Statement on Janet's website...

[Love4Michael]

Any ideas on what this latest tweet could mean?  It was made about 40 minutes ago. 

Janet Jackson ‏@JanetJackson
LET'S DO THIS
Expand
 Reply  Retweet  Favorite

[sweetsunsetwithMJ]

Sorry I post it here cause I don't think I should open a new thread just for this:

Janet Jackson promoting Skyfall (the same as Prince) and Life of Pi (we have been talking so much about this Pi number):


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

[blankie]

@mindseye:

I'm thinking... that the negative media campaign was started by MJ and family to draw attention to the fake will and executors.

Oh my I think you're right.

Totally agree.

[Snoopy71]

BeTheChange quoted

5. Michael Jackson's former wife and mother of Prince Jackson and Paris Jackson, Deborah Jean Rowe Jackson, is intentionally omitted as a beneficiary of the will. Jackson and Rowe were married in November 1996 and divorced in October 1999.

Lisa Marie was not mentioned.   And the marriage to Lisa was with the wrong name Michael Joseph Jackson, as was the 3 children's birth certificates.

In California, an ex-wife is still considered a beneficiary unless explicitly implied that she is excluded (which is why that clause is on the will). Lisa Marie would not have been mentioned as an ex-wife because the subsequent marriage to Debbie Rowe would have validated the divorce between Michael and Lisa Marie (He would not have been able to marry Debbie otherwise).

But this does raise some interesting questions....the whole Michael "Joe versus Joseph" Jackson.

How deep does it really go?

1) He married Debbie Rowe as "Michael Joseph Jackson"

2) He married Lisa Marie as "Michael Joseph Jackson"

3) The children's birth certificates all bear "Michael Joseph Jackson" as their father


So if we accept the theory that "Joe" is his legal middle name, then none of the above events are true. :icon_e_confused:


As for the will....


[ *In 1990, a reportedly tearful Jackson split from Branca; it was said at the time that mogul David Geffen had warned Jackson that Branca had too much influence on his life. Branca and Jackson reunited three years later, when Jackson was facing a suit for alleged child molestation. In 1997, Branca's firm drafted Jackson's will, which was redone in 2002 after the birth of Jackson's third child, Prince Michael Jackson II. Branca has said he played no role in drafting those documents and they were handled by others at his firm.] Legal "loophole"--->plausible deniability.




You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Controversial details in Michael’s will include that the sole beneficiaries are Michael’s mother, Katherine, and his children, Paris, 14; Prince, 15; and Blanket, 10 — which effectively disinherits the rest of the Jackson clan — and that the signature and location of the signing — July 7, 2002, in Los Angeles — are impossible.

[UPDATE] In a NewsOne Exclusive, sources close to Rev. Al Sharpton‘s National Action Network support the Jacksons’ allegation that the signature is fake: On the weekend of July 5, 2002, Michael was hosted by Sharpton’s organization in New York City, where Michael spoke about his feelings toward Sony executive Tommy Mottola and the record industry.

According to Rebbie, Janet, Randy, Tito, and Jermaine (pictured from left, with Jermaine appearing last) yet another detail that makes them suspicious of the will is the fact that Michael also “despised” the lawyers:

    Our brother told us, in no uncertain terms and without hesitation in the months prior to his death, that he despised both of you and he did not want either of you to have anything to do with his life or estate for that matter.

For the Jacksons, the will issue isn’t just affecting them; they also claim that the issue is affecting their mother’s health:

    Your [the lawyers'] actions are affecting her health, and on top of that, we’ve just found out she recently had a mini-stroke, the Jacksons wrote. Please understand, she’s not equipped to handle the stress load you are putting on her.

Naturally, both McClain and Branca have rejected the Jacksons’ claims, saying that the clan is just disgruntled because they were not a part of the will:

    Any doubts about the validity of Michael’s will and his selection of executors were thoroughly and completely debunked two years ago when a challenge [by the siblings] was rejected by the Los Angeles County Superior Court, the California Court of Appeals and, finally, the California Supreme Court,” the lawyers said in a statement Thursday.

    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.

Interestingly enough, the lawyers have an unlikely ally in their defense: Paris recently countered some of her relatives’ claims on Twitter, writing:

    I will defend my beloved family members with all I have, even if it means from other family members,” she tweeted. “I am going to clarify right now that what has been said about my grandmother is a rumor. … She is completely fine.

To her Uncle Randy, she reportedly snapped:

    I don’t appreciate you telling everyone things that aren’t true. Maybe he should have respect for his mother.

Reportedly, the tweet was later deleted.
At this point, it is unclear what steps the Jackson family will take to further challenge the validity of the will.

[MJonmind]

My reasons for sticking to Branca being in the hoax with MJ is:

MJ told him 20 some years ago that he wanted him to help him make his life the greatest show on earth.
Branca got the catalogue for him, which is a big part of the hoax drama--'My life is in danger, they're going to kill me for my catalogue." (Just as the Pepsi fire sets the stage for the supposed drug abuse leading to 'death day' June 25.)
We think it was MJ in disguise seated beside Branca at X-factor.

Voice, great list on Janet’s involvement in the hoax.  Yeah, she said she tended to smile or laugh when she was feeling sad.  Haha!

On Barry Siegel, I came across this interesting video:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBRR1amSZhQ&list=UL[/youtube]

[Australian MJ BeLIEver]

MJ told him 20 some years ago that he wanted him to help him make his life the greatest show on earth.
Branca got the catalogue for him, which is a big part of the hoax drama--'My life is in danger, they're going to kill me for my catalogue." (Just as the Pepsi fire sets the stage for the supposed drug abuse leading to 'death day' June 25.)
We think it was MJ in disguise seated beside Branca at X-factor.

+1 couldn't agree more! :bowdown:

[Australian MJ BeLIEver]

delete

[Australian MJ BeLIEver]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and feelings. I must be missing something about Janet. Why do we think she is just now joining the hoax?

It was Janet who appeared at the awards show 2 days after the "d**th* to give the famous statement "To you he was an icon. To us he was family". Or, something of that nature.

It was Janet who performed SCREAM at another award show that so many thought Michael was there for or possibly even performing in the background.

It was Janet who performed on American Idol where an extra person showed up in the background.

It was Janet who gave conflicting stories about where she was that day when she found out.

It was Janet who stood by Paris for support and guidance in her famous memorial speech.

It was Janet who gave that interview where she couldn't quit smiling.

It was Janet who said she'd wear black for a year in honor of Michael yet a couple of months (or even weeks) later she was seen wearing all white and out partying with her sister LaToya for New Years.

It was Janet who cut off her hair to resemble Michael in that picture with his eye colored blue.

It was Janet who showed up at court wearing that man's suit.

It was Janet who showed up at Forest Lawn on the 1 year anniversary along with Randy and Jermaine when they had that small private service.

It goes on - but Janet didn't just "show up". She's been there since the start. It's just that her role in this has gone from passive to aggressive. Hang in there - you've made it this far. Let's see it through to the end.

Blessings

@ voice. great post. I somehow missed it back in Aug... Yes Janet DEF there from the start. Conflicting stories about where she was and how she heard the news were the first sign.

Can u pls explain (briefly) if you are inclined, 'the mans suit' I missed that and call me daft, but I fail to make the connect..
cheers

[underthemoon]

Just noticed this hit Twitter...


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I don't saw the treat untill now and i wonder about this statement..

Is is a great Law Firm with several lawyers...more then  i can find about Branca and so on....

But the statement has no date and no signature....everyone could have written it who has a blank paper from that office. Without date and signature it is nothing....

[Snoopy71]

Just noticed this hit Twitter...


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Arnold W. Klein

Yesterday

This is not about a conspiracy this is simply about greed. Michael's catalogue brings in $700 million a year. Anyone with a double digit IQ knows this Will is a fake. So I am not here to rant because I did that long ago. I am just here to tell you the truth.





You don't say Arnie? So what's REALLY going on :icon_e_geek:

[MJonmind]

700 million?  The truth huh... This gives us confidence in the other things he says.

Zack O'Malley Greenburg, Forbes Staff
The largest jewel in Jackson’s financial crown, both in life and in death, is his 50% stake in the Sony/ATV music publishing catalog. Purchased by Jackson for $47.5 million in 1985 from the late Australian billionaire Robert Holmes a Court, it now includes hits from the Beatles, Elvis Presley and others (Jackson’s attorney quickly sold an incidental chunk of the catalog for $6 million, bringing the true purchase price even lower).

Within ten years of buying ATV, Jackson would merge the catalog with Sony’s in exchange for an upfront payment of $95 million and a 50% stake in the joint venture, Sony/ATV.

The combined entity has continued to reinvest dividends in new copyrights and is now worth at least $2 billion, judging by the recent sale of the comparable EMI catalog for $2.2 billion–and today throws off
some $50-$75 million annually.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

[underthemoon]

There is something going through my head everytime i read " They will kill me for my catalogue "

When he is dead the legacy owns his catalogue ? Right ? No other had any benefit ...only the family.

No other gets nearer to the rights of the catalogue.....so why and who wants to kill him ?

It's so difficult to explain in english....i hope you understand what i mean....it's like i want a house that i like.....i don't get it when i kill the owner because then it belongs his family.....not one step nearer...

Please tell me if i am wrong and there are contracts with other rules.

Love from germany  :bearhug:

[curls]

You explained very well underthemoon!  It's similar to when people say 'follow the money' - as far as I can see MJ('s estate) is raking it in!

[Snoopy71]

You explained very well underthemoon!  It's similar to when people say 'follow the money' - as far as I can see MJ('s estate) is raking it in!

Question is are they being truthful with the figures?

{ The combined entity has continued to reinvest dividends in new copyrights and is now worth at least $2 billion}


Like in Janet's statement, [they have nothing to gain challenging the will.]

The "Estate" gets 40%

Katherine 40%

Charity 20% (you might as well call this the TAX Deduction)


So now that the bills have all been paid/settled by the "estate"......the "estate" {Branca/McClain} will continue to receive 40%? :suspect:....I'd be raising hell too!

I might be over simplifying it a bit, but clearly I can see the issue. :WTF:

[~Souza~]

'The Estate' is not Branca and McClain. They are merely the executors of the estate (An estate is the net worth of a person at any point in time. It is the sum of a person's assets – legal rights, interests and entitlements to property of any kind – less all liabilities at that time. The issue is of special legal significance on a question of bankruptcy and death of the person. Souce: wikipedia) and according to TMZ they get a 10% fee. Normally this would be lower, but given the fact that this is probably one of the largest and most complex estates, I don't think it's unreasonable. This is what California probate law says:

PROBATE CODE
SECTION 10800-10805

10800.  (a) Subject to the provisions of this part, for ordinary
services the personal representative shall receive compensation based
on the value of the estate accounted for by the personal
representative, as follows:
   (1) Four percent on the first one hundred thousand dollars
($100,000).
   (2) Three percent on the next one hundred thousand dollars
($100,000).
   (3) Two percent on the next eight hundred thousand dollars
($800,000).
   (4) One percent on the next nine million dollars ($9,000,000).
   (5) One-half of one percent on the next fifteen million dollars
($15,000,000).
  (6) For all amounts above twenty-five million dollars
($25,000,000), a reasonable amount to be determined by the court.
   (b) For the purposes of this section, the value of the estate
accounted for by the personal representative is the total amount of
the appraisal value of property in the inventory, plus gains over the
appraisal value on sales, plus receipts, less losses from the
appraisal value on sales, without reference to encumbrances or other
obligations on estate property.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Large and Complex Estates
The California Probate Code does not set a percentage for the executor to receive if the total value of the estate is greater than $25 million. In these cases, the court will set a reasonable fee for the executor, according to the California Probate Code. Likewise, if the estate is smaller than $25 million but is particularly complex, the probate court may set a larger fee than that calculated by the California Probate Code. The fee may be a percentage of the estate, or it may be a flat or hourly rate.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

'The Estate' in this case is still MJ, since he is not dead. Katherine is supposed to get 40% but we all know she only gets an allowance and still didn't receive her 40% after almost 4 years, and I bet she always had that allowance, same goes for the kids. I think charities still receive what has always been donated so nothing has changed, except for the fact that the executors now handle MJ's estate as long as he's in his batcave, and they get paid to deal with all that shit. Why doesn't Katherine get her 40%? Because MJ isn't dead. Assuming the real will would state something similar.

So in other words, as I see it, 100% goes to MJ, he pays Branca & McClain the fee they agreed on for handling his estate in his absence, he still donates to charity and Katherine and the kids get their allowance. I don't see a problem.