Just heard that Katherine has been taken by Janet, Randy & Reebie to a ranch in Tucson & cannot be contacted by Michaels children or her attorney. Has anyone else heard this?
The Estate has loaned Katherine Jackson 6 1/2 million since Michael’s passing. http://www.scribd.com/doc/101284813/MJ-Estate-Second-Accounting
But she still wants $$$$$$$
This request was given to the court on July 19. Randy & Co’s letter has been sent to the executors on July 17. Katherine's ‘abduction' drama began on July 15. All these have been prepared during the same period, if not at the same date. It is quite curious, isn’t it ? That makes me think the siblings were, once more again, behind Katherine ? If so, what are their hidden motive and goal ?
“Katherine Jackson Wants An Extensive Audit Of Michael's Estate”
Posted on Aug 23, 2012 @ 09:00PM
By Jen Heger - Radar Assistant Managing Editor
Katherine Jackson's legal team wants to do an extensive audit of late son Michael Jackson's estate, the matriarch's attorney, Perry Sanders, told RadarOnline.com exclusively.
"My audit is being done to see the details of where the money is coming from and where it is going," Sanders told Radar. "The beneficiaries should be entitled to all detailed documentation so they can see what THEIR money is paying for."
On July 19, Katherine's lawyers submitted legal docs asking for "production of supporting documents for account current," and the docs state, "Ms. Katherine Jackson...hereby requests that representatives John Branca, John McClain and counsel for the Estate of Michael Jackson produce for inspection and audit all supporting documents for the Second Account Current and Report of Status of Administration and Petition.."
However, lawyers for Michael Jackson's Estate have several issues with Katherine Jackson's request, and said in their response, "John Branca and John McClain object to the Request to the extent that it is vague and ambiguous as to the phrase 'all supporting documents for the Second Account Current' in that the Request encompasses thousands of pages of documents which potentially support the Second Account Current...Responding Party (the executors) objects to the Request to the extent that it seeks highly confidential business and financial information...it will not produce such documents absent the entry of a stipulation and protective order governing, among other things, the access to and use highly confidential documents." Most of the contracts that the estate has entered into are sealed because they contain trade secrets and other privileged information, and this is routinely done to protect the best interests of the estate.
As previously reported, Judge Mitchell Beckloff awarded co-guardianship of Michael's three children to Katherine and TJ Jackson on Wednesday after a string of bizarre incidents involving the 82-year-old grandmother/guardian, who was whisked away to an Arizona resort by her children and out of contact with the grandkids for 11 days.
Almost all of the major contracts, business deals and other transactions have all been presented to Judge Beckloff by the executors, in order to be transparent with Michael Jackson's estate. The executors have requested that Michael Jackson's estate be handled in probate court for another year.
In the three years since Michael's tragic death, the executors have wiped almost $475 million dollar in debt off the books that the pop singer had when he passed away. The estate has entered into lucrative business agreements with Pepsi, Cirque du Soleil and were instrumental in the wildly successful theatrical release of Michael Jackson's rehearsal footage, This Is It.
Judge Mithcell Beckloff will weigh in on what documents if any, the estate will turn over to Katherine Jackson.
I'm not sure I understand why the judge needs to hear from the woman named "Billie Jean Jackson" if it's already been established she has no biological connection to Blanket. I hope the judge is familiar enough with Michael's work to realize this person is probably delusional and has named herself after Michael's song, Billie Jean and the Jackson last name is also borrowed as Michael never married Blanket's mother so the last name of his mother would not be Jackson. Throughout his life, Michael had women come forward claiming to be Billie Jean and there isn't a real one - it was a character he created in his song.
* more information about Debra Jackson and other details in this article :
“TJ Jackson Granted Permanent Co-Guardianship of Michael Jackson Kids”
By LUCHINA FISHER (@luchina) and VANIA STUELP
Aug. 22, 2012
A California judge today made Tito "TJ" Jackson permanent co-guardian of the singer's children along with their grandmother Katherine, but not without some unexpected drama.
A woman claiming to be the cousin of Michael Jackson showed up in court today to ask the judge to delay the appointment of TJ Jackson as permanent co-guardian of the singer's children.
Despite a plea from the woman, Debra Jackson, Judge Mitchell Beckloff granted TJ Jackson the motion to share guardianship with Michael's mother, Katherine Jackson, of the three children.
The judge made the ruling after also considering a letter submitted by singer Diana Ross, in which the singer said she has met TJ and thinks he has good intentions in caring for Michael's kids.
Beckloff said Ross mentioned in the letter that she is very interested in what happens with the children and that she takes her role in the will as the next guardian in line very seriously.
Earlier, Beckloff heard from Debra Jackson, who arrived with her adult son Anthony Jackson, whom she says the singer helped raise after Anthony's father died. Earlier, Debra and Anthony Jackson submitted a letter to the court expressing their concerns with appointing TJ co-guardian.
Debra Jackson told the judge that she and her son were abruptly cut off from the lives of Michael's three children and that their relationship with the kids had been curtailed. Debra said that not allowing a relationship between her son and Michael's children is "cruel and not in their best interest and well-being."
