Revocation of Will?

[TinaG]

I check the Probate Court records online from time to time, just to see what's happening with MJ's estate. Does anyone else do that? One thing I'm wondering about is this upcoming Hearing:

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

What will needs to be revoked and why?

 

[elusive moonwalker]

i think its joe and his silly games hes fighting the will i think (still)

 

[riviera1992]

Joe is the ONLY one at this time who can fight the will to prove it's fake. He has nothing to loose except his life and apparently he's not scared about it.

So I say, more power to him.

Why is it so hard to prove the will is fake? We all know MJ was in NY that day with his entourage. Locate the appointment book. Call the entourage to the stand. How hard is that?

Of course when the Court is non cooperative and is run by a judge possibly on the take, it's a little more difficult.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

if its was fake whys it the same one as the one written in 97. kinda beats the objective of creating a fake one doesnt it lol

 

[Krshna28]

Joe is the ONLY one at this time who can fight the will to prove it's fake. He has nothing to loose except his life and apparently he's not scared about it.

So I say, more power to him.

Why is it so hard to prove the will is fake? We all know MJ was in NY that day with his entourage. Locate the appointment book. Call the entourage to the stand. How hard is that?

Of course when the Court is non cooperative and is run by a judge possibly on the take, it's a little more difficult.

He has nothing to lose but everything to gain.

Can't he accept that fact that his wife and grandchildren benefit from the will.......

 

[rainny]

I don't think it is just Joseph.

 

[funkyfish]

If the will is proved to be fake, woudn't they just revert back to using the '97 one, which as someone has already said is pretty much exactly the same minus the addition of paris and blanket i think. Therefore nothing would change, everyone would get the same amount of money? i'd assume that they'd bunch the kids together so no harm there, and then it's exactly the same, 40 40 20. same executors aswell.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

If the will is proved to be fake, woudn't they just revert back to using the '97 one, which as someone has already said is pretty much exactly the same minus the addition of paris and blanket i think. Therefore nothing would change, everyone would get the same amount of money? i'd assume that they'd bunch the kids together so no harm there, and then it's exactly the same, 40 40 20. same executors aswell.

exactly. the argument has no logic

 

[Soundmind]

It is joe , he is claiming the will is fraud yet he wants the executors to pay him money . go figure

 

[dirtydiana27]

Joe is the ONLY one at this time who can fight the will to prove it's fake. He has nothing to loose except his life and apparently he's not scared about it.

So I say, more power to him.

Why is it so hard to prove the will is fake? We all know MJ was in NY that day with his entourage. Locate the appointment book. Call the entourage to the stand. How hard is that?

Of course when the Court is non cooperative and is run by a judge possibly on the take, it's a little more difficult.

Lawyers in bed with judges--surely you jest? And Joe has some valid points IMO. There certainly appears to be conflicts of interest, that's for sure. Let me see, who would benefit from maintaining this questionable Will? Branca, as Executor running the show, and his firm's other client--SONY????

 

[Thetruthbetold]

joe is not the only one frighting against that will. Rest in peace MJ the truth will get out

 

[MJJ:G.O.A.T]

I don't think it is just Joseph.

Jermaine approves (look at what he said about Joe's attempts) and I'll bet Randy does too.

 

[Autumn II]

exactly. the argument has no logic

The logic is THIS. (Clearly, an older will would not help Joe or any of the family except Michael's children.) The question is if there was a NEWER will, that vanished? Not a will related to the one that Branca unearthed, but a very RECENT will?

There are questions. When Michael fired Branca, why didn't he transfer his legal documents over to another attorney? Makes no sense. I have a will. I have an attorney. If I fired my attorney, there is NO way I'd want my will on file in his office. I'd move it to the new attorney's office. That is just common-sense. If this is about anything, it's not about a return to an older will, but the possibility of a more recent will. But if there is one, it's not surfaced. Was it destroyed? Don't know.

I don't really know what to think about the difference in locations (will signed in California, or New York). But yet this is what attorneys DO. They keep track of the fine-print. If there was an error in the will (place of signing) it is the attorney's responsibility to correct that. I don't understand why that was not caught, and changed to be accurate.

 

[kasume]

He has nothing to lose but everything to gain.

Can't he accept that fact that his wife and grandchildren benefit from the will.......

