Part 3 self-locked.

Part 1: http://prince.org/msg/7/426092
Part 2: http://prince.org/msg/7/429559
Part 3: http://prince.org/msg/7/430380

Dragging it along: http://pa.courts.state.mn.us/default.aspx
the case number (27-FA-06-3597)

http://www.mncourts.gov/I...elson.aspx

[Edited 10/4/16 16:59pm]

There are some new items added to the case today.

9/30 - B & V Exhibit List (71 pgs.)

10/3 - Claire Elliot Memorandum regarding her name (again)

The B & V exhibit list is interesting even tho it's long.

THANKS MORNINGSONG!!

I back tracked. VN might have a case.


http://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/CIOMediaLibrary/Documents/Exhibit-List-for-Memo-of-Law-re-legal-basis-for-claims-of-BN-and-VN.pdf

morningsong said:

I back tracked. VN might have a case.


http://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/CIOMediaLibrary/Documents/Exhibit-List-for-Memo-of-Law-re-legal-basis-for-claims-of-BN-and-VN.pdf

I can see them claiming kin to John L. But does that hold up to being kin to Prince when it comes to his estate? I gotta tell ya I'm teetering on the fence about this.

Now George Michael (the singer) is also involved in Claire's case.

He is disguised as the attorney Ross Dreiblatt who is the original person her grandmother named as the Executor of her secret will.

morningsong said:

I back tracked. VN might have a case.


http://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/CIOMediaLibrary/Documents/Exhibit-List-for-Memo-of-Law-re-legal-basis-for-claims-of-BN-and-VN.pdf

Yes, they may have a case, but I think that whatever Eide's decision is, it will be appealed. Honestly, I think this case will set a precedent in MN and maybe the US, because the law is not clear.

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:

Now George Michael (the singer) is also involved in Claire's case.

He is disguised as the attorney Ross Dreiblatt who is the original person her grandmother named as the Executor of her secret will.

zenarose said:

morningsong said:

I back tracked. VN might have a case.


http://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/CIOMediaLibrary/Documents/Exhibit-List-for-Memo-of-Law-re-legal-basis-for-claims-of-BN-and-VN.pdf

I can see them claiming kin to John L. But does that hold up to being kin to Prince when it comes to his estate? I gotta tell ya I'm teetering on the fence about this.

Under an equitable adoption claim it would pass on down through P thus allowing them to inherit.

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:

zenarose said:

I can see them claiming kin to John L. But does that hold up to being kin to Prince when it comes to his estate? I gotta tell ya I'm teetering on the fence about this.

Under an equitable adoption claim it would pass on down through P thus allowing them to inherit.

I don't think any court will allow this to happen. If John had gone ahead and adopted Duane it would all be legal. He did not adopt him so he was not his son and these chicks have even a less of a relationship to Prince then Duane. Remember Duane got nothing from John's estate so why would his daughter get anything from Prince's.

If this is allowed anyone that is in the least bit friendly with a family member can be treated like a blood relative. This would keep estates tied up in court for years with all sorts of people popping up and in this case it opens the issue with the people who have had their claims denied because they only had hearsay to say they were related. All of those people will be back again if the judge rules in favor of the Duane spawn.

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:

zenarose said:

I can see them claiming kin to John L. But does that hold up to being kin to Prince when it comes to his estate? I gotta tell ya I'm teetering on the fence about this.

Under an equitable adoption claim it would pass on down through P thus allowing them to inherit.

I think this will be the major obstacle for the estate. Once this is cleared, things may proceed at a decent pace. I am not sure what I think in regards to Simons claim. It was late, there is really no reason to not have known about the claim. Prince's death and lack of estate planning was all over the news for at least 2 months.

tmo1965 said:

morningsong said:

I back tracked. VN might have a case.


http://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/CIOMediaLibrary/Documents/Exhibit-List-for-Memo-of-Law-re-legal-basis-for-claims-of-BN-and-VN.pdf

Yes, they may have a case, but I think that whatever Eide's decision is, it will be appealed. Honestly, I think this case will set a precedent in MN and maybe the US, because the law is not clear.

I wonder if that's part of changing out lawyers? We'll see. I think for MN it will definitely set a precedent, maybe not the US, I can't imagine something similar to this hasn't come up elsewhere on a smaller scale.

laurarichardson said:

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:

Under an equitable adoption claim it would pass on down through P thus allowing them to inherit.

