According to TMZ the will is good and there is no mistake!

by Banessa Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:28 am

Latest from TMZ

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/2009/10/22/michael-jackson-will-trust-mistake-witnesses-new-york-city-los-angeles-probate/#ixzz0UdtjmD4Y

Red flags went up when I saw this sentence! How the hell do you forget where you are? Unless you were heavily inebriated or overly medicated and weren't aware of your surroundings...in which case this person would not have been in a competent state to be a witness...right? Wouldn't this invalidate the will? Not because this person "forgot" where he was but because they were probably not aware as to what they were doing. Am I making sense or am I just rambling? lol

by heartbroken Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:36 am

I had heard awhile back that the witnesses were the executors themselves. now how convenient was that?

by Banessa Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:43 am

heartbroken wrote:I had heard awhile back that the witnesses were the executors themselves. now how convenient was that?

If that is true and correct me if I am wrong but wouldn't that create some type of conflict? I'm not sure about this but I thought that a witness had to be someone who is not a beneficiary. Wouldn't the executors be beneficiaries in a way? scratch

by Peace Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:52 am

I read somewhere that the signature doesn't even look similar Michael's by handwriting experts.

by ILuvUMoreMJ Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:55 am

I'm pretty sure you're right Banessa...I don't think the executors can be the witnesses. We had to get a friend of the family to witness my grandparents' will for that exact reason. I'm sure it would be the same in the US.

And that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard, saying someone forgot they were in NYC. That really raises questions for me. Suspect

by NYMoonwalker Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:59 am

This does not make sense at all. As far as I know, the witnesses to any sort of legal document can never be the beneficiary, whether here in the U.S., or anywhere in the world. I thought a will was a very serious matter but apparently not. A little mistake here and there...what's the big deal, right?

by Christiana Thu Oct 22, 2009 1:11 am

Banessa wrote:
heartbroken wrote:I had heard awhile back that the witnesses were the executors themselves. now how convenient was that?

If that is true and correct me if I am wrong but wouldn't that create some type of conflict? I'm not sure about this but I thought that a witness had to be someone who is not a beneficiary. Wouldn't the executors be beneficiaries in a way?

Executor and beneficiaries aren't automatically the same thing. An executor can also be named as a beneficiary, but executors aren't considered as beneficiaries just by being executors. A beneficiary cannot be a witness to a will, but an executor can be a witness as long as they are not also a beneficiary.

So just to clarify: Branca is a witness and an executor, but he is not a beneficiary, which is perfectly legal.

by Red Velvet Thu Oct 22, 2009 1:29 am

ok let me make sure I understand,

the person who signed the will forgot where they were

the person who witnessed the will being signed, (thereby 'verifying it') forgot where they both were

yes, clear as mud!

*tosses it into the "further proof TMZ is the brick man" file *

by Banessa Thu Oct 22, 2009 2:03 am

Christiana wrote:
Banessa wrote:
heartbroken wrote:I had heard awhile back that the witnesses were the executors themselves. now how convenient was that?

If that is true and correct me if I am wrong but wouldn't that create some type of conflict? I'm not sure about this but I thought that a witness had to be someone who is not a beneficiary. Wouldn't the executors be beneficiaries in a way?

Executor and beneficiaries aren't automatically the same thing. An executor can also be named as a beneficiary, but executors aren't considered as beneficiaries just by being executors. A beneficiary cannot be a witness to a will, but an executor can be a witness as long as they are not also a beneficiary.

So just to clarify: Branca is a witness and an executor, but he is not a beneficiary, which is perfectly legal.

Thank you for your clarification! Smile

by Banessa Thu Oct 22, 2009 2:12 am

Red Velvet wrote:ok let me make sure I understand,

the person who signed the will forgot where they were

the person who witnessed the will being signed, (thereby 'verifying it') forgot where they both were

yes, clear as mud!

*tosses it into the "further proof TMZ is the brick man" file *

Hahaha! You're right it couldn't have been clearer! Razz

Definitely, TMZ is being fed information and they are playing their part as The Brickman, by luring us in with all the misinformation and "sources" they write about. I say... TMZ keep it coming...
I wonder if at least the person who wrote this article knows he/she works for TMZ and is in Los Angeles? or maybe they think they are somewhere else? Will that then make this article invalid? scratch

by beachgirl Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:28 pm

LOL, how can anyone forget in which city he is According to TMZ the will is good and there is no mistake! Icon_rolleyes

by cirque333 Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:32 pm

quote="Red Velvet"]ok let me make sure I understand,

the person who signed the will forgot where they were

the person who witnessed the will being signed, (thereby 'verifying it') forgot where they both were

yes, clear as mud!

*tosses it into the "further proof TMZ is the brick man" file *[/quote]

PRECISELY!!! Smile

by See Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:32 pm

This is total Bull-DooDoo..... What are they getting at...
They seem to not know what story to go with LMAO, who lost the script on this hoax... Somebody send them one of our theories!!!

by kdkennedy74 Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:38 pm

As noted in an earlier thread...TMZ is averaging 2 MJ articles a day so I guess they had to add something to meet their quota. Tomorrow they may finally tell us that Al Sharpton was given permission by the family to give his account and that it is all a lie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by emo_pinkt Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:38 pm

So none of the three witnesses knew that they werent in L.A. this is BS.

by dancer1792 Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:39 pm

How can you forget where you are? Mabye you could forget between two cities close by if you don't know the difference between the two, but halfway across the US.

Wouldn't someone have told him when he signed the will that he wrote the wrong city? It's not like the signing is privite. MJ and the other witnesses would have been there. Did nobody see the guy put down the wrong city?

by Banessa Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:52 pm

I just don't get how someone forgets where they are!!! Even if they are not familiar with the city, you think they would ask "What city is this?" mind you this happens when you get lost and are not familiar with the area...but to just go out there and completely forget where you are???? Come...on, now, Im sure this man knew what he would be doing and the difference betwen LA and NY! Unbelievable!!! I agree with kdkennedy74 there must be a daily quota to meet in order for TMZ to just straight out print such BS! Lol

by mjssoulmate Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:53 pm

heartbroken wrote:I had heard awhile back that the witnesses were the executors themselves. now how convenient was that?

The witnesses were:
John Branca, John McClain and Barry Siegel. Barry Siegel resigned as co-executor on August, 26, 2003.

Executors of the will are not beneficiaries. Their job is to make sure that the will is carried out according to the decedents wishes.

by neverlandprincess Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:56 pm

HAHA! I can overlook the witness writing LA b/c maybe he just was used to writing La.. I hear that.people who travel ALOT may do this-kind of like calling out the wrong name for the wrong child when you have more than 2 (hahaha). BUT seeing as this is a WILL it would have to be read over before it was singed....or I would read over mine before it was signed. Also the weather and sites would be incredibly differant. GEESH My Gosh why was it imperative to do this will, in the middle of his big clash with Sony in NYC?
@Peace-yes it has been said by all of the believers that the sig does not look the same.

HAHA! Daily quota of MJ stories.

by ishealive Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:57 pm

Well if TMZ said it then it must be true...

by mjssoulmate Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:58 pm

Perhaps the will was drawn up in Los Angeles, but signed in New York.

by infinitylady Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:00 pm

Banessa:

Red flags went up when I saw this sentence! How the hell do you forget where you are? Unless you were heavily inebriated or overly medicated and weren't aware of your surroundings...in which case this person would not have been in a competent state to be a witness...right? Wouldn't this invalidate the will? Not because this person "forgot" where he was but because they were probably not aware as to what they were doing. Am I making sense or am I just rambling? lol

Me: Yes, if he was incompetent. Yes. I learned this in r.e. class. It would make the contract invalid.

by neverlandprincess Thu Oct 22, 2009 6:17 pm

@ishealive-BAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! Because they are so reliable seeing as Conrad Murray has been arrested and everything ......

by phyli Thu Oct 22, 2009 6:53 pm

mjssoulmate wrote:Perhaps the will was drawn up in Los Angeles, but signed in New York.

