This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Happy Feet
Filter to certain boards:
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 21
16
« on: June 24, 2010, 04:11:45 PM »
Both Michael Bush and Karen Faye worked for many many years for Michael and not just in any position, but one that worked intimately and closely with Michaels body. We're not talking about people who maybe ran errands for Michael or worked in business meetings or legal work etc. They worked with and on Michael Jackson the person, not around him.They would know scars, marks, personal details that others wouldn't. Either they really did work on Michael Jackson's body OR they are in on this hoax and are playing their part. I think they would know if the body they worked on was not his. Also, it would of made more sense for the family to hire 2 people not as familiar with Michaels body to work on him if they were concealing the hoax because it wouldn't be obvious to them.
Both these 2 would have to know something in order for this to be pulled off. Maybe this is their role and not really them being another group of so called friends cashing in on him. But that just my opinion.
17
« on: June 24, 2010, 03:54:16 PM »
This does somewhat disturb me. It is possible for Micheal closest friends/clothing designer to have done this. The man dress Michael for years. At the families request this could have been done. Please don't think I am strange at saying this but, when my mother died, I did a lot for her. Well it was I guess more for me at that point. I took care of my Mom in my home. When she passed the hospice nurses came. I requested to give her a bath one more time before they took her. I know this may sound weird but I knew my Mom would want me to use her special soap and lotion so her body would smell nice. It was almost like the way that they used to anoint bodies with precious oils and perfumes in the old days. When I went the next day to the funeral home I requested that my niece do her hair and I would dress her. I also did her make-up and nails. These were so important to my mother. I was her only daughter out of seven children and the baby. We shared all the girlie things. So this is not far fetched at all. I pray it's not true. I hope he is in on the hoax. God I hope so. I had a friend that was at FL for the memorial and I was told that Micheal Bush looked extremely upset. Either he is a good actor or he was upset about something. Could be he was upset that Micheal has to fake his death and he wouldn't see him again. Or the body wasn't Micheal at all and he thought it was. Not strange for saying that WendyE. I too, along with my sisters and older nieces did the exact same thing with my daughter when she died (minus the bath thing). We dressed her, did her hair, makeup etc and assisted in making her look beautiful in her coffin. So don't feel stranger for mentioning this with ur Mum. It's not unusual or uncommon. I don't find it unusual if Michael Bush did do these things IF Michael has really died.
18
« on: March 19, 2010, 11:43:20 PM »
I haven't got too much to say, other than I tried to get this clarified as to whether it was the original or the study for (which is like draft painting first before the final product/painting). It's been discussed on the other forum too.
If you manage to find the correct answer, please let us know. Either way, original or study, I would think it would be something Michael would not allow.
19
« on: March 19, 2010, 03:37:32 AM »
“In October 2001, Jackson released Invincible. This was his first full-length album in six years, and it turned out to be the last album of new material he released while still alive. The release of the album was preceded by a dispute between Jackson and his record label, Sony Music Entertainment. Jackson had expected the licenses to the masters of his albums to revert to him sometime in the early 2000s. Once he had the licenses, he would be able to promote the material however he pleased and he would also be able to keep all the profits. However, due to various clauses in the contract, the revert date turned out to be many years away. Jackson discovered that the attorney who represented him in the deal was also representing Sony.Jackson was also concerned about another conflict of interest. For a number of years, Sony had been pushing to buy all of Jackson's share in their music catalog venture. Jackson feared that Sony might have something to gain from Jackson's career failing, since if his career did fail he would have to sell his share of the catalog.
These conflicts were utilized by the entertainer to leverage an early exit to his contract. Just before the release of Invincible, Jackson informed the head of Sony Music Entertainment, Tommy Mottola, that he was leaving Sony. As a result, all singles releases, video shootings and promotions concerning the Invincible album were canceled. In spite of the uproar preceding its release,”
BELOW IS REGARDING COURT TRANSCRIPT INFO IN 2005 TRAIL
Branca was an attorney in Los Angeles doing music work for Michael.
Branca was a partner at the Ziffren law firm in LA. That firm also represented Sony.
Sony paid money into the offshore account for Branca with the intent for Branca to sell out Michael.
Bear in mind that in this time period, Michael was in conference talks with Sony concerning both of their interests in the catalog.
Michael cleaned house so to speak, firing Branca and other associates. He also had Branca and a few other investigated.
Snippet below is from the 2005 court transcripts:-
Here is one question put to LeGrand by Mr Mesereau during the 2005 trial
Q: Was it your belief when you started this investigation that Al Malnik, Tommy Motolla, John Branca and people at Sony were trying to find a way to get Mr Jacksons interest in that Music Catalog.
A: I'm not sure that I would include Al Malnic in that group, but certainly was concerned that Branca and Motolla in particular, had set the stage so to speak, for Sony to be able to obtain Michaels interest in the Sony/ATV joint venture.
20
« on: March 19, 2010, 03:14:24 AM »
ARTICLE DATED JULY 2009 Los Angeles 2009 July 3 /PRNewswire/ -- Mina Sirkin, an expert Trust and Estates attorney in Los Angeles says, "I have seen a lot of wills in my career, but the copy of Michael Jackson's will filed with the court leaves me with way too many questions as a trust and estates lawyer!" While some believe everything they see filed in the courts as true, sometimes, you just have to ask questions about those documents. In Michael Jackson's case, the copy of Michael's signature on the will (copy) doesn't look like the copy of Michael's signature on the birth certificate of his son Michael Joseph Jackson, Jr., also known as Prince Michael Jackson. Some people may say, it's just the size of the signature because it is in a small box, but look closer ... See the Will and signature of Michael Jackson on the copy of the will filed with the court here: Michael Jackson Will Copy (You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login ... py2002.pdf) See Birth Certificate Picture here: Copy of Birth Certificate of Michael Joseph Jackson, Jr. (You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login ... icates.pdf) I'm not a document examiner, but I'm sure if the original actually turns up, that there will be dozens of forensic document examiners looking at the original signatures on all documents Michael may have signed around 2002. Now, looking at all the other flaws, I noticed that the press version of the copy of the will redacted all the names and addresses of the witnesses, but my pre-press copy has the names of all the witnesses. Two of the three witnesses are John McLain and Barry Siegel. Barry Siegel, a CPA who ran the Provident Financial Management, appears to have declined to act as a co-executor. But the letter attached to the petition which looks like a declination is not current. It is dated in 2003. This is unusual in that in most cases where a nominated executor declines to serve as executor, he or she will usually sign a declination after the death of the testator. This might infer some incident which caused Siegel to refuse the duty of executor between July, 2002 and August, 2003. Need I say that even the copy of the signature of Barry Siegel on the alleged declination letter dated 2003 doesn't look like the copy of the Barry Siegel signature on the witness area dated 2002! Why on earth would the declination referred to in the August 26, 2003 letter not be an actual attachment to the petition? Who would think of that one? The addresses of John McClain, and Barry Siegel are both redacted. The signature of the third witness is not legible. In California, witnesses are needed to authenticate a typed will. My guess is that Mr. McLain and Mr. Siegel, in the words of Desi Arnaz, "will have some esplaining to do... !" "When they say, why, why, tell em' that it's human nature..." -- Michael Jackson Mina Sirkin is a Family Trust Lawyer in Los Angeles, California. She was the expert on the Anna Nicole Smith case for CBS/KCAL9, Britney Spears Conservatorship and is currently the expert to CNN and Inside Edition (CBS). You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login. 818-340-4479. Press and Media Contact only: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login or Karen Reyes for interview scheduling: 818-340-4479 and 818-438-7170.
