Thanks for the update on Courtney Love, but I know nothing about her and/or her daughter and their situation. My focus was on Howard Weitzman.....and his credibility as an honest attorney for Michael Jackson's Estate. That was just part of the article tha the person wrote!
Interesting, this Howard Weitzman and his entertainment business having been council for many well known clients. Weitzman seems to have had some real relationships with convicted organized crime folks or used their services in at least one of his cases, something which we will get into more with upcoming posts. He worked at MCA which has many reported incidents of being in league with the mafia. (We'll definitely being getting to that in an upcoming blog).
He's currently serving as the attorney for the trustees of the Michael Jackson estate.
In the end, it doesn't matter what we think regarding the individual players in MJ's "death." It's clear that a lot of this is being engineered, the only question really is whether MJ is also a player in this game or if he is a victim of it.
And tell me how are you gonna get to this answer if you don't THINK about the individual players in MJ"s Death? Who he was affiliated with, who he trusted at one time, why he lost that trust, why this person is on his enemy list, why he fired some, hired others and the impact they had in his life? Isnt that what we're here for to do our own investigations??? So, in MY opinion it is important what we think of the individual players in MJ's "supposed" death.
The question of who represents and represented MJ`s legal and financial affairs is not only legit but might unveil some trobled circumstances MJ was in.
If he did dismiss Branca because he learnt about a conflict of interest in 2003 (Branca is supposed to have collaborated with Mottola, allegedly secretly transferred a major part of MJ`s money to unknown offshore accounts and refusing to hand over imortant documents including "the signed will" after being fired) - there might be a real reason for mistrust, therefore why he probably did not want to rehire him and - most important - why he might not want him to represent his estate.
A similar question may arise with Weitzman. He came in during the 1993 negotiations and recommended / convinced MJ to agree to a settlement with the Chandlers. Not the wisest choice, as we know.
Te overall questions remain: Was MJ just paranoid or did he have legit reasons for feeling betrayed, somehow threatened or even fearing for his life?
Whom did he really trust? Regarding the hoax: who may help him now? Is there an investigation going on which might be a reason for him hoaxing his death? What if the will has to executed (therefore he must have "died" first) to gather evidence for a major crime (fraud)?
Of course there were many more people throughout his life he befriended first and mistrusted later (Malnik, the arab princes ...etc). We`ll probably never find out but I guess it`s worth to have a closer look at these things.
Please forgive me if this has been asked or answered somewhere else, but I have a question:
If according to MJ's Will, his mother is supposed to get 40% of his assets, his children get 40%, and the other 20% goes to charities - Why are his mother and children just getting an "allowance" instead of their full inheritance?
I believe it's because the money is held in trust. And all the claims need to be settled first. The executors have full power to use and distribute the money as they see fit. It's too bad MJ didn't transfer his assets into the trust because it avoids probate court which is public and that's why we've been privy to all the details and infighting. Maybe I'm mistaken about it, but it seems strange Branca wouldn't have advised him to do that. <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? -->
I have a question. You believe the Death Certificate is fake because the name says "Michael Joseph Jackson". You believe the autopsy report is fake because the name says "Michael Joseph Jackson". You believe the will is valid but the name says "Michael Joseph Jackson".
Either you accept that all documents with the name "Michael Joseph Jackson" are legit or you accept all documents with the name "Michael Joseph Jackson" are fake. You can't have it both ways.
I've said from the get-go and still believe it now. That will is fake. All these claims against Branca are true. Michael had him investigated regarding the offshore accounts. It is all well documented in the 2005 court transcripts.
Good point. Personally, I don't think MJ's middle name makes a bit of difference to any of the documents. His name is Michael Joseph Jackson on his wedding certificate to Lisa Marie. So does that mean they didn't really get married? I think not.
I am very wary of Branca after hearing Mesereau's line of questioning, and then MJ's subsequent firing of Branca. And then with the signing of the will saying they were in LA when they were clearly in NY? And why didn't Branca come forward with the 2002 will as soon as he died...why wait until the Jacksons filed court papers that MJ died intestate? He was the one that drafted it, wasn't he? Was he making sure there wasn't a new one first so he could go ahead with his "plan"? <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? --> I hope I'm getting ahead of myself because it scares me.
