By:- AnnaVincent96
Janet was Michael Jackson's favorite sibling. Michael and Janet were the the ones who were most alike. He once said he could trust her with anything.
- This question has been posed quite a bit in the past several days. It implies that, by attempting to take Paris’s phone from her, her aunt was attempting to hide/cover up/prevent her from telling the public the ‘truth.’ But that’s not necessarily the case. Let’s look at this from every angle—even the anti-Jackson one:
a. Social media has proven to be a powerful tool. It’s positive purposes are: to ‘connect’ people to one another, to give ‘voices to the voiceless,’ and to create powerful movements. If this type of usage applies to Paris:
i. Scenario 1: Her tweets are her only way of informing the outside world of the injustices done to her and her siblings, by her two aunts (Janet and Rebbie), and her two uncles (Randy and Jermaine). If this is true, all four of them are liars, and Janet—for whatever reason—purposefully kept the children away from their grandmother. Hoping to be reunited with her grandmother, Paris tweets to her thousands of followers and for the whole world to see, in the hopes that someone will know where her grandmother is, and pressure the aforementioned aunts and uncles into sending her back home. Her aunt and uncles come by, and Janet grabs for her phone in order to ‘keep her quiet.’
b. Now, let’s look at the flip-side, in which social media is used negatively.
i. Scenario 2: Paris and Prince are left with their cousin while their grandmother goes to a spa to relax, initially comfortable with the idea of her going away to get some rest—though possibly not as well informed as they’d like to be. Then, while she’s away, someone (Trent, or TJ—though I would like to think that it wasn’t the latter) plants the idea in their heads that their Grandmother has been ‘kidnapped.’ Immediately panicked, Paris launches into ‘panic phase’ of Scenario 1, using Twitter to express her concerns. Realizing that there has been a glaring misunderstanding, and dealing with attacks from both the Estate and the public, her aunt and uncles come to collect Paris and her siblings, as well as to explain that they’re free to see their grandmother any time they wish. Unfortunately for them, the children have already decided who they believe, and ignore their supplications. Paris’s phone, of course, is her constant companion, and she uses it even as her aunt tries to talk/reason with her. Janet—who is intensely private and media-shy—attempts to take Paris’s phone, in order to prevent her from fueling the fire any more than she already has with her tweets, and possibly because she’s annoyed with the fact that her niece has a phone in her hands while she’s trying to talk to her!
c. Now, let’s also deal with another, related, possibility—supposing that Janet is innocent, why not let Paris keep her phone and wait until things die down? Here’s why:
i. Allowing Paris to keep her phone and keep tweeting incites public outrage, leaving a PR mess and causing family turmoil (such as various members—including innocent children—being barred from seeing their grandmother) that has to be dealt with while the real problem—the validity of the will—goes unresolved. It also enables Paris to lean on her thousands of followers even more—and, as social media history shows—there can be serious repercussions for doing that. A better question would be: why wouldn’t she take the phone?
If Janet, Randy, Jermaine, and Rebbie Jackson are innocent, does that mean that the children are liars?
2. This question has been the natural follow-up once question 1 garners a response. The answer is as follows: no. The children are not liars. They are victims; whether you are Pro-Estate or Pro-Jackson, the simple fact is that these children are the victims—and not just Michael’s children, but all of the Jackson children. My answer to this question is that the children (and perhaps their cousin, TJ) are being manipulated by Trent Jackson and other Estate employees. Why this conclusion? Simple, Trent has a motive, the Jacksons do not.
HOLD UP. What do you mean the Jacksons don’t have a motive? Isn’t this just about money?
3. Does that one surprise you? It shouldn’t. In order to answer this question, we have to examine the document that started it all—the Jacksons’ letter to the Estate. Now, if you’re not keen on reading the entire letter, I’ll summarize—but if you are serious about understanding this situation, it is imperative that you read this letter carefully and objectively—from the opening paragraphs, to the ‘cc’ section that denotes who the letter was sent to.
a. The Point of the Letter . . . is to ask the executors to resign from Michael’s estate. Notice that it uses Michael’s proper legal name—Michael Joe Jackson:
i. “WE insist that you resign effective immediately as executors from the estate of our brother, Michael Joe Jackson. For good cause we make this appeal to you, as will represented thereon in this letter, and further revealed in the coming weeks.”
b. The Body of the Letter . . . is organized like a list of grievances; notice the illusions to elder abuse and fraud, and the mention of names like Trent Jackson and Perry Sanders:
i. The Will is described as incomplete and filled with inaccuracies and inconsistences—more on that later.
ii. Janet, Randy, Jermaine, Tito, and Rebbie accuse the executors of taking advantage of their grief, and using it to set up the current estate.
iii. They state that Michael disliked and distrusted Branca & co.
iv. They accuse the executors of lying, manipulating, and making false promises to Katherine Jackson.
v. They state that Mrs. Jackson’s health has been adversely affected by the executors’ actions, that she feels ‘stuck in the middle,’ and that she fears the Estate and its’ employees (i.e. because of their connections and financial upper hand).
vi. They accuse her advisors—Lowell Henry, Perry Sanders and Trent—of knowing that the Will is fraudulent, but siding with the Estate because of the percentages (of money) they are being offered to work against her best interests.
vii. They state that, between AEG and the executors, Katherine feels as if she’s fighting a losing battle, and that both entities are too powerful to fight against.
viii. They state that Branca sent a letter to the judge presiding over the wrongful death suit against AEG, requesting that ALL of the documents AEG handed over be kept under court seal (which would prevent the family and others from determining if their dealings with Michael were honest and fair).
ix. They accuse the executors of attempting to cover up the questionable circumstances of Michael’s death, of hastily making deals in order to make money—whilst sacrificing quality of work and Michael’s legacy.
c. In closing:
i. They state that they will no longer tolerate the disrespect of their parents, and that they will be taking legal action in order to investigate the ‘potential criminal misconduct’ of the executors.
ii. The letter is signed by Janet, Randy, Jermaine, Tito, and Rebbie. Rebbie signs both her married name and her maiden/stage name. Tito and Jermaine rescind their signatures, but this is also easily explained in another post. In a nutshell, these two rescind because of their children.
iii. The letter was sent to Randy Phillips; Paul Congaware; Tim Lerweke; Trent Jackson; Laurel Henry; Perry Sanders; Howard Weitzman; Martier Bandier; Phillip Anschutz; Tom Barrack.
