Latest on MJJC

Why I think The 2002 Will is a fruad

jrsfan

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,071
Points
0
Location
Seattle
There is Seven's blog here where she brings up the fact that Trent sold the vid of the children to tabs - certainly not the wishes of Katherine. Seven seems to believe the will is valid, although I am sure it is fake- but that the estate should answer the questions concerning the will. Very good points in her essay.

http://www.mj-777.com/?p=8809

Also in this blog, Bonnie makes excellent points about the fake, fraudulent, & flawed will & I think the media is lazy, negligent for not doing any real investigating:

We know that a letter firing Branca in 2003 exists. No official letter rehiring him or public statement of rehiring exists. Not even for 2009. We only have Branca’s word and we know what that is worth.




And according to one reporter she spoke to two people. One who told her that Michael had told him that he didn’t have a will, everything was in a trust. And she spoke to another one that told her that he had talked to John Branca back in 2005 when Michael was in trial and BRANCA said there was no will.








So if Branca told someone there was no will in 2005, how did he come up with one dated 2002?




Remember these?




Michael’s Legal Documents
2005 Trial




Last page of verdicts
Michael Joe Jackson​





Original 2003 Complaint
Michael Joe Jakcosn​





2005 Ammended Complaint
True Name and People vs. listed as Michael Joe Jackson​





TOX Report 2004
Michael Joe Jackson, 5’11’’, 120 lbs​


​






On his mug shot info and his complaint info he is listed as 5’11” and 120 pounds (way too light Mike!)






Michael’s Posthumous Documents
2009 and Autopsy


Death Certificate
Michael Joseph Jackson​





Autopsy Report
Michael Joseph Jackson​







Will Statement Filed by Branca
Michael Joseph Jackson​







Copy of Michael’s Will
Dated 2002 – Pg 1​





Page 2​





Page 3​


​




So during the trial and on all legal paperwork surrounding the trial, we have a 5’11”, 120 pound Michael Joe Jackson.


Post 2005 and more specifically 2009 and death, we have a 5’9” Michael JOSEPH Jackson.




Randy Jackson and MY OWN sources, plus the fact that there is video proof, Michael was in New York with Al Sharpton and FAMILY on the date Branca says Michael signed that will.


There has been argument from Branca’s side (because they think we’re idiots), that the day Michael signed his will, he actually signed IN New York and the only reason that it says Los Angeles is because that is where Michael lived. But Michael didn’t live in Los Angeles he lived in SANTA YNEZ (Santa Maria County).


The other problem we have is that Michael LEGALLY was Michael JOE Jackson on court documents between 2003 up through 2005 post verdict as you see on the COURT DOCUMENTS posted above.


Why would Michael’s initials appear on a will dated 2002 with Michael JOSEPH Jackson on it?


You know what this tells me? That Branca was correct in 2005.


There WAS NO WILL IN 2005.


Maybe this is why Randy Jackson said the signature pages were not "ready yet" when Branca brought the will to the family.


This means that the document Branca presented to the Judge DID NOT EXIST IN 2002, was FORGED and most probably wasn’t created until Branca learned that Miss Katherine filed INTESTATE.


Branca CREATED THIS WILL post 2009 with the NEW MIDDLE NAME of Michael JOSEPH, because he learned that is what “Michael” had changed his name to (only this isn’t the real Michael). Because in 2002 Michael was LEGALLY Michael JOE Jackson.


If this was an original 2002 will it would say MICHAEL JOE JACKSON just like all his other documents.


The Michael that died (if one indeed did die) most probably was NOT Michael JOE Jackson as THAT Michael was 5’11”.


Michael JOSEPH Jackson on the Death Certificate and the autopsy report is 5’9”.


The document BRANCA turned into the courts as Michael’s will and testament is a FORGED, POST 2005 DOCUMENT using a middle name that was not LEGALLY associated with Michael until AFTER THE TRIAL.


This whole DOCUMENT did not exist in 2002! The Joseph name is TYPED IN THERE!


Branca created this fraudulent document POST 2005 and he created it when he WAS NOT MICHAEL’S LAWYER.


You know what else this tells me?


It tells me that John Branca knew damned well that Michael fired him in 2003 or he wouldn’t have backdated a will all the way back to 2002!


That’s all I have for tonight. We’re getting socked with thunderstorms and I have to get off of here. Thank the Lord I got the lawn mowed today before that stuff came in! (And I’m fried).


Good night all . . .
 
^^ My god, what a bunch of crazy mess! Even including some hoax theory ("The Michael that died (if one indeed did die"). That about seals it for me about how seriously this person (Seven) can be taken.

Really, all these arguments seem like grasping at straws: the Joe vs. Joseph thing and the like. And this is a straw-man argument:

There has been argument from Branca’s side (because they think we’re idiots), that the day Michael signed his will, he actually signed IN New York and the only reason that it says Los Angeles is because that is where Michael lived. But Michael didn’t live in Los Angeles he lived in SANTA YNEZ (Santa Maria County).
Click to expand...

This is not what was said. It was the witness who wrote Los Angeles there, not Michael. And it was the witness who came from LA.

And according to one reporter she spoke to two people. One who told her that Michael had told him that he didn’t have a will, everything was in a trust. And she spoke to another one that told her that he had talked to John Branca back in 2005 when Michael was in trial and BRANCA said there was no will.

So if Branca told someone there was no will in 2005, how did he come up with one dated 2002?
Click to expand...


So do we know base serious accusations on hearsay and unnamed "sources" about whom we don't even know if they exist at all?

I'm also amazed that last week and everything that happened still doesn't ring a bell for some fans about Randy and Co. and their motives.
 
Last edited:
Re: Michael's mom reported missing /TJ temp Guardianship/Grandma's Home

respect77 said:
^^ My god, what a bunch of mess! Even including some hoax theory ("The Michael that died (if one indeed did die"). That about seals it for me about how seriously this person (Seven) can be taken.

Really, all these arguments seem like grasping at straws: the Joe vs. Joseph thing and the like. And this is a straw-man argument:



This is not what was said. It was the witness who wrote Los Angeles there, not Michael. And it was the witness who came from LA.
Click to expand...

That is my bad post- sorry - they are 2 different blogs. Seven's blog has many good points about Trent selling the vid of Randy & Janet at the Calabasa house with PPB, estate should explain will discrepancies etc. even though she states will is probably valid- which I don't think it is.

http://www.mj-777.com/?p=8809

Bonnie's blog here- she may be a believer but I don't think that makes her argument or observations not valid about the will which Randy's letter was about:

http://michaelsguardian.blogspot.co...-max=2013-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&max-results=50

Bonnie also used Beth Karas report in her argument about there not being a will in 2005:



And I have never believed the "I forgot I was in New York" argument - merely bs. The person who forged the will forgot to check the calendar.
 
Re: Michael's mom reported missing /TJ temp Guardianship/Grandma's Home

jrsfan said:
Bonnie also used Beth Karas report in her argument about there not being a will in 2005:
Click to expand...

Why should we trust Beth Karas and her alleged "sources" whom she conveniently does not name? By the way she talks she's very biased for Randy&Co, and I guess her sources are them. Serious journalists do name their sources. And instead of talking to Beth Karas why don't these sources tell what they allegedly heard in a court? Sorry, but it's just tabloid journalism, nothing else. You cannot base serious allegations on that.

And do people still really believe Randy&Co. are not after the money when contesting the will? LOL. One only has to check out Randy's history and all his attempts to leech off Michael when he was alive. Don't forget what Prince wrote about Michael warning him about certain people and their ways...

Bonnie Cox... alright. I'm not even gonna comment on her.
 
Last edited:
Re: Michael's mom reported missing /TJ temp Guardianship/Grandma's Home

respect77 said:
Why should we trust Beth Karas and her alleged "sources" whom she conveniently does not name? By the way she talks she's very biased for Randy&Co, and I guess her sources are them. Serious journalists do name their sources. And instead of talking to Beth Karas why don't these sources tell what they allegedly heard in a court? Sorry, but it's just tabloid journalism, nothing else. You cannot base serious allegations on that.

And do people still really believe Randy&Co. are not after the money when contesting the will? LOL. One only has to check out Randy's history and all his attempts to leech off Michael when he was alive. Don't forget what Prince wrote about Michael warning him about certain people and their ways...

