kibbles said:

NaughtyKitty said:

Supposedly they arent paying her mortgage, but want to give Katherine more money so she can stay there:

Janet Jackson and Mother Not Talking, Janet Charging Mom for Use of Vegas Condo

Janet Jackson continues her descent into post-career madness: she’s charging her mother for use of her Las Vegas condo. Katherine Jackson has asked the Michael Jackson estate to increase her cost of living expenses so she can travel to Las Vegas and stay in Janet’s condo, which the “What Have You Done For Me Lately?” singer doesn’t live in or use.

TMZ incorrectly reported–then removed–a story that Mrs. Jackson asked the estate to pay Janet’s mortgage. Untrue. Mrs. Jackson travels to Gary, Indiana, where she still maintains a home. And she likes to stay in Vegas. The estate will tell the probate court in its next report that they’re giving Mrs. Jackson funds to use for these stays. Janet — since the battles this summer over Michael’s estate–refuses to be generous enough to her mother, sources say, and just provide for her at the condo.

“There’s no way the estate would ever pay Janet’s mortgage,” laughed an insider. But my question is: what is Janet Jackson’s financial situation that she’s become so publicly unglued over money?

http://www.showbiz411.com...egas-condo

[Edited 8/15/12 10:34am]

i posted an excerpt of the estate's recently released court docs in another thread which shows how much money kat gets for herself and for the kids, none of which goes to pay the mortgage or anything. this is strictly "pocket money". she gets $70K, if memory serves, plus another $200K or so for the kids PER MONTH. i would think that if there were costs associated with staying at janet's place - maybe to hook up the utilities or buy food? - they would be covered out of the money she's already getting.

i'm guessing the estate doesn't want to argue the point b/c their only mandate at this moment is to keep her in the lap of luxury the way mj wanted. if in fact janet doesn't want to hook her mother up, it's not really surprising. in kat's depo for the aeg case, she stated that while mj gave her over $500K during a certain time period, janet gave her $10K in the same period. janet keeps her mind on her money and her money on her mind.

i think roger is wrong; according to the docs, the estate already stated in this current report that they had paid for a vegas condo and a gary residence. maybe this hearing is b/c the judge wants to know more about it?

Interesting, I thought Kat was only getting about 27K per month and the kids 60K, they certainly are well taken care of thats for sure.

kibbles said:

NaughtyKitty said:

Supposedly they arent paying her mortgage, but want to give Katherine more money so she can stay there:

Janet Jackson and Mother Not Talking, Janet Charging Mom for Use of Vegas Condo

Janet Jackson continues her descent into post-career madness: she’s charging her mother for use of her Las Vegas condo. Katherine Jackson has asked the Michael Jackson estate to increase her cost of living expenses so she can travel to Las Vegas and stay in Janet’s condo, which the “What Have You Done For Me Lately?” singer doesn’t live in or use.

TMZ incorrectly reported–then removed–a story that Mrs. Jackson asked the estate to pay Janet’s mortgage. Untrue. Mrs. Jackson travels to Gary, Indiana, where she still maintains a home. And she likes to stay in Vegas. The estate will tell the probate court in its next report that they’re giving Mrs. Jackson funds to use for these stays. Janet — since the battles this summer over Michael’s estate–refuses to be generous enough to her mother, sources say, and just provide for her at the condo.

“There’s no way the estate would ever pay Janet’s mortgage,” laughed an insider. But my question is: what is Janet Jackson’s financial situation that she’s become so publicly unglued over money?

http://www.showbiz411.com...egas-condo

[Edited 8/15/12 10:34am]

i posted an excerpt of the estate's recently released court docs in another thread which shows how much money kat gets for herself and for the kids, none of which goes to pay the mortgage or anything. this is strictly "pocket money". she gets $70K, if memory serves, plus another $200K or so for the kids PER MONTH. i would think that if there were costs associated with staying at janet's place - maybe to hook up the utilities or buy food? - they would be covered out of the money she's already getting.

i'm guessing the estate doesn't want to argue the point b/c their only mandate at this moment is to keep her in the lap of luxury the way mj wanted. if in fact janet doesn't want to hook her mother up, it's not really surprising. in kat's depo for the aeg case, she stated that while mj gave her over $500K during a certain time period, janet gave her $10K in the same period. janet keeps her mind on her money and her money on her mind.

i think roger is wrong; according to the docs, the estate already stated in this current report that they had paid for a vegas condo and a gary residence. maybe this hearing is b/c the judge wants to know more about it?

But dont you think thats selfish?

A sibling I can understand but YOUR OWN 82 YEAR OLD MOTHER?

So what MJs estate is taking care of her that doesnt mean that it has to take care of EVERYTHING... geez Janet..

mjscarousal said:

kibbles said:

i posted an excerpt of the estate's recently released court docs in another thread which shows how much money kat gets for herself and for the kids, none of which goes to pay the mortgage or anything. this is strictly "pocket money". she gets $70K, if memory serves, plus another $200K or so for the kids PER MONTH. i would think that if there were costs associated with staying at janet's place - maybe to hook up the utilities or buy food? - they would be covered out of the money she's already getting.

i'm guessing the estate doesn't want to argue the point b/c their only mandate at this moment is to keep her in the lap of luxury the way mj wanted. if in fact janet doesn't want to hook her mother up, it's not really surprising. in kat's depo for the aeg case, she stated that while mj gave her over $500K during a certain time period, janet gave her $10K in the same period. janet keeps her mind on her money and her money on her mind.

i think roger is wrong; according to the docs, the estate already stated in this current report that they had paid for a vegas condo and a gary residence. maybe this hearing is b/c the judge wants to know more about it?

But dont you think thats selfish?

A sibling I can understand but YOUR OWN 82 YEAR OLD MOTHER?

