Insanity X Lives (-X1) Blanaid X Lives






Again, while I am NOT the great legal mind of the 21st Century I am a reader. I am a researcher, if there is something of interest to me from an intellectual stand-point I am in it. Please let's be clear here the information provided in this blog sets out to neither *clear* or *destroy* anyone. I need to reinforce and stress the aforementioned principle--this blog will begin to get very complex. You will see some very compelling evidence--all of which is factual might I add. Please keep an open mind as you read the contents of this blog and know that the evidence regardless of your feelings about it is indeed factual. Although, you might not approve of something--this does not make it untrue.

I seek the truth just like any other individual who is here for Michael. I also support anyone that has a true love for Michael. What this means effectively is that they are not interested in money nor fame--nor the limelight regarding the efforts of any actions concerning Michael. I am not seeking any of these things. I operate my pages and blog free of charge along with many like minded individuals that feel the same way.

With respect to Michael, I think that he made some decisions that would protect his estate meaning his children and his mother. Michael was very wise. I know that I would have. It is important that when one plans an estate that they consider any possible issues which may arise. It is a difficult and sensitive thing to plan your journey into the afterlife and look out for the people you love. In being faced with a decision one has to do what is best for their family. Although you may not agree with the choice of executors for the estate--you must admit that the estate has the legal right to control and profit from Michael's image. Until such time that a judge warrants it necessary to suspend the current WILL and/or executors that are in place--this is what it is. A judge has chosen to uphold that WILL in a court of law. There is nothing you or I can do to change this--it is factual.

John Branca Best in the West Article



The will has as its main purpose the following 4 stipulations:
  • All assets of Michael Jackson have to be transferred to a trust (the Michael Jackson Family Trust) he had established prior to his death (trust document last amended March 22, 2002). The relevant trust document (which as a trust document is private but got leaked to the News of the World and published on May 30, 2010) controls what is supposed to happen with Michael Jackson's assets once they are transferred to this trust. The will establishes the estate (assets and properties of Michael Jackson outside the trust), controls what is supposed to happen with them, and controls the transfer of assets to the trust. The will makes it clear in several instances that *all* assets are to be transferred to the Michael Jackson Family Trust: Will, Section III; and: "it being my intention that my entire estate shall be administered as a unit" (Will, Section VII).

  • John Branca and John McClain are the trustees of the trusts (both the Michael Jackson Family Trust and the subsequent separate trusts for Katherine Jackson and the children; a third trustee resigned in 2003).

  • According to the trust document 20% of the gross value of the Michael Jackson Family Trust (based on the federal estate tax estimate) will be paid out towards children's charities--"as soon as reasonably practical". These charities will be selected by a committee consisting of the trustees (John Branca and John McClain) and a beneficiary (Katherine Jackson) of this trust. This means that if the trust is valued at e.g. USD $500 Mil, USD $100 Mil will go towards these charities. After that, the taxes, expenses, debts, fees and any other costs (e.g. funeral expenses) are to be paid. Whatever remains will be put aside in separate trusts for the children and Katherine, respectively, each of these trusts receiving 50% of the remaining value of the Michael Jackson Family Trust. Katherine Jackson is a lifelong beneficiary, upon her death, her trust will be merged with the children's trust.
  • The will names the executors of the will, John Branca and John McClain (a third executor resigned in 2003). In fact, this makes them the executors of the estate and thus they decide about all assets/all properties of Michael Jackson which have not been transferred to the trust (yet). They have to make sure that all rights related to those assets/properties are retained for the estate and transferred to or benefiting the Michael Jackson Family Trust. Right now, we are mostly dealing with John Branca and John McClain in their capacity as executors of the will/estate (not the trust), addressing issues with assets, properties and rights of Michael Jackson, securing them for the estate and thus enabling their transfer, if feasible, to the trust. Due to the scope of the estate, and the complexity of the issues, this process will take a very long time.
  • Katherine Jackson is named as the guardian of the children.
BX: Note that the trust document was first drawn in 1995 so previous versions would be available. There is also a will from 1997.

Michael Jackson Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust
"The will splits proceeds 40 percent to the children, 40 percent to Katherine and 20 percent to charity. The family insider said: "Michael's mother and his children were the dearest thing to him in his life, so he made sure that they would benefit when he died."


*There is a Wikipedia article which references the power given to the trustees of the Michael Jackson Family Trust there is a key portion here you may review this below.

"All assets are given to the (pre-existing) Michael Jackson Family Trust (amended 22 March 2002), the details of which have not been made public."

*According to Wikipedia*

Michael Jackson Will Findlaw
"Jackson's last will was filed by attorney John Branca at the Los Angeles County courthouse on July 1, 2009. Signed July 7, 2002, it names Branca and accountant John McClain as executors; they were confirmed as such by a Los Angeles judge on July 6, 2009.[63] All assets are given to the (pre-existing) Michael Jackson Family Trust (amended 22 March 2002),[64] the details of which have not been made public."


