LittleBLUECorvette said:

I'm taking a "Q" from bboy and making a fantasy track listing of the original BAD LP that was to be a 30 track triple-LP set.

BAD (LP 1) SIDE A

1. Bad

2. Cheater

3. What You Do To Me

4. Groove Of Midnight

5. I Just Can’t Stop Loving You featuring Siedah Garrett

SIDE B

1. The Price of Fame

2. Dirty Diana

3. Tomboy

4. Turning Me Off

5. Leave Me Alone

BAD (LP 2) SIDE C

1. We Are Here To Change The World

2. Man in the Mirror

3. Speed Demon

4. Buffalo Bill

5. Another Part of Me

SIDE D

1. Apocalypse Now

2. Neverland Landing

3. Come Together

4. Get Around

5. Scared of the Moon

BAD (LP 3) SIDE E

1. Chicago 1945

2. The Way You Make Me Feel

3. Liberian Girl

4. Just Good Friends featuring Stevie Wonder

5. Al Capone

SIDE F

1. Smooth Criminal

2. Streetwalker

3. Saturday

4. Michael McKeller

5. Fly Away

Bonus Cut: Crack Kills featuring Run-DMC [if recorded]

Wonder why it came out like it did, I fixed it.

[Edited 2/27/11 13:53pm]

I didn't add Crack Kills cause I'm not sure if it was recorded. Here is an article stating the project is at a stand still from February 87.

http://books.google.com/b...mp;f=false

i have actually heard audio of him discussing 'the girl is mine' before. it sounded exactly like the description of the deposition in jet magazine. was there a discussion of the song in other depositions?

if not, then i think there is actually audio of it which was made public at one point. i was pretty obsessed with watching these depositions michael was a part of, and the one about 'the girl is mine' was not video, but audio. the tape i heard was also sped up.

perhaps someone can clarify if that song was discussed in more than one deposition. yes, some of those depositions (especially the mexican one) were pretty painful to hear, and look at. but absolutely amazing to observe the process.

what i really wanna see is the motown depositions in the 70s, where the brothers had to take the stand, for breach of contract and all that.

=========================

in terms of the taraborelli book, yeah, i'd say take it with a grain of salt. a lot of the information does match as accurate. however, tarraborelli, as far as i know, had no qualms with stating a lot of what he wrote was from his perspective. and that's all we CAN do when we write such heavy pieces on a complicated subject. to state something like tarraborelli's book as the bible of michael would certainly be a bit much.

i have both first editions of the book- the initial u.s. press, and the post-trial british press. both books are quite different from one another. things are added and missing. but both do match up. they're compelling reads, and i would say they're good to add to a library, if you want to be a completist in relation to books on the works of michael.

i haven't read the 2009 reissue, so i cannot comment on it.

LittleBLUECorvette said:

LittleBLUECorvette said:

I'm taking a "Q" from bboy and making a fantasy track listing of the original BAD LP that was to be a 30 track triple-LP set.

BAD (LP 1) SIDE A

1. Bad

2. Cheater

3. What You Do To Me

4. Groove Of Midnight

5. I Just Can’t Stop Loving You featuring Siedah Garrett

SIDE B

1. The Price of Fame

2. Dirty Diana

3. Tomboy

4. Turning Me Off

5. Leave Me Alone

BAD (LP 2) SIDE C

1. We Are Here To Change The World

2. Man in the Mirror

3. Speed Demon

4. Buffalo Bill

5. Another Part of Me

SIDE D

1. Apocalypse Now

2. Neverland Landing

3. Come Together

4. Get Around

5. Scared of the Moon

BAD (LP 3) SIDE E

1. Chicago 1945

2. The Way You Make Me Feel

3. Liberian Girl

4. Just Good Friends featuring Stevie Wonder

5. Al Capone

SIDE F

1. Smooth Criminal

2. Streetwalker

3. Saturday

4. Michael McKeller

5. Fly Away

Bonus Cut: Crack Kills featuring Run-DMC [if recorded]

Wonder why it came out like it did, I fixed it.

[Edited 2/27/11 13:53pm]

I didn't add Crack Kills cause I'm not sure if it was recorded. Here is an article stating the project is at a stand still from February 87.

http://books.google.com/b...mp;f=false

It wasn't. Michael, Quincy and the members of Run DMC couldn't agree on where to go with the song so it was never recorded. After that Run DMC didn't have many kind words about Michael.

