Re: MJ's will! Randy says it's not MJ's signature!

by Kazumi Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:56 pm

haaa...i see... MJ's will! Randy says it's not MJ's signature! - Page 2 Suspect

interesting! we always knew our Michael was no fool but this hoax is brilliant, can't wait for him to show up ! MJ's will! Randy says it's not MJ's signature! - Page 2 Icon_biggrin

although i also have days in which i get sad with this situation and think maybe he's really gone...but then i see he's leaving us clues all the time!

by NYMoonwalker Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:29 pm

I fail to see how this does not invalidate the authenticity of the will. Sometimes I disagree with the law so much to the point where it angers me.

And now we hear that MJ's kids were in a car accident with Katherine??? Because of the paparazzi??? Think about what happened to Princess Diana! Im so infuriated Mad

Michael must be going crazy!

by marsheliamorgan Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:48 pm

WHAT? i didnt hear about accident with kids,WHAT HAPPENED?wheres the link to story?can u help an old women out? please, LOL HAHA thanks

by NYMoonwalker Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:54 pm

marsheliamorgan wrote:WHAT? i didnt hear about accident with kids,WHAT HAPPENED?wheres the link to story?can u help an old women out? please, LOL HAHA thanks

Haha sure. They Just updated it though saying that the car that was hit was the Jackson security car, the one behind the kids. Its on TMZ but here is the link

http://www.tmz.com/2009/10/21/pap-rear-ends-car-carrying-the-jackson-kids/

by Kazumi Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:02 pm

damn this leaves me really angry, Michael must be too I bet... MJ's will! Randy says it's not MJ's signature! - Page 2 Icon_mad

this is the kind of thing he was always fearing for his children and loved ones. i'm glad they're okay though...

by heehee Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:47 pm

The question that's been posed is "why now?" I believe that initially it was reported that 40% of MJ's estate went to Katherine, 40% went to his kids and 20% went to charity. Since that initial report, other articles have suggested this allocation may be false. Either way, I am certain that the beneficiaries are family members. So....the only reason I can surmise for bringing this up now is to support the "fraud of a fraud is not a fraud" theory. This could be one of the families' roles in the hoax---Try to prove the will is fraudulent so that MJ cannot be found guilty of any crimes. Anyway... JMHO.

by ILuvUMoreMJ Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:09 pm

I take this fake will story as good news, even if we don't know exactly why yet. His will also says Michael Joseph Jackson, so if Joe's his real middle name, I wonder if it would be valid anyway?

by heartbroken Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:58 pm

I have always believed that michael has the new will the hard drive with the music and the missing money with him MJ's will! Randy says it's not MJ's signature! - Page 2 Icon_smile

by Christiana Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:15 am

dancer1792 wrote:
Kazumi wrote:hi guys, i'm new here so i dunno if i should be participating in this thread but i give it a try anyways...

I know this has been said before here, that the will being fake is related to his comeback so he doesn't get in trouble but even if the will is proven to be fake and he does come back, isn't faking one's own death considered a crime in the US? sorry if this question here sounds kind of stupid but I haven't been with time to read all posts (and there are a lot here) and me too I have been wandering from hoax suspicion to murder suspicion and back... I didn't know what to believe anymore until tonight I read this and saw Dave Dave's interview - yeah US news get really late to Portugal

Faking your death is not necessarily a crime in the US. It only considered a crime if a person collects life insurance money or if the state pays for a search party or a memorial from taxpayer money. It is considered fraud and a person could go to jail for a while.

In the MJ case, life insurance has not been collected, there was no search party (he was not missing), and the memorial was paid from his estate (his own money). On top of all of this his death certificate has not been signed by a doctor the only person who can officially pernounce you dead.

So far, no laws have been broken. If MJ tomorrow says that he is alive, he has done nothing wrong in the eyes of the court. Some fans will be upset that he pulled this hoax, but lying is not a crime.

Don't feel bad about posting. It is a good question.

OK, gonna tell all of you right now that I waiver back and forth between MJ being alive or dead. I'll admit it. Obviously there is a lot that suggests he is alive, and that's where my head is most days. But one thing that constantly gets me is the legality of the hoax. It is actually not completely accurate that it is only a crime if someone collects life insurance, has a search party etc. And just to clarify here, MJ's Memorial WAS paid for with taxpayer money; it was the Funeral that was paid for by his estate. Two different things.

