Men Claim Share of Michael Jackson's Estate (Broderick Morris and Quadree El-Amin)

Bubs

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
7,856
Points
0
"The judge asked Cross why he did not inquire of Bain at the time if she was claiming an ownership stake. Cross answered that Jackson never said anything to imply the singer was not the sole owner.

“Do you believe everything a client tells you?,” Stratton asked."

What Cross says makes sense to me, but judge's question is an odd one?
Why wouldn't he believe what his client tells him, especially situation like Cross and MJ?


"In other testimony, Washington, D.C.-based attorney Frederick Cooke said he worked with Bain in the initial stages of forming the Michael Jackson Co. in 2006. Cooke said Bain was clear in saying that she, Jackson, and “maybe some others” would have ownership shares in the company."

Cooke doesn't say whether Bain showed him the minutes of the meeting? Maybe she didn't because it didn't exist at that time.
 

ivy

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
16,074
Points
0
Location
USA
According to Cooke Bain told him "MAYBE some others" would be an owner of the company but the issue is that the minutes document was signed in Japan before Bain returned to USA and incorporated the company. So if you think the minutes document is legit, then there was no "maybe".
 

elusive moonwalker

Guest
I can see where the judge is going here.?prob with a jury is you can get 12 clueless prejudiced ppl but with a judge only trial you only need one prejudiced hater. Yeap dont believe a word your client says cross.

Why would would cross ask bain if she wasnt making claims of ownership until now.if mj never said anything interms of im not the sole owner and others ie bain never said anything even though they were working together on the business then...

Is bain after money from this case,named as a plaintif?
 

ivy

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
16,074
Points
0
Location
USA
Last edited:

elusive moonwalker

Guest
Thanks ivy. I hope the estate are allowed to bring up her previous failed attempt. Stinks to high heaven *sigh*

Edit. prob reading to much into it but trust no one when it comes to judges etc. But his questioning of the estate witness about not trusting what mj said to him.the sections from the article you posted earlier. Just gives me a bad vibe like hes saying just cause mj didnt say anything doesnt mean there wasnt an agreement and like you would trust him anyway?! Sounds to me hes inclined to think mj screwed bain etc over.certainly doesnt give me the vibe that the judge thinks anything good about mj
 
Last edited:

Bubs

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
7,856
Points
0
ivy;4126564 said:
According to Cooke Bain told him "MAYBE some others" would be an owner of the company but the issue is that the minutes document was signed in Japan before Bain returned to USA and incorporated the company. So if you think the minutes document is legit, then there was no "maybe".

I don't think minutes is legit at all. I meant that "maybe" because I think she had forged it. She actually accused that Michael payment and release letter was forged, and "provided" letter from MJ stating that she was still in the business with him. She never mention that letter from MJ to anyone in the court or anything, but there is was all of sudden. I raise my eyebrows for such of discovery.

On the different note, am I right to assume that as she lost her previous case, she cannot get any payments from MJ's estate, but if she can prove that she is 10& owner of the company, she will get something? I'm a bit confused as she was not looking for that 10& when he sued MJ when he was alive? All of the lawsuits and appeals, not once she mentions that she is part owner of TMJC, only that she is president and COO of TMJC. Certainly MJ made deals under this new company, so shouldn't she had made claim of those too?

This bit is from appeals decision:
"According to the complaint, in May 2006, Bain and Jackson entered into a Personal Services Agreement. The agreement authorized Bain to incorporate a new company (the Michael Jackson Company) on Jackson’s behalf, and appointed her the new company’s president and chief operating officer. As compensation, she would receive a “10% Finder’s fee of any Agreement(s) entered into by Michael Jackson, or the Michael Jackson Company, generated by, or due to the direct efforts of Bain and/or Bain’s contacts.”"
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/E77F64B8A82B80BD85257CD700505946/$file/12-7061.pdf

Again, it only mentions her being president and COO, but nothing about being owner. I find that odd.

I think she can prove that she was president and coo, but that is as far it goes.

If there are people who haven't read Bain's lawsuit against MJ, here is the link to it:
http://documents.mx/documents/raymone-bain-vs-michael-jackson-lawsuit.html

elusive moonwalker;4126592 said:
Thanks ivy. I hope the estate are allowed to bring up her previous failed attempt. Stinks to high heaven *sigh*

Edit. prob reading to much into it but trust no one when it comes to judges etc. But his questioning of the estate witness about not trusting what mj said to him.the sections from the article you posted earlier. Just gives me a bad vibe like hes saying just cause mj didnt say anything doesnt mean there wasnt an agreement and like you would trust him anyway?! Sounds to me hes inclined to think mj screwed bain etc over.certainly doesnt give me the vibe that the judge thinks anything good about mj

I thought what judge asked from Cross was a bit iffy:scratch:
Did she ask the same question from Bain's attorney?
 
