MJ's Mom: They're Takin' Every Penny You Make

kasume

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,740
Points
0
wtf is this all about?? if this is true, i wonder if the estate owners are behind so that everything will have to go to them also.


MJ's Mom: They're Takin' Every Penny You Make
7/2/2010 12:30 AM PDT by TMZ Staff

Katherine and Joe Jackson are set to make a bundle off of their various Michael Jackson business ventures. But Katherine and her hubby haven't figured out ... someone is waiting in the wings to take away everything they make.

TMZ broke the story ... Katherine and Joe owe more than $13 million to a South Korean newspaper -- the Segye Times. The paper gave Joe, Katherine, and Jermaine a $5.5 million advance for a Jackson family concert series that never got off the ground. The newspaper sued in 1994, won a $4 mil judgment which has swelled with interest to more than $13 mil.

Edwin Bradley, a lawyer for the Segye Times tells TMZ, his client will go after anything Katherine and Joe make -- and that includes profits from Katherine's book, the movie projects she's producing with Howard Mann (pictured right) -- everything.

Ironically, Katherine's allowance from the MJ estate could be in jeopardy, since she's making money off of her son on the side. But the allowance could actually be protected from garnishment.

We're told the newspaper will go to court on September 14 to try and wrestle money earmarked for Katherine from the MJ trust. Sources tell us, however, there is a big fat zero in the trust now, because the estate is in debt.

Bottom line ... Whatever Katherine makes outside the estate will probably end up lining someone else's pocket.

http://www.tmz.com/2010/07/02/katherine-jackson-howard-mann-michael-jackson-estate/
 
there's a thread about this in 2300 Jackson street. however if you want to examine it in regards to conspiracy go ahead.

a little fyi for you

- sometime back Joe, Katherine and Jermaine promised a concert to this newspaper (and got advances) but it never happened.
- newspaper sued them and Michael. Michael settled.
- they won the $4M judgement in 1994 but Jackson's never paid.
- now it looks like the newspaper is going to court and asking the court to hold any money they earn and give it to them for the money they won.


plus estate wouldn't have any money in trust for the time being - they are in probate they need to pay all the debts first before they can put in money in the trust.

as Michael settled with them estate doesn't have to pay them anything.

As I said before with court order the newspaper can get anything the estate was paying Katherine as allowance/money to cover the debt /judgement.
 
Sigh. We are well aware Michael was settling his family's financial mess throughout his life. Prob that's why he didn't want them anywhere near his estate after death.

^^Ivy, if the estate has earned near 1 billion and half of it is already going to loan payments/debt, what happens to the remaining amount if it can't be poured into the trust yet?
 
there's a thread about this in 2300 Jackson street. however if you want to examine it in regards to conspiracy go ahead.

a little fyi for you

- sometime back Joe, Katherine and Jermaine promised a concert to this newspaper (and got advances) but it never happened.
- newspaper sued them and Michael. Michael settled.
- they won the $4M judgement in 1994 but Jackson's never paid.
- now it looks like the newspaper is going to court and asking the court to hold any money they earn and give it to them for the money they won.


plus estate wouldn't have any money in trust for the time being - they are in probate they need to pay all the debts first before they can put in money in the trust.

as Michael settled with them estate doesn't have to pay them anything.

As I said before with court order the newspaper can get anything the estate was paying Katherine as allowance/money to cover the debt /judgement.

a lot of this doesn't make sense,(including supposed debts being paid[remember what i said about media reporting with lawsuit-proof reporting style] unless Katherine is starving, right now, and getting nothing. and why would this newspaper add Michael to the suit, and not Janet, or other members of the family that did NOT promise the newspaper, anything? after all, Michael wasn't there when Joseph Katherine and Jermaine supposedly made the promise and accepted the money. Michael didn't make any promise or accept any advance.

and settling could mean anything. perhaps MJ promised not to reveal dirt about the newspaper, if they left him alone, or something. nobody ever revealed any monetary amount. maybe the media was just continuing on their rampage against Michael.

see..this isn't about objectivity..not from the media...not from fans of the rest of the family...not from these ambulance chasers...not from the frivolous...