She described an incident at a birthday party for one of the children in which she and Anthony were asked to leave. She said Katherine Jackson was very unhappy with that order and neither Katherine nor the kids wanted them to leave.
Debra added that she's asked several times for an explanation as to why they have been cut off from the children, but she was never given one.
The letter Debra and Anthony submitted to the judge today was written last year around Christmas time. It's unclear why they waited so long to file the letter.
Beckloff said he had read and taken their letter into consideration, since the two are relatives. However, he added that he has a very good understanding of what's going on with Michael's children based on the report written by his investigator.
"It's clear to me that the children have a very strong, loving relationship with TJ and that they love the grandmother very much," the judge said.
He then granted the motion for permanent co-guardianship to TJ.
The son of Michael's brother Tito Jackson, TJ had been appointed temporary guardian after Katherine Jackson was suspended amid a bitter family dispute over Michael Jackson's estate. Days later, Katherine Jackson was reinstated as guardian and announced she would be seeking joint guardianship with her grandson, TJ.
Responding last month to the announcement, Randy Jackson, one of Katherine's sons, told ABC News that the agreement was based on "lies."
"In order to obtain temporary guardianship, TJ lied to the court. Rebbie, Janet, Jermaine and I would never harm our mother and we are doing our best to protect her and the Estate knows that," Randy said in an exclusive statement to ABC News.
Guardianship Ruling for Michael Jackson's Kids
"The same people that are trying to manipulate my mother are the same people that were involved with my brother when he died," Randy said in the statement. "The Estate is trying to isolate my Mother from her family JUST LIKE THEY DID TO MICHAEL, in order to propagate their lies, financial agendas and to protect a fraudulent will."
He concluded his statement with, "It is my fear and belief, that they are trying to take my mother's life."
In court today, Beckloff asked Katherine's attorney Sandra Ribera if she was being unduly influenced to agree with the new co-guardianship agreement, to which Ribera replied "absolutely not! Ms. Jackson is well informed, makes her own decisions and wholeheartedly supports this arrangement."
The judge also ordered TJ to consider visitation between the kids and Anthony and Debra. However, he told Debra that the final decision lies with the co-guardians.
"You have a right to be heard as relatives, and I'm going to be mindful of what I heard," the judge said. "There have been lots of conflicts within the family, and the duties of the guardians consist of navigating through these conflicts and helping the children maintain important relationships."
Only TJ and the attorneys were present for the hearing. Beckloff had previously excused Katherine and the children from having to appear.
Also not present in court was a woman named Billie Jean Jackson, who claims she is the biological mother of Blanket. Judge Beckloff said she filed a petition requesting guardianship of Blanket and that he scheduled a hearing for the end of September.
TJ's attorney, Charles Shultz, argued that the judge had already found Billie Jean has no biological relationship to Blanket, but Beckloff said he will have to hear her arguments one more time.
Will TJ be entitled to half of what Katherine gets from the Estate ? Does sharing guardianship mean sharing money ? Does anyone know ? If so, doesn’t it contradict Michael's will ? He wanted his mother’s financial secure until the end of her life. If she gets only half of what she was getting for 3 years, she probably would ask for much more, saying that’s not enough. For TJ, wouldn’t this amount be too much ? How the Estate will handle all this? Is it always the court that will make decision every time there would be this sort of problem ?
Debra Jackson has objected to the judge's decision, saying "Michael had concerns about certain people's influences on his children.....TJ Jackson and his brothers" (http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/08/michael-jackson-kids-guard...). Is what Debra and her son Anthony say is reliable ? Does anyone know something more about them and also about TJ and his brothers ?
I think the permanent co-guardianship is the best solution, especially because of the advanced age of Katherine. Thus, the siblings could manipulate less their mother, and Katherine takes less wrong decision if it requires each time an agreement of her co-guardian. I think with TJ, children’s desire and hope would be more respected than before. (Well, I cannot say much, I don't know enough TJ).
The problem is what will happen after her death, if the children are still minors.
** TJ Jackson will permanently share guardianship !
“Michael Jackson nephew appointed co-guardian”
By ANTHONY McCARTNEY, AP Entertainment Writer – 12 minutes ago
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A judge appointed Michael Jackson's nephew on Wednesday to share guardianship responsibilities for the singer's three children, but not without a last-minute effort by some relatives to delay the decision.
Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff named TJ Jackson as the children's co-guardian who will now share responsibilities for raising the siblings, who range in ages from 10 to 15.
The judge made the ruling after considering a letter submitted by singer Diana Ross, who was named in Michael Jackson's will as a potential guardian, and a letter presented by cousins of the singer who sought a delay in the appointment.
Debra Jackson and her son Anthony urged Beckloff to delay his ruling, saying they were concerned that family matriarch Katherine Jackson was being coerced. The pair said they had been ostracized from the family and that the children may not be as excited about TJ Jackson's appointment as has been presented to the judge.
