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

ivy

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
16,074
Points
0
Location
USA
Who owns Michael Jackson entertainment firm? Court battle rages
POSTED BY STEPHANIE MICHAUD ON JUNE 29, 2016 IN BUSINESS | 302 VIEWS | LEAVE A RESPONSE

A lawyer for Michael Jackson’s estate urged a judge Wednesday to reject claims by four people who insist they had interests in a company the singer created before his death, insisting the superstar was the entity’s sole owner.

Lawyers for Qadree El-Amin, Broderick Morris, Raymone Bain and Adean King said their clients collectively own about 15 percent of the Michael Jackson Co. under a 3 a.m. deal Jackson made with them in a Tokyo hotel room on June 1, 2006.

They say it was Jackson’s idea to form the company and that he reserved 75 ownership for himself; 10 percent each to his mother, Katherine, and Bain, his general manager; and 1.68 percent each to El-Amin, Morris and King.

In his final argument to Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Maria Stratton, lawyer Howard Weitzman questioned the validity of a document the quartet claims is Jackson’s signed consent to the alleged deal regarding the Michael Jackson Co.

Weitzman said Jackson routinely referred such documents to his lawyers before penning his name.

“I believe this is a totally and completely fabricated claim,” Weitzman said.

Stratton said she was taking the case under submission and did not indicate when she would rule.

King worked at the time for Bain, who testified in a sworn declaration that she met Jackson through tennis star Serena Williams. El-Amin was the manager of the R&B vocal group Boyz II Men, and Morris was the chief operating officer of Positive Productions Inc., a Japan-based company that promoted concerts and other events in that country.

The four maintain they tried to help Jackson recharge his career through public appearances, performing on tour and making more music.

Testimony began late in 2015 and continued through the first part of this year. The non-jury trial stems from a petition filed by the Jackson estate, which seeks to have the estate declared the sole owner of the Michael Jackson Co. LLC.

Attorney Jeffrey Fazio, on behalf of Morris, Bain and King, said Jackson was financially and professionally devastated by sexual misconduct allegations despite his 2006 acquittal and was looking to revitalize his career.

“Nobody wanted anything to do with him,” Fazio said. “He was a pariah at the time. It was no mean feat trying to get people to go into business with him.”

Yet Morris convinced business representatives to talk with Jackson and he spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of his own money doing so, Fazio said.

Fazio said Bain was instrumental in getting refinancing for Jackson’s Neverland Ranch near Santa Barbara as well as his family’s Encino compound.

Lawyer Maxwell Blecher, representing all El-Amin, Morris, Bain and King, said the four pledged to keep the deal under wraps.

“They all said they had an understanding with Jackson that they would not blab about it,” Blecher said. “They didn’t need to take out an ad in the Wall Street Journal.”

But attorney Patrick Millett, also on behalf of the Jackson estate, said the estate was entitled to know about the claims of the four within a year of Jackson’s June 25, 2009, drug overdose death. Their failure to do so violated the statute of limitations, she said.

Blecher previously said he does not know how much his clients may be entitled to if they win the case because the estate’s lawyers have not given them documents demonstrating the value of the estate. However, he said that despite the lack of information, it is worthwhile for the four to push forward.

“I believe there is substantial money there,” Blecher said.
 

Bubs

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
7,856
Points
0
"Testimony began late in 2015 and continued through the first part of this year. The non-jury trial stems from a petition filed by the Jackson estate, which seeks to have the estate declared the sole owner of the Michael Jackson Co. LLC."

So this case is still about the estate wanting judge to declare that MJ is sole owner, and the other case
Case Number: BC508258
BRODERICK MORRIS ET AL VS JOHN BRANCA ET AL
would still be ongoing?
 

ivy

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
16,074
Points
0
Location
USA
:scratch: I thought this was sorted out already?
So soon we should get the verdict of this case if it is on closing arguments stage- Ivy?

"Testimony began late in 2015 and continued through the first part of this year. The non-jury trial stems from a petition filed by the Jackson estate, which seeks to have the estate declared the sole owner of the Michael Jackson Co. LLC."

So this case is still about the estate wanting judge to declare that MJ is sole owner, and the other case
Case Number: BC508258
BRODERICK MORRIS ET AL VS JOHN BRANCA ET AL
would still be ongoing?

civil case is on hold pending the probate motion and non jury trial. The closing arguments happened yesterday so now it is waiting for the judge's decision.
 

barbee0715

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
6,940
Points
63
Location
Texas, USA
^^i can't remember. Do they have proof that they spent their own money and refinanced Hayvenhurst and Neverland. It couldn't have worked since they ended up going to Colony capital.
 

ivy

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
16,074
Points
0
Location
USA
Bain loves to take credit for everything. Tohme arranged for Neverland deal and Hayvenhurst was about to be foreclosed.
 

barbee0715

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
6,940
Points
63
Location
Texas, USA
Bain loves to take credit for everything. Tohme arranged for Neverland deal and Hayvenhurst was about to be foreclosed.
Hmm. I thought that was the fact. Seems to me that if it's their argument that they spent all this money and negotiated deals it would be easy to prove. I'd be appalled if the judge didn't rule against them.
 