Many people have stated that the current will is fake. Even if this is to be the case the will is at least protecting the image of Michael while providing for Michael's children and his mother--I can clearly see this. In order for the estate to remain solvent it needs to be able to acquire money! This is a fact! The future of Michael's children depend upon this factor. Yes, this is a very serious thing. People are trying to stake claim to Michael's image and they are NOT members of the family. Some people that are exploiting Michael's image for personal gain are not even related to the Jacksons nor are they covered under the estate as beneficiaries of any kind--yet they feel a sense of entitlement!

Michael Jackson's Will Fake, Says His Former Advisor
"Leonard Rowe told that investigators — commissioned by Michael’s younger brother Randy — proved a 2002 will the singer wrote is not valid because of a string of errors and a question over his whereabouts the date it was signed."


I have a few things to say here. None of what was discussed at this meeting--according to this article--is new. We know the children's names are not correct--this does not hinder the will from being considered legally valid as the intention is clear. We know Michael was in New York July 6th to July 9th, we know there is footage of him. There would be hotel receipts--well, I assume if Michael had left New York for a day (assuming he flew to LA) he would have kept the room he had, right? But when it is stated that Al Sharpton is willing to swear an affidavit he was with Michael on July 7th--is this because there is lack of factual evidence relating to July 7th? And what about this statement here:
“We have reason to believe that Michael may have been in NY on the 7th and Rev. Sharpton will address this after he discusses it with the Jackson family,” Noerdlinger said in the statement. “Michael Jackson was with us in New York City on July 6th at our Harlem Headquarters and again for a summit with Rev. Sharpton, attorney Johnnie Cochran and others around the issue of artist rights a few days later on July 9th.”
"A rep for Al Sharpton, who was also part of the protests against Mottola, confirmed to TMZ that Jackson was with Sharpton during the period July 6 to July 9. "We have reason to believe that Michael may have been in NY on the 7th and Rev. Sharpton will address this after he discusses it with the Jackson family," the rep said in a statement."


Now, either Al Sharpton knows or he knows not--"reason to believe" is not conveying factual knowledge. Either it is or it is not. And you know something else? What if you or I were faced with the task of forging a will? And you or I had been the attorney of the person's will we were about to forge--not just that--we would just happen to be the attorney of the person when they told the world their contract partner was the devil. And to top it off you or I would happen to be the person who once drew up the contract. Would we not even remotely or faintly have had any recollection of such an event--that we would date our forged will to such a precarious date? Of all dates in the world to choose from (there are 365 days in an ordinary year) why would we pick the most probable date to cause an issue and make us susceptible to attacks? Now, how plausible does that sound to you?


If the family currently has no rights to Michael's image why should any other organization be allowed to use it? I don't think this is fair; moreover, this is not correct. I express this because there are people that have taken to presuming that they as outsiders meaning non-family members have rights to do as they please with Michael's image. Many orders to cease and desist on behalf of the estate have been issued to various foundations and people marketing or gaining profit from the usage of Michael's image. There have actually been business ventures that I have seen take place before my own eyes. There are people getting rich doing this. After the deed, when the estate takes the violator of the IP to court the violator seems to have an issue with this.

Joe Jackson's Estate Appeal Remove Branca Dismissed
In defense of the Jackson Family there needs to be a limitation with respect to the IP Rights regarding someone's likeness! What if I have a family member which is A MEGA STAR--now in the afterlife--and I wish to throw a huge fundraising event surrounding them. I then proceed to make thousands of pamphlets to distribute via mail to inform close family, friends and associates of this up and coming event. I then have the estate sell the image rights of my sibling and I can NO LONGER utilize his/her image to do anything-NOW THIS IS MY FAMILY MEMBER!


WHAT GIVES ANY BUSINESS OR CORPORATION THE RIGHT TO SAY THAT I CANNOT USE THE LIKENESS AND IMAGE OF MY OWN FAMILY MEMBER! There must be a limitation to this. There has to be a limit to how far they can go with respect to the right of one's likeness and image with regard to family members!

Katherine Challenges Estate

If the Jacksons themselves were unable to challenge the estate at the current time for their sibling (with the exception of Mrs. Katherine Jackson being able to challenge the estate via the Safe Harbor judgment WHICH SHE RETRACTED) how could anyone feel that they have more authority and rights than the Jacksons? MJ is like the rights to anything that Michael did! That is part of his stage name and how he is referenced in the entertainment world. How would one think that they should have the right to that particular moniker I am unclear of. That is like trying to apply for a trademark for the King Of Pop which Ms. Johnson DID in fact do! Perhaps she should have tried Peter Pan then she would have had an issue with Disney--try that....