But Beckloff noted that all three children have said they consent to the co-guardianship, and that an independent investigation he ordered showed they "have a very strong, loving relationship with TJ Jackson."
He urged TJ Jackson to consider allowing the cousins to visit the family, but said there was no reason to delay. The appointment means that Katherine and TJ Jackson will share responsibilities for raising the children. If one of them is no longer able to serve, the other would become the children's sole guardian.
Debra and Anthony Jackson declined to speak with reporters after the hearing, merely confirming their names and relationship to the family.
Their letter and one submitted by Diana Ross were not filed with the court and will not be made public, court officials said.
Katherine Jackson's attorney, Sandra Ribera, disputed their claims that her client is being improperly influenced.
"Mrs. Jackson is well informed," she said. "Mrs. Jackson is a strong woman who cannot be influenced by anyone when it comes to decisions about these children."
TJ Jackson, 34, was appointed a temporary guardian last month when Katherine Jackson was incommunicado during a stay at an Arizona spa with relatives.
Beckloff has said Katherine Jackson is doing a great job raising Prince, Paris and Blanket Jackson, but noted that having a co-guardian will allow for continuity in their lives if she is no longer able to serve.
TJ Jackson was a relative unknown to the public before the recent rift in the family. He performs in a band called 3T along with his brothers and was close to his uncle, Michael, before the pop star died in June 2009 at age 50.
TJ Jackson is a cousin of the children and has remained close to them in the years since the singer's death.
Wednesday's hearing had been expected to be a legal formality and although Beckloff made time to hear the cousins' grievances, the judge didn't waver in his view that the co-guardianship arrangement was appropriate. He noted that it is frequently employed in other cases.
The mother of the two eldest children, Deborah Rowe, has indicated she is comfortable with the arrangement.
We will know later judge's decision.
“Judge to rule on Jackson guardianship changes”
ANTHONY McCARTNEY | August 22, 2012 04:05 AM EST | Associated Press
LOS ANGELES — A judge is expected to appoint Michael Jackson's nephew as a co-guardian of the late pop superstar's children on Wednesday, establishing continuity for them in case their grandmother becomes unable to raise them.
Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff has said he is inclined to appoint Tito Jackson's son, TJ, to share guardianship responsibilities with Michael Jackson's mother. The 34-year-old stepped in and was appointed a temporary guardian last month when Katherine Jackson was incommunicado during a stay at an Arizona spa with relatives.
Beckloff has said Katherine Jackson is doing a great job raising Prince, Paris and Blanket Jackson, who range in ages from 10 to 15. The Jackson family matriarch's absence coincided with a split in the family over whether to support the executors of the late singer's estate, some of whom think should resign.
Katherine and TJ Jackson have agreed to the co-guardianship arrangement, which is aimed at alleviating stress on the children's 82-year grandmother. The agreement calls for the other to assume sole guardianship duties if the other is unable to serve any longer.
TJ Jackson was a relative unknown to the public before the recent rift in the family. He performs in a band called 3T along with his brothers and was close to his uncle, Michael, before the pop star died unexpectedly in June 2009 at age 50.
TJ Jackson is a cousin of the children and has remained close to them in the three years since the singer's death.
Wednesday's hearing is expected to be a legal formality, with TJ Jackson already earning the support of the two oldest children. Their mother, Deborah Rowe, has also indicated she is comfortable with the arrangement.
Three of Michael Jackson's siblings, sisters Janet and Rebbie and younger brother Randy, have all expressed concerns about the administrators of the singer's estate and called on them to resign. The window to contest the singer's will is closed, but the trio said as recently as last week that challenging the executors remains their priority.
Jackson's estate has generated more than $475 million in gross earnings since the singer's death. He left his estate to benefit his mother and children, with a share allocated to unspecified charities.
Now Ed Chernoff comments.
“What's wrong with the Jacksons?”
Posted By Ed Chernoff on Aug 17, 2012 11:26am PDT
I get asked every recent day about the drama surrounding the Jackson family. I've been told they are fighting. Over the kids, or something like that. People assume that I have some special insight into the family simply because I sat in the same courtroom with them for four weeks. The truth is, everything I know comes from what Dr. Murray revealed to me about conversations he had with Michael. (This is for Dr. Murray to reveal, when and if, he decides.)
My interaction with the Jackson family was limited to stares and disdainful looks as we left the courtroom together. Joe Jackson, in particular, spent my entire closing argument contorting his face into an angry charicature. I think LaToya actually spoke to Michael Pena, my co-counsel, once. She wanted to know who he was. He responded by asking her who she was? I still get a kick out of that!
The one thing that was enforced for me during the trial is that there are two things that corrupt absolutely: 1. Money, and 2. The lack thereof. I know that the Michael Jackson estate was awash in debt prior to his death, and immensely valuable at the time of the trial. I also know that neither Sony nor AEG, two billion dollar companies, was subjected to any of the necessary scrutiny that they deserved during the trial.
Maybe one day, all will be revealed.
I think what they are today come from the faults of their parents in large part. Contrary to what I have wrote in a caricatured way in one of my recent posts, I believe Katherine was acting less favorably than Joe in this matter.
