH0[/youtube]

Mj wanting to buy marvel seemed to have been in 1999/2000 - that's when he toured the studios and was in negotiation with stan lee media to take over marvel. But the deal fell through because the owner wanted $1bn, i think they were expecting it to go for alot less. So i'm casting a side eye on wiesner's claim it all fell through because of the arvizo allegations, as they were 03 and i'm doubting that he had any role in the deal at all. And as for claiming mj was about to buy marvel in 09 - just embarrassing. They sold to disney for over $4bn in aug 09.
 
Last edited:
Annita said:
Does Alan Duke really think there will be change about telvision broadcasting of the trial?
@RealJustice4MJ Yes, something is being done! Stayed tuned.
Click to expand...

I think they got denied again
03/15/2013 Request to Enter Judgment (media request denied )
Filed by Applicant

03/15/2013 Request (media request denied )
Filed by Applicant

That was the second media request, and it looks like it won't be televised.

This one was Alan Duke's request
03/07/2013 Order ( **DENIED** ON MEDIA REQUEST TO PERMIT COVERAGE )
Filed by Applicant

03/07/2013 Request (*DENIED* MEDIA REQUEST TO PHOTOGRAPH, RECORD, OR BROADCAST )
Filed by Applicant



Bonnie Blue said:
And as for claiming mj was about to buy marvel in 09 - just embarrassing. They sold to disney for over $4bn in aug 09.
Click to expand...

It just show how much out of touch they are about everything:smilerolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top