Analyst said:

SoulAlive said:

What a loser

Actually I don't think what he said was that far-fetched. Remember, the ONLY people named in the Will to get MJ's money are his mom and his kids.

I could see someone stirring up all this drama, knowing that Katherine is older and hoping that she won't be able to handle it. And then all the money would go to his kids, and if his kids are in that person's back pocket...

You have to remember that some people on this planet just don't give a shit and will pretty much do whatever they can to get a couple of dollars in their hand. Not everybody has a point they won't go beyond.

And initially I kind of held TJ Jackson responsible for some of this shit but whose to say that he isn't just some unwitting puppet for someone else who is in his ear whispering shit to make him turn on his family? To some extent I think that's going on with Michael's kids too, that they're being told things by someone who is trying to position themselves in a way to get access to that money and so they're manipulating them to turn them against the rest of Michael's family. Probably because they know that if the rest of the family and MJ's kids are close, that the family will be looking out for those kids and warning them to stay away from certain people.

Think about it - this family has been in showbusiness for decades. Most of them are probably pretty adept at knowing a rat when they see one. So it makes sense to me that there's someone there trying to draw a wedge between the family and those kids because they know the family stands in the way of them getting access to that money via the kids.

And they were probably using Katherine initially as a catalyst to turn the kids against the family, telling them that the family was holding their grandmother against her will.

All guesswork? Absolutely. I don't know any of them to be able to say what's going on for sure. But if you look at it logically and without the bias of immediately assuming that MJ's siblings have to be at fault, then you'll start to realize there's probably some crap going on behind the scenes that we're not aware of.

And I think it says alot that even Janet is getting involved in this, when she usually tries to fly below the radar and not get involved in ANYthing. If she's putting her neck on the line here there has to be a good reason for it, and I doubt it's monetary in nature because I'm pretty sure she has a shitload of money herself and would help out her family if they needed it. I doubt this is about her trying to get a cut of MJ's cash or participating in some shitty behavior because she doesn't want to help out her own family. She does her own thing but at the same time she's always seemed to be pretty pro-family to me and like she loves her siblings and her mom.

And for the yokels in the thread insisting that there was some big wedge between MJ and his siblings - they were right there with him during the trials and clearly he wanted it otherwise they wouldn't have been. And they were at the MSG special too. Am I saying their relationship was picture-perfect? No, no sibling relationship is. But I bet as much as they annoyed the shit out of each other, they loved each other just as much, just like any set of brothers and sisters. And I don't look at MJ leaving them out of the will as some sort of statement of hatred towards them. If anything, he probably figured "Oh why waste time naming off everybody specifically in the will, I know my mom will take care of it and give them money if they should need it".

And like I said, it's not very surprising at all how sides are being taken among the MJ fan community based on color, again considering that most MJ fans are European and how racist comments are pretty much common in the Michael Jackson fan community. MJ was a big believer in everybody being the same and equal, but that doesn't mean his fans necessarily live by that, no matter what lip-service they might give stating otherwise. A lot of the most ignorant race-based comments I've heard, have come from Michael Jackson fans which I always found ironic considering that MICHAEL IS BLACK.

So no, it doesn't surprise me that most of them are assuming that the family has some kind of sinister intent and is taking swings at them...and I've noticed from bits and pieces of what I've seen here and on Twitter that now they're starting to take aim at MJ's MOTHER.

Michael seemed to be a decent guy but he deserved better fans than what he ultimately got.

[Edited 7/27/12 19:25pm]

I get what you're saying but I'm just gonna add on.....

From my observation, it's possible with the fallout of the letter, Randy and co decided to whisk Katherine away to keep her unaware of what was going, then add on the miscommunication between the other siblings, Michael's kids, the lawyers......it went out of control

I don't think this thing is all about money. Control of their brother's estate and wanting to keep it in the family?

It's obvious Michael didn't hate his siblings. He loved them BUT he was weary of their actions, but then again, Michael at the end of his life was weary of everyone except his kids. Brett Ratner asked him what advice would he give someone starting out and he said "Don't trust anyone"

It's possible he didn't name them in the will not because he knew his mother would handle it, but maybe because he felt all he had to support was his mother and his kids. He knew Janet would be okay and was proud that she was her own person and worked hard for her success and Rebbie wasn't someone who was big on luxury. He helped his siblings when they needed help. Some of the siblings lived at Hayvenhurst over the years with their spouses and kids, Michael paid for his nieces and nephews' education

On the subject of Michael's fanbase, I disagree that most of his fans are bigoted or their views are based on race. While fans are critical of the siblings and Joe (sometimes unfairly in the past), it has to do with the family's past behavior, for example, Jermaine making remarks about Michael's music and core audience in the 80s, writing a diss track about Michael while he was living in Michael's house, the whole initial refusal to do the MSG shows in 2001 because of profits...etc

