mookie said:

Timmy84 said:

Well remember in Michael's will, he gave Diana Ross legal guardian custody in case Katherine passed away. So if Katherine dies, we know who will take care of them then. And Diana has already shown she could take care of five children since all five of them seem really well-adjusted, not to mention three of them graduating from college, four of them having successful careers in the entertainment business and one of them still attending college and another one that may be the next major star while growing up with a CHILDHOOD.

I'll be shocked if Diana Ross ends up with them. Didn't Latoya already say that Katherine and Diana came to some agreement? I just can't see The Jacksons letting these cash cows out of their sights.

The Jacksons let someone get their stuff out of their home, I don't put it past them especially since some of them spoke to tabloids just to get money.

Plus Diana Ross actually proved that she was a real PARENT. I don't consider Joe and Katherine real parents and neither are his siblings (who have children) are real parents with the exceptions of probably Rebbie (perhaps), Marlon, Tito and Jackie.

Then again he didn't leave them in custody of his children either so...

[Edited 2/24/11 11:24am]

mookie said:

Timmy84 said:

Well remember in Michael's will, he gave Diana Ross legal guardian custody in case Katherine passed away. So if Katherine dies, we know who will take care of them then. And Diana has already shown she could take care of five children since all five of them seem really well-adjusted, not to mention three of them graduating from college, four of them having successful careers in the entertainment business and one of them still attending college and another one that may be the next major star while growing up with a CHILDHOOD.

I'll be shocked if Diana Ross ends up with them. Didn't Latoya already say that Katherine and Diana came to some agreement? I just can't see The Jacksons letting these cash cows out of their sights.

I don't trust a thing coming out of La Toya's mouth.

Timmy84 said:

mookie said:

I'll be shocked if Diana Ross ends up with them. Didn't Latoya already say that Katherine and Diana came to some agreement? I just can't see The Jacksons letting these cash cows out of their sights.

The Jacksons let someone get their stuff out of their home, I don't put it past them especially since some of them spoke to tabloids just to get money.

Plus Diana Ross actually proved that she was a real PARENT. I don't consider Joe and Katherine real parents and neither are his siblings (who have children) are real parents with the exceptions of probably Rebbie (perhaps), Marlon, Tito and Jackie.

Then again he didn't leave them in custody of his children either so...

[Edited 2/24/11 11:24am]

TELL IT BROTHER TIM!!! PREACH!

MJJstudent said:

kibbles said:

raymone bain says that she once asked mj if his

[Edited 2/24/11 10:19am]

i was not there, so i cannot say whether or not michael really wanted all those people there.

i personally do not think it was michael who hired any of those people back. i think the ATV catalog was a huge factor in a lot of what went on, with the O2 residency, etc. folks at sony had been eyeing it for years, and what better way of attaining it, than the man who helps seal the deal back in 1985?

so, it looks like a case of respectfully agreeing to dis-agree here. that's cool. i do a lot of it.

so you concede that you don't have any evidence to suggest that mj didn't want these people back. true, i don't have any evidence that he did; however, i tend to go with occam's razor whenever possible.

but let's assume you're right: mj didn't want branca in charge, branca refused to discharge himself as an executor when he was let go, mj was neglectful in not changing his will, and had to do O2 b/c of the atv loan debt. i guess my thought is, if this sum zero game was about wresting mj's control of his share of atv, why hasn't it been sold to sony?

instead, branca has remained an executor and he and mcclain have successfully administered the estate these last 18 mos, bringing in $310m and paying down mj's debt by renegotiating the atv loans to make them more favorable to the estate.

i'm sure they could have made a case to beckoloff that they had to sell mj's share of atv in order to bring the estate completely out of debt, which would have probably enabled them to close probate and never have to account to the judge ever again. instead, the estate is still in debt, though more manageable than before, and probate is open for public scrutiny, and will likely be for a few more years. how does this benefit sony or branca?

i guess i just don't understand how this particular conspiracy was supposed to have worked.