1. Note:
a. Randy Phillips is the CEO of AEG,
b. Trent Jackson* is Mrs. Jackson’s nephew and an estate employee,
c. Perry Sanders* is the attorney for Katherine Jackson,
d. Howard Weitzman is the attorney for the executors.
* Under investigation for elder abuse of Mrs. Jackson.
Now, if you’ve noticed, out of all of the reasons listed in the letter for asking that the members of the estate resign (elder abuse, corporate greed, hasty and detrimental decision making, conspiracy), there is no mention of the Jacksons wanting to run the estate themselves, or any complaints about being ‘left out of the will’—which does not qualify as an inaccuracy or an inconsistency. Besides the aforementioned, the Jacksons have no legal right to the money of the estate anyway, Will or no Will, according to intestate law in California, which can only be altered if the deceased left different instructions behind for his/her estate. See below:
Selections from California Intestacy Laws:
Intestate Succession Generally
6400.
Any part of the estate of a decedent not effectively disposed of by will passes to the decedent’s heirs as prescribed in this part.
6402.
Except as provided in Section 6402.5, the part of the intestate estate not passing to the surviving spouse or surviving domestic partner, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 37, under Section 6401, or the entire intestate estate if there is no surviving spouse or domestic partner, passes as follows:
(a) To the issue of the decedent, the issue taking equally if they are all of the same degree of kinship to the decedent, but if of unequal degree those of more remote degree take in the manner provided in Section 240.
(b) If there is no surviving issue, to the decedent’s parent or parents equally.
Now, what all of that means is—even in the absence of a Will—since Michael did not having a surviving spouse, the money automatically goes to his children. If he had no children, it would go to his parents. Both his children and parents would have to die before the siblings could claim any of the money and—no matter what you may think of the Jacksons—it’s highly unlikely that they would murder three children and their parents just to get their hands on some money. Even if they were that callous, there’s no way—with their public profile—that they’d get away with it.
And there you go—there are no legal loopholes for the Jackson siblings to claim money from the estate, and there is no motive otherwise. No motive, no crime. On the other hand, John Branca, John McClain, Perry Sanders, Trent Jackson, & co. have actual monetary motives—all of them currently benefit from estate money.
4. Why are anti-Estate fans/advocates so ‘quick’ to subscribe to theories of coercion and conspiracy? And doesn’t Katherine’s recent declaration change things?
This question also has a simple answer: the alternative to doing so—in light of all of the above information—requires quite a stretch of the imagination. It would require believing that the Jacksons ‘kidnapped’ their mother, lied to their nieces and nephews, put their family through unnecessary turmoil, and are stupid enough to give the general public more reasons to mock them. It would also be out of character for the remaining individuals attached to the letter. The screen cap story is easily explained—messages can be either doctored or taken out of context (though most likely, given the inaccurate names, it’s doctored)—and children can be persuaded to do things that are not necessarily ‘right’ with the best of intentions.
For instance—remember how Evan Chandler promised his son Jordie that if he ‘admitted’ that Michael had molested him, Michael would not be harmed? That was a lie, but Jordie—after being isolated from his family and told that his friend would not be hurt if he went along with the program—believed it. And that brings us to Katherine Jackson, who, before she came back to Calabasas, was in one accord with her children, and, after she came back and was isolated from roughly half of her children and grandchildren, suddenly shifted gears and made a declaration in accordance with the statements Perry Sanders’ made when she went ‘missing’—the same Perry Sanders whose office the Jacksons’ private letter was leaked from, who is under investigation for elder abuse, who was accused by the aforementioned Jacksons of being biased against his client’s interests because his pockets are lined with estate money. Remember that comments made under duress and coercion can be thrown out of a court and rendered null and void.
———————————————————————————————————————
and here is one final reason:-
IT IS AGAINST TWITTER RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR ANYONE UNDER THE AGE OF 18 TO HAVE A TWITTER ACCOUNT.
TWITTER’S TERMS OF SERVICES (TOS) ARE:
You may use the Services (Twitter) ONLY if you can form a binding contract with Twitter.
If you are accepting these (Twitter) Terms and using the Services on behalf of a company, organization, government, or other legal entity, you represent and warrant that you are authorized to do so. You may use the Services only in compliance with these Terms and all applicable local, state, national, and international laws, rules and regulations.
Source(s):
Children cannot form legal contracts!
In California , the minimum age at which you can enter a binding contract is the age of 18!
In the United States , the age of majority is determined individually by each state. In 47 of the states, the age of majority is 18. In Nebraska and Alabama it is 19, and in Mississippi it is 21.
Source(s):
http://www.ehow.com/about_5030458_legal-contract-age.html
This was a private family matter, its a shame it was publicized around the world, of course there was motives to hurt and damage the family, The video was sold to the media by Trent Jackson who works for the Estate!
You must be logged in to post a comment.