Anyway, they believed the only way for the rest of the brothers to earn money was by working together with Michael, doing in particular 'Reunion Tour' with Michael. It was their belief, so they have always worked in this direction. It seems they didn’t think or look for other possibilities.
I think it was because they would/could not accept the idea or the fact that Michael was working independently without his brothers, and the Jacksons Five or the Jacksons had definitely reached the end.
According to what I believe, Katherine in particular could not accept such an idea more than anyone ; she might be thinking there was quite normal and natural the brothers was working together, simply because they were family. I remember reading Katherine had told Frank Dileo at the first day of Bad Tour something like she had preferred Victory Tour to Bad Tour, because Michael was always doing better with his brothers, and Frank Dileo asked her if she was crazy, or something like that.
Following their own belief and interest, parents and brothers were always trying to convince Michael. It is reported that Katherine was the most effective in this job, not only because if it is she, Michael would have difficulties to refuse, but also because she was convinced more than everyone that Michael should work with his brothers.
Recall their episode with a Korean cult (well documented in Taraborelli's book). Recall also that after the trial in 2005-2006, they wanted to get Michael’s agreement to Reunion Concert(s). What is the most aberrant is they were convinced that Michael should accept it – Do you know why? -- because they supported Michael during the trial. They were persuaded that it was normal that Michael would accept their proposal to thank them for their support. Such an argument makes me mad
Unfortunately for them, their obstinate acting made once again Michael away from them, not only psychologically, but also geographically. We understand by this episode why Michael have not renewed his will. Why should he add something in their favor ?
I read an article in the Washington Post by three probate lawyers commenting on what was happening when Randy and co. had kidnapped Katherine and they were making the "fake and fraudulent" claims and they stated that even if a discrepency had been discovered with the dating of the will (referring to a deliberate changing of the signature date) the executors would only receive a slap on the wrist. So, Branca would probably remain as executor as named by Michael. However, they said that it was a moot point since the window to raise questions about the will's validity had long ago closed (three years ago) and weren't sure of the motivation for doing so now. I believe that after the 2005 trial when Michael was living abroad he still had many legal dealings to contend with concerning other responsibities with his music and other business ventures. I know he had to give depositions on certain business dealings etc.. Therefore, I believe if any will was drawn up after 2005 there would be someone amongst all of the legal people, business people, managers, agents, etc. he dealt with who would have known something about it and come foward and it would have been filed with the state of California to become valid and legally binding when it was written. Michael made it very clear starting with the will he wrote in '95 what the stipulations were to be with the distribution of his wealth. The subsequent changes made only reflected the changes in his personal life with marriage/divorce and children born being included. How he wanted his assets to be distributed did NOT change nor did WHO he wanted to be in charge of its distribution with Branca being a constant in ALL of the wills. As hard as it is for Randy and the others to accept they NEVER were part of Michael's will with good reason. Michael was a VERY smart man. He knew his siblings all too well. We may have been shocked by their extreme behavior lately but I don't think MIchael would have been. I think he knew if they had gotten their hands on any part of his will they would use up everything or totally mismanage the estate until they lost it and leave nothing for his children when they came of age. I think their shocking behavior was exactly what Michael expected from them and that's why he left them out of his will.
Michael provided for them financially starting as a small child. He told them when he did the Victory tour that it was the last tour he would do for them and they would be set, financially, for life and he was done with them. I never understood why they didn't pursue other business opportunities such as: becoming managers, agents, producers, start their own record label, or perhaps something outside of the music industry. How about getting one of those nifty Las Vegas deals, like other musicians, that included a permanent stage show (Celine, The Osmonds) it would have been a very lucrative career. How about educating themselves by going to college- at least one of them could have become an entertainment lawyer and helped manage everyones wealth. No, they made their choices to sit back and do nothing so it's way past time for them to grow up and learn to fend for themselves.
I have read somewhere else some weeks ago that if Michael’s case was considered as ‘dying intestate’, everything would go directly to the children, but while they are minor, Jacksons family members would be first in line to be executors
I was thinking that's what Randy & Co had aimed, but apparently not.
I went on MJJC for the first time searching an interview with Andy Picheta.
I found on fans forum a thread they were talking about the last article I had posted here. I came across an interesting copy : Radar Online Editor's tweets about Randy and Howard Mann believing in the possible existence of another will written after 2005 which, however, has not yet been found.
This is a partial copy.
+ jen hutton heger @jenheger 18 Aug 12
Randy Jackson & Howard Mann believe MJ drafted new will after molestation trial in 05.
+ jen hutton heger @jenheger 18 Aug 12
even tho there has been no proof any wills after 02.
- andjustice4MJ @andjustice4some 18 Aug 12
Randy/Howard Mann believe Peter Lopez had a copy of the post-trial will, correct?
- Zack O. Greenburg @zogblog 18 Aug 12
I've heard talk of that, but seems to me if someone had an '05 will, they'd have come out with it, no?