LittleBLUECorvette said:

I didn't add Crack Kills cause I'm not sure if it was recorded. Here is an article stating the project is at a stand still from February 87.

http://books.google.com/b...mp;f=false

To my knowledge, the record was never recorded. MJ did write lyrics to it, but no official recording of it exists

MJJstudent said:

i have actually heard audio of him discussing 'the girl is mine' before. it sounded exactly like the description of the deposition in jet magazine. was there a discussion of the song in other depositions?

if not, then i think there is actually audio of it which was made public at one point. i was pretty obsessed with watching these depositions michael was a part of, and the one about 'the girl is mine' was not video, but audio. the tape i heard was also sped up.

perhaps someone can clarify if that song was discussed in more than one deposition. yes, some of those depositions (especially the mexican one) were pretty painful to hear, and look at. but absolutely amazing to observe the process.

what i really wanna see is the motown depositions in the 70s, where the brothers had to take the stand, for breach of contract and all that.

=========================

in terms of the taraborelli book, yeah, i'd say take it with a grain of salt. a lot of the information does match as accurate. however, tarraborelli, as far as i know, had no qualms with stating a lot of what he wrote was from his perspective. and that's all we CAN do when we write such heavy pieces on a complicated subject. to state something like tarraborelli's book as the bible of michael would certainly be a bit much.

i have both first editions of the book- the initial u.s. press, and the post-trial british press. both books are quite different from one another. things are added and missing. but both do match up. they're compelling reads, and i would say they're good to add to a library, if you want to be a completist in relation to books on the works of michael.

i haven't read the 2009 reissue, so i cannot comment on it.

This?

I'm looking at some of the articles from 1986-87, and the speculation was ridiculous

-The album was to be a Beatles cover album

-George Michael and Michael were to do a duet of Free Mandela

-A duet with Barbra Streisand produced by Thomas Dolby

-Michael was going for a macho look, getting rid of the spit curl and makeup BUT keeping the glove

-Phil Spector was a consultant

-He was working on a TV special to reunite the cast of The Sound Of Music

-He was mad at Janet because the lyrics to What Have You Done For Me Lately were not "nice and Christian"

-He was going to perform a concert on July 4, 1986 in Moscow

-He was cross dressing in a scene in Captain EO

bboy87 said:

I'm looking at some of the articles from 1986-87, and the speculation was ridiculous

-The album was to be a Beatles cover album

-George Michael and Michael were to do a duet of Free Mandela

-A duet with Barbra Streisand produced by Thomas Dolby

-Michael was going for a macho look, getting rid of the spit curl and makeup BUT keeping the glove

-Phil Spector was a consultant

-He was working on a TV special to reunite the cast of The Sound Of Music

-He was mad at Janet because the lyrics to What Have You Done For Me Lately were not "nice and Christian"

-He was going to perform a concert on July 4, 1986 in Moscow

-He was cross dressing in a scene in Captain EO

Perform in concert during 1986? I wonder would he have premiered a few of the new records (taken that he had not finished BAD yet)

ViintageJunkiie said:

dag said:

You mean the Mexican deposition? The lawyer asking him questions was freaking me out and I was just watching it on TV. I wasn't the one sitting there having to aswer all those stupid questions with a toothache. Poor Mike.

Yep! I sat through the whole 3 hours of it and I was just so pissed because they were being so rude to him.

I also watched the whole thing and I was getting angrier with each second. They were treating him like a s***.

bboy87 said:

I'm looking at some of the articles from 1986-87, and the speculation was ridiculous

-The album was to be a Beatles cover album

-George Michael and Michael were to do a duet of Free Mandela

-A duet with Barbra Streisand produced by Thomas Dolby

-Michael was going for a macho look, getting rid of the spit curl and makeup BUT keeping the glove

-Phil Spector was a consultant

-He was working on a TV special to reunite the cast of The Sound Of Music

-He was mad at Janet because the lyrics to What Have You Done For Me Lately were not "nice and Christian"

-He was going to perform a concert on July 4, 1986 in Moscow

-He was cross dressing in a scene in Captain EO

Having lived through those times I can give some insight on a few of the above.

The Beatles cover album was obviously fuelled by his recent acquisition of the Beatles catalogue and recording Come Together.

The duet with Babs - was fuelled by her being first pick for IJCSLY. Thomas Dolby I believe was talking to MJ at the time (not about producing just about music).

The 1986 Moscow concert was meant to be for the Goodwill Games if I remember correctly.

ViintageJunkiie said:

MJJstudent said:

i have actually heard audio of him discussing 'the girl is mine' before. it sounded exactly like the description of the deposition in jet magazine. was there a discussion of the song in other depositions?

if not, then i think there is actually audio of it which was made public at one point. i was pretty obsessed with watching these depositions michael was a part of, and the one about 'the girl is mine' was not video, but audio. the tape i heard was also sped up.

perhaps someone can clarify if that song was discussed in more than one deposition. yes, some of those depositions (especially the mexican one) were pretty painful to hear, and look at. but absolutely amazing to observe the process.

what i really wanna see is the motown depositions in the 70s, where the brothers had to take the stand, for breach of contract and all that.