MJHOAX live found it important so they asked people to spread it because it could be significant, or not, that is up to others to decide, so just because you don't find it helpful, someone else may feel differently. If users rainbow colors are annoying you, don't you think you could ask a bit nicer? You seem kinda rude. Jeez.
I'm just asking for a clear explanation for our fellow foreign hoaxers.
I didn't mean to be rude. <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
Just trying to be direct.
Good point. Personally, I don't think MJ's middle name makes a bit of difference to any of the documents. His name is Michael Joseph Jackson on his wedding certificate to Lisa Marie. So does that mean they didn't really get married? I think not.
I am very wary of Branca after hearing Mesereau's line of questioning, and then MJ's subsequent firing of Branca. And then with the signing of the will saying they were in LA when they were clearly in NY? And why didn't Branca come forward with the 2002 will as soon as he died...why wait until the Jacksons filed court papers that MJ died intestate? He was the one that drafted it, wasn't he? Was he making sure there wasn't a new one first so he could go ahead with his "plan"? <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? --> I hope I'm getting ahead of myself because it scares me.
Mj demanded the will after 2003 from Branca several times but he refused to hand it over. On the other hand MJ did not make a newer one which would have overruled the older. At least the family and their lawyers seemed kind of surprised that Branca showed up presenting the will in early July. Joseph claims it is not legit since Branca was fired and he was not entired to keep it. Randy says it`s fake anyway (MJ was in N.Y.). And the name "Michael Joseph" - so we do have three different reasons why the will may finally be revoced. Does MJ want to create some evidence by forcing Branca to represent and act according to this "will"? Therefore he had to "die" first, of course. Time will tell...
.
An old joke asks the incauto why sharks refuse to eat lawyers that naufragan at sea: professional courtesy.
There is also an old "curse" gypsy says you look between lawyers. God, I believe that is all parties are considered a pest <!-- s:evil: -->:evil:<!-- s:evil: -->
I think this isn't very helpful. Who even cares about Branca? Someone clearly explain what he has to do with the hoax plz. <!-- s:( -->:(<!-- s:( -->
Also, making your text big and rainbow gets a bit annoying after a while.
A better strategy is to bold parts you think are important.
MJHOAX live found it important so they asked people to spread it because it could be significant, or not, that is up to others to decide, so just because you don't find it helpful, someone else may feel differently. If users rainbow colors are annoying you, don't you think you could ask a bit nicer? You seem kinda rude. Jeez.
i think that this thread is important - it is different from the other recent threads -
the questions or thoughts it provokes goes to the heart of the hoax i think.
- why who was acting for mike
- questions about the will
- why mike did not make any family executors
- why didnt he change the will
- what does the private trust say
- will the children ever control the assets
-why he did not provide for other family members
- his relationship with the lawyers who would ultimately control his family
etc
that is why i rambled and asked the universe the question via the internet - how does this affect the hoax, some believers think that mike prepared everything that everything is mikes stage, i dont think that, but your will, if you are going to hoax, a will is something that you can prepare can stage - so what does his relationship with the lawyers tell us?
the colours - well the text is long and i wanted to make it a bit easier for you to tell what was a quote.
i do not know about the american legal system so that is why i searched the net, for some background, i thought you guys would appreciate the effort.
Good point. Personally, I don't think MJ's middle name makes a bit of difference to any of the documents. His name is Michael Joseph Jackson on his wedding certificate to Lisa Marie. So does that mean they didn't really get married? I think not.
I am very wary of Branca after hearing Mesereau's line of questioning, and then MJ's subsequent firing of Branca. And then with the signing of the will saying they were in LA when they were clearly in NY? And why didn't Branca come forward with the 2002 will as soon as he died...why wait until the Jacksons filed court papers that MJ died intestate? He was the one that drafted it, wasn't he? Was he making sure there wasn't a new one first so he could go ahead with his "plan"? <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? --> I hope I'm getting ahead of myself because it scares me.