[Edited 2/24/11 11:57am]

kibbles said:

MJJstudent said:

i was not there, so i cannot say whether or not michael really wanted all those people there.

i personally do not think it was michael who hired any of those people back. i think the ATV catalog was a huge factor in a lot of what went on, with the O2 residency, etc. folks at sony had been eyeing it for years, and what better way of attaining it, than the man who helps seal the deal back in 1985?

so, it looks like a case of respectfully agreeing to dis-agree here. that's cool. i do a lot of it.

so you concede that you don't have any evidence to suggest that mj didn't want these people back. true, i don't have any evidence that he did; however, i tend to go with occam's razor whenever possible.

but let's assume you're right: mj didn't want branca in charge, branca refused to discharge himself as an executor when he was let go, mj was neglectful in not changing his will, and had to do O2 b/c of the atv loan debt. i guess my thought is, if this sum zero game was about wresting mj's control of his share of atv, why hasn't it been sold to sony?

instead, branca has remained an executor and he and mcclain have successfully administered the estate these last 18 mos, bringing in $310m and paying down mj's debt by renegotiating the atv loans to make them more favorable to the estate.

i'm sure they could have made a case to beckoloff that they had to sell mj's share of atv in order to bring the estate completely out of debt, which would have probably enabled them to close probate and never have to account to the judge ever again. instead, the estate is still in debt, though more manageable than before, and probate is open for public scrutiny, and will likely be for a few more years. how does this benefit sony or branca?

i guess i just don't understand how this particular conspiracy was supposed to have worked.

[Edited 2/24/11 11:57am]

I agree. They've done very well and are doing what they can to get the debt paid off

although when it comes to handling the releases of Michael's music and videos....I have different thoughts

bboy87 said:

kibbles said:

so you concede that you don't have any evidence to suggest that mj didn't want these people back. true, i don't have any evidence that he did; however, i tend to go with occam's razor whenever possible.

but let's assume you're right: mj didn't want branca in charge, branca refused to discharge himself as an executor when he was let go, mj was neglectful in not changing his will, and had to do O2 b/c of the atv loan debt. i guess my thought is, if this sum zero game was about wresting mj's control of his share of atv, why hasn't it been sold to sony?

instead, branca has remained an executor and he and mcclain have successfully administered the estate these last 18 mos, bringing in $310m and paying down mj's debt by renegotiating the atv loans to make them more favorable to the estate.

i'm sure they could have made a case to beckoloff that they had to sell mj's share of atv in order to bring the estate completely out of debt, which would have probably enabled them to close probate and never have to account to the judge ever again. instead, the estate is still in debt, though more manageable than before, and probate is open for public scrutiny, and will likely be for a few more years. how does this benefit sony or branca?

i guess i just don't understand how this particular conspiracy was supposed to have worked.

[Edited 2/24/11 11:57am]

I agree. They've done very well and are doing what they can to get the debt paid off

although when it comes to handling the releases of Michael's music and videos....I have different thoughts

Yeah that's really my only beef with the estate. I'm through with them on that matter. Them and Sony know how to shit on a possible good parade.

Timmy84 said:

bboy87 said:

I agree. They've done very well and are doing what they can to get the debt paid off

although when it comes to handling the releases of Michael's music and videos....I have different thoughts

Yeah that's really my only beef with the estate. I'm through with them on that matter. Them and Sony know how to shit on a possible good parade.

It's really in the case of "How can really benefit the cheapest possible way". It's really dumb how they handled Michael and Vision but with the music industry in the state it's been (and it won't be for some time if ever until it recovers), I can see why Sony are doing it in a way

kibbles said:

MJJstudent said:

i was not there, so i cannot say whether or not michael really wanted all those people there.

i personally do not think it was michael who hired any of those people back. i think the ATV catalog was a huge factor in a lot of what went on, with the O2 residency, etc. folks at sony had been eyeing it for years, and what better way of attaining it, than the man who helps seal the deal back in 1985?

so, it looks like a case of respectfully agreeing to dis-agree here. that's cool. i do a lot of it.

even you concede that you don't have any evidence to suggest that mj didn't want these people back, and true i don't have any evidence that he did. however, i tend to go with occam's razor whenever possible. but let's assume you're right: mj didn't want branca in charge, branca refused to discharge himself as an executor, similar to the accountant, and mj was neglectful in not changing his will, and had to do O2 b/c of the atv loan debt. i guess my thought is, so what? what has been the ultimate harm here? branca and mcclain have successfully administered the estate these last 18 mos, bringing in $310m and paying down mj's debt by renegotiating the atv loans to make them more favorable to the estate. why not sell the catalog back to sony and reap a windfall if that has been the ultimate goal all along? what is stopping them from doing that? after all, they only have to report to the judge about their financial decisions, and i'm sure they could have made a case to beckoloff that they had to sell atv in order to bring the estate completely out of debt. instead, the estate is still in debt, though more manageable than before. yes, they are collecting a 5% commission on their work for the estate, lower than the law allows, and commensurate with the vastness of mj's estate. but so would anyone else. i guess i just don't understand how this particular conspiracy was supposed to have worked.

