Reyna ♔ Posted August 18, 2012 Author Share Posted August 18, 2012 So the public is supposed to believe that the suspicions regarding the signing of Michael Jackson's will was due to the fact that he merely signed the wrong date? ..like he signed July 26, 2002 instead of July 27, 2002? Pretty much. The only thing that really changes in the FOUR WILLS/TRUSTS is a couple executors(though John Branca is mentioned by name IN ALL FOUR and deservingly so ) and the addition of Michael's children by name. Even still, what the public believes is always opinion and speculation. The court approved it after careful review. The date/location question isn't enough to throw the current Will out, especially when every other known Will/Trust names the same head-executor, beneficiaries and distributions. What would throw the Will out is either another much later Will or the current one(as well as executor actions) is/are not in tune with the testator's wishes. Since all four basically say the EXACT same thing, it gives no evidence to believe that the Executors aren't doing what Michael wanted. The 120 day statute is up and no-one who would have another Will has presented one. No-one would wait 3 years to bring up another Will of Michael's especially if they felt the current one isn't what he wanted. However, we can see that it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reyna ♔ Posted August 18, 2012 Author Share Posted August 18, 2012 TMZ has ALWAYS been a tabloid... ...and until there is irrefutable evidence that the Estate isn't involved with TMZ's outlandish publications, they are guilty as shit. Innocent until proven guilty, love. That's the law of the land. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reyna ♔ Posted August 19, 2012 Author Share Posted August 19, 2012 Dr. Murray is the key to this case. Maybe Katherine should visit him to get the answers she's looking for. Oddly enough, I would be a little curious to see what he has to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EphraimAdamz Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 But we already know that the SAME people would be in charge of the Estate even if it were to be found invalid, there was no need to post it. And since Janet has money, we know its not about money either. SO WHAT is it about? The public clearly doesn't know something Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil. Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 Pretty much. The only thing that really changes in the FOUR WILLS/TRUSTS is a couple executors(though John Branca is mentioned by name IN ALL FOUR and deservingly so ) and the addition of Michael's children by name. Even still, what the public believes is always opinion and speculation. The court approved it after careful review. The date/location question isn't enough to throw the current Will out, especially when every other known Will/Trust names the same head-executor, beneficiaries and distributions. What would throw the Will out is either another much later Will or the current one(as well as executor actions) is/are not in tune with the testator's wishes. Since all four basically say the EXACT same thing, it gives no evidence to believe that the Executors aren't doing what Michael wanted. The 120 day statute is up and no-one who would have another Will has presented one. No-one would wait 3 years to bring up another Will of Michael's especially if they felt the current one isn't what he wanted. However, we can see that it is. I know all about of the 'legalities' of Michael's will, boo. Let's keep this within the context of my question...leaving the spin to the Estate and TMZ, shall we? That is unless you don't know how Michael Jackson could have signed his will in Los Angeles when there is undoubted proof that he was in New York that entire weekend. Why would Janet involve herself and her lawyers in the legal matters of her brother's estate when she nor her relatives have nothing to gain? What does she know that we don't? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil. Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 Innocent until proven guilty, love. That's the law of the land. The irony of it all...chile please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil. Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 No one has addressed the rhinestone-studded elephant in the room.... Shall I? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reyna ♔ Posted August 19, 2012 Author Share Posted August 19, 2012 I know all about of the 'legalities' of Michael's will, boo. Let's keep this within the context of my question...leaving the spin to the Estate and TMZ, shall we? That is unless you don't know how Michael Jackson could have signed his will in Los Angeles when there is undoubted proof that he was in New York that entire weekend. Why would Janet involve herself and her lawyers in the legal matters of her brother's estate when she nor her relatives have nothing to gain? What does she know that we don't? Those who witnessed the signing of the Will, even back then when it was sent to court, didn't contest that. They acknowledged he was in New York. There are many ways it could have been signed while he was there. They met up with him there, it was mailed in, emailed in, faxed