Jospeh Estate and Joseph name in Murray's trial
puremind
Posts: 100
I'm tired of clues and interpretations which may or may not be valid, i'll focus on FACTS:
2005 Trial - Michael Jackson called by court JOE we have evidence from judge;s mouth.
BUT THE ESTATE BELONGS to JOSEPH AS WE can see from the official document "Probate of Will and for Letters Testamentary"
Case Number: BP117321
Case Title: Estate of Michael Joseph Jackson
Filing Date: 2009-07-01 09:58:51
(Here is the document: <!-- m -->http://lascftp.lasuperiorcourt.org/hp/4 ... 142402.pdf<!-- m --> )
IN Murray's TRIAL he is also JOSEPH as we can see here:
<!-- m -->http://lascftp.lasuperiorcourt.org/hp/4 ... 114021.pdf<!-- m -->
so we have 2 identities:
JOE IN 2005 TRIAL
JOSPEH IN MURRAY'S TRIAL
I would also like to say that The trial is real, a judge profession is incompatible with any other profession/job or activity that might interfere with their work. Playing with/&in Superior Court is nonsense and nobody would allow this just for entertainment. Not even for Michael Jackson. We should stick to the facts.
2005 Trial - Michael Jackson called by court JOE we have evidence from judge;s mouth.
BUT THE ESTATE BELONGS to JOSEPH AS WE can see from the official document "Probate of Will and for Letters Testamentary"
Case Number: BP117321
Case Title: Estate of Michael Joseph Jackson
Filing Date: 2009-07-01 09:58:51
(Here is the document: <!-- m -->http://lascftp.lasuperiorcourt.org/hp/4 ... 142402.pdf<!-- m --> )
IN Murray's TRIAL he is also JOSEPH as we can see here:
<!-- m -->http://lascftp.lasuperiorcourt.org/hp/4 ... 114021.pdf<!-- m -->
so we have 2 identities:
JOE IN 2005 TRIAL
JOSPEH IN MURRAY'S TRIAL
I would also like to say that The trial is real, a judge profession is incompatible with any other profession/job or activity that might interfere with their work. Playing with/&in Superior Court is nonsense and nobody would allow this just for entertainment. Not even for Michael Jackson. We should stick to the facts.
Comments
I wanted to start a company in USA some time ago and I was looking into several possibilities and one of them was "sole proprietorship": A sole proprietorship, also known as a sole trader or simply a proprietorship, is a type of business entity that is owned and run by one individual and in which there is no legal distinction between the owner and the business. The owner receives all profits (subject to taxation specific to the business) and has unlimited responsibility for all losses and debts. Every asset of the business is owned by the proprietor and all debts of the business are the proprietor's. This means that the owner has no less liability than if they were acting as an individual instead of as a business.
So I was thinking that maybe MJ found a way to separate the two, being that he was a entertainer and he wasn't "owned" by anyone. I know he also had the MJ company...but maybe could also do this...
I stress this again...just a though!
Thing about Michael's two names though, is that it don't appear to be used in just certain areas. As one for professional, the other private. They alternate all over in birth certificates, court appearances, drivers licenses and passports and also in his professional signatures. Unless someone can categorize them for me??
If anyone cares, FBI calls Michael JOSEPH too.
<!-- m -->http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/jackson_michael.htm<!-- m -->
And my opinion is Joe it's the name he got at his birth.
And Joseph obtained by himself later.
We also know Joseph is used for his child's birth certif:
<!-- m -->http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/galle ... rtificate/<!-- m -->
Appearantly, Joseph is used legal papers (although 2005 trial is based on his real name - Joe) and Joe was his birth name.
fordtocarr, it's ok to have to identities for ex. actor star etc, but here we are talking about legal papers.
Madonna sure cannot have Madonna on her driving licence or marriage certificate.
So we must separate these 2 issues for the sake of truth.
Verry interesting!
As to the court thing - what if it isn't a real trial but, in fact, a filmset? A staged court hearing to look like the real one but in fact - done for the film? I mean, not real? They hire a room, engage actors and make a show, a performance? <!-- s:shock: -->:shock:<!-- s:shock: --> <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? -->
Is it possible? What do you think?
yes it is possible, but not with a real judge and not with a real file ( you can check LA Superior Court, the file is registered for real on their official website and i am sure you can check the number at opis if you go there for yourself, in person. This can not be set for a movie, no matter how hard we want)
and i repeat having 2 identities, like one identity for the stage, and another for off-stage use is ok and doesn't mean two legal identities , or as ToD well pointed in well established commercial purposes there are FORMS of representing yourself as a person , but having two legal identities for sending a man to jail and perjury fro commiting crimes is different and NOT legal . Unless the other legal identity doesn't return and nobody knows what was all about.
At this point i am not even sure if it's ok to talk about it.
OPIS NONE <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->