Michael Jackson's Will

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Off Topic
Posted on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 03:58:07 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

I have not written about Michael Jackson because, well, I have had nothing to say about his passing. But the Family Guy aspect of my sense of humor can not resist this:

A 2002 will by Michael Jackson, which was filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court on Wednesday, could lead to conflict over the singer’s assets between Mr. Jackson’s family and the executors he named in the will.

The five-page document, dated July 7, 2002, gives the entire estate to a family trust, and names his mother, Katherine Jackson, as legal guardian of his three children and beneficiary of the trust. If she were incapacitated or died, then the singer Diana Ross would get custody of Mr. Jackson’s children.

(Emphasis supplied.) Diana Ross? Why not Elizabeth Taylor? La Liz must be pissed . . .

Definitely speaking for me only

< Lieberman Was For The Public Option Before He Was Against It | Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread >

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

Menu

Home | About | RSS
E-Mail | Comment Policy |
Search
Login

Make a new account

Existing Users

Username:
Password:
Creator and Principal Author
- Jeralyn E. Merritt
TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections
Site Credits
- TalkLeft Graphics by C.L., Our Man in Hollywood (2006 - 2008)
- TalkLeft Header Graphic by Monk
- Powered by Scoop
Legal
- All Content Copyright ©2002-2023. Reprints only by permission from TalkLeft.com
- Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.
- TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.
"The pump don't work 'cause the vandals took the handles"
© 1965 Bob Dylan

Michael Jackson's Will | 92 comments (92 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

all I want to know (none / 0) (#1)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:02:48 PM EST

is who gets the Elephant Mans bones.

but seriously (none / 0) (#2)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:03:49 PM EST

this just gets sadder and sadder. aparrently he cut his father out completely. I guess thats called having the last word.

Parent

Don't worry about his father. (5.00 / 2) (#24)
by inclusiveheart on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:24:29 PM EST

He used Michael's death to announce his new record label. Nice huh?

Parent

Geezus, really? (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:27:08 PM EST

I saw Sharpton hanging around with him but I did not know that.

Parent

he did indeed (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:31:36 PM EST

it was quite the show.

Parent

Yeah. (none / 0) (#31)
by inclusiveheart on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:31:52 PM EST

And I am sort of amazed that Sharpton would have been fool enough to appear with MJ's father.

Everyone who was really close to Michael Jackson says that his father is the root of all of his weirdness and dysfunction.

This episode of public "mourning" supports that assertion as far as I'm concerned.

Parent

Frankly, I thought his dad died (none / 0) (#32)
by andgarden on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:33:16 PM EST

in the 90s. Maybe I'm confusing him with someone else.

Parent

Well, that would be news to his dad (none / 0) (#36)
by inclusiveheart on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:45:48 PM EST

and Al Sharpton among other people.

Parent

Who were those imposters? (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:49:50 PM EST

Parent

Its a Hollyweird story. (none / 0) (#41)
by inclusiveheart on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:51:59 PM EST

Probably stunt men appearing on a day rate.

Parent

: Photo doubles, under the new SAG contract. (none / 0) (#42)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:57:00 PM EST

Parent

No going serious (none / 0) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:04:49 PM EST

for me on this subject.

Parent

dont get me started (none / 0) (#5)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:06:32 PM EST

you'll be sorry and I'll be banned.

Parent

Go ahead (none / 0) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:09:02 PM EST

Get started. Let's see where it goes.

We can call this a Family guy thread . . .

Parent

lucky I have to (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:10:43 PM EST

go home for the holidays in a couple of minutes.

btw
happy 4th erebody

Parent

: Heh (none / 0) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:11:21 PM EST

Enjoy the holiday.

Parent

Good (none / 0) (#9)
by jbindc on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:10:07 PM EST

His father should get nothing.

Parent

It is really sad (none / 0) (#18)
by lilburro on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:15:51 PM EST

I'm fascinated as well...and still listening to his music! A jazz funeral of sorts.

Parent

The money went (none / 0) (#73)
by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 06:01:56 PM EST

to the family trust, and apparently the papers on that are private, so nobody knows but the family how that money is set up to be used. IOW, he cut everybody out of his will, including explicity his children, as individual recipients, which is not uncommon, I don't believe, when you've set up a trust like that. Whether the trust is set up to benefit only his children, his children and his mother, or everybody in the family is unknown.

