Fan Fare
Entertainment behind the scenes
Michael Jackson estate administrators dismiss questions about legal will
Administrators of Michael Jackson’s estate on Wednesday dismissed questions about whether his legal will is valid, after the celebrity news website TMZ reported that his brother Randy Jackson and the Rev. Al Sharpton, a Jackson family confidant, raised questions about whether the pop star was in Los Angeles to sign the will on the date stated in the document.
Howard Weitzman, an attorney for administrators of the Jackson estate John Branca and John McClain, said in a statement, “Despite any claims to the contrary, we are confident Michael Jackson’s will is valid, that he signed it and that it reflects his wishes. All three witnesses listed on the will recall being present when Michael signed it.”
The will is important, because it names Branca and McClain as administrators of Jackson’s estate, and a Los Angeles Superior Court judge has relied on the will since Jackson’s June 25 death to put the Branca, an attorney, and McClain, a music executive, in charge of the estate.
The will, which is available to view here, bears Michael Jackson’s signature dated July 7, 2002. Another page of the will bears the words, “We declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on July 7th, 2002 at 5:00 pm, Los Angeles.” But TMZ has posted photos that show Michael Jackson was in New York the day before on July 6, 2002, where he publicly protested against Tommy Mottola, the former head of Sony Music Entertainment, in a dispute over how he was being treated as an artist.
TMZ has other photos of Jackson in New York on July 8, 2002. In several of the pictures, Jackson is appearing with the Rev. Al Sharpton. So far, no photos have surfaced of Jackson in New York on July 7, 2002, the date in question when he is believed to have signed the will.
Sharpton has weighed in on the question, in a statement through his spokeswoman Rachel Noerdlinger.
“We have reason to believe that Michael may have been in NY on the 7th and Rev. Sharpton will address this after he discusses it with the Jackson family,” Noerdlinger said in the statement. “Michael Jackson was with us in New York City on July 6th at our Harlem Headquarters and again for a summit with Rev. Sharpton, attorney Johnnie Cochran and others around the issue of artist rights a few days later on July 9th.”
Paul McCartney does not have his songs back from Jackson, but he feels fine
Paul McCartney has put to rest any lingering questions about whether Michael Jackson bequeathed to Macca his rights to songs by The Beatles. The reports began surfacing before Jackson died two weeks ago, but when the King of Pop’s will was released last week it contained no reference to any such transfer.
In a post on his website, McCartney wrote that it was all a case of the media getting it wrong.
“Some time ago, the media came up with the idea that Michael Jackson was going to leave his share in the Beatles songs to me in his will, which was completely made up and something I didn’t believe for a second,” McCartney said in the post.
“Now the report is that I am devastated to find that he didn’t leave the songs to me. This is completely untrue. I had not thought for one minute that the original report was true and therefore, the report that I’m devastated is also totally false, so don’t believe everything you read folks!”
A January 2009 article in British tabloid The Mirror said that Jackson wanted to leave his share in many of the Beatles songs to McCartney as a peace offering. Of course, the will that keeps the Beatles songs with Jackson’s estate dates from 2002, so even if he had wanted to turn them over to McCartney, he would have had to revise that document, and clearly he did not.
Jackson snapped up the Beatles songs for $47.5 million in 1985 in a purchase of the ATV Music catalog, outbidding McCartney himself. When he died, he owned a 50 percent stake in the catalog with Sony, but his share was heavily leveraged.
McCartney famously called Jackson a “massively talented boy-man” after the King of Pop died at age 50 on June 25. But on his website Macca, who in decades past socialized with Jackson, said that even though he and Jackson “drifted apart over the years,” they “never really fell out” and that he still has fond memories of his old friend and duet partner.
There is a major poll running over at http://www.tinyurl.com/evilgood as to whether Michael Jackson was good or evil. Evil is currently in the lead! I think this poll is being recorded in some sort of record book, anyways, everybody go vote for good!
The King of Pop’s last testament
Details of Michael Jackson’s will began to emerge on Wednesday with all of his multimillion-dollar estate being placed in a family trust, even as plans for his highly anticipated funeral remained sketchy.
The will, signed in 2002, estimates his estate at that time to be worth in excess of $500 million and was filed with a Los Angeles Court. In it, Jackson leaves his entire estate to the Michael Jackson Family Trust, which ultimately benefits his three children, mother and unnamed charities.
Jackson’s 79-year-old mother, Katherine Jackson, is nominated to be guardian of Jackson’s children Prince Michael I, 12, Paris Michael Katherine, 11 and Prince Michael II, 7, and if she should be unwilling and unable to be guardian, Jackson nominated his friend, pop star Diana Ross, to be the children’s guardian.
Read the full document here:
To Lady Kikio. I feel for your pain. True. Excessive cruelty in any generation cannot be justified but I do see where Uncontainable Spirit is coming from. Joseph needed to be firm with his family but he could have still achieved this by also showing LOVE. Not letting his children call him ‘Daddy’ was not a part of that strict upbringing. Not letting them know that they are loved did not contribute to their wellbeing. No amount of success can replace a childhood which Michael so obviously craved and missed out on. So what if Michael would not have become a superstar – who’s to say that he wouldn’t have made it anyhow? He was a natural talent. Look, I am not Joe bashing but all I am saying is that there is a right way and a wrong way. When my superstar child has emotional problems so deep that he wants to change the way he looks (not skin colour, I know he had vitiligo, but the cosmetic surgery) and is never satisfied with himself, then I have not done my job as a parent properly. Even as an adult, Michael still felt his father did not show him love. He seemed to give it freely to his illigitimate daughter, but not to his original children. I have no doubt that he loved his children, in his own way, or that he probably saved them by being strict. But that is no excuse for depriving them of LOVE and the feeling that they are truly loved. It would have made the world of difference to Michael at least. He wanted some “ME TIME” with daddy which he never got. All that said, I do know that Joe did support his son in times of trouble – although that trouble may not have occurred had there not been a deep need in the first place – and I know that Joe worked tirelessly to exonerate his son. That is probably also because it reflected on him so it is not entirely a selfless act.Michael is gone now. It’s no use arguing over whose fault it was, it will not bring him back. Let us appreciate his great legacy of music, love and genius that is Michael J. Jackson. Out of this world and onto the pages of history. Love you MJJ.
oppps i meant 2004