=========================

in terms of the taraborelli book, yeah, i'd say take it with a grain of salt. a lot of the information does match as accurate. however, tarraborelli, as far as i know, had no qualms with stating a lot of what he wrote was from his perspective. and that's all we CAN do when we write such heavy pieces on a complicated subject. to state something like tarraborelli's book as the bible of michael would certainly be a bit much.

i have both first editions of the book- the initial u.s. press, and the post-trial british press. both books are quite different from one another. things are added and missing. but both do match up. they're compelling reads, and i would say they're good to add to a library, if you want to be a completist in relation to books on the works of michael.

i haven't read the 2009 reissue, so i cannot comment on it.

This?

YES! THAT IS IT!!! thank you so much! i heard it about three years ago, and i remember it being used as part of a deposition or something. i ws so enamored with it, because i love hearing michael in the process of creation. was this used for anything else?

bboy87 said:

I'm looking at some of the articles from 1986-87, and the speculation was ridiculous

-The album was to be a Beatles cover album

-George Michael and Michael were to do a duet of Free Mandela

-A duet with Barbra Streisand produced by Thomas Dolby

-Michael was going for a macho look, getting rid of the spit curl and makeup BUT keeping the glove

-Phil Spector was a consultant

-He was working on a TV special to reunite the cast of The Sound Of Music

-He was mad at Janet because the lyrics to What Have You Done For Me Lately were not "nice and Christian"

-He was going to perform a concert on July 4, 1986 in Moscow

-He was cross dressing in a scene in Captain EO

i remember a couple of these rumors, like the thomas dolby one, the sound of music one, the streisand one and the beatles one. he was always asked after he acquired ATV if he was going to make a beatles record (his use of 'come together' in moonwalker brought more queries, if i recall).

and yeah, streisand and whitney houston were 'candidates' for i just can't stop loving you. and diana ross was also rumored to be one as well. i think ms. garrett was the perfect choice- after all, she was already established in the industry (singing with folks like dennis edwards, etc., plus her own material) plus it created a nice little bookend with the song she penned with glen ballard (another person who had prior history with michael), 'man in the mirror'.

i like the subtlety of the song. it's actually one of the few classic 'quincy jones productions' on the album. if houston or streissand were to sing on it, it wouldhave, in my opinion, been overpowering. however, i would have loved to have heard whitney and michael do stuff together. just not that song.

and i actually like the intro that got cut out of subsequent releases of the bad album: where he's speaking in the beginning of the song. had i not grown up with that intro on the album i may not like it today. but only on the vinyl and very early copies of the compact disc can you find the intro. and you can find him speaking a portion of the intro during the performance in yokohama.

===============================

about the 'free mandela' rumor: if that were actually true, that would have been AMAZING!!!!!!!!!

Michael Jackson's Ultimate Music Fan Global Mash-up To Launch Online March 7

MOL said:

The other day I was watching an interview. In that int., KJ said this: "When Michael bought the catalog, he told me that now, we were never going to worry about money again. But then he gave it to his kids.". And you could hear resentment in her voice while talking about how MJ gave it to the kids. You could hear sadness, confusion and MAINLY hatred.

Stop talking about the woman as if she was a saint who, poor she, is only in this deal because she is a victim. She's as much a criminal as her pathetic husband Joe and her pathetic children, mainly Randy (the psycopath).

when mj bought the catalog, a lot of things hadn't happened yet. he had no idea how much greed, envy, and aberrant behavior it would cause him in the end in the name of 'family'. after giving them millions upon millions of dollars almost to the he died, none of them really have anything to show for it. no, kat shouldn't have had to worry about money at this time in her life, but that's not her son's fault, it's hers. mj made the proper decision to give his legacy to his kids, like most people do.

all this talk about how much mj3 'loves' kat has to do with their father's love for her (which at this point, to my mind, is inexplicable as i can see NOTHING to love or respect here). kat is using their innocence to exploit them, and if there was hatred in her voice when she uttered these words, well, now i understand how she could be signing them off to mann, selling footage of them to oprah and gma, etc. it's very easy to exploit people when you have little regard for them. she's not binding her other grandchildren to pornographers, is she?