+ jen hutton heger @jenheger 18 Aug 12
agree & that is y no other will & trust has been found.
If you want to know fans opinion, read their thread on MJJC forum, I found it very interesting.
I wrote in the previous post that Branca would remain. But I'm not sure now. Because he would be convicted of fraud for a forged will. In this case, he would not be referred as executor despite the will in 99 or ...? I don't have enough knowledge in legal matters...
I would like to thank you as well Luna for keeping us up to date
I have never thought that Michael's will was 'false' or 'fraudulent'.
***The following article must be read :
I always wanted to know if ever Michal’s will in 2002 is invalidated, his 1997’s will be considered as his last will or Michael’s case will be treated as ‘dying without a will’. The answer is in this article.
“The Scandalously Boring Truth About Michael Jackson's Will”
8/17/2012 @ 3:30PM
More than three years after his untimely death, Michael Jackson continues to make headlines—most recently as a result of a controversy over his will this summer. A few of his siblings labeled the document “false” and “fraudulent”; representatives for his estate countered by saying, “We are saddened that false and defamatory accusations grounded in stale Internet conspiracy theories are now being made by certain members of Michael’s family whom he chose to leave out of his will.”
Unfortunately for news hounds, the scandalous truth about Michael Jackson’s will is that there isn’t really much of a scandal, from a legal perspective. Last week FORBES obtained a copy of the latest will from the Los Angeles Superior Court (as others have before) and separately viewed three previous versions of the will, all of which are remarkably consistent and serve to confirm the boring reality: The will is in no real danger of being overturned, and even if it were, it would be replaced by a virtually identical previous version.
“If a later will is found to be invalid … the last will prior would be given full force and effect,” confirms Andrew Katzenstein, a partner at law firm Proskauer, who teaches the Estate and Gift Tax class at the University of Southern California.
Michael Jackson’s postmortem plans haven’t changed much over the years. His 1995 will names John Branca, Bert Mitchell and Marshall Gelfand as co-executors. Like all subsequent versions of the will, it specifies that the King of Pop’s interests be placed in an entity known as the Michael Jackson Family Trust, which stipulates the following distribution: 20% to charity, and the remainder split between a lifetime trust for Michael’s mother, Katherine Jackson, and a trust for any children Michael might have. Upon Katherine’s death, any remaining funds would revert to the children.
The second will, dated December 10th, 1997, also names Branca and Mitchell as co-executors of Michael Jackson’s estate, but replaces Marshall Gelfand with banker Jane Heller. The distribution under the trust remains the same. Michael’s first child—Prince Michael Joseph Jackson, Jr., born on in February—is mentioned by name, but the will still stipulates that half of what’s left after distributions to charities and for Katherine Jackson be split between all children he might have.
The third, signed in March 2002, after the birth of Michael’s second and third children—Paris Michael Katherine Jackson and Prince Michael Joseph Jackson, II (better known by his nickname, “Blanket”)—identifies only the first two children by name, but still indicates that the trust would benefit all his children evenly. Perhaps just to be safe, a fourth will that names all three children was filed the following July.
Jackson’s siblings have said that the singer was in New York on July 7th, the day the fourth will was dated and marked as signed in Los Angeles. Others have confirmed that the King of Pop was in the Big Apple that day. But under California law, this isn’t something that would render the will invalid, as it’s possible the document was simply misdated.
“If you accidentally write the wrong date on a document, does it matter? No,” says Katzenstein. “There’s no dating requirement.”
The will was admitted to probate in 2009, and Katzenstein points out that California Probate Code Section 8270 stipulates a period of 120 days to file a petition with the court to revoke the probate of the will. That period has long since passed. The will’s witnesses have all confirmed the document’s validity–according to estate attorney Paul Gordon Hoffman, the individuals were contacted in the days after Michael Jackson’s death, and none indicated that their signatures were false.
Even if the most recent will–or the three most recent wills–was somehow overturned, the outcome would be the same: John Branca, who is named as an executor on all four, would still be one of the executors; 20% of all proceeds from the estate would go to charity, with the remainder split between a trust for Katherine Jackson and a trust for Michael’s children. If all four wills were invalidated, the children would inherit the estate at age 18, with Katherine Jackson and the charities left out. In theory, a more recent will could supersede the current will if discovered, but it seems highly unlikely that someone would have waited so long to come forward.
“It isn’t like someone who knew Michael, and thus would be in possession of his will, didn’t know about Michael’s death and thus is still holding it,” says Hoffman, who points out that none of Jackson’s many former lawyers or business managers knows of a more recent will. “No one has ever indicated that a later will was signed.”
But this is all essentially old news. Michael’s father Joseph, who was left out of the most recent will (and the three preceding wills), unsuccessfully challenged the will in the months following his son’s death. “Joe Jackson takes none of this estate,” declared Judge Mitchell Beckloff in 2009. “This is a decision his son made.” Beckloff formally appointed Branca and McClain as co-executors of the estate shortly thereafter, when Katherine Jackson dropped her initial objections and announced her support for their appointment.