again, i will respectfully agree to dis-agree... i think they have done much harm to his legacy. they have dis-respected his take on the sony situation. why would they re-bind him to a contract he worked on escaping from? why not do something independently, make money then quietly repay sony without binding his name to them yet again? do what prince did. he has his own thing. he's no longer bound to warners. warners owns 'purple rain' and all that stuff. but they no longer own him.

and sony again owns michael jackson.

the issue i have is that michael gave sony the first right of refusal. MAJOR mistake. michael should have learned from folks like david bowie, prince, radiohead, and the like, who did exclusive deals whilst taking a larger share of the deal. he was working on having his own site; the estate could have continued that, so it could be more interactive. they would have made bank, even without the sony deal. in fact, they may have made MORE. there's a lot of people not purchasing a lot of this product on the basis that sony's name is attached to it. you just alienated a significant portion of the fan base. this is marketing 101 right there. do. not. alienate. your. base.

michael would have had the FULL rights to his catalog returned to him in 2009. this is one of the reasons i think he was murdered. now, that catalog is more or less back with sony, they now reseve the right to do what they will with the music. the folks who run the estate should have played chess and not did the sony deal, then had sony pay a HUGE fee for one-time use of thriller or whatever else, since michael had been sony's largest artist. they could have held out until someone came with the larger deal, on the account of michael retaining the FULL rights to MIJAC, and that ATV will NOT be touched.

on the ATV site there's talk of another 25% going to sony if the estate cannot repay the loans. BAD move on michael's part. he should have stayed firm. if indeed, MIJAC and the rest of ATV cannot be touched and sony are working to attain the two, then this can be a large violation. according to sony though (and that first right of refusal) i think this is one of the worst business moves michael made in his lifetime. and the estate is following up on that.

if the estate were to, in my opinion, respect michael's legacy, they would not have re-signed with sony, and they would not budge. they would still make money. this is michael we are talking about here. they are milking him for everything... why not do it right?

so sure, i agree with you that it's favourable to those who run the estate. again though, i don't think it's favorable to michael.

bboy87 said:

Timmy84 said:

Yeah that's really my only beef with the estate. I'm through with them on that matter. Them and Sony know how to shit on a possible good parade.

It's really in the case of "How can really benefit the cheapest possible way". It's really dumb how they handled Michael and Vision but with the music industry in the state it's been (and it won't be for some time if ever until it recovers), I can see why Sony are doing it in a way

Even if it was respectable to this industry I just don't agree with it lol but if that's their excuse so be it.

bboy87 said:

I agree. They've done very well and are doing what they can to get the debt paid off

although when it comes to handling the releases of Michael's music and videos....I have different thoughts

i responded to the main thing... i think the estate would have done much better if they capitalized off of michael's 'free agent' status. they could have learned from prince, david bowie, etc. but they just enslaved michael again to a gangster organization. how exactly is this beneficial?

the music and videos are only a portion of the full picture. this is a man we are talking about, with feelings. he's not an automaton. and to me, this man has been disrespected by what the estate is advocating, in terms of what is being done with his legacy.

just because they are doing well does not mean they have any sort of positive moral standards. they are bleeding him dry. this is where i stand on the folks of sony, the estate, AEG, cirque du soleil, the video game organizations, mr. mann, as well as his blood relatives. there's not one person publicly representing his legacy in a way i feel is benefisial to this universe. and i do not count his kids here, as i feel they are being forced to be public about their father.

i know i stand alone on this (as i do with pretty much everything else on this thread). but you know, people keep telling me to stay on and share my views. so here they are.

I actually agree with what you have to say, mjjstudent. I just read that Branca had as much to do with this fraudulent (sp?) charity that Katherine and Howard are using to push the poor kids to do the interview. Sometimes I wonder who really had Michael's best interest.

I know the Estate is doing a good job getting MJ out of debt but the Estate could have A LOT more money if they actually knew what to do with Michael's music.

Timmy84 said:

I actually agree with what you have to say, mjjstudent. I just read that Branca had as much to do with this fraudulent (sp?) charity that Katherine and Howard are using to push the poor kids to do the interview. Sometimes I wonder who really had Michael's best interest.

tim, just trying to connect the dots after all these years of reseach... i don't think ANYONE did, sadly. with that, i think michael felt he had few choices.

you should also look up branca's association with the kurt cobain catalog. as crazy as people think courtney love may be, she had a few 'kind' words about branca.

i'm still questioning why there was no followup to his firing, by the judge he presented this will to. it was pretty well known michael fired him, and was told to relinquish all documents. i'm going perry mason and matlock on they asses!

