TVCH FORUMS HOME . JOIN . FAN CLUBS . DONATE . CONTACT . CHAT  
                  Quick Links   TOPICS . TREE-VIEW . SEARCH . HELP! . NEWS . PROFILE
Archive through June 30, 2009

Reality TVClubHouse Discussions: General Discussions ARCHIVES: May 2009 ~ July 2009: The Entertainment Place: Hollywood gossip, news & milestones: Archive through June 30, 2009 users admin

Author Message
Kookliebird
Member

08-04-2005

Monday, June 29, 2009 - 8:45 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Kookliebird a private message Print Post    
I think MJ probably overruled attorneys on mundane things like setting up trusts. Over the years, it appeared to me that MJ wanted tangible things, toys, art, zoos, beatles portfolio, rides, just whatever he wanted when he wanted it etc. Silly things like trusts don't fit (I agree with the Peter Pan comment above)

Speaking of the Beatles catalog, did anyone see the piece on ABC news yesterday about the rift between Paul McCartney and MJ? Apparently, it's over the Beatles catalog. I think it was xomething about MJ found out what Paul was bidding and bid higher to get the catalog. Paul said it annoys him that every time he plays one of 'his own songs' he has to pay someone else a royalty. ABC speculated that MJ was trying to bridge the rift and it's possible that the catalog was left to Paul (or first bid maybe). It was an interesting piece.

Kookliebird
Member

08-04-2005

Monday, June 29, 2009 - 8:45 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Kookliebird a private message Print Post    
Oh and is it okay to say here that I am really, really tired of all the MJ stuff on TV and Radio?

Stacey718995
Member

07-05-2007

Monday, June 29, 2009 - 8:49 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Stacey718995 a private message Print Post    
SJP and Matthew look so happy. It is nice to see happy.

Mameblanche
Member

08-24-2002

Monday, June 29, 2009 - 8:55 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Mameblanche a private message Print Post    
Some questions:

Aren't MJ's parents divorced or separated?

If there is no will/trust, (inexcusably negligent if that is the case) why did someone say that Janet Jackson is his executor?

And if she is the 'executor', then why are the parents allowed to call the shots?

Mameblanche
Member

08-24-2002

Monday, June 29, 2009 - 9:03 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Mameblanche a private message Print Post    
I am so thrilled for SJP & Mathew, they have a gorgeous family. So much for those rumours of their splitting up, eh?

Cablejockey
Member

12-27-2001

Monday, June 29, 2009 - 9:11 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Cablejockey a private message Print Post    
I was watching a bit of Dateline tonight with the Martin Brasheer interviews with Michael from 2003. This is where he blatently said he liked to sleep with children inhis bed and the shock waves it sent out!! i stillremember thats when people started looking more closely at MJ's private life. But what caught my attention tonight was when he described his father using a belt or an electric cord when beating him as a child! He started to cry describing it and also mentioned that he was fast trying to avoid his father, but when he caught him--it was bad.
He also described how his brothers would sneak girls in their hotel rooms and make Micheal pretend to be asleep. Then he would have to liten to them having sex--not a healthy enviroment all round.

Beekindpleez
Member

07-18-2006

Monday, June 29, 2009 - 9:17 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Beekindpleez a private message Print Post    
Kooklie...there is more to the MJ/McCartney story. When Michael and Paul worked together (remember their two videos? Say Say Say and The Girl is Mine ) MJ really admired Paul and asked him for advice on the future. One of the things that Paul told him to do was to buy music catalogs, since Paul had found that to be fairly lucrative and long lasting. So, when the Beatles catalog came up for auction, Paul (in a joint venture with Yoko Ono) was the top bidder...until a mysterious person outbid him. It was MJ.
Paul considered him a friend until that point.

MJ bought the catalog for $47 million. He sold part of it about ten or fifteen years ago.

Rumour has been circulating that MJ left the catalog to Paul. (Maybe that's why no will can be found??) But some of the songs will eventually revert back to the Beatles because they do, over time.

It's actually a pretty interesting story.