I have seen things pointed out by non-believers on MJHD and read some things on my own to confirm all of this. You have to consider that there is an ongoing police investigation (as far as we know) into MJ's death. If Conrad Murray gets charged and, worse yet, convicted for MJ's death, then there would be legal consequences for MJ for sure. You would have taxpayer money spent on the investigation, and on the trial, not to mention the charge and conviction of an innocent man for a crime that was never committed. The DEA is involved in an investigation regarding the prescription drug issue--so there would be federal charges involved also because the DEA is a federal entity paid for with taxpayer money. The probate court is also involved, and taxpayer dollars pay for all of that too, so again, charges would be involved for that. And think of all the police and such that were involved with security for the memorial and funeral...manpower taken away for their normal, everyday duties (saving lives, catching criminals) to take care of the memorial/funeral services. To me, these are all things that have to be considered, because I believe 100% that there WOULD be charges involved for these things....UNLESS, the hoax really was carried out to protect MJ or save his life in some way. That, in my opinion, is the only way there wouldn't be a legal issue for MJ regarding the hoax, because then it seems logical that the police and other groups have to be in on it too.

As for the will...if MJ is actually dead, Randy is a big fat idiot. Because if that will gets declared invalid, he's sure not going to get any money out of the estate, and the likelihood is that Katherine wouldn't either. The kids MIGHT get it all...but then again, dying without a will causes a lot of probate problems and can give the court control of the entire estate. So I'm not sure what Randy's purpose in all of this would be if it turns out that MJ is dead.

If he's alive though, then I'm sure there is a very good reason for it and we'll hopefully learn about it later. What I wonder though really is, is Randy actually in on the hoax? He really acts like he's not, like he's just trying to take over control of things for his own purposes.

Oh, and I totally believe that some members of the Jackson family routinely feed TMZ information. I'm sure Randy does, and probably La Toya too. Why? I don't know. But it just seems to me that a lot of stuff having to do with the family that comes out on TMZ first turns out to be true...so they have to be getting their info on them from an inside source, IMO.

by ILuvUMoreMJ Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:44 am

I waiver back and forth all the time for the exact same reasons you just posted Christiana. I wish I felt more sure that he is alive, but those questions always nag at me. Unless there's a real dead body double, there have to be higher ups involved in this hoax. Sometimes that's hard for me to swallow, but I tell myself anything's possible with MJ! So until I see Murray go to prison or see a body, I'm keeping the faith for now.

I also think that someone in the Jackson camp is feeding everything to TMZ...and I've always thought it was Randy. For some reason I thought Harvey even alluded to that one time.

by NYMoonwalker Thu Oct 22, 2009 1:15 am

I agree with Christiana & ILuvUMoreMJ, these thoughts are constantly in the back of my head. But the only way this would all make sense to me is if Michael is truly alive and has no intentions of coming back. In one of my own little crazy theories, I like to think he really did escape to live his life in privacy, like he said he wanted to in the Shmuley tapes. I think he never plans on coming back or being found, no one ever finding out about this. But then again, I hope this is not the case. I'd love to see him again. But basically, I just hope he is alive, well, safe, and happy Smile

by IndonesianGirl Thu Oct 22, 2009 2:18 am

let's compare the sign ....

MJ's will! Randy says it's not MJ's signature! - Page 2 1021_mj_will_sig_02_ex

MJ's will! Randy says it's not MJ's signature! - Page 2 Dearfans

hmm ... what's your opinion ?

by miss j Thu Oct 22, 2009 2:28 am

yeah. i also noticed that the signature on the will doesn't have that "twinkle" thing.....

by NYMoonwalker Thu Oct 22, 2009 2:30 am

Michael used different signatures when signing things for fans and on documents. His signature was always a bit more curvy and pretty when autographing things. But the one on the will seems like it is legitimate. But it was also on Wikipedia before the will was made and could have been easily forged. Just saying Very Happy

by ILuvUMoreMJ Thu Oct 22, 2009 2:51 am

Yes, and in the last few years even his autograph was way looser, definitely not as defined and pretty as it used to be. I think the will is legit, but I wouldn't put it past Tohme to have forged the O2 contract...those signatures look strange.

by Christiana Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:17 am

It seems legit to me too. And I'll just say, I use two different versions of my own signature all the time. One is what I use so that people can actually read it. And one is my regular, check-signing/document-signing signature. Plus, my signature has changed somewhat over time. I mean, it's not that it's totally different, but it is not exactly the same as it was, say, 10 years ago. My mom's is that way too...she's 63 now and it looks looser and slightly different than it did 10 years ago. I think that's normal.

by heartbroken Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:32 am

AEG did cover the cost of the memorial AND reimbursed the LAPD { which probably came from Michael }. That was stated a long time ago. The funeral was covered by his estate, and the only insurance policy that has been paid out , is Michaels personal policy. It has also been theorized by experts that the signature on the will could have been transfered from the wik. signature. I think all Randy is trying to do is uncover the fraud by the so-called friends and business partners of Michaels. He has to start somewhere and the will was probably it. Randy, if I'm not mistaken, was with Michael in NY at that time.

by city.gal1 Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:49 am

I don't believe that Randy or any other family members with the exeption of Katherine and the kids are getting any $$ under the will and trust.