Parent

Making provisions for your children (none / 0) (#77)
by Anne on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 06:34:10 PM EST

via a trust is not "cutting them out of the Will;" trusts are established for the benefit of children all the time, often with distributions being at the sole discretion of the Trustee(s) - nothing nefarious about that at all.

It is also not unusual for a Will to have "pour-over" provisions, distributing the rest and residue (net estate remaining after payment of claims and expenses) to a trust that may have been created during the testator's lifetime.

Also possible that the Will itself establishes the Family Trust - and nothing unusual about that either.

There are good reasons to leave money in trust, some of them are tax considerations, some have to do with the age, maturity and other family circumstances that make leaving funds outright an invitation to disaster.

Wills and estate proceedings are generally a matter of public record; trusts, not usually.

You can disinherit any family member except a spouse, who generally has the right to claim his or her statutory share of the estate - the share that would have come to the spouse had there been no Will.

Of course, other family members, who feel they have been wronged, can file a caveat against the Will, seeking to have it thrown out - but that can be exceedingly difficult to succeed at, especially if there are prior Wills - because knocking out the current Will just moves the prior Will into its place - successfully getting all prior Wills thrown out is not just difficult, it is very expensive. The person seeking to have a Will thrown out must pay the cost of that action - but the cost of defending the Will is borne by the estate, so it is not unusual for an estate to be drained by these caveats, with no one ending up with much of anything. I was involved in one of those about 10 years ago, and it was not just ugly, completely tearing apart a family, but when it was all over, there was almost nothing left.

People always think this area of the law is dry and boring, but it can and often does rival the best soaps and tabloid dramas you have ever seen.

Parent

Debbie Rowe, the ex-wife (5.00 / 1) (#83)
by caseyOR on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 09:18:36 PM EST

Here's what I find confusing-- according to Charlie Gibson (why is he talking about this?) Jackson's will leaves nothing to his former wife, Debbie Rowe. The TV people are acting like this is some big dis to Rowe, and they are shocked.

I don't get it. Why is it shocking that a former spouse is not included in the will? Is it customary for people to leave an inheritance to the ex? I would have been surprised had Rowe been a beneficiary.

Why do the TV people think this is so out of bounds?

Anne, this is your area of expertise. What can you tell me?

Parent

I have no idea why anyone thinks (5.00 / 1) (#86)
by Anne on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 10:52:16 PM EST

Jackson not leaving his ex-wife a bequest is odd or disrespectful or out of the ordinary; I would guess that she got some kind of a nice settlement when they divorced, and they probably had a pre-nup in which she relinquished any right to make claims against his estate - pretty standard provision - happens all the time.

I think most of the TV people are idiots, frankly, and instead of actually getting some education on the subject, prefer to engage in the kind of emotional speculation that keeps the ratings up - I mean, they've pretty much squeezed every last drop out of Jackson's death, going 24/7 with the coverage, so now they are doing what they always do: resorting making controversy out of any detail they can.

It's why I have stayed away from "news" since last week - it's just what they do.

Parent

: Thanks, Anne (none / 0) (#88)
by caseyOR on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 10:58:56 PM EST

The whole faux-scandal made no sense to me.

Parent

Don't forget his charities (none / 0) (#78)
by nycstray on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 07:05:39 PM EST

I would think he would have set up something for them in the trust also?

Parent

Heh (none / 0) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:04:29 PM EST

Parent

FWIW (none / 0) (#75)
by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 06:03:25 PM EST

He never had them. That was one of the many, many utter falsehoods sold to tabloid media. Jackson apparently thought it was pretty funny and kept the idea going for a while because it was good publicity, but he never had them, if they even exist.

Parent

I suspect Michael knew (none / 0) (#6)
by lilburro on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:08:29 PM EST

that it would be freakin' awesome to be Diana Ross' kid. I'm just guessing.

But not Liz' kid? (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:09:34 PM EST

How dare you?????

Parent

They could split custody... (none / 0) (#13)
by lilburro on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:13:39 PM EST

Don't want to be Liza's kid though.