[Edited 2/28/11 9:49am]

kibbles said:

MOL said:

when mj bought the catalog, a lot of things hadn't happened yet. he had no idea how much greed, envy, and aberrant behavior it would cause him in the end in the name of 'family'. after given them millions upon millions of dollars almost to the he died, none of them really have anything to show for it. no, kat shouldn't have had to worry about money at this time in her life, but that's not her son's fault, it's hers. mj made the proper decision to give his legacy to his kids, like most people do. all this talk about how much mj3 'loves' kat has to do with their father's love for her (which at this point, to my mind, is inexplicable as i can see NOTHING to love or respect here). kat is using their innocence to exploit them, and if there was hatred in her voice when she uttered these words, well, now i understand how she could be signing them off to mann, selling footage of them to oprah and gma, etc. it's very easy to exploit people when you have little regard for them. she's not binding her other grandchildren to pornographers, is she?

MJ put Kat on a pedestal because he wanted to feel loved, feel human, feel he could trust someone. So he exxagerated every little act in his human need to feel loved by a parent. Mainly, he was in denial: he didn't want to think his own mother regarded him as few more than a money making machine. He knew, deep inside (even though he refused to acknowledge it) that his father saw him as a slave, a money making machine and the thought of the other parent feeling only a little better than that was too repulsive. Imagine your parents not giving a ish about you, just what you could give them. Imagine having parents who don't care if you die or not, just care about the material benefits you give them. Those thoughts are too much for any human being to handle, hence why MJ felt the need to put his mother on a pedestal.

So, what do I think? I think Kat is as mentally disturbed and freakish as her psycopathic, EVIL husband. The difference is that she has the capacity to love, a faculty Joe doesn't have.

[Edited 2/28/11 9:54am]

MOL said:

kibbles said:

MJ put Kat on a pedestal because he wanted to feel loved, feel human, feel he could trust someone. So he exxagerated every little act in his human need to feel loved by a parent. Mainly, he was in denial: he didn't want to think his own mother regarded him as few more than a money making machine. He knew, deep inside (even though he refused to acknowledge it) that his father saw him as a slave, a money making machine and the thought of the other parent feeling only a little better than that was too repulsive. Imagine your parents not giving a ish about you, just what you could give them. Imagine having parents who don't care if you die or not, just care about the material benefits you give them. Those thoughts are too much for any human being to handle, hence why MJ felt the need to put his mother on a pedestal.

So, what do I think? I think Kat is as mentally disturbed and freakish as her psycopathic, EVIL husband. The difference is that she has the capacity to love, a faculty Joe doesn't have.

[Edited 2/28/11 9:54am]

MOL said:

NaughtyKitty said:

Here's a good post I found:

What is really going on here is that there is "Michael Jackson" the PERSON, and "Michael Jackson" the brand. That brand/name is to be exclusively used by the estate, to generate more wealth. That wealth eventually goes to the CHILDREN. Money generated by Michael Jackson the BRAND, by Howard Mann, does NOT go to the children. In filing the lawsuit against Mann, the estate is protecting the children's interests. What is shocking is that the children are being used for promotion, for something that is counter to their own interests. Everyone get that? The kids are being used by the Jacksons as means to reach ends. Remember how they "agreed" the songs were fake in Mann's website? Remember how they "told" Latoya AEG was all meanie? Remember when the Jacksons were selling the story about Prince watching MJ die so they could use him to create lawsuits (the emotional distress one, remember?)? Remember how the kids are being used at every turn to fill Joe's and Katherine's pockets? Remember how Randy had a deal with the tabloids to expose the kids for cash? And the list goes on. My take: take the children outta of Hayvenhurst ASAP. They are in danger with that insane family.

Interesting. This makes me think about this blog post I found:

Katherine Jackson was the one and only person who have influence over Michael to get him to do things that he had initially declined. She has utilized her influence many times throughout Michael's life.

Katherine talked to Michael several times upon Rowe and Joe's directives.

http://muzikfactorytwo.bl...s-his.html

The blog talks about how Leonard Rowe, Katherine Jackson and Joe Jackson were trying to get Michael to do the concerts for that AllGood entertainment.

kibbles said:

MOL said:

MJ put Kat on a pedestal because he wanted to feel loved, feel human, feel he could trust someone. So he exxagerated every little act in his human need to feel loved by a parent. Mainly, he was in denial: he didn't want to think his own mother regarded him as few more than a money making machine. He knew, deep inside (even though he refused to acknowledge it) that his father saw him as a slave, a money making machine and the thought of the other parent feeling only a little better than that was too repulsive. Imagine your parents not giving a ish about you, just what you could give them. Imagine having parents who don't care if you die or not, just care about the material benefits you give them. Those thoughts are too much for any human being to handle, hence why MJ felt the need to put his mother on a pedestal.

So, what do I think? I think Kat is as mentally disturbed and freakish as her psycopathic, EVIL husband. The difference is that she has the capacity to love, a faculty Joe doesn't have.