Yeah I agree, the name thing doesn't make a difference to me, but many here that are claiming it's real are the same ones claimig the other doc's with the exact same name is fake.
I've thought that too about Branca waiting until after the family claimed he died intestate. If he had the real will all along, why didn't he come forward to begin with. The other thing is, people keep saying "why didn't the family come forward or fight this claim from the beginning". They have been. Check out the probate court stuff that is available and you'll see the family has been arguing this and Branca's position as executor since it was first presented.
I think there was a newer will and it has been destroyed. I don't know if anyone here remembers but Al Malnick came forward shortly after Michael supposedly died saying Michael had made him executor but he thought because he and Michael had a falling out that he may not be one anymore. All of a sudden Malnick went quiet on that front and then this will surfaced.
The family have been fighting to get the 97 will in, yet the Estate Executors are claiming it is no different to the 2002 one. If that's the case, why don't they just bring it into probate? I believe they won't because there are differences, particularly when it comes to the amount of power the Executors have.
How do we know 100% that the 2002 will is Michael's final will. So far we 're only going by what those over the estate are telling us and I don't believe that is Michel's final will. We can't take them at their word. Remember how long it took after his "supposed"death for the will to surface. All that I'm saying is that these men were at one time very close to Michael and know more about him than probably his family does. Tohme Tohme, Al Malnick, Tommy Mottola, Phillips, Branca, McClain, Weitzman......why are we taking the word of Branca, McClain and Weitzman as truth for Michael. I don't trust any of them and with them being in control of so much, its easy and convenient for them to claim this was his last will. It just dosen't make logical sense for Michael to put these crooked men in charge everything like that. He fears his life, but yet these men whom he believed had attempted to destroy his music career and life through child molestation charges etc. will trust all that he had financialy to dispurse his monies etc. to his children and mother?????? I believe these men are hiding, lying, and trying to cover up the real truth. Guys I'm sorry but, It just doesn't add up, it just doesn't make logical sense. They are too controlling of everything and the three Branca,McClain and Weitzman are sticking are releasing false information to us to protect and cover themselves. Maybe I'm wrong, but it appears that it's acceptable to listen to them, but when those of the Jackson Family speak up, we want to laugh and riducule everything they say. This is Michael's family and I believe they would have his best interest at heart than a bunch of men dabbling in organized crimes, regardless of their professional training. Professional training and experience doesn't make a person honest. I know that we all have a difference of opinion, and I will not knock what others believe. But on this I have to stand on whats in my heart and soul and the fact that some things that we may accidently stumble across while investigating this situation may be very hurtful.
imabeliever2, I can not say for legal affairs of a foreign country, but perhaps I can speak for logic, and I agree with you on your exposure, that seems very logical, as Michael would hire again to people who try to destroy it? <!-- s:geek: -->:geek:<!-- s:geek: -->
An old joke asks the incauto why sharks refuse to eat lawyers that naufragan at sea: professional courtesy.
There is also an old "curse" gypsy says you look between lawyers. God, I believe that is all parties are considered a pest <!-- s:evil: -->:evil:<!-- s:evil: -->
not all lawyers are bad
Thank you, Arabian Nights.
I don`t make jokes on other people`s professions either.
thinking or snoozing on this, woke up and thought, maybe as mike was asset rich and cash poor that he if reviewed the will situation pre hoax that he maybe thought that these two individuals should stand as they are greedy and would bring the cash into the estate
but then i think if he comes back - how would this sit, is it obtaining money by deception - suppose we would have to look at the marketing - the lawyers would not be involved in the hoax - professional suicide.