Parent

: Heh (none / 0) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:15:42 PM EST

Mama!! (Family guy reference)

Parent

Geez (none / 0) (#12)
by andgarden on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:13:25 PM EST

As for Liz. . .I guess she's getting up there.

Diana (none / 0) (#14)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:14:34 PM EST

is no spring chicken

Parent

Jinx (none / 0) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:15:11 PM EST

Parent

Last a saw, Liz didn't look so good (none / 0) (#21)
by andgarden on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:22:06 PM EST

but what do I know?

Parent

As I wrote above (none / 0) (#23)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:24:02 PM EST

my sense of humor is sicker than the rest of you decent folks.

Parent

Straight over my head, I'm afraid (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by andgarden on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:30:27 PM EST

That's OK.

Parent

Mine, too (none / 0) (#47)
by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 05:06:50 PM EST

I have no idea what the joke is. Kinda sick of Michael Jackson jokes anyway.

Parent

Haven't heard a Jackson joke (none / 0) (#51)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 05:08:42 PM EST

all week.

Where are you getting them from? a lot of pedophile jokes or something?

Parent

I'm talking about (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 05:09:25 PM EST

the last 20 years or so of ridicule.

Parent

Ah (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 05:13:56 PM EST

celebrities getting ridiculed. Never seen that before.

Excuse me, but the notion that Michael Jackson did not court the attention he got for the past 20 years (obviously his childhood is a different story) is absurd.

This sympathy for Jackson being "tormented" for being a celebrity is just absurd.

Ok, I'll say it. What about the pedophilia? any comment on that?

Parent

biting-tounge (none / 0) (#58)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 05:16:14 PM EST

starting-to-bleed

going home now.

Parent

Oh boy. (none / 0) (#59)
by Dr Molly on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 05:16:30 PM EST

You really went there.

Did you notice I've been completely silent about that?

Parent

I was too (5.00 / 1) (#61)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 05:18:17 PM EST

but this "poor Michael" sh*t just drove me over the edge.

Parent

Perhaps (none / 0) (#63)
by Dr Molly on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 05:20:12 PM EST

we crawl back up over the edge. Lest things get fugly.

Parent

Good idea (none / 0) (#64)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 05:21:33 PM EST

I'm out of the thread.

Parent

Too bad (5.00 / 1) (#71)
by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 05:56:38 PM EST

Michael Jackson has been a cheap and easy target for yucks for 20 years or more. He was actually a big boy and was willing to take it and even foster it sometimes because it was good business for Michael Jackson, Inc.

I didn't say "poor Michael Jackson," I just said I was sick of the cheap jokes and snickers. (I also literally don't get what's funny about Diana Ross.)

As for allegations of pedophilia, I don't buy it for a NY minute. I've never been much of a fan, but I've had to follow the gossip and the allegations and the trial more closely than I would have preferred, and I ended up -- like the jury -- unconvinced.

Mike Taibbi, the reporter NBC put in charge of its investigative team on the issue -- and no gullible soft touch -- says he's quite certain the accusation was made up to extort money from Jackson. I can understand why people would believe it, I just don't, nor do an awful lot of people who knew the guy. What you or I believe or don't believe is meaningless, and the truth about it will probably remain unknowable.

You'll agree, though, I'm sure, that it's a terrible, terrible thing to accuse somebody of if it's not true.

Parent

: Sure (none / 0) (#74)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 06:02:08 PM EST

But it is true imo.
Mike Taibbi is not my bible. Apparently he is yours.
Now I am really leaving.

Parent

Q: What do Michael Jackson (none / 0) (#65)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 05:27:28 PM EST

Q: What do Michael Jackson and the New York Mets have in common?
A: They're both walking around with one glove on their hand for no apparent reason whatsoever.

Q: What's the difference between Michael Jackson and a grocery bag?
A: One is white, made out of plastic, and dangerous for kids to play with and the other you carry your groceries in.

They get progressively worser here.

Parent

You really want one? (none / 0) (#80)
by ruffian on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 08:21:53 PM EST

I have a couple, but they are not that funny. I think this is a case where the real life events are better than any joke.

