Here's what to me is the rub about this MJ will debacle: If MJ's will is valid (and it probably is), then why didn't these two lawyers just kindly answer the family's questions/concerns about it - privately?

Why do they (or those associated with them) instead seem to continually blow smoke, obfuscate, and blast days worth of negative stories about the Jacksons in the media to distract from the issue and smear the Jacksons? Why not just privately answer the questions and concerns the Jackson family members have about the will and about the control or undue influence the family feel are being wielded over Mrs. Jackson?

How did Michael sign that will if he wasn't in LA that day? Would Michael sign a will on which his children's names were spelt wrong? How and why did Branca still have a copy of the 2002 will? And so on...If it's all on the up-and-up, then why don't these guys just kindly answer the questions? Seems pretty simple to me.

Instead, it seems like they have a household bouncer (Trent Jackson) and possibly other household operatives, particularly Ms. Ribera, who have spent the better part of 3-4 days on the line 24x7 to the media blasting out negative propaganda against the Jacksons to smear them in the public eye and create a distraction.

This seems to have served its purpose. It's created a distraction from the questions about the will and abuse/control issues and at the same time, smeared the Jacksons so badly that the entire public has turned against them as they are negatively defined as greedy bullying swindlers just after money (nevermind at least one of them has her own considerable fortune and doesn't need any estate money).

You can't find anything written about them that doesn't say "it's all about the money". Is that because it's really true? Or is it just the PR, the spin, the "meme" -- the false premise?

Because there's a big difference between truth and spin, as you might guess. I'd think MJ fans particularly would be keenly aware of that. Oddly, they're not.

If it's all on the up-and-up and the will is valid, then why don't these guys just kindly answer the questions or offer facts or assurances? Seems like it would be so easy if there are viable explanations for any discrepancies or control concerns - to put the whole thing to rest.

Let's look at the "greedy bullying swindlers" meme that has been put out and propagated by the estate/media spin machine:

It's said that the older versions of MJ's will reads very much like the existing one with exception of adding the children's names as they were born.

These siblings who are now questioning the will are not named in any prior versions of his will either. This means that there is no money to be gotten by them from this either way, even if the current will were declared invalid. So -- the premise that "they're just after money" is not logical then, is it? It just doesn't add up, does it?

At that, it beggars belief that the current will would be declared invalid at this juncture. It won't.

So why the hell are they doing this then?

Consider that contrary to the negative spin, contrary to the false premise that has blanketed media reports for the past week - that maybe they're not after money. One has to let go of the false premise that they are. That's the •only• way it logistically makes sense.

It seems to me these siblings want answers, not dollars. Their said they feel that their mother is being abused and controlled. They said they feel the two lawyers running the estate may be doing so under false pretenses and they want something done about that (they want the executors to step down).

They did NOT say they wanted money.

They did NOT say they wanted to run the estate themselves or control it themselves. Read the letter again.

And beware the false premise(s) planted by estate operatives and the media.

As I understand it, Janet is quite wealthy of her own accord and is financially independent and has been for years. The only way this makes any sense (to me) is if it's NOT about the money.

That letter, by the way, was evidently not meant by the Jacksons to be public. It was allegedly leaked by Perry Sanders - one of the recipients of the letter. So all this questioning: "well why did the Jacksons make it public?" -- Well, did you ever consider - that maybe they didn't? One of the recipients may have publicized it.

And once it was made public by this estate operative/addressee, the estate responded to the letter, also publicly. And after that, a massive smear campaign in the media was launched against the Jacksons - with the copious help of Mrs. Jackson's lawyer, Ms. Ribera and Trent, the security head/bouncer, who was also an addressee/recipient of the letter. Trent Jackson is the one who filed the 'missing persons' report on Mrs. Jackson.

We're told he is also the one who has been feeding information to TMZ, and the one who turned Janet and others away from the home on the day of the alleged "altercation" and the one who filmed said "altercation" and fed the footage to the media and who called police to the scene.

Mrs. Jackson said someone (I'm just assuming Trent) fired the nanny, cooks, housekeepers so the house was chaos while she was gone.

You sort of get the idea that this Trent guy meant to cause trouble, don't you? We're told Mrs. Jackson wanted to fire him and his security honchos but that she was told she could not because she doesn't have the authority.