It doesn't matter who the will benefits. (And I'm sure Michael would take care of his mother and children in whatever will he writes anytime)

If the will is FAKE, then it's FAKE. And that right there is phony. Because why would somebody made a fake will in the first place, for what reason????

Now I don't know if the will is fake because it has never officially been proven. But I can say there is a possibility of it being fake by all these stories brought up about Michael being somewhere else and the different names and slightly different signatures.

 

[Autumn II]

It doesn't matter who the will benefits. (And I'm sure Michael would take care of his mother and children in whatever will he writes anytime)

If the will is FAKE, then it's FAKE. And that right there is phony. Because why would somebody made a fake will in the first place, for what reason????

Now I don't know if the will is fake because it has never officially been proven. But I can say there is a possibility of it being fake by all these stories brought up about Michael being somewhere else and the different names and slightly different signatures.

If the will is fake, it would be for one purpose. To put Branca in charge of the estate. I don't really know much about Branca, and don't know if he is a good or bad guy, for sure? I know that Michael trusted him in the past. but we don't know about more recently. If the will is fake, then there must have been a newer one. Otherwise it would revert to the older will, which is essentially the same. If there was a newer will, I suspect it is long-gone into the shredder.

 

[kasume]

Even if there really is a newer well long gone into the shredder, it's always nice to prove the current one is fake anyways?

It would further prove the evil circus surrounding Michael's last months, weeks and days. Since he appointed Branca in charge of his will eight days before he died.

 

[danidcma]

What is also interesting is that within days of Michael's death the family was in court saying that he died intestate "without a will". Why on earth would the family even think that with all of the lawyers that he worked with and all the assets that he had - that he never would have drawn up a will. To even think that he wouldn't have a will is absurd.

Going through will dramas in my personal life right now - it does create issues when even one small thing is not right.

Message to everyone - make sure you have a proper will. It doesn't cost much to have a lawyer draw up something simple. Also - If you have many assets do some estate tax planning to avoid unnecessary taxes - who needs to give extra money away in taxes or to probate fees. There are loopholes in many of the tax laws in different countries. Make sure the people that you want to inherit actually do inherit and that it doesn't all end up with lawyers and the gov't.

 

[jrsfan]

The logic is THIS. (Clearly, an older will would not help Joe or any of the family except Michael's children.) The question is if there was a NEWER will, that vanished? Not a will related to the one that Branca unearthed, but a very RECENT will?

There are questions. When Michael fired Branca, why didn't he transfer his legal documents over to another attorney? Makes no sense. I have a will. I have an attorney. If I fired my attorney, there is NO way I'd want my will on file in his office. I'd move it to the new attorney's office. That is just common-sense. If this is about anything, it's not about a return to an older will, but the possibility of a more recent will. But if there is one, it's not surfaced. Was it destroyed? Don't know.

I don't really know what to think about the difference in locations (will signed in California, or New York). But yet this is what attorneys DO. They keep track of the fine-print. If there was an error in the will (place of signing) it is the attorney's responsibility to correct that. I don't understand why that was not caught, and changed to be accurate.

Malnik claimed right after MJ died that he had a will from 2003 -04 & that he was executor. I had thought that Branca made a deal with Malnik but seeing that the Malniks visited the Jacksons recently & seem to be friends - I think the Jacksons must have contacted him - he does seem very family oriented - he probably thought it was best for the kids to be with the grandparents & the control be in the family.

I think it is very telling that in Joe's petition it was stated that Branca had complained about Malnik's money laundering business to the FBI.

 

[Soundmind]

McClain was MJ's attorney for three years before mj's death and later represented Katherine (Randy) , if MJ fired Branca and removed him as an executor the will would have been given to McClain ,would mj create a new will and give it back to Branca ? seriously where is the logic ? would not it be with someone that had no relation to Branca ?

Yet Katherine and joe were screaming while MJ was still at the coroner's office he had no will and they should be appointed in charge of everything .

 

[kasume]

McClain was MJ's attorney for three years before mj's death and later represented Katherine (Randy) , if MJ fired Branca and removed him as an executor the will would have been given to McClain ,would mj create a new will and give it back to Branca ? seriously where is the logic ? would not it be with someone that had no relation to Branca ?

Yet Katherine and joe were screaming while MJ was still at the coroner's office he had no will and they should be appointed in charge of everything .

