Michael's Estate and co. VS. Janet and co.

[Bailey]

One thing I don't get is if the executors have made a ton of money for the estate Why Janet etc are so against the executors from a financial standpoint. They must have some new info since Joe challenged it before.

If its just about Katherine's welfare then Janet just needs to go get her mother and leave those brats with TJ.

so we agree the kids are brats, good, well Paul I think challenges to the estate are being made because a lot of money deals are at stake, the question is how is the estate being managed and are the deals that are being made in the best interest of the estate. I think Janet and the family belief Katherine is in a position to be taken advantage of and those willing to do it are bringing other Jacksons into the fold so they may benefit if they "just go along" with the executors. I think the estate could be bringing in some serious coin if its ran right but theres the issue here.

[Bailey]

I say be careful what you wish for, if Paris wants to be a media queen, let her have it, Janet knows best, the media loves you until they don't

[Reyna ♔]

There is hardly a leg to stand on here, tbth. The 2002 Will and Trust both name Branca and McClain as executors so do the 1997 Will and Trust. The location question isn't enough extrinsic evidence to get it invalidated, either. Janet and co. aren't beneficiaries so they would have to go through Katherine or the kids(starting when Prince turns 18) to get the lawsuit heard, Katherine dropped hers and the kids...not gonna happen. Plus, if Branca were so hated by Michael, why was he hired back by Michael in 2009? I'm not seeing it here, at all.

[Bailey]

There is hardly a leg to stand on here, tbth. The 2002 Will and Trust both name Branca and McClain as executors so do the 1997 Will and Trust. The location question isn't enough extrinsic evidence to get it invalidated, either. Janet and co. aren't beneficiaries so they would have to go through Katherine or the kids(starting when Prince turns 18) to get the lawsuit heard, Katherine dropped hers and the kids...not gonna happen. Plus, if Branca were so hated by Michael, why was he hired back by Michael in 2009? I'm not seeing it here, at all.

The problem with all of that is whether Michael was in a state of mind to decide what was in his best interests? and whether someone who is dead could predict how much he would be worth dead rather than alive.

[Reyna ♔]

The problem with all of that is whether Michael was in a state of mind to decide what was in his best interests? and whether someone who is dead could predict how much he would be worth dead rather than alive.

He was doing a clean house in 09 of the leeches in his life, all but Murray, really. He said he was worth more dead than alive so it's apparent he had a decent concept.

[ThatOtherFan]

There is hardly a leg to stand on here, tbth. The 2002 Will and Trust both name Branca and McClain as executors so do the 1997 Will and Trust. The location question isn't enough extrinsic evidence to get it invalidated, either. Janet and co. aren't beneficiaries so they would have to go through Katherine or the kids(starting when Prince turns 18) to get the lawsuit heard, Katherine dropped hers and the kids...not gonna happen. Plus, if Branca were so hated by Michael, why was he hired back by Michael in 2009? I'm not seeing it here, at all.

Branca and Mcclain will NOT be appointed executors if a fraudulent Will can be proven. They will be DRAGGED in the media not to mention the civil suits (and correct me if I'm wrong) criminal charges they would face for creating a fake will. It would be a MESS...and no probate judge in his/her right mind would validate the 1997 Will and/or "officially" appoint Branca and McClain executors again. Hence, why proving the 2002 Will to be fake is important.

[Reyna ♔]

Branca and Mcclain will NOT be appointed executors if a fraudulent Will can be proven. They will be DRAGGED in the media not to mention the civil suits (and correct me if I'm wrong) criminal charges they would face for creating a fake will. It would be a MESS...and no probate judge in his/her right mind would validate the 1997 Will and/or "officially" appoint Branca and McClain executors again. Hence, why proving the 2002 Will to be fake is important.

Trusts are stronger than Wills, and they were named executors of the '02 and the '97 Trusts as well as the Wills. Unless those are proven to be invalid(unlikely) then Branca and McClain DON'T disappear. Not to mention, Janet and co. keep going back to the location debate to make it invalid when

1) The location debate isn't enough extrinsic evidence to get the Will thrown out

2) Judge Beckloff already declared it valid based on the information given by the witness who said LA when he meant NY.

3)Since Janet and co. AREN'T beneficiaries/heirs of the Will or Trust they need someone who is, and none of those who are heirs seem to have a problem with the Executors. Katherine dropped her case over a year ago and the kids I highly doubt want to go against them.

4) The statute of limitations is up and again only Katherine and the kids can go against it.