[Edited 2/28/11 9:54am]

i remember a quote from mj from sometime in the early 80s/late 70s about how much he admired the way mothers could love their children from moment of birth, or something like that, so kat was definitely up on a pedestal. i think denial is the right word. as i say, there is nothing in her or her actions with his kids which indicates that she regards them with love or respect. children are innocent; they will love whomever treats them well, or seems to. they will trust in the adults around them simply b/c they are the adults around them. how many orgers have loved a parent who treated them badly as a child, and don't realize it until they grow up and look back? not all child abuse is physical; in fact, MOST of it is emotional. manipulation games, playing with feelings, playing with trust, inciting doubt, withholding approval or affection. the list goes on. kat may have the capacity to love - evident w/ joe - but i'm not sure that it extended to mj.

What I find interesting, reading Magic and the Madness, Michael didn't even call Katherine "mom" to others it was "Mother". Other times it was "Kate". So he called his father by his first name (at nineteen, the book said) and his mother by her first name. Never "Mommy" and "Daddy", "Kate" and "Joseph".

Michael did NOT appoint Rowe as his business manager. He authorised Rowe only to oversee his finances regarding the O2 Tour. He signed this letter to stop the incessant badgering by Katherine & Joe. Michael had a habit of making promises, even if he wasn't confortable with it. He would then have one of his handlers recant his promise later. In this case, it was Frank Dileo.

I confirmed with a source from the Jackson Camp that Michael indeed asked Dileo to meet with Rowe. To penetrade into Michael's fort, Jackson Camp (Joe and Rowe) came up with a Plan B. Joe insisted that Leonard Rowe and Katherine Jackson move into Michael's home. Katherine declined, stating that she didn't want to intrude into Michael's privacy. This is the reason Joe blamed Katherine for Michael's death. Leonard Rowe in his book and Jacksons in interviews refer to an "intervention".

They did NOT organize any intervention! An intervention is set up and carefully executed by an Intervention specialist. There is an elaborate method to an Intervention. It is planned out of concern for the loved one. A plan to take control of Michael hardly constitutes as an "intervention". Jackson Camp wanted to move in Katherine and Rowe to gain control over Michael, NOT because they were concerned over Michael's health. Katherine, Joe and Rowe saw Michael at a meeting on May 15 2009, Michael's health or an Intervention wasn't on the agenda of the meeting. It was imperative for the Jackson Camp that Leonard Rowe was Michael's manager so they can talk him into performing the Family Concert. Leonard Rowe signed a contract with AllGood in February. The contract omnisciently predicted IN FEBRUARY 2009 that Rowe may be hired as Michael's manager. I will post the Rowe-AllGood contract in another post.

THE SUPPOSED CONCERT, ERR DRUG INTERVENTION:

“I did not believe that she had the drawing power to tour” wrote Leonard Rowe in his book. So he enlisted Michael’s help. “I am going to fly to Las Vegas, talk to Michael and see if I can get him to get back with the brothers and tour. If he agrees to do that, you can be the opening act” Rowe told Janet.

Leonard Rowe, Jermaine, Jackie, Marlon, Tito & Janet met up at Rebbie’s home then went to Michael’s home unannounced

They wanted to control Michael. Joe, Leonard and Kat kept badgering him. They even realeased a press statement claiming Rowe was Michael's manager when, in reality, he was not. The three kept making schemes after schemes to gain control of Michael so they could make money. Read the article Naughty posted. They even contacted journalists and asked them to help them "take over Michael's shows".

JOE AND KATHERINE MAKE ME SICK.

[Edited 2/28/11 11:18am]

Timmy84 said:

kibbles said:

i remember a quote from mj from sometime in the early 80s/late 70s about how much he admired the way mothers could love their children from moment of birth, or something like that, so kat was definitely up on a pedestal. i think denial is the right word. as i say, there is nothing in her or her actions with his kids which indicates that she regards them with love or respect. children are innocent; they will love whomever treats them well, or seems to. they will trust in the adults around them simply b/c they are the adults around them. how many orgers have loved a parent who treated them badly as a child, and don't realize it until they grow up and look back? not all child abuse is physical; in fact, MOST of it is emotional. manipulation games, playing with feelings, playing with trust, inciting doubt, withholding approval or affection. the list goes on. kat may have the capacity to love - evident w/ joe - but i'm not sure that it extended to mj.

What I find interesting, reading Magic and the Madness, Michael didn't even call Katherine "mom" to others it was "Mother". Other times it was "Kate". So he called his father by his first name (at nineteen, the book said) and his mother by her first name. Never "Mommy" and "Daddy", "Kate" and "Joseph".