in, etc. It's still possible he signed it. The witness said he wrote LA on ACCIDENT, which is the point everyone is missing, and writing that part as well as a date incorrectly, happens much more than people want to acknowledge. I have no idea. She may very well know something we don't. However, I see Randy and Howard Mann involved in this, they have never been up to any good. Janet's support is enough to give them weight, but to tip this in their favor, with those previous two here, I really doubt. What does she know that we don't? Not sure. But what she and her side need to come up with is either an alternate Will or prove the current one isn't in the wishes of the testator. From what it looks like they are making their claims on the second option. Based on the letter her lawyer sent on their behalf what they have to gain is, the executors will be replaced and the estate and the guardianship will be managed in a manner that is in the bests interests of the children Yet, however, the executors have made this a billion-dollar Estate and have taken excellent care of Katherine and the babies. So what is truly the problem? Katherine has been healthy and fine all this time, per her, and so have the kids. Their guardian is Katherine, as Michael wished, so what is to be gained by changing her when it's against Michael's wishes? Hm? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reyna ♔ Posted August 19, 2012 Author Share Posted August 19, 2012 The irony of it all...chile please. Just because it's negative press to her side, doesn't mean the Estate is doing it. TMZ is a tabloid and like all tabloids, they throw random shit to the wall and hope it sticks. Drama like this is something they feed off of. Janet is a Jackson, this involves the Jacksons, negative press is bound to come. Has been going on for years now. This isn't a 2+2=4 equation. This is simple common sense. No one has addressed the rhinestone-studded elephant in the room.... Shall I? I'm intrigued. Go ahead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil. Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 So now Randy is up to no good? And Janet's loyal to Randy? Is this the same Randy that Michael credited for support throughout the child molestation trial? Is this the same Janet that has been in Michael's corner since the beginning? I'm going to need receipts boo. Wasn't there a point where neither Katherine nor the children were receiving any money from the Estate? Doesn't the will prove emphatically that none of the Jackson family aside from Katherine will benefit from Michael's will? What exactly do they have to gain from the Estate? When Katherine dies, the kids go to Diana Ross. I wonder if anyone has ever thought about the fact that maybe an 82 year old woman may not be well enough to raise two teenagers and a small child. I wonder why no one has said anything about Tito's son going straight to the courts to assume guardianship in Katherine's absence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil. Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 The law of the land is just when Michael is dead...but when he was alive, it was the law of the land that nearly put him in prison for life based on bogus charges. I'll be the objective MJ fan. It seems that no one has factored into the equation the fact that Michael was heavily medicated in the last decade of his career, as proven by his own family and friends....and in this state, he was undoubtedly taken advantage of. Factor this into the various concerns that Michael feared for his life, and his net worth doubled almost immediately after his death....I smell bullshit. That is more than enough reason to question every single will. He was used throughout his entire career and people expect me to believe the executors of his Estate have his best interest? Please. Some may say he wanted Branca and McClain back on board. These are the same people that believed he wanted to do 50 shows in London. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henrietta. Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 This is a story about control....Jacksons control. Control over what they say, and control over what they do. And this time MJ's estate's trying to do it their way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reyna ♔ Posted August 19, 2012 Author Share Posted August 19, 2012 The law of the land is just when Michael is dead...but when he was alive, it was the law of the land that nearly put him in prison for life based on bogus charges. I'll be the objective MJ fan. It seems that no one has factored into the equation the fact that Michael was heavily medicated in the last decade of his career, as proven by his own family and friends....and in this state, he was undoubtedly taken advantage of. Factor this into the various concerns that Michael feared for his life, and his net worth doubled almost immediately after his death....I smell bullshit. That is more than enough reason to question every single will. He was used throughout his entire career and people expect me to believe the executors of his Estate have his best interest? Please. Some may say he wanted Branca and McClain back on board. These are the same people that believed he wanted to do 50 shows in London. No it was the "guilty