Remember there are two documents covering the estate -- If I remember correctly, the will covered 2 things: who the children were to be placed with and where the $$ was supposed to go. The $$ goes into the trust which names Katherine 40%, Kids 40% and charities 20%. It is the TRUST that resolves the issue of who gets $$.

No mention of any other of the family members therefore they get nothing from the estate.

by kdkennedy74 Thu Oct 22, 2009 1:00 pm

If Michael did indeed make a new will in 2007, which I believe he did considering that he had always done it every 5 years, then the day he signed the new will that made the 2002 will null and void!!!!

by city.gal1 Thu Oct 22, 2009 1:25 pm

kdkennedy74 wrote:If Michael did indeed make a new will in 2007, which I believe he did considering that he had always done it every 5 years, then the day he signed the new will that made the 2002 will null and void!!!!

Until that will shows up this is still considered the valid will. BTW, his previous will also stated pretty much the same thing -- that the $$ goes into the TRUST. It is the trust that distributes the money not the will.

by kdkennedy74 Thu Oct 22, 2009 1:32 pm

Very true but what does that mean will happen when and if the newer one ever comes out and what if it is very different?

by city.gal1 Thu Oct 22, 2009 1:38 pm

Well, if a new one comes out that specifies things differently that would change of course. However, my feeling is that even if a new will surfaces that probably it will still specify that the $$ goes to the Trust.

The trust is what protects the money because it is being supervised. This is how people that have a lot of $$ protect it. Expenditures have to "okayed" by the trust's executor(s).

by kdkennedy74 Thu Oct 22, 2009 1:50 pm

That makes sense...thank you for clearing that up for me!

by city.gal1 Thu Oct 22, 2009 1:54 pm

You're welcome -- I just wanted to point out that there are 2 documents in play. It seems that this often forgotten about when people discuss the issue of the will.

by city.gal1 Thu Oct 22, 2009 2:00 pm

I might add, this is why Katherine might try to "prove" that something is not valid because it is the trust that keeps her from using the $$ as she wishes.

Remember that there was also a clause in the trust (I believe) that if anyone tries to remove/invalidate/question the named executors that would automatically keep them from receiving any $$. This was an additional protection clause so that the money would be safe. MJ did not want any of it going to his siblings. If you remember a couple of months ago, KJ lawyers went to court asking for something to be cleared up with regard to this because if they had proceeded -- automatic cut off!

Something is up in that camp though -- just read that she is changing lawyers.

by jpresley Thu Oct 22, 2009 2:05 pm

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter much which will is utilized IMO because they'll all essentially say the same thing: the $$ will be managed by a trust. It's the additional delay, delay, delay that is important. BTW, hasn't it been longer than 2 weeks since TMZ updated us on CM advising an arrest was imminent? Just sayin.

by city.gal1 Thu Oct 22, 2009 2:08 pm

@jpresley -- Agreed.

TMZ addressd the CM situation a couple of days ago -- they said something is holding things up, that they didn't know what but that CM would be arrested in the next couple of weeks. I believe they intimated whatever was holding things up was major.

by Christiana Thu Oct 22, 2009 2:08 pm

heartbroken wrote:AEG did cover the cost of the memorial AND reimbursed the LAPD { which probably came from Michael }. That was stated a long time ago.

I'm not really so sure about that.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/10/city-attorney-defends-push-to-recoup-cost-of-jackson-memorial.html

by jpresley Thu Oct 22, 2009 2:09 pm

city.gal1 wrote:
Something is up in that camp though -- just read that she is changing lawyers.

Indeed! She's fired both attorneys and has asked for a continuance on the upcoming court hearing. What's that we hear folks?? It's the repetitive sound of delay, delay, delay! MJ's will! Randy says it's not MJ's signature! - Page 2 Icon_cheers

by Christiana Thu Oct 22, 2009 2:10 pm

city.gal1 wrote:@jpresley -- Agreed.

TMZ addressd the CM situation a couple of days ago -- they said something is holding things up, that they didn't know what but that CM would be arrested in the next couple of weeks. I believe they intimated whatever was holding things up was major.