You have the constant announcements of a Jacksons reunion tour where they didn't have any promotion, managers and the brothers not being on the right page (specifically Randy and Jermaine)

The situation with the Moonies in '89

Katherine being surrounded by shady businessmen after Michael died which resulted in the estate going after her

the Jackson Family Values incident

the signing of that contract with All Good Entertainment where Michael hadn't confirmed but ended up getting sued for $400 million shortly before he passed

Joe with JoCola, his line of brandy back in the '80s and now selling never before seen photos, ice cream, perfume and champagne with Michael's image

and constantly putting all their business out in public for the world to see like they're doing now

Janet, I sense, is doing this out of loyalty. Not being greedy or selfish. Still, it's not a good look for her to be involved in this whole thing

I'm on Team Paris. She is so fierce and in your face. She is the opposite of MJ who was shy and retiring. She stands up for what she believes in and what is right. Madonna said that losing your parent at a young age is more of a help than a hindrance because it makes you fearless. Paris is the living embodiment of that. She is so intelligent and cool on twitter. I hope no one shuts her down. I think she is cool and awesome and good on her for not taking crap from Janet and the other loser family members.

Ottensen said:

SoulAlive said:

a person would have to be blind not to see what the Jacksons are doing.The main villians in this scheme (Jermaine and Randy) are broke-ass mofos who can't even afford their child support payments.So,when they read in the media that their dead brothers' estate has paid off all its debts and is now worth a staggering billion dollars (and counting),you get a clear idea why they're doing this.They're anxious and hungry.Make no mistake,this is all about MONEY.This ain't about family protecting family,it's about over-turning the will so that *other members* can get a share.

Look at how the events played out.The main villians (Jermaine,Randy,Janet and Rebbie) whisked their mother away to Arizona,took away her cellphone and made sure she had no contact with other family members.Anyone who wasn't a part of their "scheme" wouldn't be able to communicate with Katherine.In her absence,they sent out that ridiculous letter to the media,wouldn't allow the grandkids to communicate with their own guardian,and pulled that ridiculous driveway stunt,trying to steal Paris' cellphone.Once again,they wanted to cut off someone's ability to communicate with the outside world.It worked with Katherine only because she is old and too trusting.But thankfully,the children fought back.

It'll be interesting to see how the rest of this scandal plays out,but as of right now,it's easy to see what's going on here.

Lawd, did you hear that long before all this broke out that Randy and Jermaine had previously petitioned the Estate to get financial help to aid them in their child support (and I guess avoid jail) when they were being sued by their BabyMama? Is that the woman that was squatting in Katherine's house, btw? The one who's now living in one of Michael's condos in return for silence and a promise not to write a tell-all?

Good lord this is a mess.

Homegirl refused to leave the house and was like "NOOOO Ya'll gon' pay my bills!"

Glindathegood said:

Madonna said that losing your parent at a young age is more of a help than a hindrance because it makes you fearless. Paris is the living embodiment of that. She is so intelligent and cool on twitter. I hope no one shuts her down. I think she is cool and awesome and good on her for not taking crap from Janet and the other loser family members.

I don't even know what to say. Do you realise what it is that you have just said?

[Edited 7/28/12 18:16pm]

lowkey said:

lmao the mj fanbase has hated janet's guts for years now, i dont think she was depending on their support for any future projects. non mj fans think janet should have whupped paris ass. some of you guys need to get laid, yall are a little to excited over this.

A lot of MJ fans LOVE them some Janet, myself included

folks are just shocked by her involvement and some feel she only did it out of loyalty to Steven Randall. Not to mention the whole false crap about her snatching Paris' phone/slapping Paris and cussing her out and Paris cussing Janet out has been spread like wildfire

How did a video of Janet reaching for Paris' phone, Paris simply backing away from her and then walking into the house turn into "YO JANET PUT THE SMACKDOWN ON PARIS"......even after Paris denied none of it happened.......

Since alot of us feel Paris needs her Twitter deactivated, can we do the same for Randy? Dude's been talking a lot since 2009, even announcing "I'm going to Forest Lawn, see you guys there" every June

and now the estate has a hit on Katherine?!

[img:$uid]http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxpou86eDt1qfkkv5o1_500.gif[/img:$uid]

come on man, you know Branca already looking to sue you.....

Another interesting note is, with that letter demanding for Branca and McClain to step down, but McClain is still a friend of the family and is apparently on their side....although that letter may have changed that

[Edited 7/28/12 18:23pm]

bboy87 said:

Ottensen said:

Lawd, did you hear that long before all this broke out that Randy and Jermaine had previously petitioned the Estate to get financial help to aid them in their child support (and I guess avoid jail) when they were being sued by their BabyMama? Is that the woman that was squatting in Katherine's house, btw? The one who's now living in one of Michael's condos in return for silence and a promise not to write a tell-all?

Good lord this is a mess.

Homegirl refused to leave the house and was like "NOOOO Ya'll gon' pay my bills!"

Glindathegood said:

I'm on Team Paris. She is so fierce and in your face. She is the opposite of MJ who was shy and retiring. She stands up for what she believes in and what is right. Madonna said that losing your parent at a young age is more of a help than a hindrance because it makes you fearless. Paris is the living embodiment of that. She is so intelligent and cool on twitter. I hope no one shuts her down. I think she is cool and awesome and good on her for not taking crap from Janet and the other loser family members.

Paris is definitely gonna be a force to be reckoned with She's a very strong-willed young lady.She can see through their bullshit and games.Just wait until she turns 18!

SoulAlive said:

Glindathegood said:

I'm on Team Paris. She is so fierce and in your face. She is the opposite of MJ who was shy and retiring. She stands up for what she believes in and what is right. Madonna said that losing your parent at a young age is more of a help than a hindrance because it makes you fearless. Paris is the living embodiment of that. She is so intelligent and cool on twitter. I hope no one shuts her down. I think she is cool and awesome and good on her for not taking crap from Janet and the other loser family members.

Paris is definitely gonna be a force to be reckoned with She's a very strong-willed young lady.She can see through their bullshit and games.Just wait until she turns 18!

Agree

and God knows I love me some Janet to (entertainer) but it just kills me how people are minimizing Janets odd behavior. Whether she is after money or not... she appears shady in this... period.

Happier times....

bboy87 said:

I REALLY MISS MICHAEL

[Edited 7/28/12 18:42pm]

smh at everybody applauding this girl's behavior talking about she's gonna be a force. if somebody dont get her under control now she's gonna end up just like the other lil rich girls famous by association living in the tabloids.i can see a big change in her pictures alone, more makeup, grown ass poses.i hope all you guys are there for her when the trainwreck hits. i bet nobody in that family has the balls to say no to this kid,and after this past week its gonna be even worse, piss paris off and she will blast you on twitter

lowkey said:

smh at everybody applauding this girl's behavior talking about she's gonna be a force. if somebody dont get her under control now she's gonna end up just like the other lil rich girls famous by association living in the tabloids.i can see a big change in her pictures alone, more makeup, grown ass poses.i hope all you guys are there for her when the trainwreck hits. i bet nobody in that family has the balls to say no to this kid,and after this past week its gonna be even worse, piss paris off and she will blast you on twitter

I don't see Paris in tabloids. I don't see her hanging out at clubs getting drunk or high. She's 14. It's normal to wear makeup at that age and start becoming a woman. My family wasn't rich or famous, but I started wearing makeup at 13. She seems like a normal teenager to me, despite her upbringing. She's not a baby anymore. I looked at her twitter and I don't see her blasting anyone or being rude to anyone on there. She's actually a lot more mature than her aunts and uncles.

mjscarousal said:

I REALLY MISS MICHAEL

[Edited 7/28/12 18:42pm]

Me too.

lowkey said:

kibbles said:

no, they did not say that they want to be in control, but the signatories to that letter don't want these execs in control. what i'm about to post is *my speculation*, but it's based on a pattern that i've already noticed.

in many cases, whenever the execs mention the beneficiaries, while they are clear to include kat as one of them, they also make clear that the kids are the "long-term" beneficiaries. meaning, they are well aware that kat does not stand toe to toe with the kids. while she is supposed to be able to use up to 40% of the trust while she's alive, as the will states, its for "her support and care". therefore, the question becomes, just how generous will the execs be when it comes to allowing her access to that money to spread around to "hook others up" while she's alive?

i say the evidence is clear: they're not going to be. for example, the execs wasted no time in hauling everyone, i mean EVERYONE, who wasn't a beneficiary to mj's will out of that encino house. they may not have opposed kat's motion to the judge to increase her allowance from $26K to $70K (presumably so she could continue to help others), because in the grand scheme of things, that's nothing. what happens when kat starts to ask for MILLIONS? the execs aren't stupid, they know it will be to "gift" her other children while she's alive, while she can still lay claim to the estate.

that's where the shit is going to hit the fan. the execs, not to mention the kids' guardian ad litem, will likely protest kat (and therefore the other jacksons) taking too much out of the estate for "herself" b/c in the long term, that money is also mj3's money. the more money that kat takes, the less there is for them, and perhaps down the road, mj3 has a case to remove the two johns for allowing kat to milk the estate for the benefit of her kids when their father's will clearly left them out.