You know what, you're right. We know Joe didn’t want to be called dad, but makes you wonder why he didn’t always call her mom. Another thing I was thinking of, I remember last year some fans were taking donations from other fans in order to buy KJ a bouquet of roses for Mothers Day But now she's really pissed off a lot of the fan community by her involvement with Mann and the GMA interview, wonder if they're gonna giver her some roses again this year?

kibbles said:

MOL said:

when mj bought the catalog, a lot of things hadn't happened yet. he had no idea how much greed, envy, and aberrant behavior it would cause him in the end in the name of 'family'. after giving them millions upon millions of dollars almost to the he died, none of them really have anything to show for it. no, kat shouldn't have had to worry about money at this time in her life, but that's not her son's fault, it's hers. mj made the proper decision to give his legacy to his kids, like most people do.

all this talk about how much mj3 'loves' kat has to do with their father's love for her (which at this point, to my mind, is inexplicable as i can see NOTHING to love or respect here). kat is using their innocence to exploit them, and if there was hatred in her voice when she uttered these words, well, now i understand how she could be signing them off to mann, selling footage of them to oprah and gma, etc. it's very easy to exploit people when you have little regard for them. she's not binding her other grandchildren to pornographers, is she?

[Edited 2/28/11 9:49am]

When you put it this way... BTW are you talking about Mann or Shaffel? I am not sure if both of them are in pornographic industry. I know Shaffel is from the deposition that Mike gave, but I am not sure about Mann. Sorry, I have never followed MJ's business affairs in detail.

Timmy84 said:

kibbles said:

i remember a quote from mj from sometime in the early 80s/late 70s about how much he admired the way mothers could love their children from moment of birth, or something like that, so kat was definitely up on a pedestal. i think denial is the right word. as i say, there is nothing in her or her actions with his kids which indicates that she regards them with love or respect. children are innocent; they will love whomever treats them well, or seems to. they will trust in the adults around them simply b/c they are the adults around them. how many orgers have loved a parent who treated them badly as a child, and don't realize it until they grow up and look back? not all child abuse is physical; in fact, MOST of it is emotional. manipulation games, playing with feelings, playing with trust, inciting doubt, withholding approval or affection. the list goes on. kat may have the capacity to love - evident w/ joe - but i'm not sure that it extended to mj.

What I find interesting, reading Magic and the Madness, Michael didn't even call Katherine "mom" to others it was "Mother". Other times it was "Kate". So he called his father by his first name (at nineteen, the book said) and his mother by her first name. Never "Mommy" and "Daddy", "Kate" and "Joseph".

It is weird. I remember Mike saying that everything he's done was because he didn't feel loved. I just came to think about it with this discussion about Katherine cause he kept saying she was a perfect angel, but if she truly loved him and he felt that, would he still feel the way he felt? Not loved?

dag said:

kibbles said:

when mj bought the catalog, a lot of things hadn't happened yet. he had no idea how much greed, envy, and aberrant behavior it would cause him in the end in the name of 'family'. after giving them millions upon millions of dollars almost to the he died, none of them really have anything to show for it. no, kat shouldn't have had to worry about money at this time in her life, but that's not her son's fault, it's hers. mj made the proper decision to give his legacy to his kids, like most people do.

all this talk about how much mj3 'loves' kat has to do with their father's love for her (which at this point, to my mind, is inexplicable as i can see NOTHING to love or respect here). kat is using their innocence to exploit them, and if there was hatred in her voice when she uttered these words, well, now i understand how she could be signing them off to mann, selling footage of them to oprah and gma, etc. it's very easy to exploit people when you have little regard for them. she's not binding her other grandchildren to pornographers, is she?

[Edited 2/28/11 9:49am]

When you put it this way... BTW are you talking about Mann or Shaffel? I am not sure if both of them are in pornographic industry. I know Shaffel is from the deposition that Mike gave, but I am not sure about Mann. Sorry, I have never followed MJ's business affairs in detail.

mann, and yes he runs a porn website. if you go to the tmz website, they have a copy of 'katherine's secret contract'. in it, she is to be paid $10K for appearances, plus 'expenses' and is guaranteed profits if mann's ventures to exploit her dead son pan out.

what's really, really troubling is that the contract further states that mj3 will also be made available for such appearances, and that the language of the contract implies that it will supersede kat's death. tellingly, there is absolutely no mention of the children being paid for their 'appearances', only kat. the prima facie contract, therefore, suggests that kat has bound mj3 to do mann bidding, even after her death, they are to earn nothing from it, no profits will go to them from any ventures, and ostensibly, the money they earn will go to the company (the name of which escapes me) which likely will be part of kat's estate.

there is no mention whatsoever of what these 'appearances' shall entail in the future, any limits placed on how or where mj3 should appear, which really troubling when you consider his 'sideline'. i know it isn't my business, but i echo others who've said these kids need to be taken away from kat. this is just beyond the pale. she has no right to bind her grandchildren to any sort of contract like this, and the fact that she has no problem with it, speaks volumes about her character.

