Jackson\'s Will -- Randy Says Not MJ\'s Signature

[MJfan01']

Randy Jackson claims Michael Jackson could not have signed his 2002 will, because he was 2,475 air miles away from the place the document was supposedly inked.


According to the will, it was signed on July 7, 2002 at 5:00 PM in Los Angeles. Randy Jackson tells TMZ he has proof MJ was in New York from July 5 through July 9, on a campaign against Sony honcho Tommy Mottola, claiming Mottola had a thing against Black artists.

The lawyer for the estate, Howard Weitzman, tells TMZ the witnesses to the will were face-to-face with Jackson when he signed the document. Weitzman would not say if the will was signed in L.A., even though the document refers to Los Angeles.

The intimation -- the will may actually have been signed outside of L.A. even though it says Los Angeles.

The plot thickens.

UPDATE: TMZ spoke with Al Sharpton's rep, Rachel Noerdlinger, who confirms Sharpton and Jackson were protesting Mottola in NY together in 2002 on July 6th and July 9th.

As the for the key date -- July 7th -- Sharpton's rep released the following curious statement:

"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."

http://www.tmz.com/2009/10/21/jacksons-will-randy-says-not-mjs-signature/#comments

If true, god. Why did he wait four months after Michael's death to say something? I am so confused. :blink:

 

[oldschoolfan]

And Michael's will gave everything to Katherine and his kids, why would someone fake that? Unless he's feeling left out...

 

[HeavenSent]

MONEY. That's the bottom line. If Michael had included him and the other siblings in the will, does anyone really think he'd bother?

Harvey Levin of TMZ, who is also an attorney, stated that it doesn't matter WHERE Michael was, it still doesn't not invalidate his signature.

Unless Randy can PROVE that it is not his signature, then he needs to STFU--and perhaps go find himself a new hobby. Or better yet, a job.

 

[MJfan01']

MONEY. That's the bottom line. If Michael had included him and the other siblings in the will, does anyone really think he'd bother?

Harvey Levin of TMZ, who is also an attorney, stated that it doesn't matter WHERE Michael was, it still doesn't not invalidate his signature.

Unless Randy can PROVE that it is not his signature, then he needs to STFU--and perhaps go find himself a new hobby. Or better yet, a job.

In the words of Jermaine. These are Michael's wishes and no one should contest it. Get a job, stop living at your mama's house, and stop mooching off of your dead brother.

 

[Saphster]

Maybe Randy just found out about it. Maybe he told someone else to sign it? :idontknow I don't understand what the problem is with it. It sounds like something Michael would want. Everything goes to the persons that deserve it the most. So what's the issue? Not his siggy? Maybe he told someone else to do it in his place. My mom makes me sign her checks all the time. I know certain things aren't the same as a Will, but I'm just saying...

 

[HeavenSent]

If Randy just found about it...anything's possible in this wacked world and I guess it'll be up to him to disprove the signature. I mean, it has been in affect since 2002. There were witnessess to everything Michael signed who could vouch for authenticity. There are better ways to handle this and it saddens me what a MESS this is all becoming. I think if it's not about money, then it better be about protecting his brother's legacy, and that's it. The two executors named to the will must not be completely truth worthy in Randy's eyes, because this is some serious stuff to bring up 4 months after the fact.

 

[SexyChica]

Randy needs to get a job. He's not out to protect his brother. It's all about MONEY... He's desparately trying to find a way to get his hands on Michael's money and assets. Anyone who tries to get his own sibling to sign over his share of the Sony/ATV catalog and sues his own sibling over bs is not trustworthy in my book.

He's just pissed that when the unfortunate day that Katherine passes her 40% goes directly to MJ's children. Katherine does not get her 40% outright to do what she feels.

 

[OneMoreChance]

I don't know guys, I have had an issue with Michael's will since the first day that I read it. Each section had to be initialed by Michael and every single initial looks different and I mean really different. Even his signature doesn't look right to me. His will is very vague. I would have expected someone with as much money and assets as Michael had that his will would have been more involved. I don't know it just strikes me as odd.

 

[MJfan01']

I don't know guys, I have had an issue with Michael's will since the first day that I read it. Each section had to be initialed by Michael and every single initial looks different and I mean really different. Even his signature doesn't look right to me. His will is very vague. I would have expected someone with as much money and assets as Michael had that his will would have been more involved. I don't know it just strikes me as odd.

I have seen the will as well and it was fishy to me too. His kids names weren't even right. I just think if there were concerns, they should have been looked at months ago. Him coming out four months after his death makes Randy seem money hungry.

 

[OneMoreChance]

I have seen the will as well and it was fishy to me too. His kids names weren't even right. I just think if there were concerns, they should have been looked at months ago. Him coming out four months after his death makes Randy seem money hungry.

