Why I think The 2002 Will is a fruad

[earth child]

I am not finding anything that confirms Joe challenge went to the Supreme court. If anyone has proof it did, please post. If it didn't, the lie remains.

 

[dirtydiana27]

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.

Exactly. They don't HAVE to answer, because they feel the validity of the Will question is moot. However, it has become obvious that Trent (Estate-paid employee) has leaked info to the media, and the Execs' public answer brought about this whole controversy. This is still Michael's family. Why won't the Execs answer some pretty simple questions for this family? This is not a matter of the siblings benefiting from Michael's Estate; however, the Execs sure have benefited--to the tune of 10% or $47.5M in 3 years. I know, some will say that this is fair to handle this type of Estate. But, what if the allegations the siblings have made are true? Branca was brought back into Michael's life just a week before he died---and by AEG, not Michael. And, we should be alarmed witnessing the same strong-arm tactics that were used on Michael being used on Katherine and the family--by those who stand to benefit the most.

 

[jrsfan]

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

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.



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.




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.

If a person, especially a lawyer, knowingly filed fraudulent documents so they could benefit to 47.5 Million dollar$$$$ - wouldn't they be in trouble for something? I would think they would be disbarred at a minimum. Wouldn't that be a separate issue from the validity of the will?

If you know Ivy?

 

[earth child]

Exactly. They don't HAVE to answer, because they feel the validity of the Will question is moot. However, it has become obvious that Trent (Estate-paid employee) has leaked info to the media, and the Execs' public answer brought about this whole controversy. This is still Michael's family. Why won't the Execs answer some pretty simple questions for this family? This is not a matter of the siblings benefiting from Michael's Estate; however, the Execs sure have benefited--to the tune of 10% or $47.5M in 3 years. I know, some will say that this is fair to handle this type of Estate. But, what if the allegations the siblings have made are true? Branca was brought back into Michael's life just a week before he died---and by AEG, not Michael. And, we should be alarmed witnessing the same strong-arm tactics that were used on Michael being used on Katherine and the family--by those who stand to benefit the most.

It is not moot in my eyes. There are questions about the Will that a court has never answered. Don't tell me Branca didn't KNOW no one but KJ would be able to contest it when he wrote it up. Then after just loosing her son, she was pressured by the thought she too could be completely disinherited, so she dropped it. It is pretty convenient for the executors that the Will was determined valid by default, without any of the errors and inconsistencies ever being scrutinized by the courts. Just because you know your way around the law is not a good enough reason not to answer the questions. The questions still remain, so answer them and put a stop to the speculation. If all is on the up and up, it should be pretty simple.

 

[ivy]

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.

Actually Katherine Jackson was given the chance to challenge the executors without losing her beneficiary position. She didn't pursue it. She had her chance, she was even protected in her quest but she didn't take it. So you cannot blame "legal loopholes" or "Katherine being threatened by disinheriting" and so on. None of it is true.

Katherine had her chance, she didn't take it. Only after she dropped her opposition Beckloff accepted the will into probate and made Branca and McClain as the permanent executors. If you have any issues you should take it with Katherine Jackson and ask her why she didn't "get the answers" when she had a chance & totally protected.

I am not finding anything that confirms Joe challenge went to the Supreme court. If anyone has proof it did, please post. If it didn't, the lie remains.

There's a media article of Oxman saying he'll take it supreme court.

"Joe Jackson’s lawyer, Brian Oxman, said he plans to request the court to reconsider its decision and may appeal to the California Supreme Court."

This is still Michael's family. Why won't the Execs answer some pretty simple questions for this family?

and how do you know what they did and didn't do?

This is not a matter of the siblings benefiting from Michael's Estate; however, the Execs sure have benefited--to the tune of 10% or $47.5M in 3 years.

Your numbers are wrong. Executors only take %10 of what they brought in and they don't get any money from the assets that are already in place when they become executors such as Sony / ATV, Mijac and TII.

In the second accounting they got paid $8.1 M for 14 months and I think they were paid $18 Million in the first accounting. So they got paid $26.1 Million total for the 3 years. (which is $13 M per executor for 3 years and around $4 million per year). You can also see that their income will significantly lower as the years pass and the new deals become less frequent (as you can see from the 10 Million difference between their fees in First accounting and Second Accounting )

I know, some will say that this is fair to handle this type of Estate.