In hindsight, that seems to have been a wise decision. The estate has generated roughly half a billion dollars in the three years since the King of Pop’s death, thanks to a slew of deals including a $60 million advance for the film This Is It, a new recording contract worth up to $250 million and the Michael Jackson Immortal World Tour, a joint venture with Cirque du Soleil that has already grossed over $75 million in the first half of 2012 according to Pollstar, more than any other North American concert tour.
In total, Michael Jackson has earned more in the past three years than any single living artist–yet another reason it would be hard to imagine the structure of his estate changing anytime soon.
Branca remains, McClain goes away. That's the difference. So why Randy and Co. continue such a deal that seems useless ?? What is their interest ? What is their real motive ?
Thank you, cjg and mjstopfan, for such a compliment. I do it because, as I once wrote, I think this forum needs someone who take the job debcrn did before. I have time, so I do, that's all.
And thank you cjg for posting on this forum your views I find really brilliant and insightful.
And I'll second that! Great job, Luna!!!!!!! (((Hugs)))!
Luna, I think you're doing an awesome job keeping the information, topics, and dialogues going. Just thought I'd mention it.
Update about Janet's home in Las Vegas. From her own site : JanetJackson.com
"Janet's Home for Her Mom: The Truth Revealed"
By Antoinette Bueno | ETonline.com
Janet Jackson's lawyer is defending her regarding a report claiming that the Estate of Michael Jackson filed documents in the probate court requesting that the estate be permitted to "foot a portion of the bill on Janet's mortgage on her posh Las Vegas condo."
According to her lawyer Blair Brown, Janet's Las Vegas home, which is not a condo, has never even had a mortgage, and she purchased the home outright 10 years ago for her mother Katherine Jackson's use. Furthermore, Janet has "provided financial support unconditionally to her mother before and after Michael's death and will continue to do so," her representative states.
Brown says that any implication that Jackson has demanded any payments from the estate, or needs payments from the estate, are "false and outrageous."
"She is a successful artist and very high net worth individual who has never had financial problems. She has no need for any such payments from the estate," Brown states.
The Jackson family recently made headlines for their ongoing dispute over the validity of Michael Jackson's will -- which leaves everything in the pop star's lucrative estate to Katherine and his children. Five of Michael's siblings recently claimed that Michael's will was fake and they have demanded that the executors of his estate should resign.
Everyone has their feelings about Joe Jackson- but Michael himself said in his 1993 Oprah interview that Joseph never took his money like happened to many child stars and he was forever grateful to him for not doing so. Michael also maintained a relationship with his father, although it may have been on Michael's terms. The Jackson 5, as a group, earned the money when they were younger- so it was ALL of their money including Joseph and Katherine. He managed them, rehearsed them and was their agent and Katherine made all of their costumes. Now, as they grew in fame Joseph was smart enough to recognize (I think he always did) that Michael was the one with the true talents and gifts and he knew Michael WAS the Jackson 5 and eventually The Jacksons (after they left Motown). I think the dynamic changed when Michael went solo and gave the world his phenomenal gifts and it became apparent to the rest of the brothers that without Michael, since he was the one with the talent, which Joe knew, they couldn't sustain a career. That's when I think the relationship became one of taking advantage of Michael's generous, giving nature by his siblings. They knew Michael wouldn't let them go without if they asked him for help/ assistance if they said they needed it and I think they took advantage of this frequently. Michael being an honorable man certainly wouldn't let his parents go without. Michael, bless his heart did it out of L.O.V.E. because he was the embodiment of love. However, in light of their recent actions I think we know the motivation behind the siblings behavior, not need, but greed.
Hi Julia good to see you.
Mrs Jackson as far as I know is still living in Calabasas with Michael's children,
she has not moved to Los Vegas, she can still see her own children whenever
she wants just not at the Calabasas home.
Mrs Jackson is the legal co-guardian to three minor children and their needs
should come first. Mrs Jackson children are ADULTS!!!!!!!
Sometimes things get so muddled up by the media.....SMH
I also forgot he owned the SONY/ATV Catalogue and his music catalogue while living with his family.
Something is not right , she moved from Hayvenhurst , Calabasas , now she is in Las Vegas .I understand her latest move , the Jacksons were never restricted on visiting each other , they are a big family and they will keep it that way , someone should put those restrictions in their own home , the Jacksons are not violent people , they don't use drugs
So, the home in Calabasas will be empty just like in Hayvenhurst , smart move, GO Katherine , you are not in jail ...being told who should visit and not to visit , the executors should pay , she will be with PPB.. the kids are in trouble . Its not healthy for Katherine to live in a place where her children could not visit , she is not used to it , she needs her children
"Katherine Jackson Wants Vegas Expenses Help"
16 August 2012 19:00:23
Katherine Jackson wants Michael Jackson's Estate to pay her living expenses in Las Vegas, not the mortgage on daughter Janet's house as was previously reported.
Katherine Jackson wants Michael Jackson's Estate to pay her living expenses in Las Vegas.
