Re: Michael JOE Jackson is NOT Michael JOSEPH Jackson at all?O.o

by ilprincipe Sun Aug 30, 2009 11:54 am

good observation ballon...so no one will get in trouble Smile

by Another.Part.Of.Me Sun Aug 30, 2009 11:54 am

Rachel wrote:Ok so let me make sure I have this right, and sorry if I sound like a fool!

The 2001 will is a fake and was released to us to impy that there WAS a will and we wouldn't question the "death" but it is in fact a fake and therefore void, which would mean no crime had been commited if this was ever taken to court?

I hope that made sense!!!

Yup yup! The 2002 Will
P.S. I want to see Michael jump out in court too lol lol!

by Rach Sun Aug 30, 2009 11:56 am

Ok great, I feel like I am on the same page as you all now!

Sorry it's taken me so long but I knew I would get there ahahhahah!

by ilprincipe Sun Aug 30, 2009 11:58 am

*lol* @ rach....

this just crossed my mind.

the MJJ thing was all the time in front of our eyes...just like JCC predicted..

by ballongiraf Sun Aug 30, 2009 11:59 am

Another.Part.Of.Me wrote:
Rachel wrote:Ok so let me make sure I have this right, and sorry if I sound like a fool!

The 2001 will is a fake and was released to us to impy that there WAS a will and we wouldn't question the "death" but it is in fact a fake and therefore void, which would mean no crime had been commited if this was ever taken to court?

I hope that made sense!!!
Yup yup! The 2002 Will
P.S. I want to see Michael jump out in court too lol

if we asume that's the truth, then the administrators the court has appointed for MJ's estate have no legal rights to do anything on MJ's behalf, i would think?

by Rach Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:00 pm

ilprincipe wrote:*lol* @ rach....

this just crossed my mind.

the MJJ thing was all the time in front of our eyes...just like JCC predicted..

Yeah that's true. Before all this happened we just assumed that Joe was a shortened version of Joseph. Good observation!

by ilprincipe Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:00 pm

so M. JOE Jackson still pulls the strings, ballon?

by Another.Part.Of.Me Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:01 pm

ballongiraf wrote:
Another.Part.Of.Me wrote:
Rachel wrote:Ok so let me make sure I have this right, and sorry if I sound like a fool!

The 2001 will is a fake and was released to us to impy that there WAS a will and we wouldn't question the "death" but it is in fact a fake and therefore void, which would mean no crime had been commited if this was ever taken to court?

I hope that made sense!!!
Yup yup! The 2002 Will
P.S. I want to see Michael jump out in court too lol

if we asume that's the truth, then the administrators the court has appointed for MJ's estate have no legal rights to do anything on MJ's behalf, i would think?

Seeing as all the court papers are sealed or redacted - esp the ones to do with finance and deals - we'll never know because we can't access the majority of the Estate's and Administrators dealing or filings in Court

by ilprincipe Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:01 pm

@ rach....1640 incredible posts....diamond member...get a life!
just kidding...

I'm already proud to have reached the gold status yesterday *lol*

by Rach Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:03 pm

ilprincipe wrote:@ rach....1640 incredible posts....diamond member...get a life!
just kidding...

I'm already proud to have reached the gold status yesterday *lol*

I know - I so do need a life! Do you know where I can buy one?????

by ilprincipe Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:03 pm

Another.Part.Of.Me wrote:
ballongiraf wrote:
Another.Part.Of.Me wrote:
Rachel wrote:Ok so let me make sure I have this right, and sorry if I sound like a fool!

The 2001 will is a fake and was released to us to impy that there WAS a will and we wouldn't question the "death" but it is in fact a fake and therefore void, which would mean no crime had been commited if this was ever taken to court?

I hope that made sense!!!
Yup yup! The 2002 Will
P.S. I want to see Michael jump out in court too lol

if we asume that's the truth, then the administrators the court has appointed for MJ's estate have no legal rights to do anything on MJ's behalf, i would think?
Seeing as all the court papers are sealed or redacted - esp the ones to do with finance and deals - we'll never know because we can't access the majority of the Estate's and Administrators dealing or filings in Court

referring to this I really would be interested in the opinion of JEWELL from MJHD...
I didn't see current posts from her since the last days...

by ballongiraf Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:05 pm

Another.Part.Of.Me wrote:
ballongiraf wrote:
Another.Part.Of.Me wrote:
Rachel wrote:Ok so let me make sure I have this right, and sorry if I sound like a fool!

The 2001 will is a fake and was released to us to impy that there WAS a will and we wouldn't question the "death" but it is in fact a fake and therefore void, which would mean no crime had been commited if this was ever taken to court?

I hope that made sense!!!
Yup yup! The 2002 Will
P.S. I want to see Michael jump out in court too lol

if we asume that's the truth, then the administrators the court has appointed for MJ's estate have no legal rights to do anything on MJ's behalf, i would think?
Seeing as all the court papers are sealed or redacted - esp the ones to do with finance and deals - we'll never know because we can't access the majority of the Estate's and Administrators dealing or filings in Court

yeah, i know everything is sealed, i was just thinking out loud. If the administrators have been appointed on basis of a fake will, then legally do they have any legal rights to act on MJ's behalf?
Also, a fake will, "administrators" and "custody" given to his mother would be a brilliant way to make the public think he's gone and others have taken over, while he's actually still the one in control.....

again, just thinking out loud.... Embarassed

by Another.Part.Of.Me Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:06 pm

ilprincipe wrote:
Another.Part.Of.Me wrote:
ballongiraf wrote:
Another.Part.Of.Me wrote:
Rachel wrote:Ok so let me make sure I have this right, and sorry if I sound like a fool!

The 2001 will is a fake and was released to us to impy that there WAS a will and we wouldn't question the "death" but it is in fact a fake and therefore void, which would mean no crime had been commited if this was ever taken to court?

I hope that made sense!!!
Yup yup! The 2002 Will
P.S. I want to see Michael jump out in court too lol

if we asume that's the truth, then the administrators the court has appointed for MJ's estate have no legal rights to do anything on MJ's behalf, i would think?
Seeing as all the court papers are sealed or redacted - esp the ones to do with finance and deals - we'll never know because we can't access the majority of the Estate's and Administrators dealing or filings in Court

referring to this I really would be interested in the opinion of JEWELL from MJHD...
I didn't see current posts from her since the last days...

I wouldn't - no offence - I don't agree with any of her posts because I've read her take on them on MJHD and she insists that the names make no difference to the documents themselves and that in America they are allowed to put the wrong names on documents like Wills and they'll still be valid.
Etc Etc etc.

by Guest Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:07 pm

Guys u have to see Souzas thread on MJDH its amazing, she points out all the loopholes and the theory, its amazing please read it all she goes through step by step, and it doent appear to be any fraudulent behaviour.

http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxdeath.com/?page_id=293/hoax-death/this-is-it-the-cardiff-giant-the-hoax-within-the-hoax-a-fake-of-a-fake-is-not-fraud

by Rach Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:08 pm

Deb wrote:Guys u have to see Souzas thread on MJDH its amazing, she points out all the loopholes and the theory, its amazing please read it all she goes through step by step, and it doent appear to be any fraudulent behaviour.

[url=http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxdeath.com/?page_id=293/hoax-death/this-is-it-the-cardiff-giant-the-hoax-within-the-hoax-a-fake-of-a-fake-is-not-fraud

http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxdeath.com/?page_id=293/hoax-death/this-is-it-the-cardiff-giant-the-hoax-within-the-hoax-a-fake-of-a-fake-is-not-fraud[/quote[/url]]

I read it Deb and it is very good. A lot of hard work went into that Smile

by Another.Part.Of.Me Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:09 pm

ballongiraf wrote:
yeah, i know everything is sealed, i was just thinking out loud. If the administrators have been appointed on basis of a fake will, then legally do they have any legal rights to act on MJ's behalf?
Also, a fake will, "administrators" and "custody" given to his mother would be a brilliant way to make the public think he's gone and others have taken over, while he's actually still the one in control.....

again, just thinking out loud....

No, I completely agree with you in what you wrote above ^^
The clever thing about this is that no one can access any official documentation from the hearings to verify it properly because it's all sealed.
This means that MJ could still be pulling the strings, making the deals using Branca as his face/mouth and raking in the cash for his family and the Trust. It's genius.

by emo_pinkt Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:10 pm

Another.Part.Of.Me wrote:
ilprincipe wrote:
Another.Part.Of.Me wrote:
ballongiraf wrote:
Another.Part.Of.Me wrote:
Rachel wrote:Ok so let me make sure I have this right, and sorry if I sound like a fool!

The 2001 will is a fake and was released to us to impy that there WAS a will and we wouldn't question the "death" but it is in fact a fake and therefore void, which would mean no crime had been commited if this was ever taken to court?

I hope that made sense!!!
Yup yup! The 2002 Will
P.S. I want to see Michael jump out in court too lol

if we asume that's the truth, then the administrators the court has appointed for MJ's estate have no legal rights to do anything on MJ's behalf, i would think?
Seeing as all the court papers are sealed or redacted - esp the ones to do with finance and deals - we'll never know because we can't access the majority of the Estate's and Administrators dealing or filings in Court

referring to this I really would be interested in the opinion of JEWELL from MJHD...
I didn't see current posts from her since the last days...
I wouldn't - no offence - I don't agree with any of her posts because I've read her take on them on MJHD and she insists that the names make no difference to the documents themselves and that in America they are allowed to put the wrong names on documents like Wills and they'll still be valid.
Etc Etc etc.

I'm sure that she'll come up with "google proof" to support her claim. My Uncle in law is a Judge. I'll have to get some credit and call him and ask him if its legal to use the shortened version of your name on a court document.

by ilprincipe Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:11 pm

@ APOM: oh..it seems that I missed her comments...
I dislike her whole view either...but I was just interested if she would
have arguments..and what you have quoted from her is for me no argument Smile

@deb: Already read it..it's great...and I have to admit more credible than
annies new theory -no offense annie-
just more convincing for me ....

by Guest Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:11 pm

This is why its imperative John Branca and John Mclain stay as executors and it was stated no one can contest the will!!! They are in on the hoax death, who else could he truly trust with his finances only JOHN BRANCA!!

by Guest Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:15 pm

@AnotherPartOfMe 'This means that MJ could still be pulling the strings, making the deals using Branca as his face/mouth and raking in the cash for his family and the Trust. It's genius.'

I just seen this EXACTLY EXACTLY, he knew he wouldnt rip him off, hes the only one he can trust, i can just see MJ and Branca conducting MJ Estate meetings...oh wow!!

by ballongiraf Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:16 pm

Another.Part.Of.Me wrote:
ballongiraf wrote:
yeah, i know everything is sealed, i was just thinking out loud. If the administrators have been appointed on basis of a fake will, then legally do they have any legal rights to act on MJ's behalf?
Also, a fake will, "administrators" and "custody" given to his mother would be a brilliant way to make the public think he's gone and others have taken over, while he's actually still the one in control.....

again, just thinking out loud....
No, I completely agree with you in what you wrote above ^^
The clever thing about this is that no one can access any official documentation from the hearings to verify it properly because it's all sealed.
This means that MJ could still be pulling the strings, making the deals using Branca as his face/mouth and raking in the cash for his family and the Trust. It's genius.

that's my take on it too. Plus, if you take info consideration that despite of +10 or so court hearings, no media source have managed to bring us any pics of lawyers/family members entering and exiting the court building, - and the only news source, who seems to know about this is TMZ, and they always announces it like "LIVE FEED NOW", making it sound as if they just found out 2 seconds ago (yet they always manage to have a live feed ready)

by Another.Part.Of.Me Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:25 pm

@Ballon - Exactly.
In fact - the only people we have on camera exiting the courtrooms are *drumroll please*

Billie Jean Jackson & Claire Elizabeth Fields Cruise.

The two crackpots of the whole thing.
How is it we don't see John Branca and John McClain entering, or any of Katherine's legal representation, or AEG's legal representatives - but we do see the two least credible court attendees BJJ and CEFC.

What? Did they only figure out how to work the fancy cameras *after* everyone else had left the building?

by ballongiraf Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:28 pm

Another.Part.Of.Me wrote:@Ballon - Exactly.
In fact - the only people we have on camera exiting the courtrooms are *drumroll please*

Billie Jean Jackson & Claire Elizabeth Fields Cruise.

The two crackpots of the whole thing.
How is it we don't see John Branca and John McClain entering, or any of Katherine's legal representation, or AEG's legal representatives - but we do see the two least credible court attendees BJJ and CEFC.

What? Did they only figure out how to work the fancy cameras *after* everyone else had left the building?

which begs the question: are the court hearings faked too? Is that even possible? What judge is appointed to this case? Perhaps we should research him a bit?

by Rach Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:28 pm

Another.Part.Of.Me wrote:@Ballon - Exactly.
In fact - the only people we have on camera exiting the courtrooms are *drumroll please*

Billie Jean Jackson & Claire Elizabeth Fields Cruise.

The two crackpots of the whole thing.
How is it we don't see John Branca and John McClain entering, or any of Katherine's legal representation, or AEG's legal representatives - but we do see the two least credible court attendees BJJ and CEFC.

What? Did they only figure out how to work the fancy cameras *after* everyone else had left the building?

LOL that is so true! I have been wondering this for a while as well.

I have to say at this moment in time I am in complete awe of Michael. The man is a genius!!!!

by ilprincipe Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:29 pm

I never believed that there were really some hearings.....
no real evidences...
just claims from brickman TMZ

by nlb Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:31 pm

Wow great job with this guys!

I just want to say that Joe would surely have to be his legal middle name, like listed on the trial papers, otherwise his lawyers would have been all over that, especially considering the charges.

by Another.Part.Of.Me Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:33 pm

@Ballon & Rachel -
I know, tell me about it. It is utterly brilliant. I am in awe of the sheer genius of it.

Btw - I think he hired BJJ and CEFC to do their segments in front of the cameras as patsies for the paternity/maternity of the children - I know they both have "issues" but neither of them will manage to hold up under scrutiny. If they were so sure of it - why would they turn up to the wrong hearing instead of going to the custody hearing on Aug 3rd?
We knew about it, everyone knew about it, it was all over the news - yet somehow, not one but two women claiming to be the birth mothers of these children turned up at a hearing for the AEG marketing/promotion deals instead of the custody hearings.
I could understand one women but two - both getting to the wrong hearings and both making claims in court?
That's more than coincidence right there.

by ballongiraf Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:35 pm

ok, im having a blonde moment.... who's BJJ and CEFC?

EDIT:ooohh! the loony women.... ahhh lol!

by Rach Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:35 pm

Wow, you may be onto something there!

So does this mean CC isn't a total loon and is just acting because I don't buy that LOL.

by michellemissesmjj Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:36 pm

OMG guys i am sooo excited. this is brilliant news. so great that we have a solicitor on this site. so what we are saying is that if mj did indeed fake his death legally he cant be taken to court?? this is one little detectives site. oh btw i hear that LAPD are incompetent. maybe the guys from here could go and get a job there seeing we doind a better job. lol good work guys. really good work. love you all.

by Another.Part.Of.Me Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:37 pm

Rachel wrote:Wow, you may be onto something there!

So does this mean CC isn't a total loon and is just acting because I don't buy that LOL.

@Ballon:
BJJ = Billie Jean Jackson
CEFC = Claire Elizabeth Fields Cruise

@Rachel - No CC is a total loon, although that may be part of the hoax in which case she isn't a total loon but a very good actress playing a total loon. I've read her MySpace posts and - well crackpot was putting it nicely IMO

by ilprincipe Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:39 pm

that's weird APOM...

just read this on mjhd from peggy99:

I have access to US Government records through my work. I have tried to obtain a copy of Michael's birth certificate but keep getting told I am unable to view the item requested. I've tried other celebrity names and have no problem. Not quite sure what to make of this, any suggestions.

She checked M. Joe and M. Joseph...
she also checked the bc from the children and found nothing...

I have also checked all other records including death records, marriage records and court records and am unable to get copies of any documents.

by Guest Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:39 pm

referring to this I really would be interested in the opinion of JEWELL from MJHD...
I didn't see current posts from her since the last days...

Jewell is on crack! she is one of the most biggest debbie downers, who always has a random found google article to 'back up' her claims. pft.

by nlb Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:39 pm

Another.Part.Of.Me wrote:@Ballon & Rachel -
I know, tell me about it. It is utterly brilliant. I am in awe of the sheer genius of it.

Btw - I think he hired BJJ and CEFC to do their segments in front of the cameras as patsies for the paternity/maternity of the children - I know they both have "issues" but neither of them will manage to hold up under scrutiny. If they were so sure of it - why would they turn up to the wrong hearing instead of going to the custody hearing on Aug 3rd?
We knew about it, everyone knew about it, it was all over the news - yet somehow, not one but two women claiming to be the birth mothers of these children turned up at a hearing for the AEG marketing/promotion deals instead of the custody hearings.
I could understand one women but two - both getting to the wrong hearings and both making claims in court?
That's more than coincidence right there.

I watched TMZ live that night and I remeber Harvey saying that mainstream reporters were interviewing these "loons" like they were credible. He said it took like 20 minutes until they realized these 2 were umm crazy.

by Rach Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:42 pm

Another.Part.Of.Me wrote:

@Rachel - No CC is a total loon, although that may be part of the hoax in which case she isn't a total loon but a very good actress playing a total loon. I've read her MySpace posts and - well crackpot was putting it nicely IMO

Agreed! You know I am starting to think that they were "hired" to keep the press attention away from the fact that was NO hearing.

by Another.Part.Of.Me Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:43 pm

nlb wrote:
Another.Part.Of.Me wrote:@Ballon & Rachel -
I know, tell me about it. It is utterly brilliant. I am in awe of the sheer genius of it.

Btw - I think he hired BJJ and CEFC to do their segments in front of the cameras as patsies for the paternity/maternity of the children - I know they both have "issues" but neither of them will manage to hold up under scrutiny. If they were so sure of it - why would they turn up to the wrong hearing instead of going to the custody hearing on Aug 3rd?
We knew about it, everyone knew about it, it was all over the news - yet somehow, not one but two women claiming to be the birth mothers of these children turned up at a hearing for the AEG marketing/promotion deals instead of the custody hearings.
I could understand one women but two - both getting to the wrong hearings and both making claims in court?
That's more than coincidence right there.

I watched TMZ live that night and I remeber Harvey saying that mainstream reporters were interviewing these "loons" like they were credible. He said it took like 20 minutes until they realized these 2 were umm crazy.

*snicker* Wasn't that the funniest thing you ever saw in your life?
I PMSL'd so much I thought I was going to die laughing, I was actually crying with laughter watching CC's press conference. They interviewed her for 20 minutes, firing off questions, taking her seriously - you'd think Obama was there at the podium the way they were taking her words seriously.

Then I thought - well if those are the people writing the news that explains a lot. Rofl, priceless

by ballongiraf Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:44 pm

Rachel wrote:
Another.Part.Of.Me wrote:

@Rachel - No CC is a total loon, although that may be part of the hoax in which case she isn't a total loon but a very good actress playing a total loon. I've read her MySpace posts and - well crackpot was putting it nicely IMO

Agreed! You know I am starting to think that they were "hired" to keep the press attention away from the fact that was NO hearing.

well, you gotta question their timing. I mean, they've had 12 years to make their baby momma claims, they had the opportune possibility to do that too during the 2005 trial - yet they decide to wait until now?

by Rach Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:46 pm

@ Ballon exactly!

I can tell you now if I had Michael Jackson's baby I wouldn't be keeping it quiet for 12 years!!!!! This is all making so much sense now. How did we miss this before?

by nlb Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:48 pm

Then I thought - well if those are the people writing the news that explains a lot. Rofl, priceless
_________________

Yes it was priceless. I had to watched just to see what she;d say next lol.

I agree that maybe she was used as a distraction for what was really going on or not going on. She tied up reporters for quite awhile and was entertaining enough that you didn't want to turn away. If that was her true purpose ther then it surely did work!

by Another.Part.Of.Me Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:48 pm

ilprincipe wrote:that's weird APOM...

just read this on mjhd from peggy99:

I have access to US Government records through my work. I have tried to obtain a copy of Michael's birth certificate but keep getting told I am unable to view the item requested. I've tried other celebrity names and have no problem. Not quite sure what to make of this, any suggestions.

She checked M. Joe and M. Joseph...
she also checked the bc from the children and found nothing...

I have also checked all other records including death records, marriage records and court records and am unable to get copies of any documents.

@ilprincipe - yeah I read that on the souza mjhd thread. I'm not sure what to make of it but I do know that that is a breach of her employment contract because she shouldn't be looking people up for fun and kicks.

That will have to be one of those 'wait and see' things if she can't access those records. They could be sealed preventing people from accessing them.

by ballongiraf Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:51 pm

Rachel wrote:@ Ballon exactly!

I can tell you now if I had Michael Jackson's baby I wouldn't be keeping it quiet for 12 years!!!!! This is all making so much sense now. How did we miss this before?

also, these loons attended court in the beginning of august - their claim was denied, adn they just went "ok, then
silent

" and went home? If i knew i was the mother of one of those kids, my ass would be in court 24/7 trying to get custody......
which further proves that they most likely were hired to go and make a big deal out of nothing and then go silent.

by Another.Part.Of.Me Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:52 pm

nlb wrote:Then I thought - well if those are the people writing the news that explains a lot. Rofl, priceless
_________________

Yes it was priceless. I had to watched just to see what she;d say next lol.

I agree that maybe she was used as a distraction for what was really going on or not going on. She tied up reporters for quite awhile and was entertaining enough that you didn't want to turn away. If that was her true purpose ther then it surely did work!

Exactly - it's like any good distraction. Deflect attention away from what you want to keep hidden by deflecting it to something completely different. This way the original purpose of the day i.e. the hearing - completely forgotten about because of Nutter 1 and 2 - and the press fell for it hook, line and sinker.

by nlb Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:53 pm

Could there be some type of security hold on any of Michael's info like that since there was a supposed breech in the coroner's office?

by ballongiraf Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:54 pm

Another.Part.Of.Me wrote:
ilprincipe wrote:that's weird APOM...

just read this on mjhd from peggy99:

I have access to US Government records through my work. I have tried to obtain a copy of Michael's birth certificate but keep getting told I am unable to view the item requested. I've tried other celebrity names and have no problem. Not quite sure what to make of this, any suggestions.

She checked M. Joe and M. Joseph...
she also checked the bc from the children and found nothing...

I have also checked all other records including death records, marriage records and court records and am unable to get copies of any documents.
@ilprincipe - yeah I read that on the souza mjhd thread. I'm not sure what to make of it but I do know that that is a breach of her employment contract because she shouldn't be looking people up for fun and kicks.

That will have to be one of those 'wait and see' things if she can't access those records. They could be sealed preventing people from accessing them.

correct me if im wrong, but remember back when the death cerficicate was released? It was reported that the office, who deals with DC's had found out their employees randomly tried to gain access to his DC "just to have a quick view" - and it was said that because of that, they'd make security tighter.

by Another.Part.Of.Me Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:55 pm

nlb wrote:Could there be some type of security hold on any of Michael's info like that since there was a supposed breech in the coroner's office?

There very well could be. Those particular records pertaining to Michael Jackson and his kids could be sealed to stop people accessing them.
Has peggy tried accessing any of the other Jacksons - Jermaine, Tito, Randy, Katherine etc.
Not that I am in any way encouraging any sort of illegal actions or breach of an employment contract, of course.

by Rach Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:55 pm

You're right Ballon.

It was reported that an investigation would be held into who had looked at it and action would be taken against them.

by Guest Sun Aug 30, 2009 1:05 pm

I just have to say its been 2 months now, and if the hoax wasnt real then it would have surely died off a little by now, but it just gets more incredible and stronger....You remember Lisa Maries blog post, MJ was asking questions about the circumstances of her fathers death, now we know he read everything, im in no doubt he discovered all this about the middle name from his readings on Elvis hoax death, iv known that for years so im sure he did too as of much of the world!!! The This is It document from 2002 app from a doctor, but really hard to imagine a doctor wording things like that and in bold....the will done in 2002, on the probate docs the childrens names are incorrect like the will. I think it has been going on from the year 2002, the speeches all over in 2001/2 about Sony, which was leading others to fear for his safety, did he do these on purpose to try and make himself seen as an enemy, people still say Sony killed him...so was this a purpose at that time to back up the death....I think his plans had to change though because of the 2004 court case....then all the rubbish fed to Ian Halperin to back up a death exactly 6 months later, none of this can be coincidence....we know he was a PR genius already.....So why hasnt the hoax death thing started filtering off after a whole 2months instead of inflating???

Oh and i bet Jonell Starr has the JOE JOSEPH thing on her next video...ha!!

by Rach Sun Aug 30, 2009 1:08 pm

@ Deb

I think the clues we are finding are slowly been leaked to us for a reason. Michael is a genius we have established that. I bet he is sitting back and watching how people are trying to figure this all out!

This way, he is ensuring his name stays in the news for a long period of time and also giving the people who believe hope Smile

by Another.Part.Of.Me Sun Aug 30, 2009 1:11 pm

Agreed, agreed, agreed with everyone above - I popped off for a cup of tea lol but now I'm back.

by Guest Sun Aug 30, 2009 1:11 pm

Rachel wrote:@ Deb

I think the clues we are finding are slowly been leaked to us for a reason. Michael is a genius we have established that. I bet he is sitting back and watching how people are trying to figure this all out!

This way, he is ensuring his name stays in the news for a long period of time and also giving the people who believe hope

Rachel i said to Jordy earlier today about these new leads on the other forum always seem to be by new members, like they plant the seed the seed gets investigated and pow....he said this had already been talked about before i was on here....but its pretty obvious isnt it....he loved his fans and to give them a glimmer of hope that he was ok elsewhere, he knew thats all it would take, if hes happy the fans are happy...

There is no doubt an insider leaking info, and of course the Pepsi footage and other things, where hes supposed to be the only one who has control of these things....also if u google death hoax the other forum is first so i believe thats why they get the info.

by Sponsored content