It was definitely drawn up in LA and possibly signed in NY. It would be interesting to see the original docs b/c they're usually signed in blue ink for authentification purposes and so it doesn't look like a copy...

by QuirkyDiana Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:41 am

If MJ really wasn't dead, would there be such a fuss over his will? I mean, if he planned the hoax, don't you think he would have made sure the will he was going to leave behind was correct and that family members agreed with the content? It seems the family have been suspicious about the will, the appointment of the executors, who's entitled to what - from day one. I can't believe MJ would be watching all this happen, watching his parents contend with the executors of the estate. If he didn't plan to go, i can see why all this is happening. If he did plan to go, MJ and everyone who knows would make damn sure the will says exactly what they want to happen, including who the executors should be.

by jpresley Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:47 am

I said this on another thread, but IMO this is/was all another smoke screen, yet another delaying tactic.

by THE JACKSONOLOGIST Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:51 am

We have yet to see ANYTHING go on inside the courtroom. NOTHING. Zilch. Nada.

The will is fake and its fake for a reason. Do you really think MJ would leave this many questions if it were real?

He is a perfectionist.....remember that!!

by QuirkyDiana Thu Nov 12, 2009 2:21 pm

THE JACKSONOLOGIST wrote:We have yet to see ANYTHING go on inside the courtroom. NOTHING. Zilch. Nada.

The will is fake and its fake for a reason. Do you really think MJ would leave this many questions if it were real?

He is a perfectionist.....remember that!!

So everything we see/hear is fabricated? I think that is a very dangerous route to go down because that is very difficult to prove anything just sitting here. Theories end up being facts and feeding further theories. How can the will be proven to be fake? It's just conjecture IMO. I also think Jermaine is seriously loving taking centre stage now MJ is not there. If this hoax was planned, how did Jermaine manage to make such a mess of the tribute in Vienna and would he want him organising a tribute? Would he also want his children to be filmed at his 'burial'? Would he ever willfully put his children on camera to play a part in the hoax? To me, there are so many things that have happened that he wouldn't have done if he organised his hoaxed death. I think a lot of what has happened has to do with money and exploiting someone's fame and talent for their own benefit. Let's not forget the Jackson brothers haven't been active for years, and now right after MJ's death they've never been so busy. This includes Janet who's releasing an album. It's all so distasteful. I can't imagine any of this being part of a planned hoax, unless MJ said 'hey, milk my death for all it's worth, it's your last chance to make some real money!'. I think the reason there is so much speculation surrounding his death is because so few details have been released authoritatively and some people are lying to cover their backs. It's an equal probability.

by THE JACKSONOLOGIST Thu Nov 12, 2009 2:33 pm

I think Jermaine jumped at the fact that MJ would be gone for awhile and decided to cash in....as everyone else has done. the Vienna concert was JERMAINES doing and no one else's.

And MJ revealed his kids a few weeks before the death on HIS terms. There is a thread as to why he did this on here....

Janet doesnt need the money...she was working on her album before all of this happened.

by neverlandprincess Thu Nov 12, 2009 2:41 pm

About revealing the kids-I have seen several pics with him holding Blanket as a toddler and his face is not covered-just a few candid shots-then there are those pro shots that most have seen (like the one with Paris kissing him) So did he really UNVEIL them just weeks before June 25th? For alot of people the memorial was the first time they had really seen them-but there are pics out there of them without a mask on.

by SPAKKLE29FUL Thu Nov 12, 2009 2:54 pm

And look at how many HOME? movies of the kids have appeared ,those movies belonged to michael,most were done at neverland,also on tmz harvey said that the will is valid and that it would be approved funny this was yesterday

by ILuvUMoreMJ Thu Nov 12, 2009 5:20 pm

QuirkyDiana wrote:
THE JACKSONOLOGIST wrote:We have yet to see ANYTHING go on inside the courtroom. NOTHING. Zilch. Nada.

The will is fake and its fake for a reason. Do you really think MJ would leave this many questions if it were real?

He is a perfectionist.....remember that!!

So everything we see/hear is fabricated? I think that is a very dangerous route to go down because that is very difficult to prove anything just sitting here. Theories end up being facts and feeding further theories. How can the will be proven to be fake? It's just conjecture IMO. I also think Jermaine is seriously loving taking centre stage now MJ is not there. If this hoax was planned, how did Jermaine manage to make such a mess of the tribute in Vienna and would he want him organising a tribute? Would he also want his children to be filmed at his 'burial'? Would he ever willfully put his children on camera to play a part in the hoax? To me, there are so many things that have happened that he wouldn't have done if he organised his hoaxed death. I think a lot of what has happened has to do with money and exploiting someone's fame and talent for their own benefit. Let's not forget the Jackson brothers haven't been active for years, and now right after MJ's death they've never been so busy. This includes Janet who's releasing an album. It's all so distasteful. I can't imagine any of this being part of a planned hoax, unless MJ said 'hey, milk my death for all it's worth, it's your last chance to make some real money!'. I think the reason there is so much speculation surrounding his death is because so few details have been released authoritatively and some people are lying to cover their backs. It's an equal probability.

This is what I've been thinking all along as well. I wish there was a better explanation.

by Skeletonjar Thu Nov 12, 2009 5:26 pm

As if michael would give his secret to any tabloid! they sell anything for money and imagine the kind of money this would pull if they had proof that he is still alive.

Careful what you believe. You say you don't like media but you trust what they say?
Only trust Michael and Elizabeth taylor

by SPAKKLE29FUL Thu Nov 12, 2009 5:38 pm

if there was just 1 funeral i just might have let this whole thing go,but there has been a public memorial,private memorial then a semi private funeral.look how famous princess diana was and still is there was just one service for her and then she was taken straight away to be buried.also just look at all the confusion surrounding the whole death .murray admits giving propofol, ruled cause of death ,he is a free man,the jackson family or any other noteable person has not questioned this why? when diana died her brother and everyone were screaming for justice no one stayed silent and as or jermaine and latoya they are making as much money as they can. latoya was gonna name the people she said murded michael this was month ago im still waitng for those names dont think he is dead cos he aint

by Skeletonjar Thu Nov 12, 2009 5:42 pm

sparkle i think she was refering to the illuminati and if she is that would be extremely hard to give names as it is a conspiracy and the people who are involved would never be prosecuted anyway

i still miss princess diana Sad

she was amazing just like michael

by techdiva Thu Nov 12, 2009 7:59 pm

Did anyone notice that Prince Michael name is wrong on the will? It should be Prince Michael Joseph Jackson, I, not Prince Michael Jackson, Jr.

by Sponsored content

According to TMZ the will is good and there is no mistake!

According to TMZ the will is good and there is no mistake!

Re: According to TMZ the will is good and there is no mistake!

Re: According to TMZ the will is good and there is no mistake!

Re: According to TMZ the will is good and there is no mistake!

Re: According to TMZ the will is good and there is no mistake!

Re: According to TMZ the will is good and there is no mistake!

Re: According to TMZ the will is good and there is no mistake!

Re: According to TMZ the will is good and there is no mistake!

Re: According to TMZ the will is good and there is no mistake!

Re: According to TMZ the will is good and there is no mistake!

Re: According to TMZ the will is good and there is no mistake!

Re: According to TMZ the will is good and there is no mistake!

Re: According to TMZ the will is good and there is no mistake!

Re: According to TMZ the will is good and there is no mistake!

Re: According to TMZ the will is good and there is no mistake!

Re: According to TMZ the will is good and there is no mistake!

Re: According to TMZ the will is good and there is no mistake!

Re: According to TMZ the will is good and there is no mistake!

Re: According to TMZ the will is good and there is no mistake!

Re: According to TMZ the will is good and there is no mistake!

Re: According to TMZ the will is good and there is no mistake!

Re: According to TMZ the will is good and there is no mistake!

Re: According to TMZ the will is good and there is no mistake!

Re: According to TMZ the will is good and there is no mistake!

Re: According to TMZ the will is good and there is no mistake!

Re: According to TMZ the will is good and there is no mistake!

Re: According to TMZ the will is good and there is no mistake!

Re: According to TMZ the will is good and there is no mistake!

Re: According to TMZ the will is good and there is no mistake!

Re: According to TMZ the will is good and there is no mistake!

Re: According to TMZ the will is good and there is no mistake!

Re: According to TMZ the will is good and there is no mistake!

Re: According to TMZ the will is good and there is no mistake!

Re: According to TMZ the will is good and there is no mistake!

Re: According to TMZ the will is good and there is no mistake!

Re: According to TMZ the will is good and there is no mistake!

Re: According to TMZ the will is good and there is no mistake!