When Branca first appeared after this MJ "death" I checked out his credibility, and from what I found, he does not seem that crooked to me. He may be a legal beast LOL as Mez is, but I don't think he was "out to destroy" MJ. He may have been found as conflict of interest if he was employed by Sony for MJ and then asked to do things in opposition to his lawyer/client relationship. I don't know what to think of this because when MJ wasn't sober he fired alot of people who cared about his well being...
not sure if this is any help.. i was watching my this is it dvd last night and saw Brancas and thomme r thomme in the credits, thomme was listed as mj's personal advisor.....
When Branca first appeared after this MJ "death" I checked out his credibility, and from what I found, he does not seem that crooked to me. He may be a legal beast LOL as Mez is, but I don't think he was "out to destroy" MJ. He may have been found as conflict of interest if he was employed by Sony for MJ and then asked to do things in opposition to his lawyer/client relationship. I don't know what to think of this because when MJ wasn't sober he fired alot of people who cared about his well being...
i think he is a sharp lawyer and was cutting himself a big profit and mj didnt like it so he sacked him - well there you go - shot the golden goose
no one has disputed the will, no other wills have come up - so 2002 one stands - it was not destroyed or a post 2002 one executed
I am not too skilful in laws but have a question. You think Branca is not a good man . But i can ask what profits did he recieve from Michael's estate exept of the 10% fee?On the contrary his activity helped to enlarge the estate. As for the will, I don't think Michael was so careless that he didn't have a new will. I'm sure there is a certain plan here .Maybe in the past it was also a plan to show the audience that Michael 's money was stolen. I don't remember somebody returned money back to Michael .
It's just my thought.
Comments
Interesting, this Howard Weitzman and his entertainment business having been council for many well known clients. Weitzman seems to have had some real relationships with convicted organized crime folks or used their services in at least one of his cases, something which we will get into more with upcoming posts. He worked at MCA which has many reported incidents of being in league with the mafia. (We'll definitely being getting to that in an upcoming blog).
He's currently serving as the attorney for the trustees of the Michael Jackson estate.
In the end, it doesn't matter what we think regarding the individual players in MJ's "death." It's clear that a lot of this is being engineered, the only question really is whether MJ is also a player in this game or if he is a victim of it.
And tell me how are you gonna get to this answer if you don't THINK about the individual players in MJ"s Death? Who he was affiliated with, who he trusted at one time, why he lost that trust, why this person is on his enemy list, why he fired some, hired others and the impact they had in his life? Isnt that what we're here for to do our own investigations??? So, in MY opinion it is important what we think of the individual players in MJ's "supposed" death.
The question of who represents and represented MJ`s legal and financial affairs is not only legit but might unveil some trobled circumstances MJ was in.
If he did dismiss Branca because he learnt about a conflict of interest in 2003 (Branca is supposed to have collaborated with Mottola, allegedly secretly transferred a major part of MJ`s money to unknown offshore accounts and refusing to hand over imortant documents including "the signed will" after being fired) - there might be a real reason for mistrust, therefore why he probably did not want to rehire him and - most important - why he might not want him to represent his estate.
A similar question may arise with Weitzman. He came in during the 1993 negotiations and recommended / convinced MJ to agree to a settlement with the Chandlers. Not the wisest choice, as we know.
Te overall questions remain: Was MJ just paranoid or did he have legit reasons for feeling betrayed, somehow threatened or even fearing for his life?
Whom did he really trust? Regarding the hoax: who may help him now? Is there an investigation going on which might be a reason for him hoaxing his death? What if the will has to executed (therefore he must have "died" first) to gather evidence for a major crime (fraud)?
Of course there were many more people throughout his life he befriended first and mistrusted later (Malnik, the arab princes ...etc). We`ll probably never find out but I guess it`s worth to have a closer look at these things.
I believe it's because the money is held in trust. And all the claims need to be settled first. The executors have full power to use and distribute the money as they see fit. It's too bad MJ didn't transfer his assets into the trust because it avoids probate court which is public and that's why we've been privy to all the details and infighting. Maybe I'm mistaken about it, but it seems strange Branca wouldn't have advised him to do that. <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? -->
Either you accept that all documents with the name "Michael Joseph Jackson" are legit or you accept all documents with the name "Michael Joseph Jackson" are fake. You can't have it both ways.