So what MJs estate is taking care of her that doesnt mean that it has to take care of EVERYTHING... geez Janet..

oh, i absolutely do, no question. in fact, not too long ago i posted that while i understood why janet wouldn't have wanted to foot the bill for the siblings, particularly randy and jermy's trifling behavior, i didn't understand why she let mj bear the burden for EVERYTHING alone. i would think that she would have felt just as compelled as he did to help her family.

but that's not who janet is, clearly. there really is no reason whatsover for kat to be asking the estate for more money to stay at her own daughter's house, but there it is. janet is not going to lift a finger more than she has to, ever.

What I am wondering is, how many times has Katherine stayed at Janet's Las Vegas condo over the years? Since she's stayed over there before, I assume Janet payed for her to stay there in the past. So why is she refusing to pay for her mother's stay in that condo now? Is it because of the ugliness that she and her other sibling cohorts started? Or am I assuming wrong that Janet payed for her mama to stay in her condo before

i would think that if there were costs associated with staying at janet's place - maybe to hook up the utilities or buy food? - they would be covered out of the money she's already getting....i think roger is wrong; according to the docs, the estate already stated in this current report that they had paid for a vegas condo and a gary residence. maybe this hearing is b/c the judge wants to know more about it?

Its said that Janet doesnt even live in or use the place. If the money that the Estate is using for Katherine's stay there is going towards the utilities--then is Janet not paying for the utilities since she doesnt use it? If that's the case, perhaps in the past when Katherine stayed there Janet made sure to pay the bills so that she would have electricity, running water, etc. Or is she refusing to pay the monthly bill when she knows that her mother will be staying there cuz she's mad that she's been banned from the Calabasas house? I'm also wondering why Janet has a condo that she doesnt use. Papa Joe lives somewhere in Vegas right? Wonder if he's been living there?

NaughtyKitty said:

What I am wondering is, how many times has Katherine stayed at Janet's Las Vegas condo over the years? Since she's stayed over there before, I assume Janet payed for her to stay there in the past. So why is she refusing to pay for her mother's stay in that condo now? Is it because of the ugliness that she and her other sibling cohorts started? Or am I assuming wrong that Janet payed for her mama to stay in her condo before

i would think that if there were costs associated with staying at janet's place - maybe to hook up the utilities or buy food? - they would be covered out of the money she's already getting....i think roger is wrong; according to the docs, the estate already stated in this current report that they had paid for a vegas condo and a gary residence. maybe this hearing is b/c the judge wants to know more about it?

Its said that Janet doesnt even live in or use the place. If the money that the Estate is using for Katherine's stay there is going towards the utilities--then is Janet not paying for the utilities since she doesnt use it? If that's the case, perhaps in the past when Katherine stayed there Janet made sure to pay the bills so that she would have electricity, running water, etc. Or is she refusing to pay the monthly bill when she knows that her mother will be staying there cuz she's mad that she's been banned from the Calabasas house? I'm also wondering why Janet has a condo that she doesnt use. Papa Joe lives somewhere in Vegas right? Wonder if he's been living there?

Thats childish on Janets part if she doesnt want to pay the bills because she has been banned from Calabasas......VERY childish.

Regardless of the Estates decision if her elder mother wants to stay in her condo why would she refuse... Katherine had NOTHING to do with what happened and turns out had no clue about Janets, Randy and Jermaines plot...

Thats just beyond petty and spiteful.

If I was one of the John's I would tell Katherine not to go to the condo since HER OWN DAUGHTER DOESNT WANT TO PAY FOR HER OWN DAMN BILL SO HER MOTHER CAN SPEND TIME THERE WHEN SHE IS IN VEGAS O ONCE OR TWICE A YEAR

Speaking of Ma n' Pa Jackson, here's what they're up to lately:

JOE JACKSON
DROPS Wrongful Death Suit
Against Dr. Murray

Joe Jackson has decided ... he's pulling the plug on his wrongful death lawsuit against Dr. Conrad Murray ... TMZ has learned.

Joe just filed a request with the court, obtained by TMZ, asking to dismiss his 2010 suit against Murray without prejudice -- a lawsuit in which he blamed the doctor for MJ's untimely demise.

In the suit, Joe alleged Murray withheld vital information from the doctors and EMTs who were trying to save Jackson's life the day he died -- specifically, that Murray had administered Propofol.

You'll recall -- Joe had also sued AEG as part of the lawsuit, but those claims were tossed out of court in February because Katherine had made similar claims in her own wrongful death suit. Joe's suit was deemed redundant.

But Joe's still got a hat in the ring -- he is currently a nominal party to Katherine's suit, in which Katherine and the family accuse AEG of breaching its agreement to provide physical care for Michael during his "This Is It" tour.

The lawsuit also alleges AEG was negligent in its hiring of Murray as MJ's physician.

Either way, it's good news for Murray -- because it's one less lawsuit to worry about ... for now.

Murray's lawyers Charles Peckham and Valerie Wass tell TMZ, the doctor didn't pay Joe anything -- and they have no idea why Joe suddenly requested to dismiss his case.

Peckham tells us, "Cooler heads have prevailed."

Katherine Jackson and Family Are 'Goin' Back to Indiana'

August 15, 2012 Hot Topics

Jackson family matriarch Katherine Jackson announced Wednesday she and her family are participating in “Goin’ Back to Indiana: Can You Feel It,” a four-day event in Gary, Indiana, remembering the city’s most famous native son, Michael Jackson.

Getty Images

“We have been working in partnership with Mrs. Katherine Jackson and her team to create events that will showcase Michael’s entertainment legacy and his wonderful birthplace of Gary, Indiana,” said Mayor Karen Freeman-Wilson. “As Mayor of this great city, I am enthusiastic about the opportunities that this celebration will bring. We envision this to become an annual event that will grow larger as the years progress.”

On Thursday, August 30, Michael’s three children -- Prince, Paris and Blanket -- will attend the Gary SouthShore RailCats baseball game when the team faces the St. Paul Saints.

The event runs from August 29 through September 1.