Last edited:

ivy

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
16,074
Points
0
Location
USA
Well El-Amin's etc civil case is a breach of contract case. They argue Estate is breached the contract. Estate mentioned there was no evidence that MJ acted on his oral agreement. In other words it's not like company records ever showed these people as owners and they were later removed (after MJ's death). Why is this important? Given who / when the alleged breach of contract happened, the deadline to file a lawsuit will change. Actually if the judge thinks MJ breached the contract (promised them shares but then did not give them any shares) they will be too late to file the breach of contract lawsuit. This judge isn't assigned to that case and that case is on hold pending the outcome of this 850 motion but that could explain the question.

If you give El Amin, Morris, King and Bain the benefit of the doubt and assume that the minutes document is real, this still comes to Bain's incompetence. Two lawyers in involved in incorporation. One had no idea that Bain - forget the others - claimed to own a share and the other one only seems to hear it in some vague terms. All it needed the incorporation documents showed the share division. It's not like MJ handled the paperwork. It was all on Bain. Why couldn't she put her share on record during incorporation?
 

ivy

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
16,074
Points
0
Location
USA
I finally completed my detailed blog post about this case including some documents.

This is the infamous signed meeting minutes (enjoy tygger)

1zg4ac8.jpg


Estate doesn't hold back

14doq9u.jpg


2n1b6sn.jpg


Also the document links

El-Amin Inspection demand letter: https://www.scribd.com/doc/294661444/El-Amin-Inspection-Demand

El-Amin, Morris, King, Bain first amended complaint: https://www.scribd.com/doc/294481766/MJCompany-El-Amin-et-al-Complaint

MJ Estate demurrer : https://www.scribd.com/doc/294661443/El-Amin-Case-Estate-Demurrer

Rest of the details can be found on my blog.
 

Bubs

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
7,856
Points
0
Thanks Ivy, I just finished reading it. Nicely detailed and it was easy to follow because timeline was in order.

" In their initial demurrer document Estate questioned both the timing of these claims as well the credibility of the claims. (Link to Estate's demurrer) Estate argued that El-Amin and Morris should have filed creditor claims within one year of MJ’s death. Estate also argued that given that company incorporation documents only listed MJ as the sole member, El-Amin, Morris, King and Bain were never treated as members of Michael Jackson Company or received any stock or membership certificate when MJ was alive. Even though MJ might have orally promised them shares at the new company, there is no evidence that MJ performed under the oral agreement. If that’s the case, MJ would be the one who breached the agreement – not MJ Estate- and time limitation would start from 2006. (Ivy's note: Please note that Bain handled the incorporation of the company, not MJ). "

Bang, the estate lawyers always delivers.

Ivy, what is the time limit mentioned above sentence?

"The executors respectfully submit that the reason Bain and King creditors claim didn't mention any alleged ownership in MJC, because the claim has been fabricated out of whole cloth"

Bang, I agree with that:)
 

elusive moonwalker

Guest
El-Amin, Morris, King and Bain were never treated as members of Michael Jackson Company or received any stock or membership certificate when MJ was alive. Even though MJ might have orally promised them shares at the new company
-----------------

And they (bain etc) never questioned that at the time. They only suddenly remembered/realised when the cash started rolling in post 09.urgh its all so obvious. The signature looks iffy aswell

Can i have a link to your blog please ivy
 

ivy

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
16,074
Points
0
Location
USA
Ivy, what is the time limit mentioned above sentence?

To bring a creditor's claim: I think one year after MJ's death or executors being assigned. It should be over by end of 2010.

Bain and King had creditor claims, they either needed to mention it then or file a lawsuit when Estate denied their probate claims.

They only suddenly remembered/realised when the cash started rolling in post 09.

It's not even post 09. it was end of december 2012. It would be one thing if they came to the Estate in 2009 shortly after MJ's death to claim ownership. MJ Co was used at TII deal. They first made the claim in december 2012. that's waiting 3 years after the cas started rolling in post 09. and to me that's odd. I can understand not making a claim in MJ Co between 2006-2009 because there was no deals being made hence meaning no money to get. But it doesn't make much sense to not make a claim in 2009 immediately when both TII concert (when MJ was alive) and TII Movie (after MJ's death) deals were being done.

Can i have a link to your blog please ivy

http://dailymichael.com/lawsuits/other/315-who-owns-the-michael-jackson-company
 
Last edited:

Bubs

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
7,856
Points
0
El-Amin, Morris, King and Bain were never treated as members of Michael Jackson Company or received any stock or membership certificate when MJ was alive. Even though MJ might have orally promised them shares at the new company
-----------------

And they (bain etc) never questioned that at the time. They only suddenly remembered/realised when the cash started rolling in post 09.urgh its all so obvious. The signature looks iffy aswell

No, it took them that amount of time to fabricate the whole cloth (as the estate put it);-)

To bring a creditor's claim: I think one year after MJ's death or executors being assigned. It should be over by end of 2010.