you see what i'm saying? so that why's these men really have to go, in the jacksons' view. the jacksons want execs put in place that will be loyal to the family as a whole, not just mj and his kids.

but why is it ok for these men to determine how much is too much? her son left her 40% of his estate, from my understanding the allowance is for her care while the estate is still in probate, lets say everything gets cleared up next year and there is 100 million available for the beneficiaries, shouldnt that 100 million be split according to mj's wishes, 40% to his mom,40% put away for the kids, and 20% to charity (minus the executors fees)? if mike didnt want his mom sharing with her other kids there would be no need to add that when she passes away she cant will none of her share to anybody it all goes back to the kids.what i take from that is while she's living the 40% is hers to do as she pleases but once she passes it goes to his kids.

i believe that mj's will says that the execs have the authority to approve what disbursements she gets, period (i will look that up and org note). some call it a 'spendthrift' provision. if you have a beneficiary who is inclined to 'spend' to their detriment, you appoint someone who will give her an allowance with discretion. for example, kat testified recently in the aeg case that before he left for bahrain, mj gave accountants $1 million to provide for her, BUT he told them how much to give her at any one time. according to her own testimony, kat asked them for the entire amount and they said "no". in that same testimony, she said janet has given her $10,000 in that same period. (i will look that up, too.)

that's why i think the opposite: if mj wanted his mother to share with her other kids, he would have allowed her to pass her 40% on to them. he may have given her money to disburse to others while he was alive, but they certainly weren't getting rich.

like those accountants, i think the execs are going to put limitations on what she can have and for what reason. i don't see them saying "no" if one of her children or grandkids needed money for medical expenses or basic living expenses or something like that. (for example, they're allowing alejandra and the sibling/cousins to live at a condo that mj owned.) but just to allow kat to enrich her kids for the for the sake of enriching them, because she wants to? no, i don't see that happening.

otherwise, why would they care if branca is the executor if they knew kat was going to have unfettered access to her 40% share? i think it's because they think or have reason to think he won't allow that access. they feel they will have a better shot at more money if someone else who is more sympathetic to the family as a whole was an exec.

Glindathegood said:

lowkey said:

smh at everybody applauding this girl's behavior talking about she's gonna be a force. if somebody dont get her under control now she's gonna end up just like the other lil rich girls famous by association living in the tabloids.i can see a big change in her pictures alone, more makeup, grown ass poses.i hope all you guys are there for her when the trainwreck hits. i bet nobody in that family has the balls to say no to this kid,and after this past week its gonna be even worse, piss paris off and she will blast you on twitter

I don't see Paris in tabloids. I don't see her hanging out at clubs getting drunk or high. She's 14. It's normal to wear makeup at that age and start becoming a woman. My family wasn't rich or famous, but I started wearing makeup at 13. She seems like a normal teenager to me, despite her upbringing. She's not a baby anymore. I looked at her twitter and I don't see her blasting anyone or being rude to anyone on there. She's actually a lot more mature than her aunts and uncles.

Excellent Post! Paris is very strong like her Dad, Michael and very out-spoken like her mom, Debbie Rowe. Michael always said,even when Paris was a little girl, that Paris was strong and outspoken and will never allow anyone to run over her. He was correct. I also love how Prince just sat back, observed, monitored and watched what his sister was doing and then BAM. This young man is so AWARE and intelligent. Michael raised Prince to be a leader and someone who will take over his father's empire one day. The tweet that Prince released was truly brilliant and something that his father would have done. These kids are unbelievabel and they will be Michael's greatest legacy. Michael prepared them for the world and they are going to handle it brilliantly. I worry about little Blanket because he didn't have the chance to benefit as much from Michael's presence. I sincerely hope that Paris and Prince are preparing him for what their Dad taught them. Paris is a very motherly figure to Blanket and Prince is the fatherly figure and protector that Michael was. These kids will do fine because Michael was their father and he trained, raised them to be prepared for anything.