It is fair. Banks are known to charge 15%. So the Executors are cheap actually

If a person, especially a lawyer, knowingly filed fraudulent documents so they could benefit to 47.5 Million dollar$$$$ - wouldn't they be in trouble for something? I would think they would be disbarred at a minimum. Wouldn't that be a separate issue from the validity of the will?

If you know Ivy?

Well first of all let me say this, there's a misguided person going on saying that fraud doesn't have statue of limitations which is false, the statue of limitations for fraud is 3 years - which is probably already passed or about to pass. (depending of if we go with the July 2009 date it was filed or October 2009 date it was validated in probate).

furthermore speculations are meaningless unless a legal action is taken. We can discuss possibilities of fraud and any legal consequences so on etc till the end of time but it won't mean a thing unless someone makes a legal claim about it.

also let me add that "harmless error" rule would make the location and name errors and etc irrelevant in regards to determining fraudulent document. A signature authenticated combined with 3 witness affidavits saying that they saw Michael signed the document would end that argument pretty quickly. Even if the signature comes back forgery, the tricky part would be the providing the "knowingly" part. So not an easy argument to make.

It is not moot in my eyes. There are questions about the Will that a court has never answered. Don't tell me Branca didn't KNOW no one but KJ would be able to contest it when he wrote it up. Then after just loosing her son, she was pressured by the thought she too could be completely disinherited, so she dropped it. It is pretty convenient for the executors that the Will was determined valid by default, without any of the errors and inconsistencies ever being scrutinized by the courts. Just because you know your way around the law is not a good enough reason not to answer the questions. The questions still remain, so answer them and put a stop to the speculation. If all is on the up and up, it should be pretty simple.

another error, MJ's kids also can contest the will when they turn 18. and again the judge allowed Katherine to contest it without being disinherited so you can't blame Branca or the legal system for Katherine's choice of not pursuing it.

 

[earth child]

Brian Oxman's word is pretty much meaningless as far as him stating "he said it would be taken to the supreme cout." The question remains did he, as was stated by the executors?

We DO know that the Jackson's questions have never been answered, nor ours for that matter. They are still being asked with only smoke screens as replies.


Your numbers seem to be way off as well. It was a well reported fact the Branca and McCain each profited $12.5 million from the $ony deal alone.

I will admit I wasn't aware that KJ could have challenged without loosing her inheritance but that doesn't change the fact it has been pretty convenient that the errors and inconsistencies have never been addressed in a court, nor have they been addressed in anyway.

This article makes some good points. One that was over looked in the Jackson shit storm that hit the media at this time. Another convenient event. I am posting it to show it isn't just a bunch of "crazy fans" and "crazy Jacksons" that have issue with the Will. When Prince turns 18 I hope he does see the questions from an adult light and finally get some answer for his family and the world.

"What is disputed is the validity of the will itself and the integrity of John McClain and John Branca.

Few probably remember this, but on July 1, 2009, when Jackson’s disputed will was first filed in Los Angeles Superior court by McClain and Branca, their rushed bid to take immediate control of Jackson’s fortune was denied.

Two days before that filing by the now-executors, Katherine Jackson was named temporary guardian of the children and administrator of the estate until a July 6, 2009 hearing. On July 1, 2009, Branca and McClain effectively asked the court to immediately appoint them executors and overturn Katherine Jackson’s temporary administration of the Estate.

At the time Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff said, “I understand your argument that there was a race to the court house. It seems to me that we should know by Monday if there’s another will out there.”

That Monday came and went without another will ever surfacing. None of which, of course, means the 2002 will is invalid – or valid for that matter. However, it is worth noting the speed at which Branca and McClain were moving.

The terms of the will distribute Jackson’s assets to a separate legal entity – the “Michael Jackson Family Trust.” This Trust benefits Jackson’s mother, three children, and unspecified charities.

But according to the Mayoras and perhaps other legal observers,

“The entire document is far from the quality one would expect from any experienced estate planning attorney. Usually, wills and trusts of this nature are prepared and signed together. And estate planning documents prepared for someone of Michael’s wealth and status are almost always much more comprehensive and well-planned than Michael’s will and trust.”

They add,

“Certainly there are a number of questions that would be very interesting to see explored through a lawsuit brought by people who actually do have proper legal standing. It may be that there are legitimate explanations for the question raised by the Jackson family. Perhaps someday it will all play out in court.”