Parent

You think (none / 0) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:15:02 PM EST

Diana Ross is a spring chicken?

Parent

still (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:19:00 PM EST

better her than Latoya

Parent

: Bingo!! (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by dk on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:27:14 PM EST

Parent

Maybe she has less health probs? (none / 0) (#20)
by nycstray on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:21:01 PM EST

Parent

Thank you (none / 0) (#22)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:23:01 PM EST

Dr. NYCStray.

Liz was dissed I tell ya! Dissed!

All right, you folks are not where I am on the humor of this.

Fair enough. I am a sick puppy.

Parent

Most celebrity weirdness (5.00 / 2) (#35)
by inclusiveheart on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:45:00 PM EST

would provoke my sick sense of humor, but not as a particular fan of Michael Jackson it is actually difficult for me to think how weird and screwed up his life was is funny.

This guy never had a life of his own. Everyone wanted a piece of him and they still do. And they'll want a piece of those kids - if they are lucky they won't be biologically related to him and therefore won't be treated as something akin to race horses - like they did to their father - rather than as people who shouldn't be owned like property by a bunch of blood-suckers in the entertainment industry.

Capt Howdy asked about the Elephant Man's bones, but the sick thing is that I won't be at all surprised if someone pops up on ebay selling one of Michael Jackson's fingers or something creepy and disgusting like that - and that it would be found to be real. MJ just never had a life that was grounded in anything but the fantasy and dysfunction of the entertainment industry. It was impossible for him to escape.

Apologies for being serious in your Family Guy thread.

Parent

Well (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:48:57 PM EST

I can't join your empathy for the rich, famous and talented.

If I can't laugh at them, and get serious, especially about Jackson, there is a lot of negative things to be said about Jackson himself.

I'd rather laugh about the absurdity of it all than take a cr*p on the guy a week after he died.

Parent

My sympathy is not universal. (5.00 / 2) (#43)
by inclusiveheart on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:58:58 PM EST

Reserved primarily for people like Michael Jackson and a few others who never really had a choice and were never really given the opportunity or taught the skills to make a choice. Jackson was supporting a lot of people from a very young age and pretty much everyone around him would have wanted/needed him to continue to produce for their own benefit.

His father is the most blatant about using his son for financial gain, but most of the other people around him were dong the same thing.

Parent

MJ's personality (none / 0) (#45)
by lilburro on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 05:05:32 PM EST

it seems to me his extreme shyness and other strange behaviors could likely be accounted for (at least in part) by something like Asperger's Syndrome. Or probably something more crippling - David Byrne apparently has Asperger's and all respect to David but MJ is on another level of social weirdness entirely.

Parent

read (5.00 / 3) (#48)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 05:07:20 PM EST

about his childhood and homelife. you will see why he was weird.

Parent

: recommendations? (none / 0) (#91)
by lilburro on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 09:08:47 AM EST

(yes, joining the death cult of Michael...)

Parent

I tend to think he is the Hollywood (5.00 / 1) (#76)
by inclusiveheart on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 06:07:06 PM EST

equivalent of the fabled boy raised by wolves - only Jackson never had anyone come in and teach him how to live normal human life.

Parent

I've also wondered (none / 0) (#54)
by Dr Molly on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 05:10:40 PM EST

what might have been happening with him re: torment due to gender or sexual orientation issues. I mean, doesn't he kind of seem obviously trans in the last few year, or is it just me? The hair, mascara, lipstick, clothes, etc...

I don't know but, in any case, he was obviously in a lot of emotional pain.

Parent

: oh (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 05:14:19 PM EST

I think its way more complicated than than.

Parent

I don't think (none / 0) (#84)
by BackFromOhio on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 09:37:43 PM EST

MJ had Aspergers. Those with Aspergers syndrome have a range of deficits that MJ did not have. There is a wide range considered "normal" in the personality trait defined by extent of personal shyness on one end and extroversion on the other. MJ suffered from Lupus, which, I understand, can cause severe joint pain and loss of pigmentation, and vertiglio, which also causes pigmentation loss. These conditions may have been the source of some of his seeming oddness and perhaps a need to withdraw at times.

MJ was a highly complex person who should not be reduced, as Bill Clinton would say, to a 2-dimensional cartoon.