I don't think any court will allow this to happen. If John had gone ahead and adopted Duane it would all be legal. He did not adopt him so he was not his son and these chicks have even a less of a relationship to Prince then Duane. Remember Duane got nothing from John's estate so why would his daughter get anything from Prince's.

If this is allowed anyone that is in the least bit friendly with a family member can be treated like a blood relative. This would keep estates tied up in court for years with all sorts of people popping up and in this case it opens the issue with the people who have had their claims denied because they only had hearsay to say they were related. All of those people will be back again if the judge rules in favor of the Duane spawn.

I think it's the idea that John L's name is on Duane's birth certificate as his father AND an earlier draft of his will which list Duane as one of his children, granted he wasn't leaving anything to anyone except Prince, that give this any weight.

morningsong said:

laurarichardson said:

I don't think any court will allow this to happen. If John had gone ahead and adopted Duane it would all be legal. He did not adopt him so he was not his son and these chicks have even a less of a relationship to Prince then Duane. Remember Duane got nothing from John's estate so why would his daughter get anything from Prince's.

If this is allowed anyone that is in the least bit friendly with a family member can be treated like a blood relative. This would keep estates tied up in court for years with all sorts of people popping up and in this case it opens the issue with the people who have had their claims denied because they only had hearsay to say they were related. All of those people will be back again if the judge rules in favor of the Duane spawn.

I think it's the idea that John L's name is on Duane's birth certificate as his father AND an earlier draft of his will which list Duane as one of his children, granted he wasn't leaving anything to anyone except Prince, that give this any weight.

See I don't think John's will gives any weight to the case.

In fact I don't think any of the exhibits do. Because Duane and John had a father like relationship but not a legal one.

Duane was not even listed as an heir in John's estate. These are legal procedings. Programs from funerals and rememberances have no legal bearing or meaning.

I thought the girls were going to present adoption papers or some legal document that would have made Duane an heir. How are these docs any different than the Greshams hearsay or the other fake children hearsay? Or someone else coming forward and saying I am one of P's old girlfriend's child and he was not my dad but he took care of me financially so I should be an heir.

This type of decision would open up a terrible can of worms for estates.

laurarichardson said:

morningsong said:

I think it's the idea that John L's name is on Duane's birth certificate as his father AND an earlier draft of his will which list Duane as one of his children, granted he wasn't leaving anything to anyone except Prince, that give this any weight.

See I don't think John's will gives any weight to the case.

In fact I don't think any of the exhibits do. Because Duane and John had a father like relationship but not a legal one.

Duane was not even listed as an heir in John's estate. These are legal procedings. Programs from funerals and rememberances have no legal bearing or meaning.

I thought the girls were going to present adoption papers or some legal document that would have made Duane an heir. How are these docs any different than the Greshams hearsay or the other fake children hearsay? Or someone else coming forward and saying I am one of P's old girlfriend's child and he was not my dad but he took care of me financially so I should be an heir.

This type of decision would open up a terrible can of worms for estates.

I get what you're saying. But this judge has made the statement that DNA testing didn't need to be done regarding one claim (involving "family" members) that John L was PRN's dad because John L has acted as his father, giving the impression that "acting as a father" is enough legally. There are statutes in MN laws regarding other circumstances that "acting as a father" is enough legally. That's what they're fighting about. It's about dotting "i"s and crossing "t"s at this point.
Sounds like just insisting on getting DNA testing all around would have headed some of this off.

morningsong said:

laurarichardson said:

See I don't think John's will gives any weight to the case.

In fact I don't think any of the exhibits do. Because Duane and John had a father like relationship but not a legal one.

Duane was not even listed as an heir in John's estate. These are legal procedings. Programs from funerals and rememberances have no legal bearing or meaning.

I thought the girls were going to present adoption papers or some legal document that would have made Duane an heir. How are these docs any different than the Greshams hearsay or the other fake children hearsay? Or someone else coming forward and saying I am one of P's old girlfriend's child and he was not my dad but he took care of me financially so I should be an heir.

This type of decision would open up a terrible can of worms for estates.