It may be that Prince Michael Jackson, the oldest of Jackson’s children, will do exactly that. Now 15-years-old, in just three years he will be 18 and able to challenge the will – and the executors.

Seeing as Branca and McClain currently enjoy a specially negotiated arrangement that allows them to earn 10% on nearly every deal they broker for the Estate as well – as their fees as Executors – some might say that day can’t some soon enough."


http://www.inquisitr.com/279947/mic...ke-flawed-and-fraudulent/#sf3wG93ocSIsV0dy.99

 

[ivy]

We DO know that the Jackson's questions have never been answered, nor ours for that matter. They are still being asked with only smoke screens as replies.

don't hold your breath for your questions as you are a totally irrelevant party to this event, waiting Estate to answer fans questions about the will is as unrealistic as waiting for President Obama to send you an explanation about his government policies.

Your numbers seem to be way off as well. It was a well reported fact the Branca and McCain each profited $12.5 million from the $ony deal alone.

my numbers are factual from the court documents anyone with working eyes can check them. Although Sony deal is $250 million there's nothing to suggest that it was paid altogether upfront. There's no $250,000,000 incoming money in accounting documents. Sony might be paying that over the course of the agreement and executors might be standing to make $12.5 Million during the term of the agreement. The fact remains that they didn't get the full $12.5 Million from Sony deal as of now.

I will admit I wasn't aware that KJ could have challenged without loosing her inheritance but that doesn't change the fact it has been pretty convenient that the errors and inconsistencies have never been addressed in a court, nor have they been addressed in anyway.

again the person to blame for it is Katherine for not pursing it when she can. Blame her for making it "convenient" when she could have made it a whole a lot of inconvenient.

This article makes some good points. One that was over looked in the Jackson shit storm that hit the media at this time. Another convenient event. I am posting it to show it isn't just a bunch of "crazy fans" and "crazy Jacksons" that have issue with the Will. When Prince turns 18 I hope he does see the questions from an adult light and finally get some answer for his family and the world.

I'll say this and don't get me wrong : If a fan goes around saying that their questions need to be answered while Michael's money / will / Estate has nothing to do with them at all, that's a little overboard. Similarly a fan or Jacksons ignore the facts that Katherine was given a chance to contest the Executors without losing her beneficiary position but didn't follow through and that the time period to do so has passed that's a bit delusional.

I'll say the same thing that I said to jrsfan, we can discuss back and forth till the end of time, but these questions , concerns don't mean a thing unless a relevant person takes them to a court of law in the allowed time period.

Few probably remember this, but on July 1, 2009, when Jackson’s disputed will was first filed in Los Angeles Superior court by McClain and Branca, their rushed bid to take immediate control of Jackson’s fortune was denied.

Two days before that filing by the now-executors, Katherine Jackson was named temporary guardian of the children and administrator of the estate until a July 6, 2009 hearing. On July 1, 2009, Branca and McClain effectively asked the court to immediately appoint them executors and overturn Katherine Jackson’s temporary administration of the Estate.

At the time Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff said, “I understand your argument that there was a race to the court house. It seems to me that we should know by Monday if there’s another will out there.”

That Monday came and went without another will ever surfacing. None of which, of course, means the 2002 will is invalid – or valid for that matter. However, it is worth noting the speed at which Branca and McClain were moving.

well you aren't going to win the speed argument because Katherine Jackson lawyers were in court at June 29 saying that Michael died without a will and getting Katherine appointed as temporary administrator / executor. Executors were slower than her.

Plus the interesting thing the letter the siblings wrote clearly show that they contacted Branca and knew he had a will and they had set a meeting with him on June 29 in Jermaine's house. Yet KJ's lawyers rushed to file the papers for her becoming executor and lying in the process claiming Michael died without a will.

It may be that Prince Michael Jackson, the oldest of Jackson’s children, will do exactly that. Now 15-years-old, in just three years he will be 18 and able to challenge the will – and the executors.

Seeing as Branca and McClain currently enjoy a specially negotiated arrangement that allows them to earn 10% on nearly every deal they broker for the Estate as well – as their fees as Executors – some might say that day can’t some soon enough."

Well I recommend not holding your breath for it. There's nothing to suggest that he has any suspicions furthermore he would be affected by the no-contest clause in the will unless the judge gives him a free pass like he did with Katherine.