[Edited 2/28/11 11:45am]

kibbles said:

dag said:

When you put it this way... BTW are you talking about Mann or Shaffel? I am not sure if both of them are in pornographic industry. I know Shaffel is from the deposition that Mike gave, but I am not sure about Mann. Sorry, I have never followed MJ's business affairs in detail.

mann. if you go to the tmz website, they have a copy of 'katherine's secret contract'. in it, she is to be paid $10K for appearances, plus 'expenses' and is guaranteed profits if mann's ventures to exploit her dead son pan out. what's really, really troubling is that the contract further states that mj3 will also be made available for such appearances, and that the language of the contract implies that it will supersede kat's death. tellingly, there is absolutely no mention of the children being paid for their 'appearances', only kat. the prima facie contract, therefore, suggests that kat has bound mj3 to do mann bidding, even after her death, they are to earn nothing from it, no profits will go to them from any ventures, and ostensibly, the money they earn will go to the company (the name of which escapes me) which likely will be part of kat's estate. there is no mention whatsoever of what these 'appearances' shall entail in the future, any limits placed on how or where they should appear. i know it isn't my business, but i echo others who've said these kids need to be taken away from kat. this is just beyond the pale. she has no right to bind her grandchildren to any sort of contract like this, and the fact that she has no problem with it, speaks volumes about her character.

kibbles, go to the link Naughty posted and read it. Obviously, I didn't get slightly shocked: I already knew that and I already knew Joe is evil, a psycopath. Pol Pot would feel ashamed of being compared to Joe.

MOL said:

kibbles said:

mann. if you go to the tmz website, they have a copy of 'katherine's secret contract'. in it, she is to be paid $10K for appearances, plus 'expenses' and is guaranteed profits if mann's ventures to exploit her dead son pan out. what's really, really troubling is that the contract further states that mj3 will also be made available for such appearances, and that the language of the contract implies that it will supersede kat's death. tellingly, there is absolutely no mention of the children being paid for their 'appearances', only kat. the prima facie contract, therefore, suggests that kat has bound mj3 to do mann bidding, even after her death, they are to earn nothing from it, no profits will go to them from any ventures, and ostensibly, the money they earn will go to the company (the name of which escapes me) which likely will be part of kat's estate. there is no mention whatsoever of what these 'appearances' shall entail in the future, any limits placed on how or where they should appear. i know it isn't my business, but i echo others who've said these kids need to be taken away from kat. this is just beyond the pale. she has no right to bind her grandchildren to any sort of contract like this, and the fact that she has no problem with it, speaks volumes about her character.

kibbles, go to the link Naughty posted and read it. Obviously, I didn't get slightly shocked: I already knew that and I already knew Joe is evil, a psycopath. Pol Pot would feel ashamed of being compared to Joe.

kibbles said:

dag said:

When you put it this way... BTW are you talking about Mann or Shaffel? I am not sure if both of them are in pornographic industry. I know Shaffel is from the deposition that Mike gave, but I am not sure about Mann. Sorry, I have never followed MJ's business affairs in detail.

mann, and yes he runs a porn website. if you go to the tmz website, they have a copy of 'katherine's secret contract'. in it, she is to be paid $10K for appearances, plus 'expenses' and is guaranteed profits if mann's ventures to exploit her dead son pan out.

what's really, really troubling is that the contract further states that mj3 will also be made available for such appearances, and that the language of the contract implies that it will supersede kat's death. tellingly, there is absolutely no mention of the children being paid for their 'appearances', only kat. the prima facie contract, therefore, suggests that kat has bound mj3 to do mann bidding, even after her death, they are to earn nothing from it, no profits will go to them from any ventures, and ostensibly, the money they earn will go to the company (the name of which escapes me) which likely will be part of kat's estate.

there is no mention whatsoever of what these 'appearances' shall entail in the future, any limits placed on how or where mj3 should appear, which really troubling when you consider his 'sideline'. i know it isn't my business, but i echo others who've said these kids need to be taken away from kat. this is just beyond the pale. she has no right to bind her grandchildren to any sort of contract like this, and the fact that she has no problem with it, speaks volumes about her character.

[Edited 2/28/11 11:45am]

You are scaring me to death. I hope you are wrong.

Well yeah, I've heard about the conract and I think I saw it, but somehow I didn't put it in the whole context.

NaughtyKitty said:

MOL said:

Interesting. This makes me think about this blog post I found:

Katherine Jackson was the one and only person who have influence over Michael to get him to do things that he had initially declined. She has utilized her influence many times throughout Michael's life.