Parent

Did his father happen to mention (none / 0) (#49)
by nycstray on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 05:07:27 PM EST

licensing along with the record company?

I'm wondering how long it will be before "someone" is fully up, running and continuing to profit off of him (officially licensed that is).

Parent

according to reports (none / 0) (#53)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 05:09:26 PM EST

licensing is exactly what is up for grabs. they say it will be worth far more than the millions in debt he is.

Parent

I need to get out of the biz . . . (none / 0) (#79)
by nycstray on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 07:21:58 PM EST

I wonder how long it will take to sort it, lol!~

Parent

I'm sure they are taking a page (none / 0) (#81)
by ruffian on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 08:25:19 PM EST

from the Presley family playbook. All of the Elvis stuff that gets sold is licensed and goes right to the family company, from what I recall.

Parent

: Well, not all of it goes back :) (none / 0) (#89)
by nycstray on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 11:38:43 PM EST

And yes, I've worked on Elvis, lol!~
Companies that develop and produce the products pay a licensing fee, and then (iirc right now) there's the sales and all the other little idiosyncrasies.
I suspect the Ranch and MJ will def go the Elvis route. I just hope they have good management until the kids are old enough (on the financial end). MJ is just $$$ to so many :(

Parent

it is as it ever was (none / 0) (#37)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:47:14 PM EST

Marilyn, Elvis etc etc

Parent

Jackson was five when he first (5.00 / 3) (#44)
by inclusiveheart on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 05:04:35 PM EST

broke out and became a money-maker.

Elvis and Marilyn wanted their fame and made that decision when they were at least close to adulthood.

While their stories are sad, I'm less sympathetic to the ravages of fame on their lives because they chose it.

I don't think that Michael Jackson on the other hand really ever had a choice.

Parent

I don't accept that (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 05:17:23 PM EST

when he came of age, he had total control of his life.

See, I wanted to just have laughs. but this poor Michael sh*t is p(ssing me off.

Parent

I believe in self determination as much (5.00 / 1) (#72)
by inclusiveheart on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 05:57:49 PM EST

as you do in most cases - just not this one.

Don't get cranky. Well, be cranky if you want, but there's really no need.

I just happen to think that this guy lived his life as more a piece of property than he was ever allowed to be a whole person - I think that you'd have to be really, really special to live through his life and the people who wanted a piece of him to come out grounded and sane. He was a talented artist, but he was particularly lacking in (and by all accounts ignorant of) the skills for actually living a life outside of the Hollyweird fantasy machine.

Parent

: As a talented artist (5.00 / 1) (#93)
by sj on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 02:20:22 PM EST

His mundane, real world survival skills may have been compromised. An artist just doesn't necessarily see the world the way a "practical" person does. My family struggled with this perception problem for a long time vis a vis my artist brother before we finally realized that we weren't really talking about the same world.
And yes, I know this thread is pretty much dead. I just felt compelled to weigh in...

Parent

point taken (none / 0) (#46)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 05:06:31 PM EST

he probably didnt.

Parent

anyway (none / 0) (#38)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:48:30 PM EST

the most valuable ebay find would be his nose.
sorry its BTD fault

Parent

: The real one (none / 0) (#50)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 05:07:37 PM EST

or the 10 fake ones?

Parent

You should (none / 0) (#69)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 05:33:34 PM EST

read this ABCNews story

Link

Michael fell apart to a great extent just like most of the rest of the boys, while Janet was the family breadwinner for a chunk of time.

If you read around, Michael paid his brothers very little for any "comebackish" concert appearances, amounts like $1000 for an appearance. In addition, he stiffed others who worked for him. The nurse (ARNP?) who reported on his Propofol problem said that she stopped working for him -- because he didn't pay her. Paying an ARNP for a few house visits shouldn't have been a problem for a guy with a billion dollar career.

Michael's wierdness was part of his schtick. Had he been normal, he'd definitely have disappeared into oblivion after a time.

At some point people have to be responsible for their own lives. Many people have horrible childhoods, don't have the benefit of billion dollar careers and have to function in society. Color me crazy, but I feel far more sympathy for them than I ever will for him.