Bonnie Cox... alright. I'm not even gonna comment on her.
Click to expand...

I do not think Beth Karas' sources are family- she would have said so- I have watched her for a long time on other court cases & I think she is fair & thoughtful- although I don't necessarily agree with her all the time. She takes her work very seriously.

As far as Bonnie Cox, I think her arguments & observations on the will are valid & should be seriously considered whether or not you agree with her on other issues.
 
Re: Michael's mom reported missing /TJ temp Guardianship/Grandma's Home

I didn't watch or read much of what has just been posted, but I am so sick of hearing about the fucking will.

1. The last will is exactly the same as the one before that, just without Blanket's name FACT

2. A will can be drawn up but signed in a different state. FACT

3. The executors have done an amazing job and are making the estate alot of money FACT

4. The only reason that the will has been bought up because the family wants the money FACT

5. The "hoax" bullshit is really fucking annoying FACT

*Goes to cool off*
 
Re: Michael's mom reported missing /TJ temp Guardianship/Grandma's Home

jrsfan said:
I do not think Beth Karas' sources are family- she would have said so- I have watched her for a long time on other court cases & I think she is fair & thoughtful- although I don't necessarily agree with her all the time. She takes her work very seriously.

As far as Bonnie Cox, I think her arguments & observations on the will are valid & should be seriously considered whether or not you agree with her on other issues.
Click to expand...

To be taken seriously she should name her sources. You can put out any LIE you want citing unnamed sources. That's an old journalist trick.

Well, I considered Bonnie Cox's "observations" and I think they are BS.
 
Re: Michael's mom reported missing /TJ temp Guardianship/Grandma's Home

Elegantly Wasted said:
I didn't watch or read much of what has just been posted, but I am so sick of hearing about the fucking will.

1. The last will is exactly the same as the one before that, just without Blanket's name FACT

2. A will can be drawn on but signed in a different state. FACT

3. The executors have done an amazon job and are making the estate alot of money FACT

4. The only reason that the will has been bought up because the family wants the money FACT

5. The "hoax" bullshit is really fucking annoying FACT

*Goes to cool off*
Click to expand...

The previous will has not been published or at least I have never seen it. I have looked for it a long time & wrote to Levin- he did talk about possibly getting it in one of his live chats but never got it. Odd. I believe it was reported McClain was not an executor, but we never saw the previous will. Why not? Executors have leaked other docs. It is my memory that it was reported that the witnesses signed affidavits that they witnessed the will being signed but the affidavits did not specify where they were or the date. Odd.

The executors have given us the "Michael' album with possibly fake tracks. Not amazing at all. They couldn't help but make a ton of money off of Michael Jackson because he was amazing, his songs & talent were amazing. Fact. He was 1/2 owner of Sony/ATV catalog which has previously been reported to make 75 million a year for Michael before he passed. Branca was fired for embezzlement, conflicts of interest with Sony, Michael would never have hired him back. I am quite sure Branca, Weitzman & McClain are doing all kinds of deals to line their own pockets & those of Sony.
 
Re: Michael's mom reported missing /TJ temp Guardianship/Grandma's Home

respect77 said:
To be taken seriously she should name her sources. You can put out any LIE you want citing unnamed sources. That's an old journalist trick.
Click to expand...

I know! Someone told someone who told someone that branca said there was no will - even randy, who's one tweet away from being bundled into a straitjacket, isn't using that particular piece of info.

jrsfan said:
As far as Bonnie Cox, I think her arguments & observations on the will are valid & should be seriously considered whether or not you agree with her on other issues.
Click to expand...

I think the belief that mj is still alive and it's all a really big conspiracy would tend to cast a smidgen of doubt on a person's judgement.

Seriously, what have these posts got to do with the family drama - they belong in the conspiracy forum don't they or at least on that thread on the executors being challenged over the will? It's a convoluted tale as it is without all this will stuff coming up.
 
Re: Michael's mom reported missing /TJ temp Guardianship/Grandma's Home

respect77 said:
So now it's mediums who we should follow on Michael's "real thoughts" on his family? :wacko:
Click to expand...
I don't know anything about mediums - but the vid is mainly of Michael's interview with Geraldo and he talked about his family.
 
Re: Michael's mom reported missing /TJ temp Guardianship/Grandma's Home

Bonnie Blue said:
I know! Someone told someone who told someone that branca said there was no will - even randy, who's one tweet away from being bundled into a straitjacket, isn't using that particular piece of info.



I think the belief that mj is still alive and it's all a really big conspiracy would tend to cast a smidgen of doubt on a person's judgement.

Seriously, what have these posts got to do with the family drama - they belong in the conspiracy forum don't they or at least on that thread on the executors being challenged over the will? It's a convoluted tale as it is without all this will stuff coming up.
Click to expand...


The drama began with the estate leaking of the letter from the siblings asking the executors to resign because the will was fake, flawed & fraudulent so the discussion is totally relevant & has everything to do with the family drama.

As far as conspiracy, Michael said that conspiracy surrounded him in more than one interview. He was afraid for his life. Now he is dead. Why should that not be discussed? Whether a person is a believer or not does not make an observation or an argument invalid.
 
Being this post is so long I will give my take and reply in red below each point you bring up

jrsfan;3680943 said:
There is Seven's blog here where she brings up the fact that Trent sold the vid of the children to tabs - certainly not the wishes of Katherine. Seven seems to believe the will is valid, although I am sure it is fake- but that the estate should answer the questions concerning the will. Very good points in her essay.

The family has brought concerns before estate and they have answered - Plus Im sure the family was show the Judges ruling and how they cam to the decision the Will was real.

http://www.mj-777.com/?p=8809

Also in this blog, Bonnie makes excellent points about the fake, fraudulent, & flawed will & I think the media is lazy, negligent for not doing any real investigating:

We know that a letter firing Branca in 2003 exists. No official letter rehiring him or public statement of rehiring exists. Not even for 2009. We only have Branca’s word and we know what that is worth.
Yes we know that he was fired but wheter he was fired rehired and fired a hundred times - That does not null a Will or any legal document drawn up prior to his firing .. The firing of John from repreneting Michael at that time doesnt null the Will. All Michael had to do was draw up a new Will or add an adendum to his will stating John Branca was no longer Exeutor. and make know if he wasnted a replacement. John Branca was also on the 1997 Will - Michael didnt draw up any other will .. or whatever attorney he used to draw up another will would certainly come forward with it.


And according to one reporter she spoke to two people. One who told her that Michael had told him that he didn’t have a will, everything was in a trust. And she spoke to another one that told her that he had talked to John Branca back in 2005 when Michael was in trial and BRANCA said there was no will.

Heresay we need names to even take this into consideration. There no source provided. Bring the names of the people alledged to have made such statement so we can weigh if they are credieble sources. Anyone can say someone told me. We need a direct quote from that someone to show they really made such a statement. Or know who the peron is claiming they made such a statement.

Now we did hear a directs statement from Michael manager Raymone Bain on the topic of Michael having a will.
We have Michael's own mananger Raymone Baine who is supportive of Michael family. Stating Michael told her twice 2006 -2007 That he indeed did have a Will when she asked him. She said she asked him a second time and he was kind of aggravated hat she would question him again when he already told her he did.


So if Branca told someone there was no will in 2005, how did he come up with one dated 2002?
Based on what you have shown above . We dont know Branca told anyone that - so why would you belive it. You didnt provide any such proof or even a name. Who is the someone Branca told that to and are they a credible source ? Faceless nameless peole cant be considered . Im sure you know that though.


Remember these?
Yes of course and I dont get this argument at all - It isnt relative to anything nor does it prove anything.
Michael Joe was the name the Rat Evil TOM Seneddon chose to use in when charging Michael Jackson. maybe fron a licene or other document we are not sure why? But im not sure what all has to do with the Will . Michael used the name Michael Joseph on many documents of his own Law suits court cases his childrens Birth certificates his marriage license etc etc -so how is it considered odd for anyone to use that name ..

- Michael named his own son Michael Jospeh jackson Jr. (Junior to whom ) you name your son Jr after yourself.

Now Michael very well could have been legally named Michael Joe at birth . but he is allowed to us any form of the name he wants and it would still be legal .. if that's the case maybe he felt it was classier to use Joseph than Joe - but we dont know the resons why only that he used it.

The name Joe or Joseph has no bearing on the Will of John Branca in any way - Michale Joseph is on the 1997 Will Michael and Michael Joeseph is on the trust _ so what are you trying to say ??




Michael’s Legal Documents
2005 Trial




Last page of verdicts
Michael Joe Jackson​





Original 2003 Complaint
Michael Joe Jakcosn​





2005 Ammended Complaint
True Name and People vs. listed as Michael Joe Jackson​





TOX Report 2004
Michael Joe Jackson, 5’11’’, 120 lbs​


Michael Joseph was used by Michael Prior to the 2005 case and after this case .. it means nothing .. and for them to try and make it seem Like before his death he was considered Michael Joe and only after Michael joseph is dishonest because that is certainly not true. you only ruin your own crediebilty in trying to seek the truth when one does that
​






On his mug shot info and his complaint info he is listed as 5’11” and 120 pounds (way too light Mike!)






Michael’s Posthumous Documents
2009 and Autopsy


Death Certificate
Michael Joseph Jackson​





Autopsy Report
Michael Joseph Jackson​







Will Statement Filed by Branca
Michael Joseph Jackson​







Copy of Michael’s Will
Dated 2002 – Pg 1​





Page 2​





Page 3​


Michael Joseph was used by Michael Jackson himself Prior to Joe being used in the 2005 case and he used it after this case .. it means nothing .. and for them to make it seem Like before his death he was considered and only used Michael Joe and only after his death Michael joseph was used .. is dishonest because that is certainly is not true . It hurts ones credibilty to try and ued that Falsehood as an agument and shows deception ...

​




So during the trial and on all legal paperwork surrounding the trial, we have a 5’11”, 120 pound Michael Joe Jackson.
Yes he was 5'11 Boots wig and all


Post 2005 and more specifically 2009 and death, we have a 5’9” Michael JOSEPH Jackson.
laying on a slab no wig and barefoot ..

Thus the answer to the difference of 2 measly inches


Randy Jackson and MY OWN sources, plus the fact that there is video proof, Michael was in New York with Al Sharpton and FAMILY on the date Branca says Michael signed that will.

Yes that has been questioned .. and its a legit agrgument for some to question. its stated Michael signed the Will in NY but the Will was originally drawn up in LA and brought to Michael to sign .. Its perfectly legal as far as the court is concerned .. there are other variations of the same story ..

There has been argument from Branca’s side (because they think we’re idiots), that the day Michael signed his will, he actually signed IN New York and the only reason that it says Los Angeles is because that is where Michael lived. But Michael didn’t live in Los Angeles he lived in SANTA YNEZ (Santa Maria County).
Branca never stated he thinks anyone is idiots and He said Michael signed the Will in NY


The other problem we have is that Michael LEGALLY was Michael JOE Jackson on court documents between 2003 up through 2005 post verdict as you see on the COURT DOCUMENTS posted above.

That arguement is dishonest Michael did use the name Michael Joseph prior to his court in in 2005 and after that court case and before his death - and Im not sure even what this proves .. even if it was true .. Tom Sneedon is the one used that Name to charge Michael .. not Michael - so that name had to be used on all legal documents pertaining to thet case.


Why would Michael’s initials appear on a will dated 2002 with Michael JOSEPH Jackson on it?
Becuase he is Michael Jeoseph jackson :)

You know what this tells me? That Branca was correct in 2005.
It tells me you are basing you opinion on uncredible sources (you didnt provide) and a false premise
that Michael didnt use the name Mchael Joseph Jackson untill after his death.

There WAS NO WILL IN 2005.
Based on what ?



Maybe this is why Randy Jackson said the signature pages were not "ready yet" when Branca brought the will to the family.


This means that the document Branca presented to the Judge DID NOT EXIST IN 2002, was FORGED and most probably wasn’t created until Branca learned that Miss Katherine filed INTESTATE.


Branca CREATED THIS WILL post 2009 with the NEW MIDDLE NAME of Michael JOSEPH, because he learned that is what “Michael” had changed his name to (only this isn’t the real Michael). Because in 2002 Michael was LEGALLY Michael JOE Jackson.


