Michael Jackson's siblings resume attack on will
LOS ANGELES (AP) — More than three years after Michael Jackson's death, his youngest brother continues to raise questions about the validity of the pop superstar's will.
On Twitter and cable TV, Randy Jackson has called the five-page document signed in 2002 a fake. The one place he hasn't made the claims is a courtroom, where legal experts say he faces almost insurmountable hurdles to invalidate the will and stiff odds against ousting the men who run the lucrative estate.
In a recent letter, Randy Jackson and three of his siblings called on Jackson's estate executors to resign and renewed charges that their brother's will is a fake.
The letter states Jackson's family — who other than his mother and three children receive no stake in his estate — was too overwhelmed after the singer's death to meaningfully challenge the document. "At that time we couldn't possibly fathom what is so obvious to us now: that the Will, without question, it's Fake, Flawed and Fraudulent," the letter signed by Randy, Jermaine, Janet and Rebbie Jackson states.
The delay, however, likely dooms any effort to invalidate the document, and if it was thrown out, would not alter the stake the King of Pop's three children receive, experts say and an appeals court has noted.
Randy Jackson has since posted on Twitter that he believes the estate is trying to isolate his mother to the detriment of her health. "It is my fear and belief, that they are trying to take my mother's life," Randy Jackson wrote last week.
Jackson's estate has denied the accusations. "We are saddened that false and defamatory accusations grounded in stale Internet conspiracy theories are now being made by certain members of Michael's family whom he chose to leave out of his will," the estate wrote in a statement.
Almost from the moment it was filed, the will has been a topic of controversy for some of Jackson's relatives. The pop superstar's father Joe Jackson attempted to get a stipend from the estate, but like the rest of his children, he was excluded from any share. His mother, Katherine, explored the possibility of challenging the executors and was given permission by a judge, but settled before a full hearing was held.
The estate benefits Katherine Jackson and the singer's three children — Prince, 15; Paris, 14; and Blanket, 10.
The five-page document is straightforward and simple, and many key provisions of how Jackson's estate is constructed are set out in a trust. That document has never been publicly released.
Many of the misgivings stem from the will's final page, which bears the signatures of three witnesses who claim Jackson signed the document on July 7, 2002, in Los Angeles. Jackson's family points out that the singer was in New York on that day, a point the Rev. Al Sharpton recently bolstered by showing video of the "Thriller" singer appearing with him at an event in Harlem that day.
"I don't think that kind of extrinsic fraud would be enough to overturn the order admitting the will to probate," said Marshall Oldman, a Los Angeles probate attorney who represented Peter Falk's wife in a conservatorship proceeding.
He said Jackson's siblings' only valid argument is that they did not receive proper notice that their brother's will had been accepted into probate. Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff accepted the will in November 2009. Any challenge would have had to been filed within four months, Oldman said.
The California 2nd District Court of Appeal noted in an October 2010 ruling against the singer's father that the period to challenge the will had already expired. Even if the will were thrown out, the court noted, California law would require the estate to benefit Michael Jackson's children.
"I don't see how you come in three years later, and say, 'oh, by the way, the will's a fraud, a forgery, because he wasn't in LA when he was purported to be,'" said Howard Klein, a probate attorney for nearly 50 years and partner in the Los Angeles firm Feinberg Mindel Brandt Klein & Kline. "It's something that should have been brought up a long time ago."
Randy Jackson — in comments on Twitter and to Sharpton on his MSNBC show last week — has repeatedly accused the estate's executors of criminal conduct. Both Klein and Oldman said even if the executors were charged with wrongdoing, it wouldn't open the door for more of Jackson's relatives to gain access to the estate. Jackson's children are deemed his heirs without the will, and a 1997 version lodged with the court but never publicly released also doesn't name the singer's siblings as beneficiaries of his estate.
Klein said even if Jackson or other siblings try to challenge the document, their bid will likely be rejected because it is too late. The judge could also rule, as he did against family patriarch Joe Jackson, that because he isn't a beneficiary of the will, he isn't entitled to contest it.
"It would be a tough sell," Klein said of any effort by another Jackson relative to challenge the will now.
The executors recently informed a judge that there have been $475 million in gross earnings for the estate since Michael Jackson died in June 2009 from an overdose of the powerful anesthetic propofol. Jackson died with more than $500 million in debts, but the earnings have been used to repay many of the singer's creditors and provide a spacious hilltop home for Katherine Jackson and the children, private schooling, staff, security, vacations and other perks.
Katherine Jackson has requested and the estate is recommending approval of a nearly $35,000 per month increase in Katherine Jackson's stipend so she retain her own attorney, accountant and homes in Indiana and Las Vegas, court filings show.
On Twitter and cable TV, Randy Jackson has called the five-page document signed in 2002 a fake. The one place he hasn't made the claims is a courtroom, where legal experts say he faces almost insurmountable hurdles to invalidate the will and stiff odds against ousting the men who run the lucrative estate.
In a recent letter, Randy Jackson and three of his siblings called on Jackson's estate executors to resign and renewed charges that their brother's will is a fake.
The letter states Jackson's family — who other than his mother and three children receive no stake in his estate — was too overwhelmed after the singer's death to meaningfully challenge the document. "At that time we couldn't possibly fathom what is so obvious to us now: that the Will, without question, it's Fake, Flawed and Fraudulent," the letter signed by Randy, Jermaine, Janet and Rebbie Jackson states.
The delay, however, likely dooms any effort to invalidate the document, and if it was thrown out, would not alter the stake the King of Pop's three children receive, experts say and an appeals court has noted.
Randy Jackson has since posted on Twitter that he believes the estate is trying to isolate his mother to the detriment of her health. "It is my fear and belief, that they are trying to take my mother's life," Randy Jackson wrote last week.
Jackson's estate has denied the accusations. "We are saddened that false and defamatory accusations grounded in stale Internet conspiracy theories are now being made by certain members of Michael's family whom he chose to leave out of his will," the estate wrote in a statement.
Almost from the moment it was filed, the will has been a topic of controversy for some of Jackson's relatives. The pop superstar's father Joe Jackson attempted to get a stipend from the estate, but like the rest of his children, he was excluded from any share. His mother, Katherine, explored the possibility of challenging the executors and was given permission by a judge, but settled before a full hearing was held.
The estate benefits Katherine Jackson and the singer's three children — Prince, 15; Paris, 14; and Blanket, 10.
The five-page document is straightforward and simple, and many key provisions of how Jackson's estate is constructed are set out in a trust. That document has never been publicly released.
Many of the misgivings stem from the will's final page, which bears the signatures of three witnesses who claim Jackson signed the document on July 7, 2002, in Los Angeles. Jackson's family points out that the singer was in New York on that day, a point the Rev. Al Sharpton recently bolstered by showing video of the "Thriller" singer appearing with him at an event in Harlem that day.
"I don't think that kind of extrinsic fraud would be enough to overturn the order admitting the will to probate," said Marshall Oldman, a Los Angeles probate attorney who represented Peter Falk's wife in a conservatorship proceeding.
He said Jackson's siblings' only valid argument is that they did not receive proper notice that their brother's will had been accepted into probate. Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff accepted the will in November 2009. Any challenge would have had to been filed within four months, Oldman said.
The California 2nd District Court of Appeal noted in an October 2010 ruling against the singer's father that the period to challenge the will had already expired. Even if the will were thrown out, the court noted, California law would require the estate to benefit Michael Jackson's children.
"I don't see how you come in three years later, and say, 'oh, by the way, the will's a fraud, a forgery, because he wasn't in LA when he was purported to be,'" said Howard Klein, a probate attorney for nearly 50 years and partner in the Los Angeles firm Feinberg Mindel Brandt Klein & Kline. "It's something that should have been brought up a long time ago."
Randy Jackson — in comments on Twitter and to Sharpton on his MSNBC show last week — has repeatedly accused the estate's executors of criminal conduct. Both Klein and Oldman said even if the executors were charged with wrongdoing, it wouldn't open the door for more of Jackson's relatives to gain access to the estate. Jackson's children are deemed his heirs without the will, and a 1997 version lodged with the court but never publicly released also doesn't name the singer's siblings as beneficiaries of his estate.
Klein said even if Jackson or other siblings try to challenge the document, their bid will likely be rejected because it is too late. The judge could also rule, as he did against family patriarch Joe Jackson, that because he isn't a beneficiary of the will, he isn't entitled to contest it.
"It would be a tough sell," Klein said of any effort by another Jackson relative to challenge the will now.
The executors recently informed a judge that there have been $475 million in gross earnings for the estate since Michael Jackson died in June 2009 from an overdose of the powerful anesthetic propofol. Jackson died with more than $500 million in debts, but the earnings have been used to repay many of the singer's creditors and provide a spacious hilltop home for Katherine Jackson and the children, private schooling, staff, security, vacations and other perks.
Katherine Jackson has requested and the estate is recommending approval of a nearly $35,000 per month increase in Katherine Jackson's stipend so she retain her own attorney, accountant and homes in Indiana and Las Vegas, court filings show.
Yeah...... the fact that a father gave all of his money to his kids, and set up funding for his mother to raise the kids is crazy talk. OF COURSE Michael was intending to give all his money to his father & parasitic brothers! I think they have a STRONG case here.....
Â
</Sarcasm OFF>
Sounds to me like even IF the will were proved to be fake the children would still be the heirs by virtue of California law. As for the mother it sounds to me like she's more interested in having her high lifesyle sustained than making sure the childrens future is maintained. This is one twisted family.
Just let it go. You are just putting the kids thru more and more problems. when you should just let it go. mourn his death and go thru it and then let it go. if its about the money than you should be ashamed. money shouldn't be worth more than losing a brother. Just help with the kids and move on.
It seems to be out of an act of jealousy, resentment and greed that this is happening. I recall another story not that long ago that stated the estate was able to clear nearly all of Jackson's sizable debts. That doesnt seem to show the estate has any ulterior motives as a group.
Â
The moment Michael Jackson left the Jackson 5, the resentment began to build as his individual talent and prominence in the world grew as theirs shrank into obscurity.
The Jackson 5 would have been nothing without Michael. His siblings were mere parasites that lived off of his celebrity since they knew they could never compete with his talent. Janet was the only sibling that even was comparable to Michael, however the others, along with their father, are leeches that messed that man up from day one. I do put blame on his mother as well for allowing her husband to screw up her children. I can't say that Michael was really a child molester but he certainly was weird and seemed child-like even up until the end. It seemed like he was always striving to have a normal family but didn't know how to go about doing it(hence marrying a woman for the sole purpose of having children). I feel so bad for his kids but sadly they seem to be surrounded by the loons too much to have any chance at growing to be somewhat normal. As for the media constantly referring to the youngest as "Blanket", it is disrespectful. Call him by his given name, even though his older brother has the exact same name(which is odd as well.)
Be nothing left of the estate by the time the attornies and family finish picking the bones.
What a sad, sad "family" - when people who are rich enough are willing to sacrifice their relationships over nothing but money. Michael would be so sad to see his family like this. No amount of money is worth it.
For crying out loud, AP...the kid's name is not Blanket! Â It's bad enough they have to go through all of this will and guardianship BS. Â At least give him the common decency of calling him by his name. Â As for their father's family, they are disgusting excuses for human beings.
This is truly unbelievable. Â My own dad legally disinherited me, it was right there in the will, and I just sort of went 'oh well' and moved on. Â It's all there in writing, it's a legal document drawn up by legal professionals at the request of the deceased, who stipulated the terms - move ON, people, and leave your elderly mother and your niece and nephews ALONE!
What makes them think they are entitled to any money from their deceased brother?
Two reasons:Â #1 "Money"; #2 "Laywers"
 @Bomarc #3 Greed #4 Jealousy
Greedy people. The extended family realized it when they started facing the lack of income. They don't care about their mom or Michael's children. I also have no doubt that Michael's dad is behind this. The executors need to come out swinging and put a stop to this!