The estate filed documents recently asking for the executors to ''expenses relating to a residence in Las Vegas,'' which is a house belonging to the showbiz matriarch's daughter Janet Jackson.
It was previously believed the claim related to partial mortgage payments on the property, but sources tell gossip website TMZ that Janet owns the house outright, and the expenses are actually for ''food, cable, utilities, Internet, travel and even toilet paper.''
The insiders stated that Janet never spends time at the Las Vegas house and bought it specifically for the use of her mother, who is the legal co-guardian of the late King of Pop's three children, Prince, 15, Paris, 14, and 10-year-old Blanket.
Why does she always need so much money? Why doesn’t she try to make do with what she gets monthly from the Estate?
an important element to add to Julia’s post :
Once upon a time, there was a patriarch named Joseph who had decided any money won thanks to the awesome talent of a little boy named Michael should be shared among all members of the big family. All family members have faithfully followed this instruction during ten years, twenty years, thirty years and more, even if they were no longer taking part in gain of money, even after the passing of the extraordinarily gifted young brother. This is the origin of all problems.
a nasty article about Janet on National Enquirer
Just the link, not a full copy
Oh God, Julia, That's such a scary thought! You're absolutely right about Michael's financial timeline. I hope that maybe Paris will see this and take heed!!! I have many, many worries about those kids. My prayers are definately with them. Michael, please watch over them, I know you will....forever!
Michael's financial situation in my opinion
He started a career in Gary Indiana with his family , he moved to Encino with his family , he released OFF THE WALL and THRILLER while living with his family , he extended the house in Encino while living with his family, why didn't he think of moving early before they sucked him dry ? Edited : He owned the Sony/ATV catalogue while living with his family . He bought Neverland while living with his family , he built Neverland while living with his family , he moved to Neverland , his nephews , nieces were able to visit him anytime and all other children of the World , with no financial problems .
The time he associated himself with the backstabbers that kept him away from his family , his financial problems started , he lost control of everything , they gave him drugs.
I hope they won't do it to Paris , I see her as the target of manipulation , not from family , from people who will pretend as if they will be saving her from the Jacksons , it will depend on her personality and on how she will use it
This article lets us know what are the problems, instead of just describing what had happened as the other article. The last paragraph is well written, which preciously mention the tabloid frenzy and reminds us that in reality we know very little about the truth.
"Michael Jackson's family: where did it all go wrong?"
The three years since Michael Jackson's death have been marked by an increasingly acrimonious feud that is tearing his family apart. But how did it come to this?
Tuesday 14 August 2012 17.00 BST
Inter-generational Twitter feuds, alleged abductions and the direst allegations of false imprisonment of an elderly parent; world-famous siblings embroiled in protracted legal battles that recall Jarndyce and Jarndyce; and at the centre of it all, at the eye of a ghastly familial hurricane, lies a musical legend – the foremost musical legend of the past 40 years – who at his death had accumulated debts nearing half a billion dollars but who now, after three years as a corpse, and thanks to astute management of his estate and back catalogue, will soon once more be awash in accountants' black ink.
Even in his grave, Michael Jackson lies uneasy, as his survivors collectively do as much to dishonour his name as the overzealous Santa Barbara Police Department twice did with its controversial failed child-molestation trials in 1993 and 2003. We are a very long way from Gary, Indiana, from Hitsville USA and from Motown's "Sound of Young America". It makes you want to cry out: "Stop! In the name of love."
On one side of this toxic contretemps are the Jackson family matriarch, 82-year-old Katherine Jackson – the one truly dependable and loving person in MJ's life – and Michael's three children, Paris, Prince and Blanket, who together are the King of Pop's four principal legatees (along with a number of MJ's favourite charities, which get about one fifth of the estate annually). Michael made a point of excluding his siblings and his abusive father-manager, Joseph, from his will. This did not sit well with some of those on the other side of the dispute – Jermaine, Rebbie, Randy, Tito and, latterly, Janet, but not LaToya, Marlon or Jackie. Many of them had been receiving allowances from their superstar brother for years – all of which stopped at his death.
Several of the aggrieved have sworn that Michael's will could not have been signed in Los Angeles on the date the document bears since, they argued, their late brother was in New York on that day. Thus, they said, Michael Jackson died intestate. In the state of California this means that the deceased's assets are portioned out by the state, not by the family's lawyers, with these going first to children, then to parents, then to siblings, depending on which of them survives the deceased. Such a situation can become the focus of multiple lawsuits, frivolous or otherwise, much more easily than can a well-managed, properly willed estate.
This slender claim has been the basis for a family lawsuit (backed for a while even by Katherine) that was thrown out by first the Los Angeles superior court, then the California court of appeals and finally the California supreme court in the years since Jackson died. Why has the issue resurfaced now, and done so far more noisily than it did at the time of the comparatively low-visibility court cases?