If this was an original 2002 will it would say MICHAEL JOE JACKSON just like all his other documents.


The Michael that died (if one indeed did die) most probably was NOT Michael JOE Jackson as THAT Michael was 5’11”.


Michael JOSEPH Jackson on the Death Certificate and the autopsy report is 5’9”.


The document BRANCA turned into the courts as Michael’s will and testament is a FORGED, POST 2005 DOCUMENT using a middle name that was not LEGALLY associated with Michael until AFTER THE TRIAL.


This whole DOCUMENT did not exist in 2002! The Joseph name is TYPED IN THERE!


Branca created this fraudulent document POST 2005 and he created it when he WAS NOT MICHAEL’S LAWYER.


You know what else this tells me?


It tells me that John Branca knew damned well that Michael fired him in 2003 or he wouldn’t have backdated a will all the way back to 2002!


That’s all I have for tonight. We’re getting socked with thunderstorms and I have to get off of here. Thank the Lord I got the lawn mowed today before that stuff came in! (And I’m fried).


Good night all . . .
Click to expand...
 
Re: Michael's mom reported missing /TJ temp Guardianship/Grandma's Home

Qbee: I think your arguments to all the points Bonnie mentioned are good ones - however I think Beth Karas sources are good - I think they came forward to her because of their conscious & that they told her the truth. There are still people thinking that Peter Lopez had the last will. His death was very suspicious.

The trial answered many questions, but many more still need to be answered imo. I do not think the lies will stay hidden forever, it will all come to light.
 
Re: Michael's mom reported missing /TJ temp Guardianship/Grandma's Home

jrsfan said:
Qbee: I think your arguments to all the points Bonnie mentioned are good ones - however I think Beth Karas sources are good - I think they came forward to her because of their conscious & that they told her the truth. There are still people thinking that Peter Lopez had the last will. His death was very suspicious.

The trial answered many questions, but many more still need to be answered imo. I do not think the lies will stay hidden forever, it will all come to light.
Click to expand...
Yes i see what you are saying but that is all based on conspiracy speculation - What happened to Peter Lopez can not used as evidence that their was another will. You can continue discussing these views but Im going to create a thread in Contoversay for you where we allow these theories to be discussed
 
Re: Michael's mom reported missing /TJ temp Guardianship/Grandma's Home

I have read Seven's thoughts on this family fiasco, and I agree with her. Who did leak the family's letter to the executors? I haven't found any evidence that the family did. However, the executors' reply was made public, and then the whole Katherine being "kidnapped" story went viral. Suspicious timing, if you ask me. Why can't the executors answer some questions regarding the Will? The siblings have no stake in Michael's estate, but the executors do. On numerous occasions, Michael alluded to conspiracy and fear for his life. How quickly we forget! Yet, Randy is branded as "crazy" because he fears for his mother's life? We really don't know everything that is involved in this mess, but we are quick to condemn the family.
 
I am so tired of this crap. The will is basically said go read my trust, people who claim the will is fake must thought Michael's trust is fake too cause the trust correspond with the will? The trust and the will were signed from different day and both named John branca and John McClain in charge. Michael's action in life and the way he distanced himself from the Jacksons all proved the authenticity of his will and trust.
 
Re: Michael's mom reported missing /TJ temp Guardianship/Grandma's Home

sweet princess said:
Click to expand...

She says she's a medium who's been "working with with Michael since his death", whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.

Ckoo-ckoo!
 
loveforever said:
I am so tired of this crap. The will is basically said go read my trust, people who claim the will is fake must thought Michael's trust is fake too cause the trust correspond with the will? The trust and the will were signed from different day and both named John branca and John McClain in charge. Michael's action in life and the way he distanced himself from the Jacksons all proved the authenticity of his will and trust.
Click to expand...

You could very well be right. The Will may be legit. But, the family is asking questions that can easily be answered by the executors, which would clear things up for them. The siblings don't benefit from Michael's Will or Trust. Many say that Branca was never brought back by Michael; and the family says that Michael hated Branca and didn't trust him. Trouble is that Michael also distanced himself from Branca and Sony. There are arguments on both sides, and we really don't have all the facts. All I am saying is that everyone condemns the family from tabloid reports (does that sound familiar?) and judges without real knowledge of all that is and has happened. Haven't we learned from what Michael himself experienced?
 
Re: Michael's mom reported missing /TJ temp Guardianship/Grandma's Home

jrsfan said:
Qbee: I think your arguments to all the points Bonnie mentioned are good ones - however I think Beth Karas sources are good - I think they came forward to her because of their conscious & that they told her the truth. There are still people thinking that Peter Lopez had the last will. His death was very suspicious.
Click to expand...

Regardless of how good Beth Karas sources are good or not, they don't bring much to the table

- Beth Karas said there's no will everything is in a trust.

It's true that there's a trust that has been started in 1995 and last updated in March 2002. It's also true that trust is the main and most important document, Michael's will is merely a "pour-over will" which actually transfers everything to the trust and trust rules determine how the Estate will be run.

Furthermore if you check the trust document which was leaked by the News of the World you'll see that Branca and McClain is also listed as co-trustees.

So the trust that Beth Karas confirmed to exists still gives the control and position to Branca & McClain

2. Beth Karas saying Branca said there was no will

It's hearsay and will never have any weight other than as a gossip. Furthermore remember that Branca is an attorney and Michael is his client. So there's attorney-client privilege, Branca's not giving any information even denying the will could be based on the fact that legally he can't go around giving privileged information.

3. Lopez

It'll be nothing more than a conspiracy theory. There's no suspicion in his death for authorities. And the law says will's need to be filed within a month. The time to challenge a will is 4 months after it's probated. Peter Lopez died months and months later these deadlines. He was alive when it mattered.
 
A huge misconception about the Will is that a judge saw the issues the Jackson's have with it and declared it valid, which is not true. That is a HUGE lie on the part of the Estate executors, so my first question is why do they lie about that?
You doubt they lied? This was part of the statement as released by the estate in response to the Jackson's letter. "when a challenge was rejected by the Los Angeles County Superior Court, the California Court of Appeals and, finally, the California Supreme Court."

The below however, was reported by Forbes, not TMZ or Radar on line. As quoted from the article:
"However, this raises an interesting point regarding the executors’ statement. Because Joe did not have standing to bring his challenge to court, and because Katherine withdrew her claim before it was ruled on, no judge has ever decided the issue of whether Michael’s will was valid or not in light of these allegations."
To clarify, as has been raised to us by counsel for Branca and McClain since our article first was posted, the will was admitted to probate and the time period for challenging of the validity of the will under California law passed, which has the effect of determining that the will is valid. But this was done without consideration of any challenges to the will’s validity.

Therefore the Will was never out of probate court, and was never in the Court of Appeals nor the Supreme Court.

So Secondly, I stand beside the Jackson's and ask the same thing of the executors. Just explain. Answer our questions about the Will. If it is really Michael's Will, lets have the explanations for everything that the Jackson family, and some of Michael's biggest fans, have issues with about the Will. Let us follow Micaheal's example and talk it out. Let us all finally put a stop to the ugliness, as Michael would have wanted us to do. Just explain. We all need it to finally heal.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/trialan...s-siblings-promise-new-fight-over-his-estate/
 
Last edited:
As far as lawyer-client priviledge, there are exceptions.
"(1) confidences or secrets with the consent of the client or clients affected, but only after full disclosure to them;
(2) confidences or secrets when permitted or required by these rules, or when required by law or by court order;
(3) confidences and secrets to the extent reasonably necessary to rectify the consequences of a client's illegal or fraudulent act in the furtherance of which the lawyer's services have been used;
(4) the intention of a client to commit a crime and the information necessary to prevent the crime; and
(5) confidences or secrets necessary to establish or collect a fee, or to defend the lawyer or the lawyer's employees or associates against an accusation of wrongful conduct."

And even all that aside,
A will contest is the one notable exception to the general rule that the privilege survives the death of the client. If there is a dispute over the terms of the will, the lawyer who was consulted or who drafted the will may sometimes be compelled to reveal certain confidential communications if those communications speak to the decedent's intentions regarding the disposition of the decedent's property.
 
earth child;3683657 said:
A huge misconception about the Will is that a judge saw the issues the Jackson's have with it and declared it valid, which is not true. That is a HUGE lie on the part of the Estate executors, so my first question is why do they lie about that?

You doubt they lied? This was part of the statement as released by the estate in response to the Jackson's letter. "when a challenge was rejected by the Los Angeles County Superior Court, the California Court of Appeals and, finally, the California Supreme Court."

The below however, was reported by Forbes, not TMZ or Radar on line. As quoted from the article:
"However, this raises an interesting point regarding the executors’ statement. Because Joe did not have standing to bring his challenge to court, and because Katherine withdrew her claim before it was ruled on, no judge has ever decided the issue of whether Michael’s will was valid or not in light of these allegations."

To clarify, as has been raised to us by counsel for Branca and McClain since our article first was posted, the will was admitted to probate and the time period for challenging of the validity of the will under California law passed, which has the effect of determining that the will is valid. But this was done without consideration of any challenges to the will’s validity.

Therefore the Will was never out of probate court, and was never in the Court of Appeals nor the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Actually you and forbes are kinda wrong and kinda right at the same time.

Joe's challenge of Executors was denied in probate court, then it was taken to Appeals court and denied and it seems it made it it's way to the Supreme court - I personally did not follow that part.

Here's proof of Court of Appeals rejection

2hz0g80.jpg


so Estate is correct when they say when a challenge was rejected by the Los Angeles County Superior Court, the California Court of Appeals and, finally, the California Supreme Court.". Joe's challenge of Executors have been rejected by all the courts, similarly any challenge of the siblings who are not beneficiaries will be rejected as well - as it's already established by three courts.

What is confusing or wrong is the vague "challenge" part. The courts didn't determine will's validity or looked to the location mistake and such , they just determined Joe and non-beneficiaries cannot challenge the will.

earth child;3683686 said:
As far as lawyer-client priviledge, there are exceptions.
"(1) confidences or secrets with the consent of the client or clients affected, but only after full disclosure to them;
(2) confidences or secrets when permitted or required by these rules, or when required by law or by court order;
(3) confidences and secrets to the extent reasonably necessary to rectify the consequences of a client's illegal or fraudulent act in the furtherance of which the lawyer's services have been used;
(4) the intention of a client to commit a crime and the information necessary to prevent the crime; and
(5) confidences or secrets necessary to establish or collect a fee, or to defend the lawyer or the lawyer's employees or associates against an accusation of wrongful conduct."

And even all that aside,
A will contest is the one notable exception to the general rule that the privilege survives the death of the client. If there is a dispute over the terms of the will, the lawyer who was consulted or who drafted the will may sometimes be compelled to reveal certain confidential communications if those communications speak to the decedent's intentions regarding the disposition of the decedent's property.
Click to expand...

I guess you didn't understand a single thing I said because what you copied is totally irrelevant.

Beth Karas said a source talked to Branca in 2005 and Branca said "there's no will". So then that communication is happening when Michael was alive and with an unrelated third party, so attorney-client privilege applies to that communication.


So Secondly, I stand beside the Jackson's and ask the same thing of the executors. Just explain. Answer our questions about the Will. If it is really Michael's Will, lets have the explanations for everything that the Jackson family, and some of Michael's biggest fans, have issues with about the Will. Let us follow Micaheal's example and talk it out. Let us all finally put a stop to the ugliness, as Michael would have wanted us to do. Just explain. We all need it to finally heal.
Click to expand...

Actually people can take a dose of reality and stop this maddness themselves. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks about the will, there's a simple legal fact that you quoted from the forbes article which is

"the time period for challenging of the validity of the will under California law passed"

it's over, time is up.
 
ivy said:
Actually people can take a dose of reality and stop this maddness themselves. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks about the will, there's a simple legal fact that you quoted from the forbes article which is

"the time period for challenging of the validity of the will under California law passed"

it's over, time is up.
Click to expand...


How very conventient for them not to have to answer. Perhaps if they wouldn't have threated Katherine with disinherting her, we could all have those answers. Instead they hide behind a legal loop hole, so they don't HAVE to answer. The Jackson family deserves to know, as does the world. It is not a "dose of reality" that is needed, it is the answers to the questions that will always remain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top