 

[Petrarose]

:fear:

Haaaaaaaa

 

[earth child]

ROTFLMAO! More blown smoke and hiding behind legal clauses and timelines. Still doesn't say the Will is valid. Just because they have never had to prove it doesn't make it so. Katherine has also made claims that her signature was forged on documents. Perhaps that was the reason to get Trent and TJ on the estate payroll. They needed someone inside the Jackson camp to do their dirty work. I believe it was Trent who claimed KJ lied about the forged signature, something a devote JW is not likely to do.
Well, they can hide behind the smoke all they want, and you can help them if you want, nothing to me. Truth will come for them. Lies run sprints, but truth runs marathons and those who see beyond all the blown smoke won't just go away and shut up because they want them too. Something stinks at MJ estate and all the legal maneuvering won't make that fact go away. People aren’t as blind as they thought they would be.
On that note Ivy, I will agree to disagree with you as you will never change my mind, and I will never change yours. Peace.

 

[ivy]

Katherine has also made claims that her signature was forged on documents. Perhaps that was the reason to get Trent and TJ on the estate payroll. They needed someone inside the Jackson camp to do their dirty work. I believe it was Trent who claimed KJ lied about the forged signature, something a devote JW is not likely to do.

Actually Katherine's lawyer Adam Streisand said it's not Katherine's signature and Trent said it's her signature. Katherine hasn't said a single thing directly but she fired Adam Streisand. So it's safe to assume that it was her signature and she fired Streisand for giving a contradictory statement. Plus all of that hoopla happened on TMZ and not at court , so as far as the courts concerned it was Katherine's signature.

See we can't discuss stuff if you don't know the basic facts.

ROTFLMAO! More blown smoke and hiding behind legal clauses and timelines.

I hope that you realize that we are on a message board and nothing will ever happen based on what we say or do here. It doesn't matter what I say, it doesn't matter what you say. It doesn't matter what Jacksons tweets or send out as a letter. As long as a relevant person takes them to a court of law in the allowed time period, nothing will change or happen.

 

[Ashtanga]

 

[Petrarose]

Haaaaa

 

[PaceMioDolceCuore]

...Still doesn't say the Will is valid. ...

By law this will is valid as a judge declared it valid in probate court. To say 'this will is not valid' is simply factually wrong and it would be wise to challenge all assumptions that are based on on a 'wrong' being presented as 'right'.

The will is valid since a judge in a probate court declared it to be.

This also falls under the argument of 'ad ignorantiam' being described as 'a specific belief is true because we don’t know that it isn’t true.'

None of this changes the validity of this will.

Mr. Mesereau said it best when he diplomatically said that in big estates it 'happens all the time' that somebody says 'must be fake'. (I'm sure everyone's google works as reliably as mine in order to find his TV appearances of the last few weeks).

US courts and police also constantly murder someone's name etc. US-Americans are notoriously lousy when it comes to spelling anything beyond and Jim, Sue and John.
I had a restraining order once against a very unpleasant fella and my name was misspelled left and right. I think I was the only person bothered by that as neither judge, nor enforcing police officers had any issue enforcing this protective order.
Just think of Flanagan calling Murray "Murphy". Does that mean he wasn't Murray's legal counsel? Hey, there's a new angle for a new youtube video...

 

[earth child]

For three years I have been hearing the claim that a court had no problem with the issues the Jackson's, and others, have raised concerning the Will. Well finally that lie has been exposed. The issues being raised, and there are more than one, have never been heard by a court. All of the school yard, na na na, we don't have to prove anything to you, doesn't change that fact.
Legal experts have weighed in with such statements as:
“Certainly there are a number of questions that would be very interesting to see explored through a lawsuit brought by people who actually do have proper legal standing. It may be that there are legitimate explanations for the question raised by the Jackson family. Perhaps someday it will all play out in court.”
There certainly are a number of question. The sprint may be over, but the marathon goes on.

"Some friends, you only see them when the sun shines.. My fans sustained me even in dark days. I owe them everything."
- Michael Jackson ~♥~

 

[MIST]

Why didn´t Jacksons take their questions to court 3 years ago?

 

[earth child]

Why didn´t Jacksons take their questions to court 3 years ago?

Simple. Debilitating grief was taken advantage of.