For more information visit, Facebook.com/jacksonstreet2012.

http://www.extratv.com/20...+-+Atom%29

kibbles said:

mjscarousal said:

But dont you think thats selfish?

A sibling I can understand but YOUR OWN 82 YEAR OLD MOTHER?

So what MJs estate is taking care of her that doesnt mean that it has to take care of EVERYTHING... geez Janet..

oh, i absolutely do, no question. in fact, not too long ago i posted that while i understood why janet wouldn't have wanted to foot the bill for the siblings, particularly randy and jermy's trifling behavior, i didn't understand why she let mj bear the burden for EVERYTHING alone. i would think that she would have felt just as compelled as he did to help her family.

but that's not who janet is, clearly. there really is no reason whatsover for kat to be asking the estate for more money to stay at her own daughter's house, but there it is. janet is not going to lift a finger more than she has to, ever.

Janet was never or is like Michael as far as caring and going above and beyond to help others.

Thats just who he was EVEN WITH HIS OWN FAMILY and despite how his family used him and threw him under the bus he was still there and showed he cared despite of...

Janet will publicly defend to make it appear like she cares and only does that when it benefits HER but in reality she is not going to go above and beyond which Michael did which is really what family is about in the end.

People say Janet was there just because she made some public appearances with Michael during the trials which really doesnt mean anything... thats just for the media but that has NOTHING to do with what goes on behind closed doors.

NaughtyKitty said:

What I am wondering is, how many times has Katherine stayed at Janet's Las Vegas condo over the years? Since she's stayed over there before, I assume Janet payed for her to stay there in the past. So why is she refusing to pay for her mother's stay in that condo now? Is it because of the ugliness that she and her other sibling cohorts started? Or am I assuming wrong that Janet payed for her mama to stay in her condo before

i would think that if there were costs associated with staying at janet's place - maybe to hook up the utilities or buy food? - they would be covered out of the money she's already getting....i think roger is wrong; according to the docs, the estate already stated in this current report that they had paid for a vegas condo and a gary residence. maybe this hearing is b/c the judge wants to know more about it?

Its said that Janet doesnt even live in or use the place. If the money that the Estate is using for Katherine's stay there is going towards the utilities--then is Janet not paying for the utilities since she doesnt use it? If that's the case, perhaps in the past when Katherine stayed there Janet made sure to pay the bills so that she would have electricity, running water, etc. Or is she refusing to pay the monthly bill when she knows that her mother will be staying there cuz she's mad that she's been banned from the Calabasas house? I'm also wondering why Janet has a condo that she doesnt use. Papa Joe lives somewhere in Vegas right? Wonder if he's been living there?

in the estate docs, they state the following:

Katherine is asking for onetime payment of $205,401 to cover her professional fees occurred in 2011. Katherine is also asking for additional $34,700 per month to pay for her accountant and lawyers as well as to cover the expenses of family house in Gary Indiana and a residence in Las Vegas. Estate is asking the judge to allow this onetime payment and monthly increase.

given this, it may be that kat perhaps *was* paying for the vegas condo and gary house out of the money she's been getting, and now she asking for more money to cover whatever expense the condo and house cost her (not to mention "the suits").

the executors submitted their docs to the court before "all the drama", so kat's request for an increase was made before then, too. therefore, i don't think it has anything to do with what went down last month since her request pre-dates all that.

it could be that kat insisted to janet that she be allowed to pay when she's using the condo, since mj left her all that money.

or it could be as friedman suggests: janet has always made her mother pay for use of the condo. whether that means turning on the utilities (since no one lives there on a permanent basis), paying the association fees, or buying food - it appears that kat is making the request of the estate b/c either janet has never ponied up or has decided she doesn't want to anymore.

GoldDolphin said:

purplethunder3121 said:

mjscarousal said:

kibbles said:

oh, i absolutely do, no question. in fact, not too long ago i posted that while i understood why janet wouldn't have wanted to foot the bill for the siblings, particularly randy and jermy's trifling behavior, i didn't understand why she let mj bear the burden for EVERYTHING alone. i would think that she would have felt just as compelled as he did to help her family.

but that's not who janet is, clearly. there really is no reason whatsover for kat to be asking the estate for more money to stay at her own daughter's house, but there it is. janet is not going to lift a finger more than she has to, ever.

Janet was never or is like Michael as far as caring and going above and beyond to help others.

Thats just who he was EVEN WITH HIS OWN FAMILY and despite how his family used him and threw him under the bus he was still there and showed he cared despite of...

Janet will publicly defend to make it appear like she cares and only does that when it benefits HER but in reality she is not going to go above and beyond which Michael did which is really what family is about in the end.

People say Janet was there just because she made some public appearances with Michael during the trials which really doesnt mean anything... thats just for the media but that has NOTHING to do with what goes on behind closed doors.

Very good post! I just want to say that Janet showed up TWO TIMES during Michael's trial-during the pre-trial and on the day of Michael's acquittal. Btw, Marlon showed up only once or twice, also.

kibbles said:

NaughtyKitty said:

What I am wondering is, how many times has Katherine stayed at Janet's Las Vegas condo over the years? Since she's stayed over there before, I assume Janet payed for her to stay there in the past. So why is she refusing to pay for her mother's stay in that condo now? Is it because of the ugliness that she and her other sibling cohorts started? Or am I assuming wrong that Janet payed for her mama to stay in her condo before

Its said that Janet doesnt even live in or use the place. If the money that the Estate is using for Katherine's stay there is going towards the utilities--then is Janet not paying for the utilities since she doesnt use it? If that's the case, perhaps in the past when Katherine stayed there Janet made sure to pay the bills so that she would have electricity, running water, etc. Or is she refusing to pay the monthly bill when she knows that her mother will be staying there cuz she's mad that she's been banned from the Calabasas house? I'm also wondering why Janet has a condo that she doesnt use. Papa Joe lives somewhere in Vegas right? Wonder if he's been living there?