Katherine talked to Michael several times upon Rowe and Joe's directives.

http://muzikfactorytwo.bl...s-his.html

The blog talks about how Leonard Rowe, Katherine Jackson and Joe Jackson were trying to get Michael to do the concerts for that AllGood entertainment.

The link brought back memories of what was going on. Interventions my ass.

Timmy84 said:

NaughtyKitty said:

The link brought back memories of what was going on. Interventions my ass.

Yeah, I've just read it. One tends to forget about a lot of stuff. I was always the one to follow Michael directly (meaning his interviews, speeches etc.) so that is why I am quite messy and confused about all this business affairs that Michael hasn't addressed himself publicaly.

kibbles said:

dag said:

When you put it this way... BTW are you talking about Mann or Shaffel? I am not sure if both of them are in pornographic industry. I know Shaffel is from the deposition that Mike gave, but I am not sure about Mann. Sorry, I have never followed MJ's business affairs in detail.

mann, and yes he runs a porn website. if you go to the tmz website, they have a copy of 'katherine's secret contract'. in it, she is to be paid $10K for appearances, plus 'expenses' and is guaranteed profits if mann's ventures to exploit her dead son pan out.

what's really, really troubling is that the contract further states that mj3 will also be made available for such appearances, and that the language of the contract implies that it will supersede kat's death. tellingly, there is absolutely no mention of the children being paid for their 'appearances', only kat. the prima facie contract, therefore, suggests that kat has bound mj3 to do mann bidding, even after her death, they are to earn nothing from it, no profits will go to them from any ventures, and ostensibly, the money they earn will go to the company (the name of which escapes me) which likely will be part of kat's estate.

there is no mention whatsoever of what these 'appearances' shall entail in the future, any limits placed on how or where mj3 should appear, which really troubling when you consider his 'sideline'. i know it isn't my business, but i echo others who've said these kids need to be taken away from kat. this is just beyond the pale. she has no right to bind her grandchildren to any sort of contract like this, and the fact that she has no problem with it, speaks volumes about her character.

[Edited 2/28/11 11:45am]

BTW is it even possible legally to bind someone for life just like that?

dag said:

kibbles said:

mann, and yes he runs a porn website. if you go to the tmz website, they have a copy of 'katherine's secret contract'. in it, she is to be paid $10K for appearances, plus 'expenses' and is guaranteed profits if mann's ventures to exploit her dead son pan out.

what's really, really troubling is that the contract further states that mj3 will also be made available for such appearances, and that the language of the contract implies that it will supersede kat's death. tellingly, there is absolutely no mention of the children being paid for their 'appearances', only kat. the prima facie contract, therefore, suggests that kat has bound mj3 to do mann bidding, even after her death, they are to earn nothing from it, no profits will go to them from any ventures, and ostensibly, the money they earn will go to the company (the name of which escapes me) which likely will be part of kat's estate.

there is no mention whatsoever of what these 'appearances' shall entail in the future, any limits placed on how or where mj3 should appear, which really troubling when you consider his 'sideline'. i know it isn't my business, but i echo others who've said these kids need to be taken away from kat. this is just beyond the pale. she has no right to bind her grandchildren to any sort of contract like this, and the fact that she has no problem with it, speaks volumes about her character.

[Edited 2/28/11 11:45am]

BTW is it even possible legally to bind someone for life just like that?

per the contract: i have the authority to bind and commit myself and the remainder of the kj party hereto...this agreement remains binding on the party, their heirs, successors, and assigns.

so mj3's heirs - including yet to be born children - have been bound to this agreement.

no, i believe it is what's called an unconscionable contract (as i've studied as a paralegal) and those are illegal. mj3 were not afforded separate legal counsel, are too young to give their consent, and it represents a conflict of interest on kat's part. if you read the full contract, their right to privacy has been signed away as well.

http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o...kson_2.pdf

nice grandma, huh?

kibbles said:

dag said:

BTW is it even possible legally to bind someone for life just like that?

per the contract: i have the authority to bind and commit myself and the remainder of the kj party hereto...this agreement remains binding on the party, their heirs, successors, and assigns.

so mj3's heirs - including yet to be born children - have been bound to this agreement.

no, i believe it is what's called an unconscionable contract (as i've studied as a paralegal) and those are illegal. mj3 were not afforded separate legal counsel, are too young to give their consent, and it represents a conflict of interest on kat's part. if you read the full contract, their right to privacy has been signed away as well.

http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o...kson_2.pdf

nice grandma, huh?

So in other words, whatever their father tried to do to make sure this didn't happen was reversed by the one woman he trusted...

Michael is somewhere rolling in his grave.