Yeah, I saw them say that on their Q & A video the other day.

by kdkennedy74 Thu Oct 22, 2009 2:14 pm

I thought I heard them say that it was not major so I'm glad you guys cleared it up.

by city.gal1 Thu Oct 22, 2009 2:19 pm

Maybe I misunderstood them, I thought they said major. Either way it's being held up for another couple of weeks -- big surprise.

by jpresley Thu Oct 22, 2009 2:39 pm

TMZ had to address the CM issue because the initial time frame they gave, two weeks, had passed not once but twice. The guy who admitted to giving MJ popofol and other controlled substances (that he was not even authorized to prescribe in the state of CA), has essentially been AWOL for 4 months. There has been no sighting of the man, even at his baby mama child support hearings. Why is that? Does he have magic powers that render him invisible whenever paps are around? MJ's will! Randy says it's not MJ's signature! - Page 2 Icon_rolleyes

How is it that paps captured Britney Spears every time she strolled into a random gas station restroom barefoot (ew, btw), but can't manage to track down the dude who 'killed' Michael Jackson? Why have the tabloid and mainstream media collectively lost their mojo when it comes to Conrad Murray?? And, why isn't anyone else asking these questions?!! MJ's will! Randy says it's not MJ's signature! - Page 2 Icon_question

by city.gal1 Thu Oct 22, 2009 2:48 pm

jpresley wrote:TMZ had to address the CM issue because the initial time frame they gave, two weeks, had passed not once but twice. The guy who admitted to giving MJ popofol and other controlled substances (that he was not even authorized to prescribe in the state of CA), has essentially been AWOL for 4 months. There has been no sighting of the man, even at his baby mama child support hearings. Why is that? Does he have magic powers that render him invisible whenever paps are around? How is it that paps captured Britney Spears every time she strolled into a random gas station restroom barefoot (ew, btw), but can't manage to track down the dude who 'killed' Michael Jackson? Why have the tabloid and mainstream media collectively lost their mojo when it comes to Conrad Murray?? And, why isn't anyone else asking these questions?!!

True, true , true. I noticed about 4/5 weeks ago that any investagative reporting ceased, just stopped. None at all. Very strange.

by heartbroken Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:06 pm

hhttp://cbs2.com/local/Los.Angeles.Mayor.2.1083939.html

http://www.cbs2.com/video/?id=107972@kcbs.dayport.com

http://cbs2.com/services/popoff.aspx?categoryId

http://cbs2.com/services/popoff.aspx?categoryId

So, the city says, first, the memorial cost 1.4 ml, then it goes up to 2 ml, and now it is 6 ml. AEG offered to pay 1.4. So if I was the AEG head, I'd be a little leary about paying it too. And it was first 3000 policeofficers and then 4000.
Then the LA mayor says the city should pay. sounds like another pretty inconsistant soap opera to me. I've talked to 2 cops here that both said 1.4 sounds way more reasonable than 6 ml.

by Christiana Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:18 pm

heartbroken wrote:hhttp://cbs2.com/local/Los.Angeles.Mayor.2.1083939.html

http://www.cbs2.com/video/?id=107972@kcbs.dayport.com

http://cbs2.com/services/popoff.aspx?categoryId

http://cbs2.com/services/popoff.aspx?categoryId

So, the city says, first, the memorial cost 1.4 ml, then it goes up to 2 ml, and now it is 6 ml. AEG offered to pay 1.4. So if I was the AEG head, I'd be a little leary about paying it too. And it was first 3000 policeofficers and then 4000.
Then the LA mayor says the city should pay. sounds like another pretty inconsistant soap opera to me. I've talked to 2 cops here that both said 1.4 sounds way more reasonable than 6 ml.

Totally agree, heartbroken. There's no way that cost 6 million. I just don't see how that's possible.

by mjssoulmate Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:32 pm

city.gal1 wrote:I don't believe that Randy or any other family members with the exeption of Katherine and the kids are getting any $$ under the will and trust.

Remember there are two documents covering the estate -- If I remember correctly, the will covered 2 things: who the children were to be placed with and where the $$ was supposed to go. The $$ goes into the trust which names Katherine 40%, Kids 40% and charities 20%. It is the TRUST that resolves the issue of who gets $$.

No mention of any other of the family members therefore they get nothing from the estate.

Attachment 8 of the will names six other Jacksons as contingent remainder beneficiaries of the Michael Jackson Trust. I believe they are all nephews of Michael.

by Christiana Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:59 pm

I swear I read early this morning somewhere that even if the 2007 will was declared invalid, it would then be necessary to probate the 1997 will, which still names the same beneficiaries, along with John Branca as executor. So if that's correct, then Randy (or any other family member) making a stink isn't gonna make much difference, as far as I can tell.

by Sponsored content