Remember what the letter to the estate from certain family members said? It said that the estate is controlling and abusing Mrs. Jackson. Well lo and behold would ya look at that. Here's a prime example of just that.

Mrs. Jackson is unable to even fire anyone or decide whom she wants to have or not have in her home or around her grandchildren. This Trent is allegedly being forced on her even when she no longer wants him around and it seems like maybe it was Trent who took it upon himself to fire household staff behind her back while she was gone out of town - which HE had the authority to do but she evidently doesn't. O_o

I'd say just maybe the letter is right. Mrs. Jackson is being controlled - if she cannot even decide who may or may not live and work in her own home or around her grandchildren or family - that's pretty terrible. Don't you think?

Of course it's just my opinion and you know what they say about those. :) But as I stated previously, it seems to me that this is what has gone on here. And yes, of course like everyone else, I'm just guessing. So these are my guesses based on how I've seen all this unfold and I saw most of it since the moment Alan Duke of CNN first tweeted about it days ago - fed the story by Mrs. Jackson's lawyer, Ms. Ribera.

Instead of any viable answers to the concerns the family expressed in that letter about the will or about estate control issues, this family had what was a private legal correspondence to the estate unduly publicized possibly by one of the addressees of the letter; the family have gotten ambushed for 3 or more days with a very nasty negative public smear campaign undoubtedly orchestrated by some of the same people they named in their letter last week - one of them we're fairly certain about - Trent and another named in many media reports including the original one, Ms. Ribera.

I saw that video where Janet allegedly pushed or slapped Paris. She didn't. The video showed one thing, while the sensationalist media spin said another. Paris herself said that Janet never pushed or slapped her. Please. And now that Mrs. Jackson has denied she was "kidnapped" by her own kids, Trash Media Zone (TMZ) asserts that Mrs. Jackson was somehow "in on it" - that she helped orchestrate her own "kidnapping".

Oh please. Really. We can probably reasonably assume they got that story from Trent. Again.

Why do Branca and McClain not just answer the questions and address the concerns the family have about these issues - privately - instead of creating distractions and blowing negative PR smoke - or having various other lawyers and other operatives do it? They could probably clear all this up in five minutes if there are viable explanations for the discrepancies in the will that some people in the family are concerned about.

If they are unwilling to even do that, then this only adds weight to the argument that perhaps they are fraudulently in control and they (or someone associated with them) is wielding undue influence over Mrs. Jackson. Particularly if she is not even allowed to control who does or does not work in or enter her own home.

As for Ms. Ribera, I personally do not trust any attorney who is online with tabloids and media 24x7 for days at a time feeding stories to them. That indicates to me that this attorney has other interests than (and which may even trump) managing Mrs. Jackson's legal affairs.

These lawyers and everyone involved in running that estate should be ready, willing, and available to calmly, kindly and PRIVATELY answer any questions or concerns the family has about their brother's will, his estate, or issues surrounding their mother and what goes on in her home.

Why? Because it's Michael's family and there should be nothing to hide from them. Whether you like or trust some of them or do not like or trust some of them, and regardless what their own internal squabbles or disagreements are - they are Michael's family and any estate execs or their operatives ought to be transparent with them about what is going on with Michael's estate and certainly about what is going on with their own mother. Any concerns that Mrs. Jackson is being bullied or controlled by the estate or their operatives ought to be addressed honestly, transparently and privately - IF in fact there is no reason for such concern.

Otherwise, those concerns only appear to bear weight.

If the family's private letter to the estate has been publicized by the recipients of said letter, and subsequently the family have been subjected to a media firestorm of negative propaganda by these estate operatives/employees - and it appears to me this is may be what happened, then this behavior on the part of the estate (or their operatives) is unacceptable, unprofessional and unethical. It is divisive and extremely damaging to the Jackson family and particular Katherine and Michael's children - the very people whose interests the estate presumptively exists to protect and serve.

Worse, it closely resembles the type of treatment and pattern of behavior that Michael himself was subjected to for so much of his own life when he was alive.

I sincerely hope that the estate deals with certain overbearing employees/household members and overly chatty attorneys - and that the children will eventually be able to understand the scope of this problem and forgive their relatives for trying - however unsuccessfully - to deal with it.

Reply · Report Post