I get what you're saying. But this judge has made the statement that DNA testing didn't need to be done regarding one claim (involving "family" members) that John L was PRN's dad because John L has acted as his father, giving the impression that "acting as a father" is enough legally. There are statutes in MN laws regarding other circumstances that "acting as a father" is enough legally. That's what they're fighting about. It's about dotting "i"s and crossing "t"s at this point.
Sounds like just insisting on getting DNA testing all around would have headed some of this off.

If that is the case, how does one draw the line. A friend of a family could be treated like a child, but does that legally suffice for estate or financial support?

Duane's dependents are going to fight this tooth and nail. I believe this will drag out for some time. The only defense the estate has is the probate court ruling on John L, which Duane was not an hier and counter arguments of Duane not biological John L's son.

If the courts accept that treating and acting as a person is a child, then Duane's descendents have a chance. Somewhere, the line has to be drawn. Simon's claim about not knowing how to file or if he could file is similar. If his claim, which was late, is allowed, then how do you tell others who file late that their claim is not within the deadline.

It don't matter what the estate judge rules in the issue of Duane's offspring. Either side, the siblings or Duane's will appeal and appeal to the highest court level possible.

morningsong said:

laurarichardson said:

See I don't think John's will gives any weight to the case.

In fact I don't think any of the exhibits do. Because Duane and John had a father like relationship but not a legal one.

Duane was not even listed as an heir in John's estate. These are legal procedings. Programs from funerals and rememberances have no legal bearing or meaning.

I thought the girls were going to present adoption papers or some legal document that would have made Duane an heir. How are these docs any different than the Greshams hearsay or the other fake children hearsay? Or someone else coming forward and saying I am one of P's old girlfriend's child and he was not my dad but he took care of me financially so I should be an heir.

This type of decision would open up a terrible can of worms for estates.

I get what you're saying. But this judge has made the statement that DNA testing didn't need to be done regarding one claim (involving "family" members) that John L was PRN's dad because John L has acted as his father, giving the impression that "acting as a father" is enough legally. There are statutes in MN laws regarding other circumstances that "acting as a father" is enough legally. That's what they're fighting about. It's about dotting "i"s and crossing "t"s at this point.
Sounds like just insisting on getting DNA testing all around would have headed some of this off.

The judge made all of the Nelson's get a test and he ordered the girls to have them. They refused to do so. Just order everyone to have a test and call it a day.

I don't see a state or the Supreme Court allowing this type of thing to be law. Opens door for fraud as it states you don't need legal docs to be related. At least John's name is probaly on dozens of docs related to Prince from school records, medical records since he played sports, permission slips and drivers licenses these are legal docs.

Could set a precedent for unmarried people to inheiret as well. I was kind of sort of married to him so I should get money situations.

nelcp777 said:

morningsong said:

I get what you're saying. But this judge has made the statement that DNA testing didn't need to be done regarding one claim (involving "family" members) that John L was PRN's dad because John L has acted as his father, giving the impression that "acting as a father" is enough legally. There are statutes in MN laws regarding other circumstances that "acting as a father" is enough legally. That's what they're fighting about. It's about dotting "i"s and crossing "t"s at this point.
Sounds like just insisting on getting DNA testing all around would have headed some of this off.

If that is the case, how does one draw the line. A friend of a family could be treated like a child, but does that legally suffice for estate or financial support?

Duane's dependents are going to fight this tooth and nail. I believe this will drag out for some time. The only defense the estate has is the probate court ruling on John L, which Duane was not an hier and counter arguments of Duane not biological John L's son.

If the courts accept that treating and acting as a person is a child, then Duane's descendents have a chance. Somewhere, the line has to be drawn. Simon's claim about not knowing how to file or if he could file is similar. If his claim, which was late, is allowed, then how do you tell others who file late that their claim is not within the deadline.

It don't matter what the estate judge rules in the issue of Duane's offspring. Either side, the siblings or Duane's will appeal and appeal to the highest court level possible.

They should just offer them a settlement to make them go away.

nelcp777 said:

morningsong said:

I get what you're saying. But this judge has made the statement that DNA testing didn't need to be done regarding one claim (involving "family" members) that John L was PRN's dad because John L has acted as his father, giving the impression that "acting as a father" is enough legally. There are statutes in MN laws regarding other circumstances that "acting as a father" is enough legally. That's what they're fighting about. It's about dotting "i"s and crossing "t"s at this point.
Sounds like just insisting on getting DNA testing all around would have headed some of this off.

If that is the case, how does one draw the line. A friend of a family could be treated like a child, but does that legally suffice for estate or financial support?

Duane's dependents are going to fight this tooth and nail. I believe this will drag out for some time. The only defense the estate has is the probate court ruling on John L, which Duane was not an hier and counter arguments of Duane not biological John L's son.

If the courts accept that treating and acting as a person is a child, then Duane's descendents have a chance. Somewhere, the line has to be drawn. Simon's claim about not knowing how to file or if he could file is similar. If his claim, which was late, is allowed, then how do you tell others who file late that their claim is not within the deadline.

It don't matter what the estate judge rules in the issue of Duane's offspring. Either side, the siblings or Duane's will appeal and appeal to the highest court level possible.

I think the line is the name on the birth certificate. John L is on both. So either it needs to be established that only blood and legal adoption makes one a heir, or that behavior and intent also makes one a heir. I'm sure it's a bit more complicated than that but I thinking that's the basics.

morningsong said:

laurarichardson said:

See I don't think John's will gives any weight to the case.

In fact I don't think any of the exhibits do. Because Duane and John had a father like relationship but not a legal one.

Duane was not even listed as an heir in John's estate. These are legal procedings. Programs from funerals and rememberances have no legal bearing or meaning.

I thought the girls were going to present adoption papers or some legal document that would have made Duane an heir. How are these docs any different than the Greshams hearsay or the other fake children hearsay? Or someone else coming forward and saying I am one of P's old girlfriend's child and he was not my dad but he took care of me financially so I should be an heir.

This type of decision would open up a terrible can of worms for estates.

I get what you're saying. But this judge has made the statement that DNA testing didn't need to be done regarding one claim (involving "family" members) that John L was PRN's dad because John L has acted as his father, giving the impression that "acting as a father" is enough legally. There are statutes in MN laws regarding other circumstances that "acting as a father" is enough legally. That's what they're fighting about. It's about dotting "i"s and crossing "t"s at this point.
Sounds like just insisting on getting DNA testing all around would have headed some of this off.

I didnt see where the Judge found that DNA testing didnt need to be done regarding one claim?

The Judge did order all children of John L to complete DNA testing, along with Brianna and VN.

When Brianna and VN filed a Memorandum and stated they were not genetically related to John L the Judge vacated the Order that the John L siblings submit to DNA testing.

They will have Oral Arguments before the Judge on October 21, 2016 on whether the girls could be considered heirs of the Estate.

The legal standard used by the Judge in considering their claim is the facts will be "considered in a light most favorable to Brianna and VN."

My personal opinion from reading the girls Memorandum of Law, and Exhibits is that the Judge will rule the girls could be considered heirs of the Estate.

If the Judge finds they have a claim as a matter of law, there will be evidentiary hearing with witnesses testifying on November 30, 2016.

morningsong said:

nelcp777 said:

If that is the case, how does one draw the line. A friend of a family could be treated like a child, but does that legally suffice for estate or financial support?

Duane's dependents are going to fight this tooth and nail. I believe this will drag out for some time. The only defense the estate has is the probate court ruling on John L, which Duane was not an hier and counter arguments of Duane not biological John L's son.

If the courts accept that treating and acting as a person is a child, then Duane's descendents have a chance. Somewhere, the line has to be drawn. Simon's claim about not knowing how to file or if he could file is similar. If his claim, which was late, is allowed, then how do you tell others who file late that their claim is not within the deadline.

It don't matter what the estate judge rules in the issue of Duane's offspring. Either side, the siblings or Duane's will appeal and appeal to the highest court level possible.

I think the line is the name on the birth certificate. John L is on both. So either it needs to be established that only blood and legal adoption makes one a heir, or that behavior and intent also makes one a heir. I'm sure it's a bit more complicated than that but I thinking that's the basics.

I agree with your logic. If the latter is choosen, then the flood gates will open, not only in Prince's case, but in many others.

The BC can be argued by the estate. I think it can be done so effectively. Duane's offspring have already succedded to the blood/DNA part. The Estate lawyers will have to effectively argue that the intent and behavoir has no legal bearing. That can be difficult.