[Edited 7/28/12 19:30pm]

kibbles said:

lowkey said:

but why is it ok for these men to determine how much is too much? her son left her 40% of his estate, from my understanding the allowance is for her care while the estate is still in probate, lets say everything gets cleared up next year and there is 100 million available for the beneficiaries, shouldnt that 100 million be split according to mj's wishes, 40% to his mom,40% put away for the kids, and 20% to charity (minus the executors fees)? if mike didnt want his mom sharing with her other kids there would be no need to add that when she passes away she cant will none of her share to anybody it all goes back to the kids.what i take from that is while she's living the 40% is hers to do as she pleases but once she passes it goes to his kids.

i believe that mj's will says that the execs have the authority to approve what disbursements she gets, period (i will look that up and org note). some call it a 'spendthrift' provision. if you have a beneficiary who is inclined to 'spend' to their detriment, you appoint someone who will give her an allowance with discretion. for example, kat testified recently in the aeg case that before he left for bahrain, mj gave accountants $1 million to provide for her, BUT he told them how much to give her at any one time. according to her own testimony, kat asked them for the entire amount and they said "no". in that same testimony, she said janet has given her $10,000 in that same period. (i will look that up, too.)

that's why i think the opposite: if mj wanted his mother to share with her other kids, he would have allowed her to pass her 40% on to them. he may have given her money to disburse to others while he was alive, but they certainly weren't getting rich.

like those accountants, i think the execs are going to put limitations on what she can have and for what reason. i don't see them saying "no" if one of her children or grandkids needed money for medical expenses or basic living expenses or something like that. (for example, they're allowing alejandra and the sibling/cousins to live at a condo that mj owned.) but just to allow kat to enrich her kids for the for the sake of enriching them, because she wants to? no, i don't see that happening.

otherwise, why would they care if branca is the executor if they knew kat was going to have unfettered access to her 40% share? i think it's because they think or have reason to think he won't allow that access. they feel they will have a better shot at more money if someone else who is more sympathetic to the family as a whole was an exec.

ok you may be correct, when they named his beneficiaries they said 40/40/20, i didnt know katherine had stipulations on her inheritance once the estate is out of probate. i remember reading that john mcclain said the entire family applauded at the reading of the will, i wouldnt think they would happy if mother's share was limited.

kibbles said:

lowkey said:

but why is it ok for these men to determine how much is too much? her son left her 40% of his estate, from my understanding the allowance is for her care while the estate is still in probate, lets say everything gets cleared up next year and there is 100 million available for the beneficiaries, shouldnt that 100 million be split according to mj's wishes, 40% to his mom,40% put away for the kids, and 20% to charity (minus the executors fees)? if mike didnt want his mom sharing with her other kids there would be no need to add that when she passes away she cant will none of her share to anybody it all goes back to the kids.what i take from that is while she's living the 40% is hers to do as she pleases but once she passes it goes to his kids.

i believe that mj's will says that the execs have the authority to approve what disbursements she gets, period (i will look that up and org note). some call it a 'spendthrift' provision. if you have a beneficiary who is inclined to 'spend' to their detriment, you appoint someone who will give her an allowance with discretion. for example, kat testified recently in the aeg case that before he left for bahrain, mj gave accountants $1 million to provide for her, BUT he told them how much to give her at any one time. according to her own testimony, kat asked them for the entire amount and they said "no". in that same testimony, she said janet has given her $10,000 in that same period. (i will look that up, too.)

that's why i think the opposite: if mj wanted his mother to share with her other kids, he would have allowed her to pass her 40% on to them. he may have given her money to disburse to others while he was alive, but they certainly weren't getting rich.

like those accountants, i think the execs are going to put limitations on what she can have and for what reason. i don't see them saying "no" if one of her children or grandkids needed money for medical expenses or basic living expenses or something like that. (for example, they're allowing alejandra and the sibling/cousins to live at a condo that mj owned.) but just to allow kat to enrich her kids for the for the sake of enriching them, because she wants to? no, i don't see that happening.

otherwise, why would they care if branca is the executor if they knew kat was going to have unfettered access to her 40% share? i think it's because they think or have reason to think he won't allow that access. they feel they will have a better shot at more money if someone else who is more sympathetic to the family as a whole was an exec.

A good, level-headed analysis.

lowkey said:

kibbles said:

i believe that mj's will says that the execs have the authority to approve what disbursements she gets, period (i will look that up and org note). some call it a 'spendthrift' provision. if you have a beneficiary who is inclined to 'spend' to their detriment, you appoint someone who will give her an allowance with discretion. for example, kat testified recently in the aeg case that before he left for bahrain, mj gave accountants $1 million to provide for her, BUT he told them how much to give her at any one time. according to her own testimony, kat asked them for the entire amount and they said "no". in that same testimony, she said janet has given her $10,000 in that same period. (i will look that up, too.)

that's why i think the opposite: if mj wanted his mother to share with her other kids, he would have allowed her to pass her 40% on to them. he may have given her money to disburse to others while he was alive, but they certainly weren't getting rich.

like those accountants, i think the execs are going to put limitations on what she can have and for what reason. i don't see them saying "no" if one of her children or grandkids needed money for medical expenses or basic living expenses or something like that. (for example, they're allowing alejandra and the sibling/cousins to live at a condo that mj owned.) but just to allow kat to enrich her kids for the for the sake of enriching them, because she wants to? no, i don't see that happening.

otherwise, why would they care if branca is the executor if they knew kat was going to have unfettered access to her 40% share? i think it's because they think or have reason to think he won't allow that access. they feel they will have a better shot at more money if someone else who is more sympathetic to the family as a whole was an exec.

ok you may be correct, when they named his beneficiaries they said 40/40/20, i didnt know katherine had stipulations on her inheritance once the estate is out of probate. i remember reading that john mcclain said the entire family applauded at the reading of the will, i wouldnt think they would happy if mother's share was limited.

When Michael died, he was in debt. 40/40/20% of nothing equals nothing. Michael knew he was in debt but he also knew if his affairs were left in the proper hands that should, could and would be corrected. He was absolutely right!

Say what you want to about Michael but one thing is for damn certain. No matter what...his brain was ALWAYS...

lowkey said:

kibbles said:

i believe that mj's will says that the execs have the authority to approve what disbursements she gets, period (i will look that up and org note). some call it a 'spendthrift' provision. if you have a beneficiary who is inclined to 'spend' to their detriment, you appoint someone who will give her an allowance with discretion. for example, kat testified recently in the aeg case that before he left for bahrain, mj gave accountants $1 million to provide for her, BUT he told them how much to give her at any one time. according to her own testimony, kat asked them for the entire amount and they said "no". in that same testimony, she said janet has given her $10,000 in that same period. (i will look that up, too.)

that's why i think the opposite: if mj wanted his mother to share with her other kids, he would have allowed her to pass her 40% on to them. he may have given her money to disburse to others while he was alive, but they certainly weren't getting rich.

like those accountants, i think the execs are going to put limitations on what she can have and for what reason. i don't see them saying "no" if one of her children or grandkids needed money for medical expenses or basic living expenses or something like that. (for example, they're allowing alejandra and the sibling/cousins to live at a condo that mj owned.) but just to allow kat to enrich her kids for the for the sake of enriching them, because she wants to? no, i don't see that happening.

otherwise, why would they care if branca is the executor if they knew kat was going to have unfettered access to her 40% share? i think it's because they think or have reason to think he won't allow that access. they feel they will have a better shot at more money if someone else who is more sympathetic to the family as a whole was an exec.

ok you may be correct, when they named his beneficiaries they said 40/40/20, i didnt know katherine had stipulations on her inheritance once the estate is out of probate. i remember reading that john mcclain said the entire family applauded at the reading of the will, i wouldnt think they would happy if mother's share was limited.

yes, unfortunately for her, she does. i found a link where someone breaks down a summary of mj's will, but there is also a link to the actual will.

http://wills.about.com/od...st-Say.htm

"Katherine Jackson's 50% share is to be held in a lifetime trust for her benefit with John Branca and John McClain serving as Co-Trustees. The Co-Trustees have the complete discretion as to when income and principal may be distributed to provide for Katherine Jackson's "care, support, maintenance, comfort and well being." Upon Katherine Jackson's death the balance of her trust is to be divided equally among Prince, Paris and Blanket."

obviously, that "50%" is a typo.

in searching for where i read the info on her deposition, i saw some posts about the newly released estate report.

http://wills.about.com/

"Meanwhile, just last week the co-executors filed documents in the probate court matter which indicate that the King of Pop's estate grossed over $475 million through the end of May 2012. At the time of his death Jackson was $500 million in debt, so the court papers indicate that nearly three years after the singer's death, the executors have been able to pay off the bulk of the debt. Of course, all of this was accomplished as the "small army" of attorneys handling the estate paid themselves more than $13.6 million in attorney's fees between May 2010 and November 2011.

....Katherine Jackson, who has been acting as the guardian of the late singer's three minor children, Michael Joseph "Prince" Jackson, Jr., Paris Katherine Michael Jackson, and Prince Michael "Blanket" Jackson II, has asked for an additional $34,700 per month to pay her attorneys and accountants, and an additional $205,041 to cover these fees since 2011 . . . ."

also she has asked for loans to pay a $6 million judgment, the house in gary and a residence in las vegas, presumably joe's. the estate will likely agree to pay for all of this (i think they've already paid the judgment), since their duty is to support and contribute to her "well being". but i don't think the jacksons should get the idea that the execs are going to be doling out money to her simply for them.

Free2BMe said:

Excellent Post! Paris is very strong like her Dad, Michael and very out-spoken like her mom, Debbie Rowe. Michael always said,even when Paris was a little girl, that Paris was strong and outspoken and will never allow anyone to run over her. He was correct. I also love how Prince just sat back, observed, monitored and watched what his sister was doing and then BAM. This young man is so AWARE and intelligent. Michael raised Prince to be a leader and someone who will take over his father's empire one day. The tweet that Prince released was truly brilliant and something that his father would have done. These kids are unbelievabel and they will be Michael's greatest legacy. Michael prepared them for the world and they are going to handle it brilliantly. I worry about little Blanket because he didn't have the chance to benefit as much from Michael's presence. I sincerely hope that Paris and Prince are preparing him for what their Dad taught them. Paris is a very motherly figure to Blanket and Prince is the fatherly figure and protector that Michael was. These kids will do fine because Michael was their father and he trained, raised them to be prepared for anything.

[Edited 7/28/12 19:30pm]

i want to say it was gregory peck's wife, but i remember reading that person's remarks about prince. mj took the kids to a halloween party and this person said that s/he was very impressed with prince b/c he was so confident (or words to that effect).

over at mjjcommunity, they've posted a summary of the estate's 90-something page report to the probate judge. this is the part about kat and the kids:

Payments to Katherine and MJ’s kids are as follows (Nov 2010- Dec 2011)

Kids allowance $2,139,194
Katherine allowance $470,814
Calabasas residence expenses $436,187
Condo payments $15,569
Hayvenhurst improvements $73,962
Taxes on properties $144,605
Insurance (health and property) $106,033
House employees $658,915
Katherine lawyer fees $233,911
Guardian ad litem $ 54,478
Utilities costs $53,211
Security $654,414
Repair & Maintenance $194,127

Total $5,205,516

Estate has also given multiple loans to Katherine

Loan 1 to Katherine $235,000
Loan 2 to Katherne $250,000
Loan 3 to Katherine $75,000
Loan 4 to Katherine $6,000,000 (for Katherine's debt to Segye Times)

Total loans to Katherine $ 6,560,000

Total paid to Katherine and kids equal $ 11,765,516 ( $5,205,516 + $ 6,560,000)

i think randy and co. are going to have a really hard time arguing that the execs have not done right by their mother or mj's kids. over the course of just ONE YEAR, they've paid out nearly $12 million dollars, and over half it went solely to katherine for her "care, suppport, maintenance, comfort and well-being".

i really don't see where their argument goes from here.

KCOOLMUZIQ said:

SoulAlive said:

Janet's been having career problems for awhile now,and this latest stunt won't do her any favors.She really should have stayed out of this fiasco.

That is a bunch of bull. Janet is just trying to protect her Mother.Anybody would act unlike themselves when their Mother is involved. Its nothing wrong with that.The situation had to be very serious for Janet to risk her image to put that lil spoiled brat Paris in check.. Paris has gotten so stuck up since she now knows the power she has.Even though the events that transpired we're wrong. Auntie Janet was the adult here. Not Little miss stuck up Paris..Janet should have put her over her lap & spanked her..The nerve of her to disrespect royalty like that & snatch back her phone & walk away..

Janet's career will be ok & is not dead like this article portrayed it.

C'mon Kool, you usually don't let your opinion get so clouded by such things. Ms. Katherine was fine financially, spiritually and physically - ain't no question - before all of this foolishness. Period. She needed protection, from what? Some dudes who put her financially self indulgent and fiscally irresponsible son's house in order so that she and his children could draw significant, healthy monthly allowances without worrying about the remainder of the estate, which is currently growing like wild flowers? Michael left them dudes in charge of the estate because he knew he had made some integral investment choices that were very smart, and that they could grow to be like a rain forest if looked after properly. Michael had let his business get busted (he's human, and that's ok); this is why he initially decided to do the London shows cuz he needed the money.

You talk about it like Paris and Janet are some drag queens () on the roll. But you ought to reconsider that. Cuz Paris had every right to pull the knife out of her pocket book and really get Janet's attention. Royalty? Like it or not, bratty or not, Paris Jackson was raised by Michael Jackson as his daughter. Royalty all day long. And truth be told it was Prince Michael Jackson who drew blood with the twitter machine. Ouch! He stuck the blade right up under the ribs. They had every right considering Janet and Raz B Jackson and Jermajesty Sr. bum rushed the compound, not like royalty, but rather like some crack heads lookin to run a show.

But I fully agree with you on this point:

Janet's career will be ok & is not dead like this article portrayed it.

It will be uncomfortable for a while, but she can get CONTROL back. She needs to get RBJ out of her ear.

[Edited 7/28/12 21:59pm]

HatrinaHaterwitz said:

lowkey said:

ok you may be correct, when they named his beneficiaries they said 40/40/20, i didnt know katherine had stipulations on her inheritance once the estate is out of probate. i remember reading that john mcclain said the entire family applauded at the reading of the will, i wouldnt think they would happy if mother's share was limited.