 

[ivy]

Legal experts have weighed in with such statements as:
“Certainly there are a number of questions that would be very interesting to see explored through a lawsuit brought by people who actually do have proper legal standing. It may be that there are legitimate explanations for the question raised by the Jackson family. Perhaps someday it will all play out in court.”
There certainly are a number of question. The sprint may be over, but the marathon goes on.

the red part, people who actually do have proper legal standing isn't Randy, Janet or Rebbie.

 

[earth child]

the red part, people who actually do have proper legal standing isn't Randy, Janet or Rebbie.

Not the point being made, but OK.

 

[Ashtanga]

New video by Luna:


[youtube]xORL6CSFdns&list[/youtube]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xORL6CSFdns&list=PLA4D4CDA618AD8A7D&index=1&feature=plcp


:fear:

 

[pug]

Simple. Debilitating grief was taken advantage of.

That grief didn't keep them from all the major talk shows. It didn't slow down Jermaine's "My Brother is Dead" tour. It didn't stop them from coming up with lame business deals with shady characters (J-5 belts, Jackets, and perfume)

 

[Bonnie Blue]

Simple. Debilitating grief was taken advantage of.

They spent a third of a million dollars in lawyer fees in the first 2 months after mj died, starting 27 june, in getting that will overturned and new executors appointed. Fees they expected MJ's estate to pay.

 

[jrsfan]

They spent a third of a million dollars in lawyer fees in the first 2 months after mj died, starting 27 june, in getting that will overturned and new executors appointed. Fees they expected MJ's estate to pay.

Source please? Thanks in advance.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

^ I had posted in the missing grandma thread. http://www.radaronline.com/sites/radaronline.com/files/Michael Jackson Probate Court Docs.pdf

The jacksons had alot of lawyers advising them from the get go. They weren't so paralysed by grief that they didnt do everything they cd to overturn that will. I'm sure you read in the other thread how they hijacked the estate hours before branca/mclain came to read the will, by claiming to court that mj died intestate and mrs j needed to be appointed to be in charge.

 

[Bubs]

That grief didn't keep them from all the major talk shows. It didn't slow down Jermaine's "My Brother is Dead" tour. It didn't stop them from coming up with lame business deals with shady characters (J-5 belts, Jackets, and perfume)

+ both Katherine and Joe struck deal with Vintage pop media on 22 Nov 2009, so no point to talk about grief. Their agreement was signed 22 Nov, so I assume there had to be some talk and dealing even before that date.

 

[HIStory]

About the Joseph vs. Joe argument that was brought up earlier here. The argument was that the fact the will has Michael's name as Michael Joseph Jackson on it instead of Michael Joe Jackson makes it suspicious since he did not use his name as "Joseph" around 2002, but as "Joe". The person who used this argument brought up court documents from Michael's trial where his name was put as "Michael Joe Jackson". It was already stated by others that they used his name as "Joe" on court papers most likely because Sneddon used it that way on some initial document at the beginning of the proceedings and that usage stuck for most of the trial.

But here is proof that his name wasn't always used as "Joe" during the trial. This is a motion by the defense, so Michael's side, where he is named Michael Joseph Jackson, not Joe. This is evidence that there are examples of the usage of both "Michael Joe Jackson" AND "Michael Joseph Jackson" during the trial. So the argument that Michael being called "Michael Joseph Jackson" on his will makes the will suspicious, is incorrect.

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/110504mjoppmotchandsub.pdf

 

[jrsfan]

luna jo vid part 2:

 

[Ashtanga]

luna jo vid part 2:

GREAT... as always!

 

[TheChosenOne]

Wow... noticed that jrsfan used the same three words to describe the will as the letter written by the Rogue Five - fake, flawed fraudulent ...

 

[Victory22]

The only thing that has paralyzed and caused the Jackson’s to grieve is the fact that they are excluded from any revenue generated from the MJ estate. Time to move on and stop all the nonsense about Michael’s will being fake. He left his money to his children. What is evil or fraudulent about that?

 

[JustMe00]

I think it's fascinating how most of us are willing to believe a lawyer and an accountant over those who knew him the best. Some of us can come up with a thousand reasons why Lisa Marie, La Toya and Janet were "probably" lying when they spoke of Michael being afraid, and knowing "they" would kill him, but will not point the finger at the estate; those people who gave us "Michael" the album... :no: