Mrs. Jackson & Children should get $2.9 Million not a stipend

Mrs. Jackson & Children should get $2.9 Million not a stipend

 

I am just curious about something and will be straight to the point.  They say Michael Jackson owes about $80 Million in estate taxes known as death taxes.  This mean he has about 10 months for his estate to pay this to the federal government.  This also mean that Michael’s estate exceeds a net figure of a minimum of $3.5 Million, but more like $200 Million after debts are paid.

 

In his Final will they are now going by it requires that his debts to be paid prior to his beneficiaries are to receive their settlement, which is a very good protection mechanism.  Here is my question why are they being offered a stipend while all the wheeling and dealing takes place to settle the estates debts, when the death tax exempts $3.5 Million from taxes.

 

Here is my point if they owe death taxes his estate exceeds $3.5 Million net after taxes and other debts.  Therefore Michael’s child and his mother who are the beneficiaries already have $3.5 Million that belongs to them minus 20% to charity.  This comes out to 40% to the children and 40% to Mother Katherine or $1.45 Million to the Children and $1.45 to Mother Katherine and $600,000 to a charity to be held in escrow.  I might be wrong but I doubt it, the Jackson Family has a RIGHT to $2.9 Million immediately after it is established Michael owes even one dime in estate taxes, because it is therefore established his estate exceeds $3.5 Million after all debts are paid.  They (the court) has no right to withhold this money from this family.  And Katherine has the right to do with her share of the money as she pleases this is about control and it is wrong

Will Katherine Jackson withdraw intestate motion?

Will Katherine Jackson withdraw intestate motion?

 

Date: 4 July 2009

 

What Happens if You Don’t Have a Will or Trust?

If someone dies without a will or trust, they die “intestate” and the laws of intestate succession are used to determine who will inherit the estate.  In California, who will receive the estate depends on answering a series of questions about the person who died.

This is my position mother Katherine Jackson can take custody of the trust because the will in invalid, therefore the named trustees are not valid, and she can choose the charities to donate to and not those crooks.

 

Because if he is intestate he had not only no will but no trust.  Michael Joseph Jackson had a trust which gives Mother Katherine and the children a 40% to 40% split and 20% to charities to be determine later.  Therefore she should withdraw the motion to probate the estate as intestate and recognize the trust but not the trustees as named in the invalid will.

 

This means she will be the trustee and can choose how to best distribute the charitable contributions, in the best interest of her family.  We are talking about $100 Million in discretionary funds, that can be used to support causes that they find close to them and not those crooks claiming to be the trustees in a clearly invalid will.  Not only that but the $100 Million can be invested and turned over prior to being donated.  And all of this should be to mother Katherine’s desecration.

Michael Joseph Jackson Died Intestate Major SNAFU in Last Will

 

Michael Joseph Jackson Died Intestate Major SNAFU in Last Will

 

On page four there is major error.  OK the will should end with the witnesses’ signatures that is not shown but assumed to be in the empty space.

 

Here is where they screwed up, on page 4 it says on section VIII and I quote:

 

On the date written below, Michael Joseph Jackson, declare us the undersigned…

 

Problem the date is above the name Michael Joseph Jackson, I believe Michael dead intestate.  Furthermore he signs his initial on each section or page, but not his full initials MJJ, which is his trademark, he signed MJ we have to ask why?  Was he under duress?  Was a gun to his head?  Was this his way of telling us something is wrong?

 

And the optional provision concerning said initials was not mentioned in the will at all.  Usually when you use this provision it is stated or at least should be assumed that any section absent of it is not valid.  Is a partial initial a valid authentication?

 

I smell a fish; I would contest the will if it is not in the family favor.  His estate should go to his family under the law of having no will  And check out the definition of children under California law, by law he raised them but under intestate regulations they are not his children because  they are not DNA or adopted by law.  You cannot simply buy children, they are not Debbie’s biological children or his and were not adopted by either of them, they were simply purchased at a laboratory and their biological parents are now known.

 

Under the law of intestate a child is either a person who is your biological child or was legally adopted.  In this case neither criterion qualifies.

 

Another Problem

 

Bear with me it has been a while since I studied Estates, Trusts and Wills.  What I do not understand is why they closed the will saying they know Michael is in sound mind and bunch of unnecessary bullshit about not being under duress; let me show you how it should have been done:

 

    I, so and so a resident of so and so, California, being of sound mind and memory and at least eighteen (18) years of age, do hereby make, publish and declare this to be my last will and testament, hereby revoking all prior wills and codicils at any time heretofore made by me.

 

 

Notice the most important point about this bullshit will, Michael has to make the statement that he is of Sound Mind and Memory and not them saying he is of sound mind to the best of their knowledge, Michael could have been high on drugs for all they knew.  This was not the work of a competent lawyer.