in the estate docs, they state the following:

Katherine is asking for onetime payment of $205,401 to cover her professional fees occurred in 2011. Katherine is also asking for additional $34,700 per month to pay for her accountant and lawyers as well as to cover the expenses of family house in Gary Indiana and a residence in Las Vegas. Estate is asking the judge to allow this onetime payment and monthly increase.

given this, it may be that kat perhaps *was* paying for the vegas condo and gary house out of the money she's been getting, and now she asking for more money to cover whatever expense the condo and house cost her (not to mention "the suits").

the executors submitted their docs to the court before "all the drama", so kat's request for an increase was made before then, too. therefore, i don't think it has anything to do with what went down last month since her request pre-dates all that.

it could be that kat insisted to janet that she be allowed to pay when she's using the condo, since mj left her all that money.

or it could be as friedman suggests: janet has always made her mother pay for use of the condo. whether that means turning on the utilities (since no one lives there on a permanent basis), paying the association fees, or buying food - it appears that kat is making the request of the estate b/c either janet has never ponied up or has decided she doesn't want to anymore.

Thanks Kibbles! So I found a copy of the court documents the Estate submitted online and skimmed through it. All these media reports saying that the Estate wants to pay the bills for Janet's condo in LV--the documents I read did not specifically name it as Janet's condo, but stated, as you posted, "to cover the expenses of family house in Gary Indiana and a residence in Las Vegas.." Is there another document that was submitted by the Estate that specifically requests to pay the bills on Janet's condo in LV? Or is the media trying to make a story out of a non-story? (whatta shocker!)

TMZ was the first to report this story, but they removed it off their website--here is part of what they posted before they removed it:

The Michael Jackson Estate wants to pay for a portion of Janet Jackson's mortgage on her posh Las Vegas condo ... TMZ has learned.

The Estate filed documents asking the Probate judge to foot a portion of the bill on Janet's mortgage. Sources tell us ... Katherine Jackson has spent time at the condo and the Estate is willing to pay a pro rata share of the mortgage based on how much Katherine uses Janet's Vegas crib.

A hearing is pending on the Estate's request, which was filed before the whole Arizona thing.

According to the documents I looked at, this was filed on July 2nd, but the hearing for this already took place on Aug. 10th, so its not pending. TMZ published this story on Aug. 14th... Either there was another document filed by the Estate that specifically requested to pay for the expenses for Janet's condo in LV--and there is a pending hearing, or this story is misleading and not completely factual, hence the reason why TMZ took it down.

NaughtyKitty said:

Speaking of Ma n' Pa Jackson, here's what they're up to lately:

JOE JACKSON
DROPS Wrongful Death Suit
Against Dr. Murray

EXCLUSIVE DETAILS

Joe Jackson has decided ... he's pulling the plug on his wrongful death lawsuit against Dr. Conrad Murray ... TMZ has learned.

Joe just filed a request with the court, obtained by TMZ, asking to dismiss his 2010 suit against Murray without prejudice -- a lawsuit in which he blamed the doctor for MJ's untimely demise.

In the suit, Joe alleged Murray withheld vital information from the doctors and EMTs who were trying to save Jackson's life the day he died -- specifically, that Murray had administered Propofol.

You'll recall -- Joe had also sued AEG as part of the lawsuit, but those claims were tossed out of court in February because Katherine had made similar claims in her own wrongful death suit. Joe's suit was deemed redundant.

But Joe's still got a hat in the ring -- he is currently a nominal party to Katherine's suit, in which Katherine and the family accuse AEG of breaching its agreement to provide physical care for Michael during his "This Is It" tour.

The lawsuit also alleges AEG was negligent in its hiring of Murray as MJ's physician.

Either way, it's good news for Murray -- because it's one less lawsuit to worry about ... for now.

Murray's lawyers Charles Peckham and Valerie Wass tell TMZ, the doctor didn't pay Joe anything -- and they have no idea why Joe suddenly requested to dismiss his case.

Peckham tells us, "Cooler heads have prevailed."

Katherine Jackson and Family Are 'Goin' Back to Indiana'

August 15, 2012 Hot Topics

Jackson family matriarch Katherine Jackson announced Wednesday she and her family are participating in “Goin’ Back to Indiana: Can You Feel It,” a four-day event in Gary, Indiana, remembering the city’s most famous native son, Michael Jackson.

Getty Images

“We have been working in partnership with Mrs. Katherine Jackson and her team to create events that will showcase Michael’s entertainment legacy and his wonderful birthplace of Gary, Indiana,” said Mayor Karen Freeman-Wilson. “As Mayor of this great city, I am enthusiastic about the opportunities that this celebration will bring. We envision this to become an annual event that will grow larger as the years progress.”

On Thursday, August 30, Michael’s three children -- Prince, Paris and Blanket -- will attend the Gary SouthShore RailCats baseball game when the team faces the St. Paul Saints.

The event runs from August 29 through September 1.

For more information visit, Facebook.com/jacksonstreet2012.

http://www.extratv.com/20...+-+Atom%29

It's patheitic that this family is allowing the KILLER, Conrad Murray, to get away with no retribution. Prosecutor Walgren basically begged them to hold Murray accountable by asking for restitution. Which means that when the killer gets out of jail, any money he makes from books, interviews, etc. would have to be paid to Michael's children and/or family. Katherine did NOT want restitution from Murray. Now, Murray can get out of jail and slam Michael anyway that he wants and he is not held accountable for it. Katherine and Joe sued AEG because they THOUGHT that AEG would just roll over and pay them money and settle. They don't want to sue the REAL KILLER, Conrad Murray, yet they sue a big company that had nothing to do with hiring Murray or killing Michael. Again, with the Jacksons, it is all about $$$$ and not justice for Michael.

[Edited 8/15/12 22:19pm]

[Edited 8/15/12 23:26pm]

It's patheitic that this family is allowing the KILLER, Conrad Murray, to get away with no retribution. Prosecutor Walgren basically begged them to hold Murray accountable by asking for restitution. Which means that when the killer gets out of jail, any money he makes from books, interviews, etc. would have to be paid to Michael's children and/or family. Katherine did NOT want restitution from Murray. Now, Murray can get out of jail and slam Michael anyway that he wants and he is not held accountable for it. Katherine and Joe sued AEG because they THOUGHT that AEG would just roll over and pay them money and settle. They don't want to sue the REAL KILLER, Conrad Murray, yet they sue a big company that had nothing to do with hiring Murray or killing Michael. Again, with the Jacksons, it is all about $$$$ and not justice for Michael.

[Edited 8/15/12 22:19pm]

[Edited 8/15/12 23:26pm]

yep, pretty much. i hold out hope that public outcry will prevent the media from going too far. my other hope is that it will be like what just happened to rielle hunter. she wrote that book slamming elizabeth edwards, who is no longer here to defend herself, and tried to make her sordid affair with john "legit". she only sold a handful of books for her trouble after all that media promotion. i'm hoping the media won't open its arms to murray; they must have some standards, right? but if they do, i'm hoping that no one will pay attention to him.

but that still doesn't make what the jacksons did right. if, and it's a mighty big if, murray resumes his practice, he won't have to pay anything to mj's kids which are the people who were really, really affected by him. can you imagine growing up knowing that the man your father trusted with his life will never really pay for what he did, and that your so-called family let him get away with it?

NaughtyKitty said:

Is there another document that was submitted by the Estate that specifically requests to pay the bills on Janet's condo in LV? Or is the media trying to make a story out of a non-story? (whatta shocker!)

According to the documents I looked at, this was filed on July 2nd, but the hearing for this already took place on Aug. 10th, so its not pending. TMZ published this story on Aug. 14th... Either there was another document filed by the Estate that specifically requested to pay for the expenses for Janet's condo in LV--and there is a pending hearing, or this story is misleading and not completely factual, hence the reason why TMZ took it down.

i think the behind the scenes sources for tmz and friedman have some reason to believe that the condo refers to janet. there was speculation on the mj boards that it referred to joe's house or condo, since he lives in vegas, but since these stories came out pointing to janet, people have stopped assuming it was for joe. i think probate hearings are public, and maybe that's why the fingers are pointing at janet.

you're right. there is some confusion about when exactly this request was made. as you note, and i pointed out, the estate submitted the request before the arizona shit went down. i think friedman is wrong about the matter being pending; i think it's already been resolved.

he may be right about the reasons the story was taken down at tmz. they reported that it was b/c the estate wanted to pay janet's mortgage on a pro rata basis since katherine likes to go to vegas (which begs the question, just how often is she staying there that she has to have even more money to cover her expenses), whereas friedman says that the money is being given to cover any excess expenses (which again begs the question, what the hell is she spending all that money on?)

for the record, i don't think friedman has taken his story down, or made a retraction.

kibbles said:

It's patheitic that this family is allowing the KILLER, Conrad Murray, to get away with no retribution. Prosecutor Walgren basically begged them to hold Murray accountable by asking for restitution. Which means that when the killer gets out of jail, any money he makes from books, interviews, etc. would have to be paid to Michael's children and/or family. Katherine did NOT want restitution from Murray. Now, Murray can get out of jail and slam Michael anyway that he wants and he is not held accountable for it. Katherine and Joe sued AEG because they THOUGHT that AEG would just roll over and pay them money and settle. They don't want to sue the REAL KILLER, Conrad Murray, yet they sue a big company that had nothing to do with hiring Murray or killing Michael. Again, with the Jacksons, it is all about $$$$ and not justice for Michael.

[Edited 8/15/12 22:19pm]

[Edited 8/15/12 23:26pm]

yep, pretty much. i hold out hope that public outcry will prevent the media from going too far. my other hope is that it will be like what just happened to rielle hunter. she wrote that book slamming elizabeth edwards, who is no longer here to defend herself, and tried to make her sordid affair with john "legit". she only sold a handful of books for her trouble after all that media promotion. i'm hoping the media won't open its arms to murray; they must have some standards, right? but if they do, i'm hoping that no one will pay attention to him.

but that still doesn't make what the jacksons did right. if, and it's a mighty big if, murray resumes his practice, he won't have to pay anything to mj's kids which are the people who were really, really affected by him. can you imagine growing up knowing that the man your father trusted with his life will never really pay for what he did, and that your so-called family let him get away with it?

Agree BUT why would you not want justice for your son !?!?

mjscarousal said:

kibbles said:

It's patheitic that this family is allowing the KILLER, Conrad Murray, to get away with no retribution. Prosecutor Walgren basically begged them to hold Murray accountable by asking for restitution. Which means that when the killer gets out of jail, any money he makes from books, interviews, etc. would have to be paid to Michael's children and/or family. Katherine did NOT want restitution from Murray. Now, Murray can get out of jail and slam Michael anyway that he wants and he is not held accountable for it. Katherine and Joe sued AEG because they THOUGHT that AEG would just roll over and pay them money and settle. They don't want to sue the REAL KILLER, Conrad Murray, yet they sue a big company that had nothing to do with hiring Murray or killing Michael. Again, with the Jacksons, it is all about $$$$ and not justice for Michael.

[Edited 8/15/12 22:19pm]

[Edited 8/15/12 23:26pm]

yep, pretty much. i hold out hope that public outcry will prevent the media from going too far. my other hope is that it will be like what just happened to rielle hunter. she wrote that book slamming elizabeth edwards, who is no longer here to defend herself, and tried to make her sordid affair with john "legit". she only sold a handful of books for her trouble after all that media promotion. i'm hoping the media won't open its arms to murray; they must have some standards, right? but if they do, i'm hoping that no one will pay attention to him.

but that still doesn't make what the jacksons did right. if, and it's a mighty big if, murray resumes his practice, he won't have to pay anything to mj's kids which are the people who were really, really affected by him. can you imagine growing up knowing that the man your father trusted with his life will never really pay for what he did, and that your so-called family let him get away with it?

Agree BUT why would you not want justice for your son !?!?

honey, your guess is as good as mine. murray wouldn't be able to afford t.p. to wipe his shitty ass after i got through with him if he had killed my son, brother, provider. there wouldn't be a hell hotter than the one i would make for him here on earth. trust!

It appears tmz has re-worded its previous story:

http://www.tmz.com/2012/0...-mortgage/

We have more info on Katherine Jackson's request for the Michael Jackson Estate to pay for expenses related to Janet Jackson's Las Vegas home, and it turns out toilet paper -- NOT mortgages -- is on her mind.

As we previously reported, the Estate filed documents asking the court to allow the Executors to pay Katherine for "expenses relating to .... a residence in Las Vegas."

We're told the residence is Janet Jackson's home. Fact is ... there's no need to cover any mortgage expenses, because we're told Janet doesn't have a mortgage -- she owns the home outright, but never spends time there. In fact, we're told she bought the home so Katherine could use it. And, she has provided various other forms of support for Katherine over the years. So what we reported initially -- that the Estate would pay part of the mortgage -- isn't the case.

Sources connected to Katherine now tell us, Katherine wants the money because she incurs various expenses when she spends time at Janet's property. Our sources say the expenses include, food, cable, utilities, Internet, travel and even toilet paper.

It's unclear why Katherine feels she's entitled to more money for things like food and toilet paper, because what she consumes and uses in Vegas she doesn't in L.A.

it appears to me that tmz talked to janet's people (lawyers), and she has clarified that she bought the condo for kat to use - and more importantly has provided for her over the years.

still, i still say that to the extent that the expenses for maintaining katherine at this condo are nominal, as i'm sure janet can afford to turn on the utilities and put some damn t.p. in the house, janet SHOULD be doing it, NOT the estate.

i mean, if janet really has been providing for kat over the years, why is she drawing the line in the sand over these petty expenses? you can't front your mother $1K or so for the month that she stays in vegas? i know this is supposed to be damage control on janet's part, but it still makes her look very stingy.

kibbles said:

It appears tmz has re-worded its previous story:

http://www.tmz.com/2012/0...-mortgage/

We have more info on Katherine Jackson's request for the Michael Jackson Estate to pay for expenses related to Janet Jackson's Las Vegas home, and it turns out toilet paper -- NOT mortgages -- is on her mind.

As we previously reported, the Estate filed documents asking the court to allow the Executors to pay Katherine for "expenses relating to .... a residence in Las Vegas."

We're told the residence is Janet Jackson's home. Fact is ... there's no need to cover any mortgage expenses, because we're told Janet doesn't have a mortgage -- she owns the home outright, but never spends time there. In fact, we're told she bought the home so Katherine could use it. And, she has provided various other forms of support for Katherine over the years. So what we reported initially -- that the Estate would pay part of the mortgage -- isn't the case.

Sources connected to Katherine now tell us, Katherine wants the money because she incurs various expenses when she spends time at Janet's property. Our sources say the expenses include, food, cable, utilities, Internet, travel and even toilet paper.

It's unclear why Katherine feels she's entitled to more money for things like food and toilet paper, because what she consumes and uses in Vegas she doesn't in L.A.

it appears to me that tmz talked to janet's people (lawyers), and she has clarified that she bought the condo for kat to use - and more importantly has provided for her over the years.

still, i still say that to the extent that the expenses for maintaining katherine at this condo are nominal, as i'm sure janet can afford to turn on the utilities and put some damn t.p. in the house, janet SHOULD be doing it, NOT the estate.

i mean, if janet really has been providing for kat over the years, why is she drawing the line in the sand over these petty expenses? you can't front your mother $1K or so for the month that she stays in vegas? i know this is supposed to be damage control on janet's part, but it still makes her look very stingy.

^Yep I saw that And I agree with you. Not putting up the cash for your mama's petty expenses makes her look pretty petty herself But I guess she feels that since her mom is "rollin in the dough" she gets from the estate that she can pay for her own expenses? SMH.

Last night marked my 4th viewing of The Immortal by Cirque du Soleil.

Seeing it at Staples Center in LA was a surreal experience to say the least. The show has undergone some fine tuning since I first saw it in Vancouver last November but it sill manages to delight.

The major change to the piece is the now diminished role of the 5 "superfans" - a lot of their inbetween song antics have been removed and their role is more to introduce the show and then get the audience access into Neverland following their Jackson 5 tribute.

The other major tweak is the shortening of the Ben segment - it is now just a verse and chorus.

The storyline is now clearly focused on "the mime" and the journey of discovery of Michael's music. Their seems to be greater clarity around Michael's global concerns in the first act (setting up Ben as his concern for animals and nature) and this pays off more in the second act as we see the distruction of the world and the call for action, and unity.

On a side note - the planned 2013 Vegas show (which we are informed will be a different show again) won't feature a live band, and much like The Beatle's LOVE show it will be all drawn from the actual music of the songs.

As far as the album is concerned - I like it and always have. Maybe seeing the show before buying it helped. I always viewed it as a reimagining of the songs, and love being able to hear little snippets of tracks here and there in other songs.

Swa said:

Last night marked my 4th viewing of The Immortal by Cirque du Soleil.

Seeing it at Staples Center in LA was a surreal experience to say the least. The show has undergone some fine tuning since I first saw it in Vancouver last November but it sill manages to delight.

The major change to the piece is the now diminished role of the 5 "superfans" - a lot of their inbetween song antics have been removed and their role is more to introduce the show and then get the audience access into Neverland following their Jackson 5 tribute.

The other major tweak is the shortening of the Ben segment - it is now just a verse and chorus.

The storyline is now clearly focused on "the mime" and the journey of discovery of Michael's music. Their seems to be greater clarity around Michael's global concerns in the first act (setting up Ben as his concern for animals and nature) and this pays off more in the second act as we see the distruction of the world and the call for action, and unity.

On a side note - the planned 2013 Vegas show (which we are informed will be a different show again) won't feature a live band, and much like The Beatle's LOVE show it will be all drawn from the actual music of the songs.

As far as the album is concerned - I like it and always have. Maybe seeing the show before buying it helped. I always viewed it as a reimagining of the songs, and love being able to hear little snippets of tracks here and there in other songs.

Yea that helped for me as well.. Im glad I listened to the album first... The show was outstanding!

NaughtyKitty said:

kibbles said:

It appears tmz has re-worded its previous story:

http://www.tmz.com/2012/0...-mortgage/

We have more info on Katherine Jackson's request for the Michael Jackson Estate to pay for expenses related to Janet Jackson's Las Vegas home, and it turns out toilet paper -- NOT mortgages -- is on her mind.

As we previously reported, the Estate filed documents asking the court to allow the Executors to pay Katherine for "expenses relating to .... a residence in Las Vegas."

We're told the residence is Janet Jackson's home. Fact is ... there's no need to cover any mortgage expenses, because we're told Janet doesn't have a mortgage -- she owns the home outright, but never spends time there. In fact, we're told she bought the home so Katherine could use it. And, she has provided various other forms of support for Katherine over the years. So what we reported initially -- that the Estate would pay part of the mortgage -- isn't the case.

Sources connected to Katherine now tell us, Katherine wants the money because she incurs various expenses when she spends time at Janet's property. Our sources say the expenses include, food, cable, utilities, Internet, travel and even toilet paper.

It's unclear why Katherine feels she's entitled to more money for things like food and toilet paper, because what she consumes and uses in Vegas she doesn't in L.A.

it appears to me that tmz talked to janet's people (lawyers), and she has clarified that she bought the condo for kat to use - and more importantly has provided for her over the years.

still, i still say that to the extent that the expenses for maintaining katherine at this condo are nominal, as i'm sure janet can afford to turn on the utilities and put some damn t.p. in the house, janet SHOULD be doing it, NOT the estate.

i mean, if janet really has been providing for kat over the years, why is she drawing the line in the sand over these petty expenses? you can't front your mother $1K or so for the month that she stays in vegas? i know this is supposed to be damage control on janet's part, but it still makes her look very stingy.

^Yep I saw that And I agree with you. Not putting up the cash for your mama's petty expenses makes her look pretty petty herself But I guess she feels that since her mom is "rollin in the dough" she gets from the estate that she can pay for her own expenses? SMH.

Its still triflin.... in fact its even more triflin.....

Janet Jackson Corrects TMZ, Still Wants Michael Jackson’s Will Changed

Janet Jackson has a beef with TMZ. Her statement runs below. I told you yesterday that Janet didn’t like TMZ implying that her mother was going to pay off her mortgage with Michael Jackson’s money. TMZ has since recanted. That’s great but it doesn’t explain Janet’s actions and the last line of her statement. She’s still checking “the veracity of the will.”

What the heck is going on here? The will was probated three years ago. Now Janet says it’s not right. Even if she managed to get rid of the executors and overturn the whole cart, who would benefit? Is she trying to take the money from Michael’s kids? It’s not like strangers inherited Michael’s estate–unless Janet considers Prince, Paris, and Blanket strangers. Maybe she does.

Certainly, neither Janet nor Randy nor Rebbie is acting like those kids mean anything. In cartoon vernacular they eye them each like porkchops or Thanksgiving turkey on a plate–with dollar signs for giblets. What happened to Janet Jackson’s millions and millions of dollars in earnings? Something is fishy here.

This is funny: Here’s a statement from Janet’s publicist with a quote from her lawyer. The publicist wants to point out that Janet has not made her own statement. These people are a stitch.

Anyway: “In this day and age when fact-checking false allegations has become a singularly important element of the news-flow, I think you may find the following development newsworthy. TMZ earlier this week (shortly after having had to retract another false allegation about Janet Jackson) issued a story stating that the estate of Michael Jackson has initiated court action to participate in paying off the mortgage of a condo which the TMZ story claims Janet Jackson owns in Las Vegas. The attached letter to TMZ from Blair Brown, Janet’s lawyer in this matter, reveals that Janet owns a home, not a condo, in Las Vegas, which she bought for her mother ten years ago, a home which has never had a mortgage. It is important to note that this is a home in which Janet has never spent a night and has only visited once. I believe you will find this demand for correction of news interest. All of these stories remain a distraction from the central issue: The veracity of the will and the safety of the Jackson family”

http://www.showbiz411.com...ll-changed

Katherine Jackson Never Asked

Estate To Pay Costs Of Janet's

Las Vegas Home, Says Lawyer

Katherine Jackson's lawyer, Perry Sanders, exclusively tells RadarOnline.com that he is baffled by media reports that the Jackson family matriarch asked the executors ofMichael Jackson's estate to pay the mortgageand other costs associated with Janet Jackson's Las Vegas home.

"Katherine never asked the executors to pay the mortgage or any other costs associated with Janet's home in Las Vegas. The family allowance covers travel and housing expenses for the four beneficiaries of Michael Jackson's estate, and are relatively inconsequential," Sanders told RadarOnline.com.

"There were no specialized documents related to Janet Jackson's home in Las Vegas. I have no idea where that report came from."

Early Thursday a website reported that Katherine had asked the executors to pay the mortgage on Janet's Vegashome, but is now reporting the money requested isn't for the mortgage, but for "toilet paper."

Meanwhile, a judge is expected to sign off on a new custody agreement involving Michael's three children in which Katherine and grandson TJ Jackson, will be co-guardian of the children.

http://www.radaronline.co...vegas-home

NaughtyKitty said:

Janet Jackson Corrects TMZ, Still Wants Michael Jackson’s Will Changed

The attached letter to TMZ from Blair Brown, Janet’s lawyer in this matter, reveals that Janet owns a home, not a condo, in Las Vegas, which she bought for her mother ten years ago, a home which has never had a mortgage. It is important to note that this is a home in which Janet has never spent a night and has only visited once. I believe you will find this demand for correction of news interest. All of these stories remain a distraction from the central issue: The veracity of the will and the safety of the Jackson family”

http://www.showbiz411.com...ll-changed

Katherine Jackson Never Asked

Estate To Pay Costs Of Janet's

Las Vegas Home, Says Lawyer

"Katherine never asked the executors to pay the mortgage or any other costs associated with Janet's home in Las Vegas. The family allowance covers travel and housing expenses for the four beneficiaries of Michael Jackson's estate, and are relatively inconsequential," Sanders told RadarOnline.com.

http://www.radaronline.co...vegas-home

interesting.

but it begs the question, which won't be answered now since the hearing has already taken place and kat got her increase: why would the estate state to the court that kat needed the increase to cover expenses in gary and vegas, if in fact she didn't need it (at least according to her lawyer and janet, in a roundabout way)? why would the estate say she asked for it, if she didn't? there definitely is something fishy here.

is it possible that she asked for the increase (as some have speculated) as an excuse to get a little extra to divert to other people? i don't know if she needs to support these requests with evidence. maybe the estate doesn't ask too many questions, either. their main mandate is to support kat, and that also likely means emotional support as well. the estate has loaned kat over $6 million. one of those loans was to pay off a judgment for which she was jointly and severally liable with jermaine and joe, and there is some speculation that a loan for $80K was to help pay jermaine's back child support. assuming that's true, the execs know that it would be emotionally stressful for kat to have this judgment hanging over her head, as well as see her son go to jail.

if they indeed paid jermaine's child support, they did it for kat, not for jermaine. that would be in keeping with mj's overall mandate that the execs provide for his mother's comfort and well-being. maybe they don't mind giving her the increases, whatever the reason, because they know it's penny-ante nickel and diming in the grand scheme of things. what's $80K in an estate that may be worth nearly $1 billion?

But what i'm not getting is, Katherine seems to be getting all this money, but it still doesn't seem to be a enough for her. Every time you look up she is either asking for more money or she is trying to make money. It's just very one note to me. When you see her or the family, you know what it's about. MONEY.

the video provides was an incredible insight into some of the decisions Michael made that shaped his career.
appreciate how Michael fits into the historical landscape of pop culture and music as a whole.

mookie said:

But what i'm not getting is, Katherine seems to be getting all this money, but it still doesn't seem to be a enough for her. Every time you look up she is either asking for more money or she is trying to make money. It's just very one note to me. When you see her or the family, you know what it's about. MONEY.

that's very true. at this point, i would guess that kat is getting the same amount of money she was getting before mj died. (she told the court that she routinely received $60K/mo from mj). yet at the time of mj's death, hayvenhurst was in foreclosure.

why is that? yes, we all know that mj was having cash flow problems, but he was still managing to give her $60K/mo. why couldn't she keep the mortgage current out of that money? how did it get into arrears, not to mention the utilities which were rumored to be near the point of being cut off when mj died. was mj supposed to pay the mortgage and all the utility bills on top of giving her $60K/mo? apparently so.

i think it's clear that most of kat's (mj's) money goes to pay for her other children and their children. she's an 80 year old housewife; what does she need with that money? maybe they don't all receive the same amount, maybe it's given on an as needed basis, but whatever money she got from mj was like water through a sieve. i think she not only pays for their basics - food, clothing, housing - but their entertainment and travel, too. she has to be, right? $60K is a LOT of money and if it's not enough, it's because she is paying over and above what any of these people actually require to survive.

she's trying to maintain them in the 'jacksons' lifestyle, when actually only a couple of them can lay legitimate claim to that lifestyle. i wouldn't be surprised if she funneled money to latoya now and then. now the executors have to deal with the shit mj put up with, and as i say, they're willing to do so up to a certain extent. when probate is closed, and the family realizes that kat will have more money at her disposal, watch the long knives really come out. this little drama this summer is only a preview of things to come. randy and co. are setting the stage for more accusations against the two johns. mj made a huge mistake in his will. on the one hand he made it clear that no other people were to benefit from his will except for the people named. on the other, he gave his mother 40% of his assets to use during her lifetime. even though the execs will likely only give her an allowance, look for the pressure to make that "allowance" millions of dollars per year so that kat will be able to enrich her other kids. mj never ever should have given her access to that money, if he didn't want his siblings to inherit anything. cause she and they are going to go after it.

[Edited 8/17/12 11:31am]

kibbles said:

when probate is closed, and the family realizes that kat will have more money at her disposal, watch the long knives really come out. this little drama this summer is only a preview of things to come. randy and co. are setting the stage for more accusations against the two johns. mj made a huge mistake in his will. on the one hand he made it clear that no other people were to benefit from his will except for the people named. on the other, he gave his mother 40% of his assets to use during her lifetime. even though the execs will likely only give her an allowance, look for the pressure to make that "allowance" millions of dollars per year so that kat will be able to enrich her other kids. mj never ever should have given her access to that money, if he didn't want his siblings to inherit anything. cause she and they are going to go after it.

[Edited 8/17/12 11:31am]

That's quite disturbing to think about but what I also wonder is what is the family gonna do when Katherine passes away? When she dies, that 40% percent gets transferred over to PPB's account. Does the family expect (well mainly Randy and Jermaine) expect for Paris, Prince or Blanket to funnel them some cash? Any goodwill the kids may have had towards their aunts and uncles was probably ruined by their crazy escapade they staged this summer. The doo-doo is really gonna fly once Katherine dies and the kids get her 40%. Paris and Prince seem strong enough, and they will definitely have to be really strong to deal with this family especially once Katherine passes away.