SOURCE Sirkin & Sirkin
21
« on: March 19, 2010, 03:13:00 AM »
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login ... .html#more Michael Jackson Estate's record deal raises questions The Probate Lawyer Blog featured this article about the Michael Jackson Estate several weeks ago, posing the question of whether it is ethical for estate executors to seek a 10% fee for certain business deals they reach for such a high-profile estate. It's especially problematic when you factor in that one of the executors was Michael Jackson's attorney. Well, this attorney, John Branca, and his co-executor, John McClain (a music executive), just hit the mother-load. It was widely reported yesterday that they brokered a deal worth up to $250 million dollars (that's right -- one quarter of a billion dollars!). What was the deal for? Sony announced a seven-year distribution agreement for unreleased music recorded by the late King of Pop (as well as related video footage). Yes that means that Branca and McClain earned $12.5 million each for one deal. Why do we question this? For several reasons, actually. First, it's the job of executors to bring in as much money as possible for an estate that has earning potential like this estate has. They shouldn't need a 10% incentive to do the job they're required by law to do. Second, Branca, reportedly, is the attorney who prepared the will and trust that named him as the co-executor and co-trustee. Because of these documents that he created, he just made $12.5 million -- in addition to the other fees he's already earned (and will continue to earn). Would it be ethical for an attorney to create a will for a client to sign that leaves $12.5 million to that attorney as a direct beneficiary? In most cases, no, it wouldn't. So why is this attorney allowed to earn that much as an executor fee? Finally, there's the issue which we discuss in our book, "Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights!", that Michael Jackson's Trust wasn't funded properly. If it had been, then his estate would have been kept out of court and handled in private. It's also entirely possible that his trust document (which hasn't been released to the public) may have specified what compensation the trustees would have received. IF that's the case (just speculating here), then Branca and McClain wouldn't necessarily have been able to receive this percentage fee. But, because Jackson's Trust wasn't properly funded, thereby requiring it to pass through the probate court process, it opened the door to allow this type of fee to be approved by the judge (again, if the trust document addressed their compensation, which isn't unusual). And the judge did approve the executors' 10% fee in this case. A properly-used estate plan would have bypassed court entirely. Jackson's estate plan didn't do that. The attorney who prepared that estate plan now just earned tens of millions of dollars because of that estate plan. And it's all legal. But is it ethical? Some feel it is. After all, Branca is a respected entertainment lawyer and McClain is an experienced music executive. They have the expertise to broker deals like this. And clearly, judging by the amount of money they've brought into the estate, they're good at what they do. And Michael Jackson's heirs are benefiting from their expertise. If it's standard to compensate entertainment industry experts with this type of fee, why shouldn't Branca and McClain earn what may be considered fair compensation in that line of business? There is some merit to this position. After all, Michael's mother, Katherine Jackson, spent months battling McClain and Branca in court over this estate (until she hired a new attorney, at which time she changed her position). Yet she didn't object to their 10% fee. If a primary beneficiary of Michael's estate didn't object to this generous fee, why should anyone else? What do you think? Posted by: Andrew W. Mayoras & Danielle B. Mayoras, co-authors of Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights! and co-founders of The Center for Probate Litigation and The Center for Elder Law in metro-Detroit, Michigan, which concentrate in probate litigation, estate planning, and elder law. Andrew & Danielle are husband and wife attorneys, professional speakers and consultants across the country.[/b]
22
« on: March 19, 2010, 03:05:47 AM »
MJ doesn't own a large chunk of Sony. He's 50/50 of the publishing divison and of that 50% he owned he refinanced a large loan with Sony using the catalogue as collateral. With this deal came the conditional option giving Sony the right to purchase 25% of his remainding 50%. There was news as far back as 2006 regarding Sony refinancing his loans with Fortess. He merged his ATV calatolgue with the publishing division. That is only part of Sony, not half the company.
It was in Sony's best interest that they refinanced for him. They didn't do it for Michael. They did it for themselves. If he had gone into bankruptcy or default or whatever, his share of the catalogue would of been up for grabs and there would not be any shortage of buyers. Sony want the rest of the catalogue and keeping it with Michael would give them more a chance.
Again, this new contract is a win-win situation for Sony.
23
« on: March 17, 2010, 03:41:57 AM »
If this is a HOAx,,idk what to think anymore!! :? Maybe the hoax is just a way for Michael to expose those that have for many years conspired against him. One of whom I firmly believe is Branca. Maybe he needed to "die" (that's if this is a hoax) to prove that this was true. He had been talking about a conspiracy for years. Hardly anyone took him seriously, infact a majority just thought it was all in his head. This way they are exposed publicly and everyone will finally know the truth. Maybe :?
24
« on: March 17, 2010, 03:36:25 AM »
so,yall think that Mj would like Sony stealing his music and putting it out the way they want too instead of himself or maybe his kids . :? But we do understand that The Jackson family has no control or say so over MJ;s assets at all ,Right ?  It is a FACT that Michael was fighting with Sony over the INvincible album about how they wanted to promote & mkt his music :twisted: .WE do know this RIGHT ? :oops: What happened to the 100's of songs in MJ 's vault ? :oops: Have they stolen them ? That was supposed to be the property of MJ's children ,isn't it ? :cry: :?: Where are MJ's Jewels ? :?: Where is the cash ? :?: {many witnesses that said MJ kept cash } What happened to the 5 million.Tohme was supposed to have returned ?Why are Micheal's clothing being autioned off ? Dose that not belong to his kids . :? Who is selling MJ's personal property to the public .Who gave them permission to sell MJ 's personal property . There will be nothing left by the time the kids are old enough to do anything about it . :cry: There are SO MANY people after Michaels KIDS money that it is unprecidented .But a lot of us r to bizzy looking at a hoax . While Mj;s assets ,legacy ,property ,creativity is being RAPED by SONY It is not That MJ was broke ,Thats just what they want you to think , whoever was in charge of MJ's money was not paying his bills[Tohme} {Obviously from all the lawsuits ,Un less the lawsuits are frivolous }. It is on audio Tape .No one finds it strange that a clause ,was on MJ's will that if Katherine Jackson contested the will {making Branca controller} that she would "forfeit " her money . Why would MJ do this to his Mom ? He trusted her with his kids ,but not his Money ?Not his unreleased music & property ? This does not make sense .And if it does not make sense ,it is because it's not true .Michaels Legacy belongs to his family ,NOT SONY !.John Branca lies on his website and takes credit for MJ's Success ,according to Branca ,it was his Idea To Buy the Beatles Catalog ,this is in stark contrast to what MICHAEL SAYS and others .{see J.Branca's site for yourself }. Branca Sounds jealous of Michael .Michael would give someone control of his music & money that he caught stealing from him ? REALLY !It is in the Trial transcript in 2003 .Tom Measerua questioning the private investigator that Mj hired to Investigate Branca & Matolla . See for your self . why isn't hardly anyone paying attention to this !Branca & Sony & Aeg & Tohme wanted to be in control of Mj's assets, Music ,the way Mj presents and Mkts his music ,his Atv Catalog ,his money and His power ,AND NOW THEY ARE <WETHER HE IS DEAD OR NOT . They have a firm grip on MJ 's entire future and legacy .And no one ,or hardly anyone on here thinks this is" fishy "To say the very least .Anyone got any video or literature on Branca saying a word about Mj ' death ? He only talks about MJ's assets . He is the God of Michael's FUTURE Music NOW .Which is what he always wanted .Probably why MJ FIRED HIM :x :twisted: The kids and their inheritance will be next Kelly. Watch and see. Someone is already trying to get them away from the family. Sony is in a win-win situation here if the venture fails or succeeds. They will either recieve a nice payday or payout. However for the Estate, it becomes a win or lose situation. And a big one at that. If the estate does not met their contractual obligations for this deal it will result in either a lawsuit or negotiated deal to settle to gain ownership of that catalogues. This would be the only acceptable way that they would find to gain control of the catalogue without raising suspicion in my opinion. Failing to met the obligations of the contract will allow Sony to legally step in and recover any losses. Branca is not stupid. He's as sly as a fox.
25
« on: March 16, 2010, 07:44:12 PM »
everyone should see the u-tube video's on the L.A. Civil Rights Association they are going to be rallying for Justice for Michael .Joe Jackson and Brian Oxman are on there and the president of the LACRA had dinner with Joe Jackson last week .They want to take it to Supreme court ,the LA court system is corrupt . Judge Melville said MJ bail was higher because he is rich ,this is a violation of MJ's rights .LAPD ,FBI >LA DA office ,been violating MJ's rights for decades ! Why do you think he left ? why do you think he did not want to perform in the US ?Why should he let U.S. Biz profit off of his Fame in U.S Justice system really Failed Michael he says "I can't believe this is the land from which I came " it was the PEOPLE that found Mj Innocent not the court system they abused and violated him and his fame & money and they continue to do so today .How did someone that MJ accused of stealing from him get control of all of MJ assets including unreleased Music ? I do not believe his Family 'went along with it " They have no choice .Branca has total control .If she contests him she loses {Katherine } That is why Joe has to file suits . Mj future legacy and creative legacy belongs to his family and kids ,Dosen't it :? I know where your coming from Kelly and I have read and followed all the stuff too. I wish I could share in the same optimism and joy everyone else does with this news. However I don't. This is not good.
26
« on: March 16, 2010, 06:07:45 PM »
Michael's disgust for SONY was BECAUSE of MOTOLLA!
Motolla was FIRED in 2006!
We love you, Michael! And YES, we will be there! What a genius!
:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
Exactly.
I was listening (radio conversation) to the guys that worked for Sony, it seemed like they had good relationship with MJ. I think MJ left Sony because of Mottola.
Our eyes should be open very widely, I don't wanna be sitting here next year thinking and talking about the hoax.
Mj had Matolla & Branca investigated . The investigator was questioned by Tom M during the Trial ,it is in the transcription of the trial Mj suspected Matolla and Branca of Funneling Money {MJ;s Money} to off shore accounts . Hello,wake up people .Why would Mj hire back someone he suspected of stealing ? Fortunate for John Branca ,HUH The very people that MJ suspected of stealing from him ,are in control of everything he owns .Including the LA court system .The whole SYSTEM is corrupt .It's a circle of lies . I want to see Mj autograph Of Mj giving back Branca control of his estate .And witnesses .
Ditto Kelly. This is all B.S
27
« on: March 16, 2010, 05:12:10 AM »
"Back catalog" refers to MJs older music that was produced. SONY now has the right to sell that collection of MJ music in pieces or as a whole.
Sorry but I just found this : You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login
Can someone plz explain what " the right to sell his back catalog ..." means ? :? But I thought the rights to his music reverted back to him last year?? How do they now have the right to sell it? :?
28
« on: March 16, 2010, 04:17:11 AM »
Sorry but I just found this : You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login
Can someone plz explain what " the right to sell his back catalog ..." means ? :? I don't know, but this does not sound like good news to me. Michael wanted 100% of his ties to Sony cut. This is the work of Branca & Mc Clain and that FAKE will. Didn't MJ say "Sony Kills"..... :? :? Watch a see, Branca & Mc Clain will eventually sell that catalogue back to Sony. This was their plan all along. EDIT: The full quote for those that don't know (I just assumed everyone did). Is Sony Kills the Music. Just thought I better clarify b4 someone decides to correct me
29
« on: March 16, 2010, 04:00:12 AM »
I don't like this..... :? :? :?
30
« on: March 14, 2010, 06:53:23 PM »
!A “Super Bad” Internet rumor is playing “I Got You” with the British tabloids, which claimed yesterday that the corpse of soul superstar James Brown was stolen, but South Carolina cops and a funeral director say the papers are “Talking Loud and Saying Nothing.”
“I have not heard that,” said the Aiken County Sheriff’s Office, which has jurisdiction over the area where Brown was laid to rest. “I would expect we would have knowledge of such a thing.”
Charles Reid of C.A. Reid Funeral Home, who managed the 2006 burial of the Godfather of Soul in a mausoleum at his daughter’s home, said the rumor is false.
James Brown’s daughter LaRhonda Pettit reportedly said his body was missing on the eve of an autopsy meant to prove he was poisoned. The story got picked up and traveled around the world before it landed back in South Carolina, where Reid laid it to rest."
:? Huh?
So they are saying that this this newspaper article is A HOAX :shock: :!:
I find it very hard to believe that anyone would lie to the media about the body of their own father gone missing. Something doesn't add up here. Or the rest of the family relocated the coffin and didnt notify Pettit because they did not agree with her about a postmortem.
Yeah it does seem strange. I'm wondering why she said this in the first place. Something doesn't seem right. If the body is indeed where it should be as the rest of the family are claiming, then her request for the autposy should go through right? :? Let's see what happens then.
|
Show Posts