I agree. Well Katherine thinks that Michael was under the influence when he signed this will. Which I find entirely possible. I recently saw a video on youtube of some type of deposition and Michael was asked about a contract that gave Dieter power of attorney. Michael stated that he did not remember signing it. He was asked it he was under the influence of anything at the time and Michale says yes it's possible I was on pain medication at the time. I'm not sure what to think. All I know is that it is very funky!

 

[HeavenSent]

I've had to initial documents back-to-back and my initials, "CJ" started becoming more loose and lazy with each one. So I'm not so concerned about that as I am about someone questioning the validity of the signatures coming to light NOW. If Randy wanted to be the good brother to look after Michael's legacy, he would have gone about this differently. (Going to TMZ for one) I'm not understanding that at all. But whatever, I'm just a fan behind a computer screen.

There were 3 witness to the signatures, let's pull them in. There was a reason why Michael didn't want him to touch his finances with a 10 foot pole, so he better be out to protect his brother's assets and nothing more.

 

[HeavenSent]

I agree. Well Katherine thinks that Michael was under the influence when he signed this will.

Now that's a first. Where does it state that Katherine thinks he was under the influence??

 

[HeavenSent]

Also, I hate digging into this. Especially when I need to be calling my boyfriend.... but If Mike and Al Sharpton were in N.Y at the time and someone forged his signature, can't someone drag in an expert? And what would an invalid will really do? The one that Michael drafted back in 1997 was almost the same, with the exception of the children. He'd always wanted the majority estate to go to his offspring and to charity.

Oh well...I'mma leave this alone for now :blink:

 

[OneMoreChance]

Ruling Clears Way For Jackson Estate Deal


(19-9-2009) Katherine Jackson's attorney says a judge's ruling that she can challenge the administrators of her son's estate could result in a deal that will determine control of the singer's gargantuan assets.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff determined in a ruling released Friday that Michael Jackson's mother can argue against keeping the men currently administering her son's estate without being disinherited.

Jackson's mother had sought a favorable ruling from Beckloff that she could contest the authority of attorney John Branca and music executive John McClain to guide the pop singer's fortune. The men were named executors of the estate, which could be worth more than $500 million, in Michael Jackson's 2002 will.

Beckloff's ruling clears the way for further arguments and possibly a hearing on whether the men were best suited to control the Jackson's considerable estate. The pair have already brokered deals for a movie, books, museum show and various memorabilia that are expected to generate tens of millions of dollars.

Katherine Jackson's legal team, however, has sought to challenge one or both of the men's authority. A key roadblock was whether a challenge would be deemed a contest to Michael Jackson's will. A provision of the singer's private trust -- which calls for his mother to receive 40 percent of his assets -- calls for anyone that challenges the will to be disinherited.

''We now hope to resolve the outstanding administration matter, without further costly litigation, in the best interests of the beneficiaries which are Mrs. Jackson and her grandchildren,'' Katherine Jackson's attorney, L. Londell McMillan wrote in a written statement after Beckloff's ruling.

He noted that although Katherine Jackson was pleased with the ruling, she continues to mourn her son, who was interred earlier this month at a private cemetery in Glendale, Calif.

Most of Katherine Jackson's arguments for why she should be allowed to challenge Branca and McClain's authority have been sealed, but Beckloff noted in his ruling that they raised several issues, including whether Michael Jackson was under ''undue influence'' when he signed his 2002 will.

Katherine Jackson's attorneys may challenge Branca or McClain's fitness as administrators of the estate, or they may seek a member of Jackson's family or trusted adviser to become a co-administrator. Katherine Jackson's attorneys have noted that her son chose to have three men serve as executors of his estate, although one dropped out after the singer's will was signed.

Attorneys for Branca and McClain did not challenge Katherine Jackson's petition for a ruling. If her attorneys were to opt to formally challenge the authority of one or both of the men, then Beckloff would convene a hearing and hear testimony.

Katherine Jackson's attorneys have not objected to most of the deals Branca and McClain have negotiated to date, although they raised concerns about a deal involving concert promoter AEG Live for a memorabilia exhibit. Other deals include a $60 million agreement with Columbia Pictures to create a movie using footage of Jackson's final rehearsals for a series of London comeback concerts. The film will be released in theaters for a limited time beginning in late October, and the agreement allows special additions to be produced for DVD sales.

Beckloff ruled over Katherine Jackson's objections that the exhibit of her son's items -- including some of his possessions from Neverland Ranch -- could go forward.

Michael Jackson's music and merchandise has sold briskly since his death on June 25.

The singer died in considerable debt, a fact underscored by creditor's claims that continued to be filed in his estate case. This week, two claims filed by Jackson's former hairdresser and a law firm totaled more than $243,000, and the singer was involved in several pending civil lawsuits when he died.

Attorneys for Branca and McClain have repeatedly said they consider Jackson's estate solvent. Experts predict that it could eventually grow to be worth more than another music superstar who died unexpectedly -- Elvis Presley.

Katherine Jackson and her three grandchildren are the only three people named to receive money from the estate. They stand to receive a combined 80 percent stake of the singer's estate; the remaining share is slated to go to unnamed charities.

The estate is currently paying more than $86,000 a month to support Jackson's mother and children, who range in ages from 7 to 12. Katherine Jackson has been named the permanent guardian of the children as was called for in the 2002 will.

Source: MJFC / LA Times

 

[HeavenSent]

I'm sooo slow tonight, lol... but does this article contain any new info?

 

[OneMoreChance]

No I think I'm slow....lol. I misread the article where it said "undue influence" I thought it said "under influence". I have read before that Katherine thought that Michael was medicated when he signed his will (or didn't sign it whatever the case may be). For the life of me I can't remember where I read it. It has been information overload the last few months. I could see if you had to sign you initials a ton of times that it might start to get lazy after a while, but it wasn't that many. Even the first few don't look the same. I think we need a lawyer to sort out the leagalese....lol,but from what I am seeing there is nothing in the will that actually states any money is to go to charity. Is there something I'm not seeing?

 

[Saphster]

The estate is currently paying more than $86,000 a month to support Jackson's mother and children, who range in ages from 7 to 12. Katherine Jackson has been named the permanent guardian of the children as was called for in the 2002 will.

Damn. 86,000 would be extremely helpful in my life right now...

Anyway, I don't like all of this. It makes me feel itchy. The Will is fine! Even if he was under the influence...everything is great! Nothing needs to be changed! He obviously knew what was going on when he signed them. Michael said himself he knew his way around the field, and many people agreed and have said that Michael was very alert when doing business.

Wtf, would Randy interfere with this? Was he even close to Michael like that? I never really saw them together. Only when they were younger, and at the 30th Anniversary special. I don't even remember seeing him at the memorial. He probably was there but I didn't notice him....*sigh* Michael. I don't like the thought that you could have been under the influence. I wish I could have been there to knock some sense into him if this is true.

Fan or not...when you can't remember if you were 'high' or not ...I'ma tell you how I feel about it! I'ma straighten you up!

 

[OneMoreChance]

The only time I have seen them together since the 30th anniversary special was in his Geraldo interview in 2005. Michael and Randy were in studio working on some song together.

 

[HeavenSent]

Wtf, would Randy interfere with this? Was he even close to Michael like that? I never really saw them together. Only when they were younger, and at the 30th Anniversary special. I don't even remember seeing him at the memorial. He probably was there but I didn't notice him....*sigh* Michael. I don't like the thought that you could have been under the influence. I wish I could have been there to knock some sense into him if this is true.

Michael and Randy were very close. But Randy effed up on more than one occasion, causing Michael to have to fire him.

Back in 2005, during the trial, Michael pulled him aboard to take care of his business affairs and entrusted him to handle the things that he could not. Remember MJJSource? Started by Randy. He was also supposed to have managed MJJProductions and certain aspects of Neverland, but ended up driving stuff to the ground.

I think he has a lot of love for Michael, he was the main one upset over the funeral coverage flyovers...but he's not the best in managing anything dealing with money.

 

[HeavenSent]

The Mistake in Michael Jackson's Will

Posted Oct 22nd 2009 2:00AM by TMZ Staff
Michael Jackson's 2002 will has a mistake in it, TMZ has learned -- but it looks like a case of no harm, no foul.

As we first reported, according to the will -- dated July 7, 2002 -- it was signed in Los Angeles. But Randy Jackson told TMZ Michael was in New York City on that date.

Randy thinks the signature on Michael's will is a forgery. But Howard Weitzman, the lawyer for the estate, tells TMZ the signature is valid and the witnesses saw Jackson put pen to paper.

We've now confirmed Jackson definitely signed the will in New York City on 7-7-02. So the reference to Los Angeles is clearly a mistake.

Our sources say the person who wrote "Los Angeles" is one of the witnesses to the will and simply forgot where he was.

This mistake will not invalidate the will. Ironically, if the will were declared invalid, the prior 1997 will would be probated. Just like the 2002, the 1997 will creates a trust. We've learned the '97 trust -- just like the 2002 trust -- leaves the same percentage to the same people -- Katherine Jackson gets 40% for her lifetime, MJ's kids get 40% and the remaining 20% goes to charity.

By the way ...guess who one of the executors is in the '97 will? John Branca.



Read more: http://www.tmz.com/#ixzz0UeHPoo7K