When Michael died, he was in debt. 40/40/20% of nothing equals nothing. Michael knew he was in debt but he also knew if his affairs were left in the proper hands that should, could and would be corrected. He was absolutely right!

Say what you want to about Michael but one thing is for damn certain. No matter what...his brain was ALWAYS...

Also put in account that the 2002 will was signed when he did that speech about the record industry and was recieving death threats. Dude immediately re-arranged his will after that

His brothers should be getting paid too. If I remember correctly, they co-own (or will soon) the master recordings from the Epic albums and get royalties from those songs. Every time a song like Can You Feel It gets covered or sampled or issued on a compilation......

Not to mention they own the rights to their concert footage from those days too

so over on lsa the mike fans are planning a janet cd burning day (no im not kidding), but heres the kicker, none of them seem to have anything to burn since they were never janet fans in the first place lmao

I hope the situation gets sorted out

lowkey said:

kibbles said:

over at mjjcommunity, they've posted a summary of the estate's 90-something page report to the probate judge. this is the part about kat and the kids:

Payments to Katherine and MJ’s kids are as follows (Nov 2010- Dec 2011)

Kids allowance $2,139,194
Katherine allowance $470,814
Calabasas residence expenses $436,187
Condo payments $15,569
Hayvenhurst improvements $73,962
Taxes on properties $144,605
Insurance (health and property) $106,033
House employees $658,915
Katherine lawyer fees $233,911
Guardian ad litem $ 54,478
Utilities costs $53,211
Security $654,414
Repair & Maintenance $194,127

Total $5,205,516

Estate has also given multiple loans to Katherine

Loan 1 to Katherine $235,000
Loan 2 to Katherne $250,000
Loan 3 to Katherine $75,000
Loan 4 to Katherine $6,000,000 (for Katherine's debt to Segye Times)

Total loans to Katherine $ 6,560,000

Total paid to Katherine and kids equal $ 11,765,516 ( $5,205,516 + $ 6,560,000)

i think randy and co. are going to have a really hard time arguing that the execs have not done right by their mother or mj's kids. over the course of just ONE YEAR, they've paid out nearly $12 million dollars, and over half it went solely to katherine for her "care, suppport, maintenance, comfort and well-being".

i really don't see where their argument goes from here.

Thanks for the links. Can anyone believe that if the estate was in the hands of other members of the clan that it would be in the black right now? And in a relatively short period of time too. The trustees are getting fat paychecks but they seem to be doing their job.

IIRC, the will was already contested more than once. I would think that the issue of where the will was signed and if a scrivener's error occurred would have been resolved at that time.

Also, being that this will doesn't differ significantly from earlier versions, my guess is that MJ was clear about how he wanted his estate disbursed. Hell, some people leave their fortunes to cats and dogs,

I was checking the docket too and it's amazing how many parties are involved in the case...the case number is BP117321

http://www.lasuperiorcour.../index.asp

Paris has just finished the 8th about to start the 9th, right? A girl without make-up at that age is quite a rarity. I am a teacher and I’ve seen some girl starting to wear make-up in the 6th grade! As for her being disprespectful, people seem to forget to she has also apologized publicly. And also let’s not forget that it was Prince who basically confirmed everything and accused certain people of lying, too. It’s interesting that since he hinted he had evidence to back it up, things calmed down.

If Katherine felt she was too old to take care of the kids, she wouldn’t be devastated by the fact that her guardianship was suspended. And yes, she had help. And if she wanted to share it with someone, isn’t there a legal way to do that? Couldn¨t she have asked the court to have someone appointed to help her with it stating, it’s too much for her? Isn’t there really a more gracious way to „lose“ custody? Why do people forget that the judge believed that she was prevented from doing her job because of the acts of third parties? And the pure coincidence of the timing when the letter „leaked“ at the same time…

I can’t truly say what the hell was going on and what the motives of all those involved were, but the judges desicion surely confirmed that something really fishy is going on and that it needs to be investigated. And I am sure that if it all was due to the kids overreacting, being hysterical and seeking attention, there wouldn’t be a reason for the adults to cry in the public and fighting to the point where cops needed to be called.

mjscarousal said:

SoulAlive said:

Paris is definitely gonna be a force to be reckoned with She's a very strong-willed young lady.She can see through their bullshit and games.Just wait until she turns 18!

Agree

and God knows I love me some Janet to (entertainer) but it just kills me how people are minimizing Janets odd behavior. Whether she is after money or not... she appears shady in this... period.

Which is funny because you have forgiven another artist for far worse actions.

And again, this is just another example of the self righteous and judgemental behaviour of MJ fans.