The focus of the recent disputes has been the team managing the Jackson estate, legendary entertainment lawyer John Branca and Jackson's friend, lawyer John McClain. Both were appointed by Michael as his executors well before his death, and he could scarcely have made a wiser choice. They have done a sterling job of turning Jackson's estate into a functioning money-spinner once again, all under the consistently approving eye of California superior court judge Mitchell Beckloff. Now that Jackson isn't buying up department stores' complete inventories of furniture, renting out entire hotel floors, or taking ruinously expensive narcotic safaris to the outer reaches of the Physicians' Desk Reference, expenditures have fallen off considerably. McClain and Branca meanwhile – two of the sharpest lawyers in modern entertainment, whose client base includes half of the Rock'n'Roll Hall of Fame – made a series of fantastically remunerative deals and licensing arrangements that have piloted the stricken estate from developing world debtor nation status to something approaching solvency.
And the money will not stop pouring in over the years to come. Jackson sold 35m albums in the 12 months after his death – as a wise man said, death really is a great career move – while the rehearsal film about preparations for the This Is It tour made $260m (£166m) worldwide during a limited two-week release. Jackson's executors cut a lucrative deal allowing Pepsi to associate itself with the 25th anniversary reissue of the Bad album, and licensed the Jackson catalogue to Cirque de Soleil for its Immortal show, which has toured nationwide in the States and packed them in steadily at its home base in Las Vegas. These big moves and others, including album sales and the judicious exploitation of the Jackson-owned Beatles publishing rights, took the asset value of the estate from minus $500m to minus $25m in less than three years. It will only grow and grow. This is a Sinatra-sized musical legacy, at least in terms of cash, that will pay off for decades to come.
Apparently, though, the contesting siblings see the executors as a new avenue of attack. Their particular issue with Branca and McClain concerns the 10% they earn from the estate in their role as executors. That's a pretty standard fee for managing a large estate, but that didn't stop siblings Randy, Jermaine, Tito, Janet and Rebbie from writing to the executors last month and demanding their resignations. Never mind a court ruling that the period to challenge the will had expired; they claimed that it remained "fake, flawed, and fraudulent", and that their brother had "despised" the executors while he was alive. Brother Randy later added a more startling allegation, claiming that "anyone who stands up to the executors is denied access to my mother".
Which makes the disappearance – if that's what it was – of Katherine Jackson only days later all the more intriguing. It also brought the next generation of Jacksons, the children with no memory of Gary, Indiana, or Motown, into the picture. They are teenagers, so social media is their go-to avenue of communication, which troubles the older members of the scandal-prone, tabloid-catnip family. Jackson's daughter Paris – the one with the Village of the Damned eyes – stepped up as her generation's chatty, flying-thumbed representative in the feud. On 21 July, she tweeted: "yes, my grandmother is missing. i haven't spoken with her in a week i want her home now." And: "8 days and counting. something is really off, this isn't like her at all. I wanna talk directly to my grandmother!!" And finally: "9 days and counting … so help me god I will make whoever did this pay."
The next day, several of Jackson's siblings showed up at the gated community in Los Angeles where Katherine lives with the children. The LAPD arrived on the scene after a call about a scuffle in which the elder siblings, Janet, Jermaine and Randy, allegedly tried to confiscate the mobiles of the increasingly talkative teenagers. Randy and Jermaine seem to have come to blows with Trent Jackson, a cousin who works for their mother, in a scene that one anonymous witness likened to The Jerry Springer Show. The same day, Katherine was spotted by a photographer in Arizona, evidently very contented and healthy, giving rise to speculation that Jackson's siblings had sent their mother there so as to better control the situation in LA. Instead, they had made it worse. The executors had already moved to have custody of the children signed over temporarily to Tito's son TJ (Tito's children get some support from the MJ will).
Katherine, it emerged, was at a spa in Arizona, incommunicado, without her phone, iPad or a functioning TV, leaving her blissfully unaware of the endless spats unfolding in LA. Local police interviewed her at her daughter Rebbie's home nearby and found no reason for concern, but LAPD investigators who later turned up to check on her were turned away, as Arizona is outside their jurisdiction.
Jermaine issued a statement on behalf of the family, or whichever faction of it he is in: "No one is being 'blocked' from speaking with Mother. She is merely an 82-year-old woman following doctor's orders to rest-up and de-stress, away from phones and computers. Everyone has been well aware of this within the family, but I would like to reiterate my reassurance to the outside world that Mother is fine. In the meantime, thank you for all your thoughts and concerns."
What do these confusing titbits and unsourced accounts add up to? The whole story is riddled with contradictions, competing claims and counter-claims, and speculative accounting about other people's money. It is complicated by the fact that the Jackson family and all its tacky and embarrassing scandals can still, three years after Michael's death, drive the worst elements of the tabloid press into an orgasmic feeding frenzy, causing them to rely on paid witnesses and disgruntled, possibly mendacious former employees – and when they are not at hand, simply to make stuff up. The tabloid narrative on the Jacksons was set in stone decades ago and no one wishes to upset that money-spinning apple cart of rumour, lie and innuendo. So when something with a grain of truth to it rolls around, like this story of which we really know very little that is utterly reliable, that grain of truth has to be painstakingly extruded from a veritable Sargasso Sea of misinformation. You have been warned.