Michael was surrounded by yes-people. However if you read the writings of a Rabbi who was a close friend of his, if people didn't say yes to Michael, Michael ditched them. The leeches and yes-people were his own fault.

Michael's life and his death were his own responsibility.

People die all of the time because they can't get good medical care. Michael's astoundingly available medical care killed him. That is ironically funny.

Watching all of this unfold is like watching a trainwreck. Unfortunately, the real passengers, the true victims of the wrecked train are his kids. Sad to think what will happen to them. They are the ones I'm rooting for.

Parent

: I was thinking this too (none / 0) (#82)
by ruffian on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 08:27:59 PM EST

People die all of the time because they can't get good medical care. Michael's astoundingly available medical care killed him. That is ironically funny.
Prime example of the most expensive medical care not necessarily being the best. I'm sure he did not have to "wait in line" for any of his treatments.

Parent

maybe (none / 0) (#25)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:24:57 PM EST

he was afraid Liz would eat them?

Parent

Ahhh (none / 0) (#26)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:26:20 PM EST

You are on my wave length.

I was looking for a video of the Belushi doing Liz skit on SNL.

Parent

: Stop (none / 0) (#87)
by cal1942 on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 10:52:35 PM EST

you're making my sides split and I'm having trouble catching my breath.

Parent

Lol!~ (none / 0) (#33)
by nycstray on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:39:08 PM EST

I was having a serious moment there {grin} and kinda wondering why Janet didn't get the kids in the event of . . ., so my humor was cat nappin'. :)

Have you had all your shots?

Parent

: Wasn't shot today . . . (none / 0) (#34)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:41:08 PM EST

Parent

Didn't you know? (none / 0) (#57)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 05:14:26 PM EST

He's still alive.

This is all part of the the "This is it" comeback tour.

The concrete ordered at Neverland is part of the giant mausoleum that he'll pop out of.

one heck of a tour (none / 0) (#62)
by Jlvngstn on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 05:19:16 PM EST

if you can get Elvis to appear with him and Ed Wood directing and Howard Hughes financing....

Parent

: Don't forget (none / 0) (#70)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 05:38:43 PM EST

Andy Kaufman. He'll em-cee the whole thing.
Of course his opening line:
"Heeere I come to save the Dayyyyy!"

Parent

As someone who works in the area (none / 0) (#66)
by Anne on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 05:27:38 PM EST

of estates and trusts, I've seen all kinds of punishment and revenge from beyond the grave, and it's never pretty, never.

It will be interesting to see really how much of what he owned is controlled by his Will - and what is left after claims are paid - I'm thinking the claims will be many and large, and I suspect there will be claims-related litigation, especially if the estate is essentially insolvent (claims exceeding assets).

What it may all boil down to is there being relatively little to fund that family trust from the probate estate, which will be a shame for his children.

On the other hand, if there are assets passing outside the Will - life insurance, payable-on-death accounts, etc. - it may not be so bad.

Too bad he didn't establish the Jackson Family Therapy Trust, with the possibility of receiving any eventual distributions being contingent upon a successful completion of family therapy.

This is one estate that would be fascinating to work on and the administration of which will likely go on for years. The estate tax audit alone will be something else.

jJust saw my first MJ (none / 0) (#67)
by oculus on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 05:29:40 PM EST

Video today ap the fair. Black and White

Shouldn't .Madonna get the kids?

Glad To See (none / 0) (#68)
by squeaky on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 05:32:38 PM EST

That the grief stricken (or something) delusions have stopped, and no one is still comparing MJ to Mozart.

: County fair theme this year is (none / 0) (#85)
by oculus on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 10:45:56 PM EST

"Music Mania." Yes, there was a little tiny display re classical music, honoring J.S. Bach, W.A. Mozart, and L. von Beethoven. Pathetic.

Parent

Apparently MJ thought he would surely (none / 0) (#90)
by ruffian on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 08:53:58 AM EST

Outlive Liz. As did every member of my dead pool.

Well, this is the thread for tasteless confession. I had MJ picked a few months ago but gave him up for Alan Greenspan. Silly me, thinking shame was as powerful as medical experimentation.

Michael Jackson's Will | 92 comments (92 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment