I know why the kids IDs were revealed just weeks before 6/25

by bec Tue Aug 11, 2009 11:16 am

To protect them.

Common sense and logic, it will lead you to the truth.

Under California law, DNA is irrelevant when it comes to questioning parentage IF the child was born into a marraige AND the parents names are entered on the birth certificate AND the parentage is not challenged for 3 years.

So, many rumors are flying that Prince and Paris are not bio-kids to MJ, right? Blanket on the other hand, most believe is MJs bio-kid.

Here, i'll break it down slowly.

Rumors are flying following MJs "death". These rumors would be easily foreseen following the death of MJ, as he is MJ, and his life was shrouded in one big rumor and ugly press, it only stands to reason that the gossip would intensify following his passing. The kids and their parentage are an obvious topic of debate, considering their complexion and the secrecy surrounding them. It's a no-brainer that they would be the subject of speculation and rumor, right? The very reason MJ protected them their whole lives by concealing their identities.

So, a couple weeks before 6/25, Paris and Prince are seen in public for the very first time unmasked.

WHY???

Well, if you follow logic and common sense and look at state law, the reason is obvious.

Because Paris and Prince were unmasked shortly before 6/25 we KNOW they are the MJ kids, under the definition of California law. They were born to Debbie Rowe while she was married to MJ, his name is on the BC, and they are obviously living with MJ as his children, thanks to the pic we have from early June, no one would (or has) contested these facts.

If anyone comes forward now and claims parentage by DNA, and it MATCHES.... well too bad, under CA law, the time for contesting parentage has run out years ago and it cannot be challenged in court. It is too late by 8 years or so. They were born to a married couple, MJ is on the BC, and the kids have lived with MJ as their father from birth. CA law prevents anyone, even a bio-parent, not listed on the BC, from coming forward and gaining custody.

IF, however, we had not seen these kids unmasked in early June, one or both of their bio fathers could come forward and try to take them away claiming DNA match AND making some crazy claim that the kid(s) never lived with MJ at all and the claim that MJ acted as parent all these years to this particular kid (Paris or Prince or both) is a lie.

In other words, if MJ wasn't seen with them recently, it could be argued in court that Paris and Prince are not the same little kids seen in old home movies or family photos, and with a DNA match, someone could make a legal argument for taking them away, totally within CA law.

But those unmasked pics from early June make this imposible, within the stipulation of the state law, regardless of DNA.

Got all that? Hopefully. Because it shows extreme forethought and the great painS Michael went through to ensure all this was done within legal guidelines ahead of time. All the i's were dotted, all the t's crossed, perfection, right down to the legal framework of the plan.

Brilliant, and logical. Common sense, it will lead us to the truth.

by THE JACKSONOLOGIST Tue Aug 11, 2009 11:31 am

when I saw that pic of him and the 2 older kids back before his death..I was so happy to finally see them. Then after he died and then showing them at the memorial, one of the first things I wondered was "did he show them in public on purpose? "

Yes, he did. And I wasnt aware of California law at the time regarding this but I thought the exact thing you mentioned above. To protect those kids by allowing them to be seen WITH him in public so there was no question as to wether or not they WERE his kids after showing them at the memorial.

by mir26 Tue Aug 11, 2009 11:38 am

yeah this makes very much sense,great thinking Very Happy

by Another.Part.Of.Me Tue Aug 11, 2009 11:44 am

Well done Bec compiling that into one post Very Happy

I only found out that CA law detail - that Michael is the undisputed parent of the children - last night on the TMZ live stream (don't laugh, I know TMZ isn't credible but last nights stream was the funniest thing ever), Harvey explained it then and it made sense to me - this is why I keep harping on about the DNA/paternity tests not happening.
Michael really did plan this to perfection.

by bec Tue Aug 11, 2009 11:53 am

Another.Part.Of.Me wrote:Well done Bec compiling that into one post
I only found out that CA law detail - that Michael is the undisputed parent of the children - last night on the TMZ live stream (don't laugh, I know TMZ isn't credible but last nights stream was the funniest thing ever), Harvey explained it then and it made sense to me - this is why I keep harping on about the DNA/paternity tests not happening.
Michael really did plan this to perfection.

Yes. And all those people saying he can never make a come back because of the legal aspect...

I betcha a million bucks not one single law has been broken here.

No "real" body=no manslaughter or murder charges.

Betcha every single Rx written to and filled out for MJ was done legally. Diprivan is NOT a controlled substance and you do NOT need a license to administer.