I don't see why the Execs are so hated when they're turning Michael's Estate into a billion dollar one again, have had the best interests in mind for Katherine and the kids, and the projects have done nothing but help Michael's legacy(excusing the "Michael" album mess but that was a lesson learned and won't be repeated). The Execs get their little 10% in the process from the projects and merchandising, etc. I am always "Team Michael" and standing for his wishes, and I never thought I would even be close to defending/being Pro-Estate after the "Michael" album thing (I was cool with the Execs in '09, couldn't stand them when they released that mess but steadily they have won my favor again) so as it stands, I really don't see the reason for the hate of the Execs. There must have been a reason to him rehiring Branca in 2009.

[Paul]

Janet and co. must know something big that we don't.

1) she and her counsel would be aware of all the points above about dates/ who can and can't challenge the will etc.

2) why would Janet throw HER money away on something if she has no proof of what she's talking about and no chance of winning.

3) if Janet etc had no leg to stand on why would the estate have been trying so hard to discredit them with the media campaign against them. Why would they be trying to keep her away from her mother?

Yep. There is definitely more to this than meets the eye

[s.omner]

Trusts are stronger than Wills, and they were named executors of the '02 and the '97 Trusts. Unless those are proven to be invalid(unlikely) then Branca and McClain DON'T disappear. Not to mention, Janet and co. keep going back to the location debate to make it invalid when

1) The location debate isn't enough extrinsic evidence to get the Will thrown out

2) Judge Beckloff already declared it valid based on the information given by the witness who said LA when he meant NY.

3)Since Janet and co. AREN'T beneficiaries/heirs of the Will or Trust they need someone who is, and none of those who are heirs seem to have a problem with the Executors. Katherine dropped her case over a year ago and the kids I highly doubt want to go against them.

4) The statute of limitations is up and again only Katherine and the kids can go against it.

I don't see why the Execs are so hated when they're turning Michael's Estate into a billion dollar one again, have had the best interests in mind for Katherine and the kids, and the projects have done nothing but help Michael's legacy(excusing the "Michael" album mess but that was a lesson learned and won't be repeated). The Execs get their little 10% in the process from the projects and merchandising, etc. I am always "Team Michael" and standing for his wishes, and I never thought I would even be close to defending/being Pro-Estate after the "Michael" album thing (I was cool with the Execs in '09, couldn't stand them when they released that mess but steadily they have won my favor again) so as it stands, I really don't see the reason for the hate of the Execs. There must have been a reason to him rehiring Branca in 2009.

Like it says in the statement, "The executors have never explained how Michael could have signed his will in California on a date that irrefutable evidence establishes he was in New York."

Let's stop beating around the bush: this was really what this is all about. Why in the world can't you tell them and get it over with? Do they have something to hide?

It's a simple question.

[s.omner]

Janet and co. must know something big that we don't.

1) she and her counsel would be aware of all the points above about dates/ who can and can't challenge the will etc.

2) why would Janet throw HER money away on something if she has no proof of what she's talking about and no chance of winning.

3) if Janet etc had no leg to stand on why would the estate have been trying so hard to discredit them with the media campaign against them. Why would they be trying to keep her away from her mother?

Yep. There is definitely more to this than meets the eye

Exactly. If she has an attorney involved, he would know what can and can't be done. I want to see where this goes! Janet isn't playing anymore.

That's why I'm saying that we need to get to the topic involved and stop beating around the bush. If you can't answer a simple question, I would be suspicious as well.

[Reyna ♔]

Like it says in the statement, "The executors have never explained how Michael could have signed his will in California on a date that irrefutable evidence establishes he was in New York."

Let's stop beating around the bush: this was really what this is all about. Why in the world can't you tell them and get it over with? Do they have something to hide?

After it was raised in court to Beckloff, they didn't debate with him being in NY instead of LA. The witness said it was a mistake. One that STILL isn't enough extrinsic evidence for it to be thrown out.

[Reyna ♔]

Janet and co. must know something big that we don't.

1) she and her counsel would be aware of all the points above about dates/ who can and can't challenge the will etc.

2) why would Janet throw HER money away on something if she has no proof of what she's talking about and no chance of winning.

3) if Janet etc had no leg to stand on why would the estate have been trying so hard to discredit them with the media campaign against them. Why would they be trying to keep her away from her mother?

Yep. There is definitely more to this than meets the eye

1) No matter what they have, they still need Katherine to back them and she hasn't.

2) That's a good question, which is perplexing me on what they COULD possibly have.

3) There is no media campaign The Estate has been quiet all this time except for two statements and the article I last posted as well as others in here have said that TJ and Katherine have the FINAL say of who's allowed at the house. They can see her, just not on the property, which they showed up to Monday unexpectedly(apparently) and the kids didn't care for at all. If they really intended for the kids to see Katherine when that's all they wanted based on the texts and tweets, why would the kids be so adamant about not leaving with them?

[s.omner]

After it was raised in court to Beckloff, they didn't debate with him being in NY instead of LA. The witness said it was a mistake. One that STILL isn't enough extrinsic evidence for it to be thrown out.

Well, I'm not going to pretend I'm a lawyer with experience to know if they have anything else to bring in.

Janet will still press on and we just have to see what happens next.

[aed05]

I say be careful what you wish for, if Paris wants to be a media queen, let her have it, Janet knows best, the media loves you until they don't

Basically!!!

Her father would NEVER! EVER! approve of her having a twitter, FB or instagram account. Let alone a cell phone. She's to young to understand that the same media that loves her today, will slaughter her tomorrow. Her father and aunt knew that best. Let the little bitch find out the hard way.

[ray.]

Basically!!!

Her father would NEVER! EVER! approve of her having a twitter, FB or instagram account. Let alone a cell phone. She's to young to understand that the same media that loves her today, will slaughter her tomorrow. Her father and aunt knew that best. Let the little bitch find out the hard way.

[xu1993]

Basically!!!

Her father would NEVER! EVER! approve of her having a twitter, FB or instagram account. Let alone a cell phone. She's to young to understand that the same media that loves her today, will slaughter her tomorrow. Her father and aunt knew that best. Let the little bitch find out the hard way.

That's a part of growing up.

[JoeJoe]

That's a part of growing up.

look how long it took Mike to grow up

[Rock & Roll Hall of Game]

look how long it took Mike to grow up

he died a child

[s.omner]

Protecting an artist's legacy: a story about control

Chadbourne & Parke LLP

Daniel J. Scott

USA

August 10 2012

Janet Jackson’s “Control,” widely considered to be the album that launched her career into international stardom, begins with Janet speaking the words: “This is a story about control.” Over 25 years after the release of her breakthrough album, a new story about “control” is circulating around Janet Jackson — the story of her brother’s estate. Recently, the King of Pop’s estate and a Jackson family feud have been making headlines. At the center of all the controversy is the issue of control, and the two men charged with running Michael Jackson’s estate — entertainment attorney John Branca and music executive John McClain (coincidentally, McClain was instrumental in the production of Janet Jackson’s “Control”). While there are many issues to deal with in planning an artist’s estate and protecting his legacy, perhaps the most important is control.

Control during the artist’s lifetime.

An artist’s estate can be very complex, often consisting of a variety of assets. Included in those assets will be the companies that own and operate the artist’s brand (or legacy), controlling the artist’s likeness and image and the continued exploitation of the artist’s works. Any property that the artist owns directly, the artist controls absolutely during his lifetime.

Typically, the artist is going to own very little in his own name. Instead, the artist will own his assets through a series of trusts and entities. This is done for a number of reasons, including: (i) management of business interests and personal investments; (ii) delegation of day-to-day responsibilities and administrative tasks; (iii) asset and liability protection; and (iv) estate, tax and wealth planning purposes. When the artist owns property or operates a business through an entity, direct control of that property or business is controlled by the entity. The artist retains indirect control through his ownership of that entity, while control of day-to-day business operations occurs at the company level. For example, shareholders of a corporation typically appoint directors, who appoint officers, who then hire employees. In addition, shareholder approval is often needed for certain major decisions, such as liquidating the company or changing its bylaws.

Trusts come in a variety of shapes and sizes, but for purposes of this article, there are two general types of trusts: revocable trusts and irrevocable trusts. In the case of a revocable trust, the artist maintains ultimate control of the trust property through his ability to change the terms of the trust at any time or revoke the trust in its entirety and take back the trust assets. An irrevocable trust (usually set up for estate and tax planning reasons), on the other hand, cannot be changed or revoked by the artist once it is set up (although the artist may maintain certain other powers, such as the power to change who the trustees are), leaving the trustees in ultimate control of the trust assets.

When the artist delegates day-to-day control over his personal assets and business interests through either the use of trusts or corporate entities, the artist becomes vulnerable to the possibility of bad decisions, mismanagement of assets, intentional wrongdoing and mistakes being made by those left in charge. However, steps can be taken to mitigate these risks, protect the artist as much as possible, and ensure his personal and business interest are well cared for. For example, having decisions made at the corporate and trust level by multiple individuals who need to agree on all decisions can be a good way of providing for a system of checks and balances and safeguarding against mistakes

or intentional wrongdoing or abuse of power by any one person. This also allows for multiple and varied perspectives during the decision making process. In addition, the artist may want to require multiple signatures on checks above a certain amount. The artist may also require certain decisions (such as liquidation of a company or the sale of certain major assets) to require the artist’s consent or the consent of an independent third party. Involving an independent professional advisor who is not involved in business of the artist’s career, and keeping him or her informed of all developments, investment performance, etc. is also a good way of protecting the artist. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, regular meetings must be held with the artist in order to keep the artist informed of developments, investment performance, etc., so the artist can make any desired changes.

Control after the artist’s death

When the artist dies, his estate and legacy are controlled by the artist’s executors and trustees (if any). The artist’s executors are charged with administering the artist’s estate, paying all debts, taxes and other expenses associated with the artist’s estate and distributing the artist’s assets to the beneficiaries or trustees named under the artist’s will. Once all of that is done, and the estate is “closed” (which could take years), the executor’s job is done.

If assets are distributed outright to family members or other beneficiaries, then those beneficiaries will control the assets they receive directly. If those assets are shares or interests in a company, then the beneficiary will have all of the rights (e.g., voting) of a direct owner of such company. For example, if five family members receive and equal share in Artist Inc., a company that owns the rights to various trademarks established by the artist during his lifetime, then each family member will have an equal 20 percent voting share in that company. If the company’s bylaws provide that directors are elected by a majority vote of the shareholders, then three family members will have to agree in order to appoint a new director.

If assets are left in a trust, then the trustees of that trust have direct control over the assets. As with any trust created during the artist’s lifetime, the terms of the trust can either give the trustees very broad or limited powers. Some major issues that the terms of a trust should address are: (i) who should be in charge of trust investments and managing business interests (including those that will continue to control the artist’s brand or legacy); (ii) who should be in charge of making distributions to beneficiaries (this may be different than the individuals charged with managing investments and business interests); (iii) to whom can distributions be made; (iv) for what purposes can (or must) distributions be made; and (v) who, if anyone, can change the trustees or appoint successor trustees?

After the artist’s death, the artist’s legacy is vulnerable to the same types of problems and improprieties mentioned above where the artist delegates control over personal assets and business interests during his lifetime, so the same protective measures should be taken. However, since the artist himself can no longer make changes to any trust or corporate structure after his death, who is left in control is of particular importance. Thus, the most important provision in a trust from a control perspective is how trustees are appointed and who, if anyone, has the power to change trustees after the artist’s death. For example, the artist may allow certain beneficiaries (either individually or by agreement) to remove and replace trustees. Another good idea is to have allow an independent third party (often called a “protector”) to remove and replace trustees.

Finally, in order for the artist to provide a very clear explanation of the artist’s wishes and desires with respect to how the artist’s legacy should be administered after his death, the artist can leave a “letter of wishes”. While typically not a legally binding document, a letter of wishes can provide the artist’s trustees (who should already understand the artist’s wishes, and be chosen in part for that reason) with additional and more detailed guidance. In “Control,” Janet Jackson sings, “When it has to do with my life, I wanna be the one in control.” With proper planning during the artist’s lifetime, the artist can be in control and the artist’s legacy can be protected and preserved after the artist’s death.

Source: Los Angeles and San Francisco Daily Journal

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.a....e4-532462a1a214

Thanks to JanetXone!

[Rock & Roll Hall of Game]

Soooooo bold the important parts

[s.omner]

Soooooo bold the important parts

[Reyna ♔]

Michael put who he wanted in charge of his Estate. They haven't done a thing to damage his legacy. Branca(aside from the "Michael" album) has always had the best interests for Michael and always worked with him on what he wanted, dead and alive. Branca is a good man. Plain and simple.

[bu.]

This has a lot of "information" about Branca supposedly being shady. If only they posted receipts too.

http://teammichaeljackson.com/archives/5485

http://teammichaeljackson.com/archives/5453

[Reyna ♔]

This has a lot of "information" about Branca supposedly being shady. If only they posted receipts too.

http://teammichaeljackson.com/archives/5485

http://teammichaeljackson.com/archives/5453

1. This person has been a negative influence in the fanbase for years.

2. She's also the one who Randy sent the letter to to leak it online.

I don't trust what she says with less than a grain of salt.

[Reyna ♔]

The Truth about Branca (with added receipts):

http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2012/07/23/john-branca-and-michael-jacksons-finances/

This one serves more as an outline, but it's a shorter read:

http://michaelteers.webs.com/1brancaasexecutor.htm

Those who did the real dirty work behind the scenes around the time Branca was fired in '03were Dieter Weisner and Ronald Kontizer. Branca was fired under SUSPICION of embezzlement, not actually committing the crime, and those who "informed" Michael of his "embezzling" (DW and RK) were the ones who made Michael not only impaired and to sign over everything to them, but were embezzling close to a million dollars from him before they were fired. That interview by the sun in, what was it, 2008? The one where we get that gif of Michael reading that paper? THAT's what that interview was about.

A court hearing: http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2012/05/17/march-2nd-2005-anne-kite-direct-cross-examination-and-albert-lafferty-direct-examination-part-2-of-2/

Video:

Branca still worked for Michael after that.

A twitlonger from a trusted fan. No links, so take it as you will: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/io7f1p