Thanks.
Probate notes shows that there is another day in the court today, but do you know how many days to go, or it is over when judge feels like it?
 

ivy

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
16,074
Points
0
Location
USA
Probate notes shows that there is another day in the court today, but do you know how many days to go, or it is over when judge feels like it?

I'm not sure. Probably they estimated some time but it can take longer. As far as I can see they are having half days at court. So it might take a while. Depends on how many people Estate will call as a witness.
 

elusive moonwalker

Guest
To bring a creditor's claim: I think one year after MJ's death or executors being assigned. It should be over by end of 2010.

Bain and King had creditor claims, they either needed to mention it then or file a lawsuit when Estate denied their probate claims.



It's not even post 09. it was end of december 2012. It would be one thing if they came to the Estate in 2009 shortly after MJ's death to claim ownership. MJ Co was used at TII deal. They first made the claim in december 2012. that's waiting 3 years after the cas started rolling in post 09. and to me that's odd. I can understand not making a claim in MJ Co between 2006-2009 because there was no deals being made hence meaning no money to get. But it doesn't make much sense to not make a claim in 2009 immediately when both TII concert (when MJ was alive) and TII Movie (after MJ's death) deals were being done.



http://dailymichael.com/lawsuits/other/315-who-owns-the-michael-jackson-company

Agree it makes no sense to wait so long. I hope the question has been asked why!?

Thanks for the link
 

Bubs

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
7,856
Points
0
I'm not sure. Probably they estimated some time but it can take longer. As far as I can see they are having half days at court. So it might take a while. Depends on how many people Estate will call as a witness.

OK, thanks.
They should have called bodyguards to testify of Bain's stealing and lying character.
 

elusive moonwalker

Guest
Great blog ivy. so bain signed a sworn statement previously saying mj was the sole owner.
 

christy

Proud Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2003
Messages
1,192
Points
0
ivy;4126547 said:
Michael Jackson Co. Ownership Under Legal Scrutiny

Posted: Monday, January 4, 2016 – 3:29 PM

(CNS) – A former attorney for Michael Jackson testified today that his onetime manager is lying when she says she owns part of a company formed in 2006 to promote the late singer’s business interests.
Gregory Cross told Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Maria Stratton that Raymone Bain knew the singer was the sole owner of the Michael Jackson Co.
............... Bain maintains her share is 10 percent.

Stratton is hearing a non-jury trial resulting from a petition filed by the Jackson estate seeking to have the estate declared the sole owners of the entity, which still exists today.......................
....... Morris testified last week that he believes he, the other three claimants and Jackson’s mother, Katherine, are currently the members of the company’s board of directors.
.......................
Cross, questioned by Blecher, said he never saw a document that Jackson allegedly signed that outlined the ownership shares the claimants say they have.

“Yet you sit here and say she (Bain) lied?,” Blecher asked.

“Yes,” Cross replied.
The judge asked Cross why he did not inquire of Bain at the time if she was claiming an ownership stake. Cross answered that Jackson never said anything to imply the singer was not the sole owner.

I'm with Gregory Cross on this one

ivy;4126547 said:
“Do you believe everything a client tells you?,” Stratton asked.
http://bhcourier.com/beverly-hills-news-michael-jackson-co-ownership-under-legal-scrutiny/

I don't like the tone of this judge.
Seems to imply Michael played Bain et al,
he has no intention to include them as shareholders.
Why would Michael want shareholders?
If he wanted something done, he'd normally give some sort of power of attorney
on certain aspects of the task he wanted them to do.
Pays them a certain commission and move on.
That's always how he r
olls.
And Yes I do concur with Cross & Ivy, I believe the minutes were fabricated.

Why now... with all the success, the estate has generated.... TII , Cirque's The One ..
..... why not.

To incoporate a company, the owners,
the position(s)they hold in the company,
the share holders,
the share holding each one holds has to be listed upfront in the
filing document.
The fling document holds more weight & I believe is final and indisputable,
cos any amendements must be accompanied with a fresh set of minutes of the meetings,
in the presence attorneys, all signatories endorsed, attorneys inclusive.
Evidently, Bain is unable to produce cos Michael is no longer with us.
This case stinks to high heavens of Bain getting her $$$$$ claws at it again.
Her first attempt for back-pay botched big time.
I hope the judge sees Bain et al for what this is,
nothing but yet another pathetic attempt for a money grab.

 

ivy

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
16,074
Points
0
Location
USA
Agree it makes no sense to wait so long. I hope the question has been asked why!?

I think it's quite clear that Estate believes the delay is due to fabrication.

Like I said before the other alternatives are either serious case of incompetence or another variation of fabrication.
 

LastTear

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
3,245
Points
0
I hate to say it but a serious case of incompetence is possible when it comes to Bain, but given all the other facts, for example, her signing off that she wasn't owed anything would indicate fabrication.
 

ivy

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
16,074
Points
0
Location
USA
^^

It's not just Bain and it's not just one incompetence though.

For this to be an oversight : Bain needs to forget to mention to the lawyers & include the incorporation documents that she and others own shares at the company. None of the other 3 realize that their shares weren't on official record. All 4 needs to forget that they own shares at the company to the point that Bain and King doesn't mention it in their creditor claims and El-Amin and Morris don't remember it until 2012.

How likely is that?

Bain was quick to sue MJ - when he was alive- for $44 Million when he signed the deal with AEG for TII. It just seems odd that she wouldn't made a claim on MJ Co before.
 
Last edited:

LastTear

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
3,245
Points
0
^^^^ That's true and it's not very likely at all. Seems like a cheeky money grab.
 

elusive moonwalker

Guest
I think it's quite clear that Estate believes the delay is due to fabrication.

Like I said before the other alternatives are either serious case of incompetence or another variation of fabrication.


Id love to know what their defence of leaving it so long is though. Hope the judge is as much up on that as he is in crossing cross!
 

Tygger

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2012
Messages
2,316
Points
0
It has to be discovered if Michael could have possibly been blameworthy for breach. This explains the judge's question and why Weitzman may have asked if Michael participated in an intervention for substance abuse.
 

gerryevans

Premium Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2009
Messages
1,760
Points
63
^^

It's not just Bain and it's not just one incompetence though.

She annoys me more than most. She goes on and on about being in charge, and all she did and is owed, and the woman hadn't seen that MJ's taxes were paid for 3 years during her so call management of all things MJ. If they had come after MJ, and the likelihood is strong they would have eventually, she'd be denying all responsibility for that "oversight", but still would have her hand out for any monies made. That's an oversight that has landed celebrities in jail. I really can't stand her, wish they had locked her up when she didn't pay her own taxes.
 

ivy

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
16,074
Points
0
Location
USA
It has to be discovered if Michael could have possibly been blameworthy for breach.

While the timing of the so called breach of contract is an issue, I don't get how MJ could be blameworthy. He didn't handle the incorporation paperwork. So it's not like it was possible for him to promise people shares and then keep the company to himself. At least Bain would need to be aware of the such breach.

She goes on and on about being in charge, and all she did and is owed, and the woman hadn't seen that MJ's taxes were paid for 3 years during her so call management of all things MJ. If they had come after MJ, and the likelihood is strong they would have eventually, she'd be denying all responsibility for that "oversight", but still would have her hand out for any monies made.

I really couldn't believe that MJ's taxes weren't paid for 3 years. She wasn't the best manager and probably wasn't qualified to be a manager.

Personally I get annoyed with people who do nothing and still expect to be paid. Was it Morris that testified that he believes he should get money from the deals even though he wasn't involved in them? What kind of an entitlement is that?
 
Last edited:

Tygger

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2012
Messages
2,316
Points
0
The judge and Weitzman are attempting to discover if Michael could possibly be blameworthy. Thus, the question by the judge and Weitzman's possible intervention question. The judge nor Weitzman stated Michael was blameworthy.
 

elusive moonwalker

Guest
I wonder what bain was like when working for the williams. I cant see them been the type of ppl to take b.s. same with the others they werent no names. Seems that as soon as they get involved with mj they turn into money grabbibg free loaders with intitlements complexes who think they are as big and important as their client.either that or star struck teenagers who become cluless about their job
 

Bubs

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
7,856
Points
0
She annoys me more than most. She goes on and on about being in charge, and all she did and is owed, and the woman hadn't seen that MJ's taxes were paid for 3 years during her so call management of all things MJ. If they had come after MJ, and the likelihood is strong they would have eventually, she'd be denying all responsibility for that "oversight", but still would have her hand out for any monies made. That's an oversight that has landed celebrities in jail. I really can't stand her, wish they had locked her up when she didn't pay her own taxes.

She annoys me too. She was terrible as publicist to MJ and TMezz had to tell her to shut the f...k up during the trial, and she was even worse as manager.
In her lawsuit against MJ, she claimed:

"Ms Bain supervised MR Jackson's accountants in the preparation, filing and payment of MR Jackson's taxes, both personal and property."

Well, she did miss something because no taxes were paid:doh:


On different note, that Gregory Cross, who testified day before was actually recruited and introduced to Michael by Bain, and he testified that Bain was lying about company ownership:D

Ivy, no news from the latest testimonies from the court?
 
Top