Where is the logic in Michael signing the current will while it is believed he was actually in NY that day?

I guess logic is missing on both sides.

But as for the the side of the will not being fake, people go and come back in Michael's life all the time. Frank, the chef, Grace...

I just wonder if it was actually Michael himself that hired Branca back eight days before he died, and not one of his managers. Can that happen? I am not sure.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

What is also interesting is that within days of Michael's death the family was in court saying that he died intestate "without a will". Why on earth would the family even think that with all of the lawyers that he worked with and all the assets that he had - that he never would have drawn up a will. To even think that he wouldn't have a will is absurd.

because they wanted control of his money and the estate. within days of the 25th they were filing with the court asking for money to pay for hayvernhurst. what does that say?

 

[Autumn II]

because they wanted control of his money and the estate. within days of the 25th they were filing with the court asking for money to pay for hayvernhurst. what does that say?

Reeks of desperation. I'd say a revision of lifestyle is in order, regardless. Some of us manage quite well on a LOT less. Some things are essential, and some things are just. . . . . not.

 

[Sdeidjs]

I check the Probate Court records online from time to time, just to see what's happening with MJ's estate. Does anyone else do that? One thing I'm wondering about is this upcoming Hearing:

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

What will needs to be revoked and why?

[SIZE=+2]The 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon On[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+4]* Revocation *
[/SIZE]REVOCATION - A document under which a grantor takes away (revokes) the authority and power of the agent to act on behalf of the grantor.

The act by which a person having authority, calls back or annuls a power, gift, or benefit, which had been bestowed upon another. For example, a testator may revoke his testament; a constituent may revoke his letter of attorney; a grantor may revoke a grant made by him, when he has reserved the power in the deed.

Revocations are expressed or implied. An express revocation of a will must be as formal as the will itself. But this is not the rule in all the states.

Implied revocations take place, by marriage and birth of a child, by the English law. In Pennsylvania, marriage or birth of a child, is a revocation as to them. A woman's will is revoked by her subsequent marriage, if she dies "before her hushand. An alienation of the estate by the devisor has the same effect of revoking a will.

Revocation of wills may be effected;
1. By cancellation or obliteration.
2. By a subsequent testamentary disposition.
3. By an express revocation contained in a will or codicil, or in any other distinct writing.
4. By the republication of a prior wili; by presumptive or implied revocation.

The powers and authority of an attorney or agent may be revoked or determined by the acts of the principal; by the acts of the attorney or agent; and by operation of law.

By the acts of the principal, which may be express or implied. An express revocation is made by a direct and formal and public declaration, or by an informal writing, or by parol. An implied revocation takes place when such circumstances occur as manifest the intention of the principal to revoke the authority; such, for example, as the appointment of another agent attorney
to perform acts which are incompatible with the exercise of the power formerly given to another; but this presumption arises only when there is such incompatibility, for if the original agent has a general authority, and the second only a special power, the revocation will only operate pro tanto. The performance by the principal himself of the act which he has authorized to be done by his attorney, is another example; as, if the authority be to collect a debt, and afterwards the principal receive it himself.

The renunciation of the agency by the attorney will have the same effect to determine the authority.

A revocation of an authority takes place by operation of law. This may be done in various ways:

1st. When the agency terminates by lapse of time; as, when it is created to endure for a year, it expires at the end of that period; or when a letter of attorney is given to transact the constituent's business during his absence, the power ceases on his return.

- 2d. When a change of condition of the principal takes place so that he is rendered incapable of performing the act himself, the power he has delegat-ed to another to do it must cease. If an unmarried woman give a power of attorney and afterwards marry, the marriage does, ipso facto, operate as a revocation of the authority or if the principal become insane, at least after the establishment of the insanity by an inquisition. When the principal becomes a bankrupt, his power of attorney in relation to property or rights of which he was dives-ted by the bancrupcy, is revoked by operation of law.

- 3d. The death of the principal will also have the effect of a revocation of the authority.

- 4th. When the condition of the agent or attorney has so changed as to render him incapable to perform his obligation towards the principal. When a married woman is prohibited by her hushand from the exercise of an authority given to her, it thereby determines. When the agent becomes a bankrupt, his authority is so far revoked that he cannot receive any money on accountof his principal but for certain other purposes, the bankruptcy of the agent does not operate as a revocation. The insanity of the agent would render him unfit to act in the business of the agency, and would determine his authority.