MJJstudent said:

Timmy84 said:

I actually agree with what you have to say, mjjstudent. I just read that Branca had as much to do with this fraudulent (sp?) charity that Katherine and Howard are using to push the poor kids to do the interview. Sometimes I wonder who really had Michael's best interest.

tim, just trying to connect the dots after all these years of reseach... i don't think ANYONE did, sadly. with that, i think michael felt he had few choices.

you should also look up branca's association with the kurt cobain catalog. as crazy as people think courtney love may be, she had a few 'kind' words about branca.

i'm still questioning why there was no followup to his firing, by the judge he presented this will to. it was pretty well known michael fired him, and was told to relinquish all documents. i'm going perry mason and matlock on they asses!

I agree about Courtney. The way they're handling her late husband's estate is nuts.

Derek1984 said:

I know the Estate is doing a good job getting MJ out of debt but the Estate could have A LOT more money if they actually knew what to do with Michael's music.

Right!

I mean yeah Sony probably had no choice but it was really on the Estate's court what they do with the music.

You saw how Marvin Gaye's estate handle that matter in the '90s and afterwards... you think Michael's estate, which has more money, would do the same thing.

Omfg you guys are doing the absolute most, I swear! Jesus!!!!! Saying they need to be taken away from their family that they LOVE because you feel that saying 7 sentences on some inteview is exploiting them and robbing them of their childhood. STFU! I mean, should they be doing interviews, no...I don't think MIchael woul have too much cared for it. But really, the world is not going to end. These kids have family, they go to museam, amusment parks, beaches, resorts, the play all the time with their cousins. But no, none of that matters because of the one day the may take to do an interview. And they are old enough to not particpate if they don't want to. Taking them away from their own family, cha! Like really? They are FINE.

Hey we have our opinion, you have yours. It's all good. We'll see what happens but honestly you think anybody looking into what is going on is gonna be okay with it? Not quite but hey if that's how you feel.

Timmy84 said:

Hey we have our opinion, you have yours. It's all good. We'll see what happens but honestly you think anybody looking into what is going on is gonna be okay with it? Not quite but hey if that's how you feel.

Thank you for saying that. No need to get all bent out of shape over people's opinions. You can disagree with them, but telling ppl to STFU is uncalled for. Everyone has a right to their opinions whether you agree with them or not.

NaughtyKitty said:

Timmy84 said:

Hey we have our opinion, you have yours. It's all good. We'll see what happens but honestly you think anybody looking into what is going on is gonna be okay with it? Not quite but hey if that's how you feel.

Thank you for saying that. No need to get all bent out of shape over people's opinions. You can disagree with them, but telling ppl to STFU is uncalled for. Everyone has a right to their opinions whether you agree with them or not.

Just for the record we dunno how long the innerview will be till tomorrow right?

NMuzakNSoul said:

Just for the record we dunno how long the innerview will be till tomorrow right?

Which interview? Katherine and the MJ3's or Diana Ross'? You know she has an interview tomorrow but we don't know if Michael would be mentioned at all in Diana's.

MuchLove said:

Omfg you guys are doing the absolute most, I swear! Jesus!!!!! Saying they need to be taken away from their family that they LOVE because you feel that saying 7 sentences on some inteview is exploiting them and robbing them of their childhood. STFU! I mean, should they be doing interviews, no...I don't think MIchael woul have too much cared for it. But really, the world is not going to end. These kids have family, they go to museam, amusment parks, beaches, resorts, the play all the time with their cousins. But no, none of that matters because of the one day the may take to do an interview. And they are old enough to not particpate if they don't want to. Taking them away from their own family, cha! Like really? They are FINE.

You do realize Katherine contractually tried to enslave her grandchildren to a porn producer and that these appearances are a part of her scheme with Howard Mann?

Are you on pair with anything the family has been doing since MJ's death? Are you on pair with the millions of schemes the Jacksons have come up with to use the kids?

Using his kids for a fake charity to make money for herself and you guessed it Howard Mann

Timmy84 said:

NMuzakNSoul said:

Just for the record we dunno how long the innerview will be till tomorrow right?

Which interview? Katherine and the MJ3's or Diana Ross'? You know she has an interview tomorrow but we don't know if Michael would be mentioned at all in Diana's.