Life Ins has been debunked on the other forum, successfully.

We are left with a fake 911 call as the sole law broken. IF the 911 call is real. Which most doubt.

MJ would most certainly surround himself with the best lawyers. He may have even consulted with them on a "hypothetical" basis... as in, "IF someone were to, say, fake a death, could it be done without commiting a crime?... yes? Oh do tell more... tell me everything..."

Or, maybe they are all in on it. Who knows. It could be done either way.

by summer+sc3nt Tue Aug 11, 2009 11:56 am

Oh wow! Thanks for telling us Bec.. It's comforting to know that now one will be able to get Michael's children.

by summer+sc3nt Tue Aug 11, 2009 11:57 am

bec wrote:
Another.Part.Of.Me wrote:Well done Bec compiling that into one post
I only found out that CA law detail - that Michael is the undisputed parent of the children - last night on the TMZ live stream (don't laugh, I know TMZ isn't credible but last nights stream was the funniest thing ever), Harvey explained it then and it made sense to me - this is why I keep harping on about the DNA/paternity tests not happening.
Michael really did plan this to perfection.

Yes. And all those people saying he can never make a come back because of the legal aspect...

I betcha a million bucks not one single law has been broken here.

No "real" body=no manslaughter or murder charges.

Betcha every single Rx written to and filled out for MJ was done legally. Diprivan is NOT a controlled substance and you do NOT need a license to administer.

Life Ins has been debunked on the other forum, successfully.

We are left with a fake 911 call as the sole law broken. IF the 911 call is real. Which most doubt.

MJ would most certainly surround himself with the best lawyers. He may have even consulted with them on a "hypothetical" basis... as in, "IF someone were to, say, fake a death, could it be done without commiting a crime?... yes? Oh do tell more... tell me everything..."

Or, maybe they are all in on it. Who knows. It could be done either way.

Thank you so much... You've made my day!

by lovelidae Tue Aug 11, 2009 11:58 am

Great Job Bec! I never could put my finger on why the kids where revealed shortly before the "death"/disappearance of MJ, but I knew it was out of character.

This plan is ingenious. He took out every precaution, he is truly one of the greatest minds the world will ever know.

Pure genius!

by bec Tue Aug 11, 2009 12:00 pm

Let's see how long it takes for this revelation to show up on MJHD board under someone elses's username pirat

.

by Silence Tue Aug 11, 2009 12:03 pm

@ bec great post if the facts are right (and I'm sure they are)

by Silence Tue Aug 11, 2009 12:04 pm

lovelidae wrote:Great Job Bec! I never could put my finger on why the kids where revealed shortly before the "death"/disappearance of MJ, but I knew it was out of character.

This plan is ingenious. He took out every precaution, he is truly one of the greatest minds the world will ever know.

Pure genius!

well, it seems he had a good lawyer working there...

by Another.Part.Of.Me Tue Aug 11, 2009 12:08 pm

bec wrote:
Another.Part.Of.Me wrote:Well done Bec compiling that into one post
I only found out that CA law detail - that Michael is the undisputed parent of the children - last night on the TMZ live stream (don't laugh, I know TMZ isn't credible but last nights stream was the funniest thing ever), Harvey explained it then and it made sense to me - this is why I keep harping on about the DNA/paternity tests not happening.
Michael really did plan this to perfection.

Yes. And all those people saying he can never make a come back because of the legal aspect...

I betcha a million bucks not one single law has been broken here.

No "real" body=no manslaughter or murder charges.

Betcha every single Rx written to and filled out for MJ was done legally. Diprivan is NOT a controlled substance and you do NOT need a license to administer.

Life Ins has been debunked on the other forum, successfully.

We are left with a fake 911 call as the sole law broken. IF the 911 call is real. Which most doubt.

MJ would most certainly surround himself with the best lawyers. He may have even consulted with them on a "hypothetical" basis... as in, "IF someone were to, say, fake a death, could it be done without commiting a crime?... yes? Oh do tell more... tell me everything..."
I Love this line lol,
Or, maybe they are all in on it. Who knows. It could be done either way.

MJ would have checked and double-checked everything to perfection, he's a perfectionist, everything is a deliberate step and deliberately done. It's just a matter of the right people looking at it and picking up on the clues left behind.
I also think he may have 'consulted' Harvey from TMZ because he's a lawyer, what about legal advice in return for the scoop of the century? I'm betting there is nothing illegal at all, and not one law has been broken too.
The fake 911 call is an issue I admit, although what's to say that a 50 year old employee, security guard, bin man, gardener whatever stopped breathing on that day, or another day and that's the 911 call they released? The call makes no mention of MJ whatsoever, it could easily have been someone else who was taken ill, and voila, no illegality.

by Human_nature Tue Aug 11, 2009 12:13 pm

Wherever, whatever, have a nice day !

by THE JACKSONOLOGIST Tue Aug 11, 2009 12:21 pm

Uh...I thought you had to be an anesthesiologist (I cannot spell that word!!) to administer diprovan?

@Human_nature.....I may be wrong here and if so please correct me, but as far as Ive seen the only vids of MJ with his kids are those private home vids and the kids are alot younger so it would still be a question as to wether they were his or not. Considering the age gap between the videos and now.

by Human_nature Tue Aug 11, 2009 12:28 pm

Wherever, whatever, have a nice day !

by shirley-grace Tue Aug 11, 2009 12:38 pm

bec!
You are great!

It really makes sence. sunny

by jpresley Tue Aug 11, 2009 12:39 pm

Great analysis Bec! I posted something similiar on the other forum but didn't go into the detail you did and certainly didn't research specific CA law.

I know from personal family experience that it is EXTREMELY hard to remove children conceived in a marriage where both parents names are on the birth certificate. I have also seen news shows (either Dateline or 20/20 I think) on this subject where the guy got cheated on, realized the kid wasn't his and went to court to fight paying child support because the child wasn't biologically his. He lost, over and over on every appeal. I can't remember which specific state this case was in, but he took it all the way to the top and the state supreme court ruled against him too. So, he divorced his wife and has no contact w/ the kid, but he pays a ton in monthly child support. The courts time and again will do what is in the best interest of the child.

by beachgirl Tue Aug 11, 2009 12:58 pm

Great post bec. Thanks for sharing Smile

by Guest Tue Aug 11, 2009 1:51 pm

No law has been broken what so ever.

Michael needed time off to relax, and gain his strengh I hope.

I need to Hope.

Hope is the only thing I have left.

I miss him so much.

I just wish for him to be happy.

by doonbuggy Tue Aug 11, 2009 1:58 pm

The fake 911 call is an issue I admit, although what's to say that a 50 year old employee, security guard, bin man, gardener whatever stopped breathing on that day, or another day and that's the 911 call they released? The call makes no mention of MJ whatsoever, it could easily have been someone else who was taken ill, and voila, no illegality.

Afterall, there were TWO ambulances, right?? Question

by Another.Part.Of.Me Tue Aug 11, 2009 2:01 pm

Human_nature wrote:
THE JACKSONOLOGIST wrote:Uh...I thought you had to be an anesthesiologist (I cannot spell that word!!) to administer diprovan?

@Human_nature.....I may be wrong here and if so please correct me, but as far as Ive seen the only vids of MJ with his kids are those private home vids and the kids are alot younger so it would still be a question as to wether they were his or not. Considering the age gap between the videos and now.

No, I saw many other videos and pictures, and yes this is private videos. They have alot more than what we saw.
They can prove they lived with Michael without public pictures. (papers, teachers, pictures, videos..ect...)

I think he really needed the tabloids and mainstream media to show that the kids were his and were with him. This is why there were the unmasked appearances this year. The comic book visit, the walking in the streets pictures etc.
It's easy for people [like Mark Lester, the Jacksons etc] to say that they are his kids but that is not 100% proof and people would question or dismiss (or ignore!) what those people say, but you can't deny something which has been splashed in the pages of the world's media. Michael and his children walking together, shopping together etc. now, this year - not 5 years ago in the home pictures or the Private Home Videos

by Human_nature Tue Aug 11, 2009 2:08 pm

Wherever, whatever, have a nice day !

by Another.Part.Of.Me Tue Aug 11, 2009 2:10 pm

Human_nature wrote:if you want

I just wrote my opinion

I'm not criticising you, I just put my own take on it, I'm glad that you put your opinion, you should do it more often Very Happy

That's the whole point of the forum, everyone puts their thoughts, facts and opinions down so that we can get to the bottom of this together.

by Human_nature Tue Aug 11, 2009 2:15 pm

Wherever, whatever, have a nice day !

by Lorrie Tue Aug 11, 2009 3:09 pm

Excellent observations and analysis, bec, although I must give due props (praise/respect) to Human_nature for providing an equally valid counterpoint. Thanks to both of you.

I think the truth -- meaning Michael's motive for revealing the children in public shortly before his "death" -- falls between both of your observations. There's no doubt he has many more private home movies that the public has never seen and that show all three children at an older age. That would be proof enough of his legal status as their parent ... in a world far more perfect than the one we live in now.

However, Michael realizes more than most people just how huge a role the media plays in what the public believes AND how quickly and deeply the public believes something. Never underestimate the power of sheep. Baa!

Revealing the children's faces in front of paparazzi was the ideal way to go in order to convince the most people the fastest that Prince I, Paris, and Blanket are indisputably his children. Therefore, the "public unveiling" was also the ideal way to avoid any future legal disasters arising from other people claiming to be their actual parents.

by Thetruth Tue Aug 11, 2009 4:18 pm

Intresting observation it makes sense.

by Guest Tue Aug 11, 2009 4:25 pm

well said! It just proves that he knew what he was doing and his so-called 'death' was infact, premedidated to the T.

by dunno_it Tue Aug 11, 2009 5:48 pm

I agree with U guys! Also, I found that Blanket does NOT believe his father is dead so.....hmmmm. The source is not trustworthy though...
http://celebrifi.com/gossip/Michael-Jacksons-young-son-thinks-his-fathers-alive-569573.html

by yaya Tue Aug 11, 2009 5:58 pm

dunno_it wrote:I agree with U guys! Also, I found that Blanket does NOT believe his father is dead so.....hmmmm. The source is not trustworthy though...
http://celebrifi.com/gossip/Michael-Jacksons-young-son-thinks-his-fathers-alive-569573.html

whoa, that one is news to me! you're right, the source isn't a reliable one, but it does make you think...

by Rach Tue Aug 11, 2009 6:03 pm

Thanks so much for posting Bec, this is a great thread! If I knew how to sticky it I would do!

Michael was a very smart man and the press brushed him off as being a "wacko" and "weird". I cannot wait to see their faces and the headlines when Michael makes his comeback and shows them up for what they are!!

by Banessa Tue Aug 11, 2009 6:14 pm

Thanks for posting this bec! It makes so much more sense now after my brain cells have been refreshed a bit lol

by bec Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:27 pm

Lorrie wrote:However, Michael realizes more than most people just how huge a role the media plays in what the public believes AND how quickly and deeply the public believes something. Never underestimate the power of sheep. Baa!

Revealing the children's faces in front of paparazzi was the ideal way to go in order to convince the most people the fastest that Prince I, Paris, and Blanket are indisputably his children. Therefore, the "public unveiling" was also the ideal way to avoid any future legal disasters arising from other people claiming to be their actual parents.

Yes. This. Michael likely learned his lesson from the molestation trials. The court of public opinion is not to be underestimated. The media shapes our reality in some scarily powerful ways. MJ did nothing illegal or even malicious, yet he could have done 20 years hard time *just like that*, all because one person lied and the media ran with it, the posibility became very very real.

If the media doubts you, the public will doubt you. If the public doubts you, good luck with that fair trial.

Michael probably knows better then anyone this lesson. So, if he's going to do a death hoax he's going to make sure there are no chances taken with the kids. No loopholes, no rumors, no speculation, no lies, no chances, no masks. Getting the media on board with the kids IDs was an essential piece of the setup for this to go off without a hitch.

Michael, you're so damn cute when you're brilliant.

by Reflection Wed Aug 12, 2009 6:49 am

bec wrote:Let's see how long it takes for this revelation to show up on MJHD board under someone elses's username .

Bec, why don't you post this information on MJHD yourself? You could provide a link back to this post as well. If someone were to post this info under their username, they should have the decency to credit you.

by just_friend Wed Aug 12, 2009 7:04 am

this is SO GREAT!
Thanx, bec!!! Smile

by summer+sc3nt Wed Aug 12, 2009 7:22 am

Reflection wrote:
bec wrote:Let's see how long it takes for this revelation to show up on MJHD board under someone elses's username .

Bec, why don't you post this information on MJHD yourself? You could provide a link back to this post as well. If someone were to post this info under their username, they should have the decency to credit you.

Yes Bec, not sure if you're a member there still but I think 'Reflection' is right. You should post it over there too. See it this way, you get to see what people has to say about it too. You might not think much of it but do not let others claim credits for you hard work.. It isn't so bad over there since Shouza is their Moderator too. I'm mostly over here though but you get more info on Michael by being on both sites.. Just a thought...

by MJJ Love Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:08 pm

Wow, that was a great breakdown. The 1st I said to myself when I saw the pics of the children with MJ at the beginning of June, was that it was odd, they were photographed unmasked. And then after he "passed", I felt there was some significance as to why we saw the children publicly unmasked.

My question is why not Blanket? I wondered where Blanket was? Like why not unmask him as well if that was his purpose? Does that mean anything?

by Another.Part.Of.Me Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:11 pm

Al B. Sure! Love wrote:Wow, that was a great breakdown. The 1st I said to myself when I saw the pics of the children with MJ at the beginning of June, was that it was odd, they were photographed unmasked. And then after he "passed", I felt there was some significance as to why we saw the children publicly unmasked.

My question is why not Blanket? I wondered where Blanket was? Like why not unmask him as well if that was his purpose? Does that mean anything?

Blanket was unmasked in the comic book shop

by MJJ Love Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:15 pm

Another.Part.Of.Me wrote:
Al B. Sure! Love wrote:Wow, that was a great breakdown. The 1st I said to myself when I saw the pics of the children with MJ at the beginning of June, was that it was odd, they were photographed unmasked. And then after he "passed", I felt there was some significance as to why we saw the children publicly unmasked.

My question is why not Blanket? I wondered where Blanket was? Like why not unmask him as well if that was his purpose? Does that mean anything?
Blanket was unmasked in the comic book shop

Ok, that's right......
Thank you. Wink

by Another.Part.Of.Me Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:31 pm

No worries Very Happy

by bec Wed Aug 12, 2009 5:47 pm

Another.Part.Of.Me wrote:
Al B. Sure! Love wrote:Wow, that was a great breakdown. The 1st I said to myself when I saw the pics of the children with MJ at the beginning of June, was that it was odd, they were photographed unmasked. And then after he "passed", I felt there was some significance as to why we saw the children publicly unmasked.

My question is why not Blanket? I wondered where Blanket was? Like why not unmask him as well if that was his purpose? Does that mean anything?
Blanket was unmasked in the comic book shop

Also, pretty sure he's bio... (awkward, sorry, I don't like to discuss this so I'll leave it at that and let you come to your own conclusion.

by bec Wed Aug 12, 2009 5:50 pm

Reflection wrote:
bec wrote:Let's see how long it takes for this revelation to show up on MJHD board under someone elses's username .

Bec, why don't you post this information on MJHD yourself? You could provide a link back to this post as well. If someone were to post this info under their username, they should have the decency to credit you.

This needs to be here, not over there. There's a time and a place for everything. This is the place for this info. I have strong feelings about that.

It's not a matter of decency and credit and hard work and all, I didn't work hard or come up with something that another person couldn't figure out just as easily... that's not it, doesn't bother me in any case. There's just a time and a place, you know?

by Rach Wed Aug 12, 2009 5:54 pm

Bec, just to let you know I made this a sticky topic because I think it's an amazing observation!

by couplebit Wed Aug 12, 2009 6:03 pm

Great post bec. Good point about the media and the public. Michael likely did learn his lesson and of course he knows how to use the media to his advantage.

by Souza81 Thu Aug 13, 2009 7:22 am

Wow, good job! It makes perfect sense!

We could also conclude from it, that Paris and prince are not biological, because he made this precautions. Blanket on the other hand he did not reveale, so big chance he is biological.

Not that it matters, or makes any difference, was just a thought...

by Another.Part.Of.Me Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:12 pm

Blanket was revealed with the other kids that day in the comic book shop months ago.
http://www.nypost.com/photos/galleries/gossip/celebp/20081011_michael_jackson/photo05.jpg

by StenniZ Fri Aug 14, 2009 6:22 am

Excellent thinking bec! Very Happy

by endlessfire Fri Aug 14, 2009 7:59 am

not to be negative but, the kids could have been unmasked because he thought they were old enough to handle it now. and let's leave room for the possiblity that they are his biological children. just because they don't look just like him really isn't proof that they aren't his. i have a cousin who doesn't look a thing like either of his parents. and the kids aren't much 'lighter' than most of the jacksons. some bi-racial children's skin color gets darker the older they get. and in my opinion prince and blanket have michaels eyes. this is purely my opinion, so take it as such and not fact

by Guest Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:08 am

I think that Michael at some point, asked the children if they wanted to wear the scarf or the masks, and if they said no, it would be fine for him.

He would NEVER make his children do something they dont wanna do. He is not that kinda parent

by Human_nature Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:11 am

Wherever, whatever, have a nice day !

by silvy Tue Aug 18, 2009 3:15 pm

This really makes sense!Good Job!

by Sponsored content