I've said from the get-go and still believe it now. That will is fake. All these claims against Branca are true. Michael had him investigated regarding the offshore accounts. It is all well documented in the 2005 court transcripts.
I am very wary of Branca after hearing Mesereau's line of questioning, and then MJ's subsequent firing of Branca. And then with the signing of the will saying they were in LA when they were clearly in NY? And why didn't Branca come forward with the 2002 will as soon as he died...why wait until the Jacksons filed court papers that MJ died intestate? He was the one that drafted it, wasn't he? Was he making sure there wasn't a new one first so he could go ahead with his "plan"? <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? --> I hope I'm getting ahead of myself because it scares me.
It's okay, I understand.
Mj demanded the will after 2003 from Branca several times but he refused to hand it over. On the other hand MJ did not make a newer one which would have overruled the older. At least the family and their lawyers seemed kind of surprised that Branca showed up presenting the will in early July. Joseph claims it is not legit since Branca was fired and he was not entired to keep it. Randy says it`s fake anyway (MJ was in N.Y.). And the name "Michael Joseph" - so we do have three different reasons why the will may finally be revoced. Does MJ want to create some evidence by forcing Branca to represent and act according to this "will"? Therefore he had to "die" first, of course. Time will tell...
.
not all lawyers are bad
thanks for the advice
i think that this thread is important - it is different from the other recent threads -
the questions or thoughts it provokes goes to the heart of the hoax i think.
- why who was acting for mike
- questions about the will
- why mike did not make any family executors
- why didnt he change the will
- what does the private trust say
- will the children ever control the assets
-why he did not provide for other family members
- his relationship with the lawyers who would ultimately control his family
etc
that is why i rambled and asked the universe the question via the internet - how does this affect the hoax, some believers think that mike prepared everything that everything is mikes stage, i dont think that, but your will, if you are going to hoax, a will is something that you can prepare can stage - so what does his relationship with the lawyers tell us?
the colours - well the text is long and i wanted to make it a bit easier for you to tell what was a quote.
i do not know about the american legal system so that is why i searched the net, for some background, i thought you guys would appreciate the effort.
i think your right - right to be suspicious
like the white rabbit - cute
Yeah I agree, the name thing doesn't make a difference to me, but many here that are claiming it's real are the same ones claimig the other doc's with the exact same name is fake.
I've thought that too about Branca waiting until after the family claimed he died intestate. If he had the real will all along, why didn't he come forward to begin with. The other thing is, people keep saying "why didn't the family come forward or fight this claim from the beginning". They have been. Check out the probate court stuff that is available and you'll see the family has been arguing this and Branca's position as executor since it was first presented.
I think there was a newer will and it has been destroyed. I don't know if anyone here remembers but Al Malnick came forward shortly after Michael supposedly died saying Michael had made him executor but he thought because he and Michael had a falling out that he may not be one anymore. All of a sudden Malnick went quiet on that front and then this will surfaced.
The family have been fighting to get the 97 will in, yet the Estate Executors are claiming it is no different to the 2002 one. If that's the case, why don't they just bring it into probate? I believe they won't because there are differences, particularly when it comes to the amount of power the Executors have.
Thank you, Arabian Nights.
I don`t make jokes on other people`s professions either.
but then i think if he comes back - how would this sit, is it obtaining money by deception - suppose we would have to look at the marketing - the lawyers would not be involved in the hoax - professional suicide.
im not sure what you mean
but it takes all of us to make a community - none of us are islands
lawyers are an important part of the community and society - there are good and bad in every profession
you should look at the individual person rather than the profession
i think he is a sharp lawyer and was cutting himself a big profit and mj didnt like it so he sacked him - well there you go - shot the golden goose
no one has disputed the will, no other wills have come up - so 2002 one stands - it was not destroyed or a post 2002 one executed
It's just my thought.
<!-- m -->http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:9D ... =firefox-a<!-- m -->
<!-- s:shock: -->:shock:<!-- s:shock: -->