until proven innocent" bullshit that you're using with the Estate here that nearly put him away as well as the idiotic and baseless charges. I don't believe a word of that. The family also said in a sworn statement in 2007 that there was no drug use or interventions. Ever. Yet magically after his death he became one of the biggest druggies on the planet, by their word. No, I don't believe it for a minute. Two out of the four Wills were made BEFORE this decade, exact same stipulations. Michael was taken advantage of at times, yes. But as soon as he knew what was going on, these people were fired time and time again. He wasn't some defenseless and totally naive child in a man's world. He was smart, a brilliant businessman, knocked down or swindled a time or two but fixed it as soon we he could. And before you bring up Branca's firing, I have documents to prove he was working for Michael in 2009. He was fired under SUSPICION, not the actual crime, by Dieter Wiesner who ACTUALLY did the embezzling and lo and behold, the Estate is taking that man to court. Amen. The person running his Estate was on Michael's side at his biggest financial gains in his life. Branca was the one who helped negotiate that Beatles' catalog deal as well as other big ventures in his life. How soon they forget. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reyna ♔ Posted August 19, 2012 Author Share Posted August 19, 2012 So now Randy is up to no good? And Janet's loyal to Randy? Is this the same Randy that Michael credited for support throughout the child molestation trial? Is this the same Janet that has been in Michael's corner since the beginning? I'm going to need receipts boo. Wasn't there a point where neither Katherine nor the children were receiving any money from the Estate? Doesn't the will prove emphatically that none of the Jackson family aside from Katherine will benefit from Michael's will? What exactly do they have to gain from the Estate? When Katherine dies, the kids go to Diana Ross. I wonder if anyone has ever thought about the fact that maybe an 82 year old woman may not be well enough to raise two teenagers and a small child. I wonder why no one has said anything about Tito's son going straight to the courts to assume guardianship in Katherine's absence. Randy has always been up to no good. He helped find Mesereau and Michael, Katherine and the babies as well as the fans are forever thankful for it, but that doesn't excuse everything else he's done. As I said, Janet has been by Michael's side and her involvement gives Randy's side weight on the scale. But to tip the scale into their favor? No. I will keep my doubts, because of the credibility of the other parties involved. If it was just her and maybe Katherine, others who are truly trusted in the family, I'd be behind her 100%. Take a look at these: http://mjandjustice4some.blogspot.com/2012/07/randy-jackson-one-side-of-coin.html http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/world-jax-robbers-article-1.225010 This: and this: 1:32 - 2:50 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q82J-VNDsQ Also, based on this interview, what was that about Michael telling him in the last few months he hated Branca and whatever the hell else? If any time they weren't, it was before the Will was probated. Other than that, the bank statements I've seen say they have been paid. It has been considered, but she took them. Then when Diana Ross went to visit her, she took the side of the kids and Katherine. I suppose Diana works for the Estate, too, now? Because Katherine's children took her away for over a week and kept her incommunicado the whole time. Then made her read a statement to the TV news about her going home, yet she didn't get there until late. She knew AHEAD of time, that TJ was going to court. Yet they kept her there in Arizona when could have easily boarded a plane, WHEN SHE FLEW TO GET TO ARIZONA mind you, and drove her back home. She can fly there but can't fly back? What sense does that make. Also, why are people blowing off the fact as a matter of betrayal that TJ said she sounded slurred and drugged on the phone, hm? What reason does he have to lie about that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henrietta. Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Janet needs to snatch Prince's phone too, because the only thing he has is stale tea. Kat had a mini-stroke...that's why she sounded slurred and drugged along with reading from a note in that video. Seeing how my boyfriend had a stroke (it will be a year tomorrow) and how I've heard him sound drugged and slurring along with therapists saying it's best to get victims out of stressful situations quickly, I see why they got Kat outta there. The kids are nothing but a huge distraction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reyna ♔ Posted August 21, 2012 Author Share Posted August 21, 2012 Janet needs to snatch Prince's phone too, because the only thing he has is stale tea. Kat had a mini-stroke...that's why she sounded slurred and drugged along with reading from a note in that video. Seeing how my boyfriend had a stroke (it will be a year tomorrow) and how I've heard him sound drugged and slurring along with therapists saying it's best to get victims out of stressful situations