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:

morningsong said:

I get what you're saying. But this judge has made the statement that DNA testing didn't need to be done regarding one claim (involving "family" members) that John L was PRN's dad because John L has acted as his father, giving the impression that "acting as a father" is enough legally. There are statutes in MN laws regarding other circumstances that "acting as a father" is enough legally. That's what they're fighting about. It's about dotting "i"s and crossing "t"s at this point.
Sounds like just insisting on getting DNA testing all around would have headed some of this off.

I didnt see where the Judge found that DNA testing didnt need to be done regarding one claim?

The Judge did order all children of John L to complete DNA testing, along with Brianna and VN.

When Brianna and VN filed a Memorandum and stated they were not genetically related to John L the Judge vacated the Order that the John L siblings submit to DNA testing.

They will have Oral Arguments before the Judge on October 21, 2016 on whether the girls could be considered heirs of the Estate.

The legal standard used by the Judge in considering their claim is the facts will be "considered in a light most favorable to Brianna and VN."

My personal opinion from reading the girls Memorandum of Law, and Exhibits is that the Judge will rule the girls could be considered heirs of the Estate.

If the Judge finds they have a claim as a matter of law, there will be evidentiary hearing with witnesses testifying on November 30, 2016.

I'll go back and find it later this evening. It was one of the claims where one of the "family" member were stating that John L was not Prince's father, but was someone else once involved in Mattie's life. This judge dismissed it without any genetic proof on the bases that John L has behaved as Prince's father and that was that.

nelcp777 said:

morningsong said:

I think the line is the name on the birth certificate. John L is on both. So either it needs to be established that only blood and legal adoption makes one a heir, or that behavior and intent also makes one a heir. I'm sure it's a bit more complicated than that but I thinking that's the basics.

I agree with your logic. If the latter is choosen, then the flood gates will open, not only in Prince's case, but in many others.

The BC can be argued by the estate. I think it can be done so effectively. Duane's offspring have already succedded to the blood/DNA part. The Estate lawyers will have to effectively argue that the intent and behavoir has no legal bearing. That can be difficult.

Oh I'm sure this ruling will affect a lot of things. And I'm sure the judge is aware of that so it's hard to predict his mindset. And then there's whatever the defense has to say.

morningsong said:

laurarichardson said:

morningsong said:

I'll go back and find it later this evening. It was one of the claims where one of the "family" member were stating that John L was not Prince's father, but was someone else once involved in Mattie's life. This judge dismissed it without any genetic proof on the bases that John L has behaved as Prince's father and that was that.

--- And their are plenty of legal documents to back that he was his father beyond the birth certificate.

That's the point I was going to make. The judge ruled that John L was Prince's father by clear and convincing evidence, such as his birth certificate, divorce documents, and state laws concerning who is the presumed father. The bottom line is that John L's paternity of Prince was never questioned legally or otherwise before now. Therefore, the judge ruled that John L was Prince's father as a matter of law. I think that the decision also said that even if it could be proved that the other guy was Prince's father, that according to the law, John L was Prince's legal father and that could not be changed ever.

ScarLett said:

Curious doesn't Prince's BC say John Louis Nelson and Duanes say John Lewis Nelson?? I think that's what I saw anyone remember?

I think you're right, but it does not have any bearing on anything. Names get misspelled on birth certificates all the time.

Tyka said some interesting things in this interview.

http://www.etonline.com/news/199690_exclusive_prince_estate_will_sister_tyka_nelson_interview/

"We're finally through the 195,000 people that said they're related," Nelson said. "We've got one of the employees that was a half-brother of some of my half siblings, once we work that part out, I think we're there. So, I'll be happy."

195,000? One Hundred and Ninety-five Thousand people claiming to be family? Geesh. No wonder.

Poor Judge. Poor family.

PennyPurple said:

Tyka said some interesting things in this interview.

http://www.etonline.com/news/199690_exclusive_prince_estate_will_sister_tyka_nelson_interview/

"We're finally through the 195,000 people that said they're related," Nelson said. "We've got one of the employees that was a half-brother of some of my half siblings, once we work that part out, I think we're there. So, I'll be happy."

And she knew this was coming...his departure