this is all based on Michael's success..and envy of Michael. all the reports of lawsuits....they aren't real. they are a media wanting to bring down the spectre of Michael. the magic of Michael. Michael could be on another planet, never having promised anything. yet only HE gets sued. the family is a beard. it's always been this way. i can bet there will be no new era of lawsuits, to this family, based on the desire to see this family, POST MICHAEL ERA, because Michael is gone. nobody is interested in seeing the rest of the family. shocker. there are those who will come in here and not like seeing this, but they know it's true. the suits were aimed at the one who was the most desirable to see in concert. the biggest star in history. the object of the greatest envy. and therefore, the object of the frivolous lawsuits. lawsuits based on nothing but envy of remarkable talent, and the helpless fear that only Michael could decide whether to use it or not. nobody else had control over it. nobody else could have his talent. so they sued him, for having his talent. it was that way since he was 14 years old. that's the truth of it. that's the psychology of it. that's the svengali of it. based on that alone, the media wants to portray him as deadbeat, financially...people want to sue him for promises he didn't make, and they do it in cowardly fashion, by pretending to be interested in the rest of the family.

Michael wasn't sued because he was bad at business. he wasn't sued, because he renegged on deals. he was sued, because he was desirable..and people couldn't have him ANY TIME THEY WANTED HIM.

if this wasn't true, they'd sue Janet, instead of Michael. but Janet is not as interesting. that's the sobering up of it. we all know this. that's why Michael is this unbelievable target of melodramatic unreasonable illogical stories, lawsuits, and people. including a media that clearly lies. and as illogical as it all is, there are still people who believe that all or most or even some of what Michael is being blamed for, is legitimate. there are even fans who believe it.

this final straw was the dead giveaway, of something that was the ten million pound gorilla in the room. suing Michael, when he was not there. it has happened so many times in his life. and..after his life. i've never seen any other member of this family get sued for not being in the room to make a promise in order to break a promise, that the ambulance chasers accused a whole nother somebody else, of making. and i never will see that. if i do, i'll give somebody some money that bets against me on it. or..if something else happens on that rediculous a scale to another Jackson, the way it happened to Michael, i'll do the same. i'll never have to worry about it, because it's never going to happen.

You see..this lawsuit happened, in the nineties, when the american press said Michael was getting to weird, and they started to build the controversy machine against him, and throw the unwarranted negative bad press at him, and poo poo everything he did, including his marriage to Lisa Marie Presley. and..this was when Janet was supposed to be THE ONE. the new deal. the big replacement, by way of a big radio play and media push, as Janet fans would love to reiterate(sans, the media push). but the media was doing this, just to get back at Michael. sure, Janet had her fans, but the mob frenzy fan mentality was for Michael, worldwide, and everybody knew it. including the media. Michael was still King. and the media could do nothing about it, even though they minimized the playing of Michael music, greatly, to try to stop his success. yet, but this newspaper company reveals the admission of truth, by suing Michael, instead of Janet, in this situation. if they were interested in seeing Janet, the paper would have sued her.

i'm sure every other artist wishes they could be sued like Michael was sued. i'm sure Michael would be the first to tell you that that's not something to wish for. but the point i'm making with that statement is quite clear. everybody wants that kind of fame, and it makes many crazy that they don't have it. and it drives all the media's and vultures' warped sensibilities against him. the world simply couldn't handle the unprecedented, too much fame, of Michael Jackson. the kind of success that had MJ countless MJ fans say they're used to dissappointment, because they had to wait an average of four years for music...which isn't that long a wait. the kind of success that had countless MJ fans smash other artists, in comparison arguments. and...the kind of success that has countless MJ fans on this site and many others smashing other artists that are unintentionally, in the crossfire, because they worked on MJ music with MJ, and are holding onto it, because they don't think it's finished. the kind of success that has the media asking and asking those artists about those Michael collabs, right along with the fans, over and over. and, my obsession with talking Michael, every waking moment. and others like me. many others.
 
Last edited:
I got the impression that the obvious "someone else" in the bolded part of the post is the newspaper company that's suing them.
 