Annita

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,614
Points
83
4 month are gone now. Has the judge the he wants to make a decision?
 

Bubs

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
7,856
Points
0
4 month are gone now. Has the judge the he wants to make a decision?

Must have because this was up
09/28/2016 in Probate Department 5, Stratton, Maria E., Presiding
Ruling on Submitted Matter - Held

M Stratton was the one deciding it.
 

myosotis

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
4,224
Points
48
Didn't the Estate have a legal (or at least moral) duty to advise KJ's attorney about this 10% clause, when the case was first presented to them by El Amin & co? Isn't the Estate supposed to be 'in place of MJ'.
 
Last edited:

Bubs

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
7,856
Points
0
KJ's attorney change, Havenhurst grab, claims Trent abusing her and now this have Randy written all over it. Good that PB are older now and know how certain fam members operate so they are prepared of what is coming.

Interesting that KJ's signature in Havenhurst grab
http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/0505-Jackson doc.pdf
and her declaration in Ivy's post
http://dailymichael.com/lawsuits/mj...s-to-join-bain-el-amin-case-against-mj-estate
looks the same, so funny business is going on there.
 
Last edited:

myosotis

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
4,224
Points
48
KJ's attorney change, Havenhurst grab, claims Trent abusing her and now this have Randy written all over it. Good that PB are older now and know how certain fam members operate so they are prepared of what is coming.

Interesting that KJ's signature in Havenhurst grab
http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/0505-Jackson doc.pdf
and her declaration in Ivy's post
http://dailymichael.com/lawsuits/mj...s-to-join-bain-el-amin-case-against-mj-estate
looks the same, so funny business is going on there.

I wonder why they had to wait for her to arrive in London before she signed that document?
(Also, just noting that Katherine seems a little less well.....her signature seems less 'fluid' than in April 16).
 

Bubs

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
7,856
Points
0
I wonder why they had to wait for her to arrive in London before she signed that document?
(Also, just noting that Katherine seems a little less well.....her signature seems less 'fluid' than in April 16).


It was never determinated for sure that KJ (Randy)was behind trying to grab Havenhurst, but I was comparing the signatures and they do look similar to my eyes.
Here is the post about it
http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...-to-grab-Havenhurst?highlight=havenhurst+grab

Also I would note that this is not elder abuse as such, because she has always been willing participant of her cubs schemes to take away money from MJ and distribute it evenly to all of her cubs, which she is trying to do now.
 

myosotis

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
4,224
Points
48
It was never determinated for sure that KJ (Randy)was behind trying to grab Havenhurst, but I was comparing the signatures and they do look similar to my eyes.
Here is the post about it
http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...-to-grab-Havenhurst?highlight=havenhurst+grab

Also I would note that this is not elder abuse as such, because she has always been willing participant of her cubs schemes to take away money from MJ and distribute it evenly to all of her cubs, which she is trying to do now.

Yes, I think 'willing participant' is right. Her signature does look genuine on both docs, to me.
 

Goddess4Real

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2016
Messages
1,129
Points
0
It was never determinated for sure that KJ (Randy)was behind trying to grab Havenhurst, but I was comparing the signatures and they do look similar to my eyes.
Here is the post about it
http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...-to-grab-Havenhurst?highlight=havenhurst+grab

Also I would note that this is not elder abuse as such, because she has always been willing participant of her cubs schemes to take away money from MJ and distribute it evenly to all of her cubs, which she is trying to do now.

I agree its another way to get $$$$$$$$$$$$ for the cubs.
 

barbee0715

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
6,940
Points
63
Location
Texas, USA
Also I would note that this is not elder abuse as such, because she has always been willing participant of her cubs schemes to take away money from MJ and distribute it evenly to all of her cubs, which she is trying to do now.
I'm trying to give her benefit of the doubt.

But I'll be honest, it gets hard.
 

Goddess4Real

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2016
Messages
1,129
Points
0
It was never determinated for sure that KJ (Randy)was behind trying to grab Havenhurst, but I was comparing the signatures and they do look similar to my eyes.
Here is the post about it
http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...-to-grab-Havenhurst?highlight=havenhurst+grab

Also I would note that this is not elder abuse as such, because she has always been willing participant of her cubs schemes to take away money from MJ and distribute it evenly to all of her cubs, which she is trying to do now.

I'm trying to give her benefit of the doubt.

But I'll be honest, it gets hard.

Same here.......but at the moment this reeks of Grannygate.....a grab for $$$$$$...remember this?

 

Goddess4Real

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2016
Messages
1,129
Points
0
So that's where this elder abuse claim is coming from. The moment I realized Katherine is with Rebbie-Janet-Randy my red flag immediately went about all these court filings from London.

SMH at this family. They never learn.

Thanks.....and we have seen in the past how easily Katherine can be manipulated by some of her children. Sad.
 

elusive moonwalker

Guest
Agree. The poor ole katherine wore off along time ago.they never learn do they. It would be funny if it wasnt so pathetically predictable

Whats kjs reason for only joining the suit now?
 
Last edited:

Bubs

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
7,856
Points
0
Agree. The poor ole katherine wore off along time ago.they never learn do they. It would be funny if it wasnt so pathetically predictable

Whats kjs reason for only joining the suit now?


She claims she didn't know:scratch:
"to the extent there has been any delay in Mrs Jackson's intervention, such a delay has been caused by executors failure to communicate with Mrs J and/or other personal, and, to some extent, privileged reasons. Accordingly, any delay has been justified and reasonable. Mrs J is willing to provide additional explanatory information to the court, in camera."

I wonder why she is willing to give her reasons for court in front of camera, but not in writing?

In order to get her 10%, she has to side with these crooks and support their case to get it.
 

myosotis

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
4,224
Points
48
Bubs;4183625 said:
She claims she didn't know:scratch:
"to the extent there has been any delay in Mrs Jackson's intervention, such a delay has been caused by executors failure to communicate with Mrs J and/or other personal, and, to some extent, privileged reasons. Accordingly, any delay has been justified and reasonable. Mrs J is willing to provide additional explanatory information to the court, in camera."

I wonder why she is willing to give her reasons for court in front of camera, but not in writing?

In order to get her 10%, she has to side with these crooks and support their case to get it.

'In camera' means in a closed court (in private). I guess it's to do with the allegations of senior abuse/ the executors failure to communicate with her (and or her attorneys).


http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=camera
camera (n.)
1708, "vaulted building," from Latin camera "vaulted room" (source of Italian camera, Spanish camara, French chambre), from Greek kamara "vaulted chamber."

The word also was used early 18c. as a short form of Modern Latin camera obscura "dark chamber" (a black box with a lens that could project images of external objects), contrasted with camera lucida (Latin for "light chamber"), which uses prisms to produce on paper beneath the instrument an image, which can be traced. It became the word for "picture-taking device" when modern photography began, c. 1840
-------------------------------------------

In camera (/ɪŋˈkæmᵊrə/; Latin: "in a chamber")[1] is a legal term that means in private
 
Last edited:

Annita

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,614
Points
83
KJ's attorney change, Havenhurst grab, claims Trent abusing her and now this have Randy written all over it. Good that PB are older now and know how certain fam members operate so they are prepared of what is coming.

Hope so. I am sure of Prince, I am not in the same way of Paris.

Didn`t she post some anti-Estate-stuff and she is in cloce contact with Austin Brown, seems also friendly with Janet.

Imagine one of the kids will also join this claim. Horrible.
 

Goddess4Real

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2016
Messages
1,129
Points
0
KJ's attorney change, Havenhurst grab, claims Trent abusing her and now this have Randy written all over it. Good that PB are older now and know how certain fam members operate so they are prepared of what is coming.

Hope so. I am sure of Prince, I am not in the same way of Paris.

Didn`t she post some anti-Estate-stuff and she is in cloce contact with Austin Brown, seems also friendly with Janet.

Imagine one of the kids will also join this claim. Horrible.

It will be interesting to see if TJ or PPB respond in the next week or so. Surely they would know by know what is going on.
 

elusive moonwalker

Guest
She claims she didn't know:scratch:
"to the extent there has been any delay in Mrs Jackson's intervention, such a delay has been caused by executors failure to communicate with Mrs J and/or other personal, and, to some extent, privileged reasons. Accordingly, any delay has been justified and reasonable. Mrs J is willing to provide additional explanatory information to the court, in camera."

I wonder why she is willing to give her reasons for court in front of camera, but not in writing?

In order to get her 10%, she has to side with these crooks and support their case to get it.

Whys its the estates job to tell them? Why isnt it the plaintiffs job to tell her "hey look what we found you could be in for a windfall"
 

Goddess4Real

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2016
Messages
1,129
Points
0
KJ's attorney change, Havenhurst grab, claims Trent abusing her and now this have Randy written all over it. Good that PB are older now and know how certain fam members operate so they are prepared of what is coming.

Hope so. I am sure of Prince, I am not in the same way of Paris.

Didn`t she post some anti-Estate-stuff and she is in cloce contact with Austin Brown, seems also friendly with Janet.

Imagine one of the kids will also join this claim. Horrible.

Whys its the estates job to tell them? Why isnt it the plaintiffs job to tell her "hey look what we found you could be in for a windfall"

I was thinking that too.....after all the family are still close to Bain.
 

passy001

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
1,386
Points
0
The trial on this case concluded in January 2016. this is over a year ago. why the judge is not making a ruling already? even if you take into account all the post trial briefs and motions, really this is over the top. we've seen the same thing with the tohme case where it took 2 and a half year for the commissioner to decide on the tohme and issue a completely bogus ruling.
 

myosotis

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
4,224
Points
48
Whys its the estates job to tell them? Why isnt it the plaintiffs job to tell her "hey look what we found you could be in for a windfall"

If the Estate owes no 'duty of care' to Katherine, it presumably owes no 'duty of care' to MJ's children either. But since the Estate is supposed to maximise / protect both Katherine's and MJ's children's inheritance, I guess it has some duty of care to all of them? (even though they all seem to have their own attys).
 
Top