Kookliebird
Member

08-04-2005

Monday, June 29, 2009 - 9:29 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Kookliebird a private message Print Post    
Yeah, I thought it was interesting too. I think Sony owns part of it now and I heard that rumor too. I suspect he would leave it to Paul for a "price". I heard that MJ's bid was "10% higher than the highest bid", so he was out to get it no matter what.

Colordeagua
Member

10-25-2003

Monday, June 29, 2009 - 10:42 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Colordeagua a private message Print Post    
Kooklie, yes it is and I agree.

Watching2
Member

07-07-2001

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 - 1:01 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Watching2 a private message Print Post    
I remember Paul giving an interview years ago and he was clearly peeved with Michael. He said he was advising Michael to buy catalogs and one day Michael said to him, "I'm going to buy your songs." Paul imitated his high voice and said he thought MJ was kidding around. Another thing which really upset Paul and the other Beatles alive at the time was Michael allowing their songs to be used for commercials. They said their songs were not meant to sell sneakers, etc. Will be interesting to see if Paul can get them back. I do recall reading something quite a while ago that what MJ purchased would only last a certain amount of time and would be back up for bid again starting in a certain year. I "think" I heard/read that somewhere, but I could be wrong.

Gidget
Member

07-28-2002

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 - 7:36 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Gidget a private message Print Post    
Paul McCartney is notoriously cheap and full of himself. I am a big Beatles fan by the way but no longer a kid who idolizes them. Paul had adequate funds to beat out Michael. Too bad so sad.

Did you know Sir Paul also tried to go back on the agreement he made ages ago with John Lennon. They agreed that all the work they did would be Lennon & McCartney, no matter who actually wrote the song. After John died, Paul tried to get the songs Paul wrote to have his name first. The remaining Beatles and Yoko went against him. Paul lost.


Holly
Member

07-22-2001

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 - 8:27 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Holly a private message Print Post    
I'm disappointed to read this backstory on the Beatles' catalogue. That was very low of Michael to do that to a friend. Wonder how he would have felt if someone did it to him.

Karuuna
Board Administrator

08-31-2000

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 - 8:35 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Karuuna a private message Print Post    
MJ's attorney was on tv this morning saying there is a will; and the attorney who wrote it was out of town when MJ died, which is why it's taking so long to come out.

Mameblanche
Member

08-24-2002

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 - 8:43 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Mameblanche a private message Print Post    
Thank heavens! I couldn't fathom him NOT having a will. The thought was just so upsetting. I'm so relieved. I'm worried enough about those kids as it is.

Marej
Member

09-19-2002

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 - 8:45 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Marej a private message Print Post    
From Wikipedia...."Mark Lester is the godfather to both Prince Michael and Katherine"

Karuuna
Board Administrator

08-31-2000

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 - 8:49 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Karuuna a private message Print Post    
Mame, I think I recall hearing that the will was from 2002, which may not be the most accurate given recent circumstances - but at least it is something.

Gidget
Member

07-28-2002

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 - 8:58 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Gidget a private message Print Post    
Kar, where would out of town be in an event of this magnitude?

Holly, why is it okay for Paul to own other people's songs but not Michael to own Paul's.


Beekindpleez
Member

07-18-2006

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 - 9:01 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Beekindpleez a private message Print Post    
Well, that's just it, isn't it? PM gave MJ advice...and he took it.

Karuuna
Board Administrator

08-31-2000

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 - 9:04 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Karuuna a private message Print Post    
Gidget, I don't know; but I can speculate that sometimes courts tell lawyers where they need to be, in my experience. He may have been appearing in court elsewhere.

Or, it may just be that they are buying some time to get their ducks in a row, as often happens in large estate cases as well.

Ophiliasgrandma
Member

09-04-2001

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 - 9:49 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Ophiliasgrandma a private message Print Post    
From ET Online:

According to a report, the biological father of Michael Jackson's two oldest children has been revealed.

Sources tell Us magazine that Dr. Arnie Klein allegedly is the father of Jackson's son Prince Michael and daughter Paris, whose mother is Debbie Rowe.

Klein is a Beverly Hills dermatologist and Rowe was a nurse at his practice in the 1990's.

Nyheat
Member

08-09-2006

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 - 9:52 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Nyheat a private message Print Post    
ITA Holly I always felt that way about MJ buying Paul's songs. It never sat right with me. I understand the logic, but it seemed a little underhanded.

Kearie
Member

07-21-2005

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 - 9:56 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Kearie a private message Print Post    
I just read at TMZ that neither Michael or Debbie were the children's biological parents???

ETA....that's what I read . Thanks SEA.

Seamonkey
Moderator

09-07-2000

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 - 9:58 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Seamonkey a private message Print Post    
I heard early on after Michael died that there were reports of two wills.. of course the last one would take precedence, probably.

=========

LINK

Just reading this and if true, wow.. MJ not the father of any of them (no shock there) but that Debbie Rowe was also not the bio parent..

And that Michael never adopted any of the three.

Jackson/Rowe Not the Biological Parents
Posted Jun 30th 2009 5:05AM by TMZ Staff

We've learned Michael Jackson was not the biological father of any of his children. And Debbie Rowe is not the biological mother of the two kids she bore for Michael. All three children were conceived in vitro -- outside the womb.

Multiple sources deeply connected to the births tell us Michael was not the sperm donor for any of his kids. Debbie's eggs were not used. She was merely the surrogate, and paid well for her services in the births of Michael Jr. and Paris.

In the case of Prince Michael II (the youngest), we're told the surrogate was never told of the identity of the "receiving parent" -- Michael Jackson. Three days after Prince was born at Grossmont Hospital in San Diego County, Jackson's lawyer came to the hospital to pick the baby up and deliver him to Michael.

We do not know if Jackson chose the sperm or egg donors or if he even knew who they were.

Although Rowe is not the biological mother, it's not a slam dunk that she would lose a custody battle. This type of case has never been litigated in California courts. Since Rowe was married to Jackson when Michael Jr. and Paris were born, there's a presumption that she's the biological parent. That presumption can be rebutted by other evidence.

We know there are documents outlining the whole arrangement for the birth of all three kids. Nonetheless, it's still an open issue with the courts.

Jackson Never Adopted Kids

We've learned Michael Jackson never adopted his three children, even though he's not the biological father.

We broke the story that neither Jackson nor Debbie Rowe are the biological parents of Michael Jr. and Paris. And Michael was not the biological parent of Prince Michael II either.

Now here's the rub. We've learned Jackson never filed legal papers to adopt any of his children. Legal experts tell us Jackson would be presumed the father but it's not conclusive by any means.

As for why Jackson didn't formally adopt -- we're told at the time the kids were born there was no third party whom he believed would try and claim custody. For some reason, Jackson never thought Debbie Rowe would mount a custody challenge.

That link also leads to another story with some of the new pictures of the kids at younger ages..

Seamonkey
Moderator

09-07-2000

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 - 10:15 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Seamonkey a private message Print Post    
Despite what that article opines, I think Debbie Rowe would have less chance getting the two kids.. yes she was married to Michael at the time and she did give birth, but she also seemingly had a price for walking away, twice. AND if they aren't her bio-kids, less likely for her to get them.

The kids are said to have no relationship with her, so I don't see the oldest child ASKING to go with her.

As for them wanting to be with Katherine.. could well be, but they are there, in the "compound" and as Michael said, THEY were all terrified of Joe as kids, so just how freely can they speak? They hopefully will specify that they want Grace to be there for them. Joe was asked about her and was somewhat dismissive that Michael had said he wanted Grace to raise them or stay in their lives and did say that the kids like her, etc.. but I hope that might be honored.

Joe sounds like he disapproves of the way Michael has raised his kids and would change all that.. hopefully not too quickly. He describes them as being pretty isoloated from other kids and says that they are enjoying the other children at the compound.. but that would sort of contradict other things said that they know all those people so well..

I guess the most important thing for me is that.. they have a very strong buffer between them and Joe, that the buffer includes someone on their side and younger than Katherine, along with Katherine if she would protect them and their money from Joe and his record company, and that they STAY TOGETHER.

LOL, not that anyone is asking me, mind you.

Stacey718995
Member

07-05-2007

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 - 10:25 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Stacey718995 a private message Print Post    
It makes it clearer in my head now how Debbie Rowe could so easily walk away when she left.