^^Ivy, if the estate has earned near 1 billion and half of it is already going to loan payments/debt, what happens to the remaining amount if it can't be poured into the trust yet?

I think that 1 billion is "income generated" or "gross income" but not the actual net income.

When I look to the reported numbers for example they state "$250M from the deal with Sony", they assume that the money is given in full before the projects. However that project is ranging in 7 years and 10 projects. so probably the estate has only gotten a partial amount such as $25M for the album to be released this year etc.

Plus there's also taxes - 45% federal taxes, 10% state taxes. So any income is also subject to high amounts of taxes.

so I believe the actual net income is lower (still several hundred millions but not a billion). Once the debts are paid the money will be put into the trust.

a lot of this doesn't make sense,(including supposed debts being paid[remember what i said about media reporting with lawsuit-proof reporting style] unless Katherine is starving, right now, and getting nothing. and why would this newspaper add Michael to the suit, and not Janet, or other members of the family that did NOT promise the newspaper, anything? after all, Michael wasn't there when Joseph Katherine and Jermaine supposedly made the promise and accepted the money. Michael didn't make any promise or accept any advance.

Katherine is getting nothing from the estate as of now - this newspaper also went to court and asked to get her allowance which the court approved.

it's important to remember that Michael or the estate is not a part of this judgement/ mess.

However in regards to your question (Why Michael sued / Why they didn't sue other Jackson's) here's some general info.

First they sued Joe, Katherine and Jermaine as they were the ones that were making the promises and the deal and getting advances.

Second you look to see if this newspaper had a legit reason to believe that Joe, Katherine and Jermaine could represent Michael and Jackson family. This would be yes as well. Joe had been the manager of the Jacksons. So the newspaper could reasonably believe that they could represent the family, Jackson 5 including Michael.

Next why sue Michael and not others. two options available
a) Michael is the only one that said he wouldn't do the concert. So they can't sue the rest of the brothers and sisters as they could simply say that they would be present for the concert.
b) the damages issue. as they are asking for damages they should be able to show financial lost. they can easily argue that Michael not participating in the concert would cause in huge losses for them but on the other hand let's say for example Tito not participating wouldn't make any difference.

When you look it's actually very similar to the current AllGood lawsuit.

anyway IMO all these debate / long posts/ info about the 94 lawsuit is quite moot as it already happened. Michael already settled (one way or another). The judgement had already been determined and it has nothing to do with Michael and estate as of now.

Katherine, Joe and Jermaine owns this newspaper $13M in judgement and this is a court determined fact. Whenever they earn any money the newspaper is going to court asking for that money for the judgement they won.


I got the impression that the obvious "someone else" in the bolded part of the post is the newspaper company that's suing them.

exactly. as they have an outstanding debt/judgement they ask the court for the money and they get it.
 
Katherine is getting nothing from the estate as of now - this newspaper also went to court and asked to get her allowance which the court approved.

it's important to remember that Michael or the estate is not a part of this judgement/ mess.

However in regards to your question (Why Michael sued / Why they didn't sue other Jackson's) here's some general info.

First they sued Joe, Katherine and Jermaine as they were the ones that were making the promises and the deal and getting advances.

Second you look to see if this newspaper had a legit reason to believe that Joe, Katherine and Jermaine could represent Michael and Jackson family. This would be yes as well. Joe had been the manager of the Jacksons. So the newspaper could reasonably believe that they could represent the family, Jackson 5 including Michael.

Next why sue Michael and not others. two options available
a) Michael is the only one that said he wouldn't do the concert. So they can't sue the rest of the brothers and sisters as they could simply say that they would be present for the concert.
b) the damages issue. as they are asking for damages they should be able to show financial lost. they can easily argue that Michael not participating in the concert would cause in huge losses for them but on the other hand let's say for example Tito not participating wouldn't make any difference.

When you look it's actually very similar to the current AllGood lawsuit.

anyway IMO all these debate / long posts/ info about the 94 lawsuit is quite moot as it already happened. Michael already settled (one way or another). The judgement had already been determined and it has nothing to do with Michael and estate as of now.