Well I meant MJ3. I forgot about Ms. Ross. lol Harpo will throw some MJ in there. But yeah this was only a preview right. Might be like a 30 min interview on GMA?

NMuzakNSoul said:

Timmy84 said:

Which interview? Katherine and the MJ3's or Diana Ross'? You know she has an interview tomorrow but we don't know if Michael would be mentioned at all in Diana's.

Well I meant MJ3. I forgot about Ms. Ross. lol Harpo will throw some MJ in there. But yeah this was only a preview right. Might be like a 30 min interview on GMA?

Yeah probably.

MJJstudent said:

Swa said:

So it seems a roughly put together "documentary" entitled "Alive! Is Michael Jackson really dead" is set for a March 1 release.

One of the claims as proof of Michael hoaxing his death to have the ultimate "comeback" is a note that is reported to be in MJ's hand writing saying "See you in July, 2011".

Now you know I don't buy into any of this - but hopefully if this is their proof then come 1 August we can finally put all this nonsense to rest and more importantly let MJ rest in peace.

i saw one or two of these notes which surfaced (there's videos of them) and it's not his handwriting at all. there's another theory going around that he had a twin, and one of the twins died so there's still one of them floating around.

the thing is, michael used to go around saying janet was his twin, so perhaps the theorists mis-interpreted the 'twin' thing for that? i cannot say. but the 'twin' argument uses everything from different ears to the missing mole on his face. the mole has always been there. a lot of times it's covered with makeup or photoshopped.

Student, I think you'll find that was a chicken pox scar on his left cheek, not a mole.

NaughtyKitty said:

bboy87 said:

ANOTHER interview?

Yeah I was surprised too. I really dont like this, it looks to me like they are being used and exploited for the Jacksons benefit. Katherine should be pulling them away from the spotlight, not pushing them towards it.

She's Katherine Jackson. Kind of has a history of shoving children into the limelight.

MJJstudent said:

kibbles said:

it looks like exploitation b/c that's what it is.

mj's heal the world foundation was shuttered well before he died. a woman took the name over, and had been fraudulently using it to get people to contribute, thinking they were supporting mj's charity. they're only supporting her pocketbook. mj sued her before he died, but she's been resurrected by her association w/howard mann.

mann has a contract w/katherine that she is to do promotional appearances, and will make mj3 available to do them as well. kat gets $10K, plus 25% of the profits any of these ventures bring; there is nothing in the contract that says mj3 get anything. what's worse, the contract supersedes kat's death, meaning the kids are 'bound' to mann for his purposes. recently, the estate filed suit against mann and this heal the world woman, but as you can see, they're all thumbing their noses at the estate. they're purposely putting mj3 on tv to promote an illegal charity, and i'm sure the kids have no idea that's what they're doing.

they say, 'sow the wind, reap the whirlwind'. it is my prayer that not only will kat, mann and the others be sued by the estate, HARD, i hope that this action will cause her to lose custody of mj3. someone has to step in and stop this.

[Edited 2/24/11 9:28am]

kibbles, i'm not a fan of what wietzman, branca and mc clain are doing (as i think they are illegally running the estate, as they never showed physical proof of branca running the estate as relevant as far as i know after his 2003 firing... why was the will not updated and signed by michael to fit the changing of the guard? there are people named in that will not in the camp any more)- i also find dileo's association with ATV/sony suspicious as to why he suddenly joined the fold again...and we could have debates on that one for decades.

but i have to say i concur with you ONE BILLION PERCENT on everything you said here.

I agree there. The will was from 2002. Branca fired in '03. Seems like an oversight on MJ's part. I do find it hard to believe Mike wouldn't have a more up to date will especially after the trial.

Fishy.

Prince has a deep voice.

Marrk said:

NaughtyKitty said:

Yeah I was surprised too. I really dont like this, it looks to me like they are being used and exploited for the Jacksons benefit. Katherine should be pulling them away from the spotlight, not pushing them towards it.

She's Katherine Jackson. Kind of has a history of shoving children into the limelight.

This is the same woman who alongside her husband told one of their daughters that Jack Gordon was a nice man that will look after her career not checking the man's history. The same woman who convinced Michael to do the Victory tour because Katherine was the only member of his family Michael put 100% trust in, the same woman who tried (but failed) to get Michael on that thing with the Moonies. The same woman who refused to divorce her abusive, philandering husband because of what it might do to the careers of her children (hell Joseph told Michael not to tell Katherine what he was doing behind her back but she found out eventually and still stayed with him despite two divorce proceedings).