quickly, I see why they got Kat outta there. The kids are nothing but a huge distraction. Katherine laughed off that stroke story according to her lawyer. I suppose he's lying, though he has no reason to? That's practically denying it. Not to mention she passed a health exam in June with flying colors. Wouldn't it have made sense to mention that with the exam? If she passed, apparently she was just fine. Also, Jermaine's story pretty much changed after the story broke of her laughing off the idea of having a mini-stroke to having her leaving because she had high blood pressure. Yet it's been known for a while now that she was diagnosed with that. If she really had a stroke, wouldn't she have sounded drugged or slurred other times besides this one? Yet this is the first time it's brought up? Not seeing the sense here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henrietta. Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Katherine laughed off that stroke story according to her lawyer. I suppose he's lying, though he has no reason to? That's practically denying it. Not to mention she passed a health exam in June with flying colors. Wouldn't it have made sense to mention that with the exam? If she passed, apparently she was just fine. Also, Jermaine's story pretty much changed after the story broke of her laughing off the idea of having a mini-stroke to having her leaving because she had high blood pressure. Yet it's been known for a while now that she was diagnosed with that. If she really had a stroke, wouldn't she have sounded drugged or slurred other times besides this one? Yet this is the first time it's brought up? Not seeing the sense here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't her lawyer one of the folks demanding Kat's return thinking that he owns he because he's her lawyer? You can pass a test one moment and still have a stroke later. Routine health exams normally don't include a cat scan unless the doctor feels the need to give one. And for people that have mini-strokes (not full on strokes) doctors give them medicine to control blood pressure also. Not to mention it's way easier to bounce back from a mini-stroke way easier than a stroke. Even ones who had a full stroke don't recovery at the same time. Recovery can take either a week, a month, a year, or longer. They(moreso Janet) wouldn't lie about her mom having a stroke. People need to stop acting like it's fine for outsiders to tell adults what to do with their family. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reyna ♔ Posted August 21, 2012 Author Share Posted August 21, 2012 Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't her lawyer one of the folks demanding Kat's return thinking that he owns he because he's her lawyer? You can pass a test one moment and still have a stroke later. Routine health exams normally don't include a cat scan unless the doctor feels the need to give one. And for people that have mini-strokes (not full on strokes) doctors give them medicine to control blood pressure also. Not to mention it's way easier to bounce back from a mini-stroke way easier than a stroke. Even ones who had a full stroke don't recovery at the same time. Recovery can take either a week, a month, a year, or longer. They(moreso Janet) wouldn't lie about her mom having a stroke. People need to stop acting like it's fine for outsiders to tell adults what to do with their family. No. He went to see her in Az but Janet and Jermaine wouldn't let him see her and he just left because they told her she was fine. She didn't even get to talk to him. They said the stroke happened months ago at first in February. Then once all the reports came from June about her passing a health exam, it was changed to high blood pressure. Which she has been diagnosed with for years now. Okay, if it's easier, why would she have to be whisked away to Az, without any contact to those who live in her house, not able to talk to even her lawyer, the cops, anyone who showed up to see her. They took her phone, TV, iPad, all of that. How can anyone say that isn't strange? The phone? Sure. But what is the TV or iPad gonna do? They totally blocked her off from the outside world. What was she gonna watch on TV that was going to just kill her off from how it's being painted. Maybe the fact that she was tricked into going and if she was hip to that, she wasn't going to be content with staying? No-one is trying to tell anyone what to do. What people are saying is that the stories don't add up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 You can have a mini stroke and fully recover. If you have had one, high blood pressure means that you are more succeptable to more when under stress, that or a full blown stroke. I find it baffling that MJ fans think they know better than the jacksons. If Janet is concerned for her mother, knows there is no financial gain then her concern should be enough. Mini stroke or not. It's HER mother. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 And further more why would you think the executors have katherine's well being at heart more than Janet? They want to make money. Janet wants her mum to be well. The bottom line is MJ, his disorganisation, his detatchment from reality, his inability to control his money, his surrounding himself with shady people, his own shady dealings and his constant attention seeking caused all this mess. Now his family is dealing with the consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reyna ♔ Posted August 21, 2012 Author Share Posted August 21, 2012 You can have a mini stroke and fully recover. If you have had one, high blood pressure means that you are more succeptable to more when under stress, that or a full blown stroke. I find it baffling that MJ fans think they know better than the jacksons. If Janet is concerned for her mother, knows there is no financial gain then her concern should be enough. Mini stroke or not. It's HER mother. Katherine laughed off that stroke story, which is one of the points I'm trying to make here. Obviously, she didn't have one. Would a 2-minute phone call, a little TV, a game or two on her iPad, or a quick talk to her lawyer really be the difference between life and death? Or even worse sickness? What was she gonna watch on TV that was going to stress her out so badly? What game on her iPad? Bottom line: They challenge the Estate with a letter and all of a sudden Katherine needs to go away for some R&R. They take her cell phone, disconnect the phone in her room, totally turn off her TV and take away her iPad. Obviously, there was something going on that they didn't want her to know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bu. Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 I need to see Katherine using her ipad. My mum is younger and she STILL doesn't know how to use a simple laptop Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reyna ♔ Posted August 21, 2012 Author Share Posted August 21, 2012 And further more why would you think the executors have katherine's well being at heart more than Janet? They want to make money. Janet wants her mum to be well. The bottom line is MJ, his disorganisation, his detatchment from reality, his inability to control his money, his surrounding himself with shady people, his own shady dealings and his constant attention seeking caused all this mess. Now his family is dealing with the consequences. They have been taking care of her these last few years. Every expense she could and has asked for has been paid from the Estate and not from her 40% cut from it either. They pay for Calabasas and all its expenses, they are paying for the renovations of Hayvenhurst, they pay her docs and physicians, they handle ALL of that and NOT from her 40% cut. They are really taking care of her and those kids and have been for the last few years. Katherine said in her letter to the court, in which she had NO reason to lie, that people she trusted took advantage of her. Who was she trusting so much in the last month? The siblings also said in their latest letter via Janet's lawyer that they are trying to get control of the Estate in a way that benefits the children for years yet a YEAR ago, John Branca releases this statement on his deal with Sony/ATV and MiJac. I'll bold the important part. Statement from John Branca (MJ Estate) regarding Mijac media reports —— Forwarded Message From: John Branca Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:18:31 -0600 To: Jeff ***** Subject: Michael Jackson/Mijac Jeff: I understand that you are being asked a lot of questions about Mijac. Yes, there is a matching right that Michael granted to Sony/ATV but they only get to administer the catalog for a limited term AND only if they agree to unprecedented favorable terms. We will not relinquish ultimate control and ownership to anyone. We have favorably refinanced the loans on Mijac which will be paid off and the catalog WILL absolutely be passed to Michael’s children as long as we have anything to say about it. Sony/ATV is a great company and the Estate owns half of it but no one, not even Sony/ATV, will ever own Mijac while John McClain and I remain in charge. The current Sony team is the one Michael chose to work with on the Thriller 25 release and they are good partners. As stated in the recent court filings, they worked with us to refinance the burdensome debt that had been placed on Michael’s interest in Sony/ATV to very favorable terms, an important achievement which insures that Mijac and Michael’s masters remain secure for the benefit of Michael’s children for years to come. I would appreciate your sharing this with the fans that are asking questions. Thanks – John John Branca Co-Executor The Estate Of Michael Jackson Los Angeles, CA Janet&co. and I are just gonna have to disagree on this one. #TeamMichael #TeamEstate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reyna ♔ Posted August 21, 2012 Author Share Posted August 21, 2012 I need to see Katherine using her ipad. My mum is younger and she STILL doesn't know how to use a simple laptop Right?! My mom still makes me text for her They say Katherine plays Words with Friends most of the time. I want to play a game with her so badly! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bu. Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Right?! My mom still makes me text for her They say Katherine plays Words with Friends most of the time. I want to play a game with her so badly! Mine is the same !! Katherine is ON it!!! I swear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.