Katherine, Joe and Jermaine owns this newspaper $13M in judgement and this is a court determined fact. Whenever they earn any money the newspaper is going to court asking for that money for the judgement they won.




.

well..since no Jackson showed up, it's quite possible, all of them, said no, not just Michael. except for Katherine Joseph and Jermaine.

but you do make my point of Michael being the one the newspaper was really interested in. they were just cowardly on how they went about it. them naming Michael could really have no other reason, because we can easily say that Joseph represents Janet Jackson, too, just because he's her father, and did present her, with the family, in the early years, on variety shows, and in promo videos.

but the reason why these long posts are not moot, is because it gives insight into the real reasons why these people love suing Michael, unreasonably...and why the media reports about him, financially, on a consistent basis, the way they do.

while no one has provided a satisfying proof of debt on MJ's part, as he was always able to spend money, is still getting money from Sony, and his kids are getting money now...

i'd still like to know how Katherine Jackson is surviving, if she's getting no money?

none of us are on the inside, to know for sure..and..Katherine doesn't look like she's starving.

but one thing, you and i agree on, and are both willing to admit. we are expressing opinions, and we don't know, what's going on, inside.

as a side note, may i add, that i have heard of many instances where a judgement has been won, but the winners never actually received the money...or..at least, it took an extraordinarily long time for them to get it...or...when it was actually time for them to get it, the amount they got, was reduced, substantially.

i may also add that, we all know, all too well, from the 2005 trial, that what we hear in a report, and what actually goes on in the courtroom, can be two different things.
 
Last edited:
i'd still like to know how Katherine Jackson is surviving, if she's getting no money?

after this newspaper went to court and got an order to get Katherine's allowance, the estate went to court and increased the kids allowance. (see: http://www.tmz.com/2010/01/15/micha...drens-prince-blanket-paris-estate-allowance-/)

My guess is that they are actually giving Katherine money but labeling it as children's allowance.

and that's the whole point that TMZ is making by saying "the allowance could actually be protected from garnishment". The estate could easily pay Katherine's bills etc for her without personally giving her the money and thus can stop the money being taken by the judgement.

as a side note, may i add, that i have heard of many instances where a judgement has been won, but the winners never actually received the money...or..at least, it took an extraordinarily long time for them to get it...or...when it was actually time for them to get it, the amount they got, was reduced, substantially.

true. remember this newspaper has been waiting since 1994 to collect the money, it's been 16 years so it has took them extraordinary long time as well and there's no guarantee that they'll be able to collect the original $4M or the increased $13M. Regardless they tend to try to collect as much as they can.

These projects and Mann announcing that Katherine can make $5M from these projects etc is not helping Katherine, it's actually providing basis for the newspaper to go to court and get an order to get any income that's coming from these projects.
 
Last edited:
It would have been easier for Michael just to go there and do a show... to avoid this mess.

can u imagine how many people wanted MJ do 'do a show'? wayyyy too many. i don't think anything would have been easier.
 
Yeah, but this time his mother and father both have stakes in it. Still think it would have been easier just to sing a couple of songs. I sure had if I were offered that kind of money.. ;)
 
Yeah, but this time his mother and father both have stakes in it. Still think it would have been easier just to sing a couple of songs. I sure had if I were offered that kind of money.. ;)


lol...i bet u would.

but this is Michael..and i am sure people pelted his parents so many times, that they said yes, when they usually said no. and then, it was too late..

anyway...if one is allowed, an avalanche of others would occur. it's not gunna be easy for someone who the world demands sing whenever they want. and they shouldn't be able to have it, that way. MJ is not/was not a property.

health is more important than money...and, honestly, i don't know if he would have lasted as long as he had, if he went with everybody's whim. so..if this is true, the parents have the money to pay it off..and learn a lesson. in the end, it would cost less than a health crisis would. there's a lot that isn't understandable, in all this, but i know one thing is for sure. MJ was in too high demand, by people greedy enough to not consider the human element of MJ, time, or even the ones they were competing with for MJ's attention.
 
What bothers me is the way Katherine's project was promoted..I have the feeling this should be money under the table for her, so why make such a big deal of it?
 
Back
Top