- 5th. The death of the agent puts an end to the agency.

- 6th. The extinction of the subject-matter of the agency, or of the principal's power over it, or the complete execution of the trust confided to the agent, will put an end to and determine the agency.

It must be remembered that an authority, coupled with an interest, cannot be revoked either by the acts of the principal, or by operation of law.

It is true in general, a power ceases with the life of the person making it; but if the interest or estate passes with the power, and vests in the person by whom the power is exercised, such person acts in his own name. The es-tate being in him, passes from him by a conveyance in his own name. He is no longer a substitute acting in the name of another, but is the principal acting in his own name in pursuance of powers which limit the estate. The legal reason which limits the power to the life of the person giving it exists no longer, and the rule ceases with the reason on which it is founded.

The revocation of the agent is a revocation of any substitute he may have appointed. But in some cases, as in the case of the master of a ship, his death does not revoke the power of the mate whom he had appointed; and in some cases of public appointments, on the death or removal of the principal officer, the depu-ties appointed by him are, by express provisions in the laws, authorized to continue in the performance of their duties.

The time when the revocation takes effect must be considered, first, with regard to the agent, and secondly, as it affects third persons.

1. When the revocation can be lawfully made, it takes effect, as to the agent, from the moment it is communicated to him.

2. As to third persons, the revocation has no effect until it is made known to them; if, therefore, an agent, knowing of the revocation of his authority, deal with a third pers6n in the name of his late principal, when such person was ignorant of the revocation, both the agent and the principal will be bound by his acts. A note or bill signed, accepted or indorsed by a clerk, after his discharge, who had been authorized to sign, indorse, or accept bills and notes for his principal while in his employ, will be binding upon the latter, unless notice has been given of his discharge and the revocation of his authority.


:angel:Knowledge IS Growth...Education IS The Key~~~

 

[elusive moonwalker]

he logic is THIS. (Clearly, an older will would not help Joe or any of the family except Michael's children.) The question is if there was a NEWER will, that vanished? Not a will related to the one that Branca unearthed, but a very RECENT will?

the problem is ppl are creating theories to back their opinions. theres no evidence that there was a newer will. u can create theories for ever and a day but without evidence it means nothing,so a fake will was made in 02 so were they able to look into the future and think in 5 years time mj will make a new will so lets make a fake one now that leaves everything to the same ppl as he did in 97.its nonsensical. if a lawyer came out tomorrow and said i made a will for mj in 08 then yes thats your evidence. but no one has come out. if anyone had a newer one u know they would be on tv telling anyone that would listen.and then u have the quote from the bain inteview when she asked mj around 07 about making a new will and he said no the one ive got is fine.if theres evidence to back theories up then fine im all for looking at them but theres no evidence at all to back this up

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Reeks of desperation. I'd say a revision of lifestyle is in order, regardless. Some of us manage quite well on a LOT less. Some things are essential, and some things are just. . . . . not.

agree. and u would think ppl who came from a poor background would know this. i could understand ppl who have been spoilt rcih all their lives but the jackson werent. when u have joe acting like he is its so undignified

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Where is the logic in Michael signing the current will while it is believed he was actually in NY that day?

I guess logic is missing on both sides.

the ppl who were there have explained that mistake. one of the witnesses put L.A thinking it ment where mj lived.the argument is moot when the 02 will is exactly the same as the 97 one. so who faked the 97 one?

 

[funkyfish]

The logic is THIS. (Clearly, an older will would not help Joe or any of the family except Michael's children.) The question is if there was a NEWER will, that vanished? Not a will related to the one that Branca unearthed, but a very RECENT will?

Unless anyone actually HAS this newer recent will, proving that the 02 one is fake is pointless, because they will just refer back to the 97 one. I mean they could prove it is fake...and then start looking for this new will, but unless they find it the whole things pointless.

Tbh it might have been more suspicious if some one found a new will that was wildly diffrent to the 97 and 02 one.

And about the NY/ LA thing, if you were faking a will wouldnt you make sure you got something as simple as where it was signed right? Make it airtight so no one can fight it?

 

[riviera1992]

Reposting from Firpo Carr thread.

The "Will" That Won't:

To Joseph Jackson, the father of the Jackson 5, the dispute over the alleged "Will" won't go away. In fact, he would have it no other way. The court document Mr. Jackson filed on Tuesday, November 10, 2009 (Case No. BP 117321) contesting the appointment of John Branca--Michael's former attorney who was terminated--and John McClain as the Executors and Special Administrators of the Estate of Michael Jackson is indicative of this reality. Here's what Joseph Jackson asserts through his attorney:

"Branca Used His Own Attorney to ‘Dupe' Michael Jackson to Sign the Leibler-Stoler Conflicts Waiver. On August 27, 2002, Branca sent a letter to Michael Jackson's Attorney Martin Singer of the law firm of Lavely & Singer asking Mr. Singer to review the August 14, 2002, Conflicts of Interest disclosures as independent counsel and to have Michael Jackson sign them. (Exhibit ‘I'). On September 10, 2002, Martin Singer sent a letter to John Branca dated September 10, 2002, where he transmitted the signed conflicts waiver dated August 14, 2002, which he advised Michael Jackson to sign...

"However, Martin Singer and Lavely and Singer were Branca's ‘personal' attorneys, and they were not independent counsel for Michael Jackson. They represented Branca and his wife Linda Hoffman Branca in the case of John G. Branca v. American Airlines, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. SC 063321, which was filed on September 9, 2000, and removed to the federal court on March 7, 2001, as case number 00-11640 GHK (Rz). (Exhibit ‘K'). Martin Singer was lead attorney in that case, and the case remained pending in federal court until April 1, 2002, only three (3) months prior to the purported July 7, 2009 [sic], Will, and only four (4) months prior to the conflicts waiver of August 14, 2002.

"Branca used his own attorney to assure his ‘patsy' client, Michael Jackson, that his conflict with Michael Jackson should be waived. The conduct was a violation of fiduciary duties and fraud. It affects not only this Court, but also the real victims in this matter, Katherine Jackson, Joseph Jackson, Michael Jackson's children, Prince, Paris, and Prince Michael II, and all of the members of the Jackson Family. This ‘sordid' transaction should have been disclosed to this Court before Branca asked this Court to appoint him Executor. What might be ok for the client should not be ok for this Court or the parties to this Estate because this Court must pass independent judgment on conflicts of interest. Branca concealed the conflicts of interest from this Court when he filed the July 1, 2009, Probate Petition, and that concealment disqualifies him from being Executor." Stunning. Joe Jackson is mad as hell, and he isn't going to take it anymore! But, what about wife Katherine?

Many are asking, "Why isn't Katherine Jackson, Michael's mother, contesting the infamous ‘Will' of dubious origin?" Family members and observers close to the family retort that her hands are tied due to some rather dark, unhealthy, external influences. For example, family supports say the very clever (some say diabolical) parties who crafted the "Will" installed a clause that states if Katherine Jackson challenges the legitimacy of said "Will," she faces the disturbing probability of being excluded from it completely, effectively losing all her inheritance. "Would Michael have placed such a clause in his Will?" doubters ask. Again, this is seen as a deliberate strategy to remove any possibility of a challenge to what family members are alleging is a bogus "Will." Since Joseph Jackson is not mentioned in the "phony" Will, he stands to lose nothing by exposing what he considers to be its glaring deficiencies. More to come.]

 

[elusive moonwalker]

firpo carr is a media whore whatever he says . anyone who was here during the trial will tell u that. his opinions whatever they may be are irrelevent. about as credible as stacy brown another of rebbies friends

bh it might have been more suspicious if some one found a new will that was wildly diffrent to the 97 and 02 one.

exaclty. now that would be a reason to be concerned

 

[riviera1992]

firpo carr is a media whore whatever he says . anyone who was here during the trial will tell u that. his opinions whatever they may be are irrelevent. about as credible as stacy brown another of rebbies friends

Some of the part I quoted is from a report of what Joe Jackson is stating in his "will revocation" suit.

It's from a court document and it seems to be exposing more irregularities.

If you add to that the mis-spelling of the kids and DR's names AND the CA/NY thing, that's THREE areas of ambiguity in a will made by VIP lawyers.

To quote Arsenio Hall "Things that makes you go HUMMMMMM!"