*The Peter Pan Foundation!*

Heal the World Foundation:

Ms. Johnson was successful in registering some of the actual trademarks shown in the video further below. I am clear this is actually the case. There is an article stating that the judge requested that she cease to "convey to consumers a false affiliation with Michael Jackson". It was also further suggested that she tried to register over 40 trademarks without gaining any approval. Even if the applications were in before Michael's passing and he approved this it would need to be in the trust so that the trustees could administer it after the other terms of the trust had been met. *Michael made provisions and exceptions for charitable donations. **Was there any mention of Heal The World in the DECLARATION OF TRUST or the will? Would he not have mentioned his own organization as one of the charities among the beneficiaries? Instead, he says a committee should select existing charities. The will states that all of Michael's assets were to be placed into the Jackson Family Trust! Ms. Johnson would know this right?


Ms. Johnson did indeed register her own separate trademark "HEAL THE WORLD" however she was unsuccessful in the many other trademark applications in which she applied for. By the way Ms. Johnson also purchased top level domain names on the web with names directly related to Michael. Also, why would a judge order a temporary injunction regarding her foundation??? The evidence--which was presented--must have been so compelling that it made a judge rule this way. *I would think that the "MJ" brand belongs to the estate and not to Ms. Johnson respectfully. In this video it shows some documents regarding various U.S. Trademark ™ symbols however the court records do state that an actual trademark application for "MJ" placed by Ms. Johnson was granted to her!

The other documentation presented by Ms. Johnson could have just as easily have been all of the trademark application paperwork. Yes, these documents could very well be one of the many documents which the court records state that Ms. Johnson filed.

"In the days after Michael Jackson’s death there were numerous news references to the ongoing charitable work of his “Heal the World Foundation”. However Jackson’s charity officially closed its doors in 2004. A new charity also named the “Heal the World Foundation” leaves the impression it is the same charity but CBS News has discovered it has no connection to the pop star’s current estate. The charity is run by Melissa Johnson who also runs a home health care business for the elderly called “Angels Embrace” run out of the same office in Palm Desert, California. A call to Johnson’s home was answered with, “Angels Embrace,” by a man who said his name was Chris Johnson."

"Records provided by the charity indicate the website received $6,191.57 in donations during the month of July through PayPal. According to state records the current "Heal the World Foundation" started in March 2008. Federal records show the organization received its IRS tax exempt status in January of 2009. In response to questions about the charitable work of the foundation, Johnson told CBS News, "our only actions have been to protect the property of the charity and console the fans and people who want to pay tribute in their own way."

Johnson obtained the trademark “Heal the World Foundation” according to the US Trademark Office in October 2008. But a month after Jackson’s death she filed for a new trademark, “Michael Jackson Heal the World Foundation”. In her application she notes that she wants to provide, “Charitable services, namely, providing a website that enables children of a school district to communicate with a charity of their choice; Computer services, namely, creating an on-line community for registered users to participate in discussions, get feedback from their peers, form virtual communities, and engage in social networking; Hosting of digital content on the Internet.”

"Melissa Johnson also filed three applications to trademark “MJ” in July of 2008 to be used for “athletic apparel,” “audio and video recordings”, “digital media”, “downloadable music”, “video games”, “toys… talking toys… and toy and novelty face masks” according to the US Patent and Trademark office."
"But representatives of the Jackson estate say the foundation is not linked, "The Michael Jackson estate has no connection whatsoever to the "Heal the World Foundation” run by Melissa Johnson," said Terry Fahn, a spokesperson for John Branca, the special administrator of the Jackson estate. A spokesperson for Katherine Jackson’s attorney L. Londell McMillan could not confirm or deny a connection to Melissa Johnson. Johnson told CBS she has not been in touch with the Jackson family since his death. The foundation plays up its connection to Michael Jackson. The charity’s Twitter account with 587 followers says, “Heal The World Foundation was started by Pop Star Michael Jackson in 1992. Anyone interested in committing (sic) themselves to Healing the World is most welcome here”. The site notes that following Jackson’s London tour he was planning to, “live a long and full life, devoted to [Heal the World Foundation] and serving his God and his fellow man, with his fans leading the way”.

“The Jackson management that reports to you now is NOT his management staff of many years,” said Johnson of the current "Heal the World Foundation" in an email to CBS, “They recently replaced a crew of managers and those people had been working with us for years.”

"That the memorial PR came from an event management company with no evident coordination with the Jackson estate raised a red flag for me, but that's not the only odd thing. There's also the array of Michael Jackson domain names associated with the Foundation's president, Melissa Johnson, and the charity itself. For example, while Michael has been known to inspire quasi-religious devotion among his fans, would he have authorized the use of the domain name"

"Somewhat more troubling, the Foundation is named in the WHOIS listing for, but the link itself takes you to Johnson's personal home health care service. Even more curiously, the home health service lists HTWF as a partner in providing elder care assistance--with no mention of Jackson. I was willing to view the Jackson-related domain names as a bit of strategic cybersquatting, but commingling charitable enterprise with a manager's own commercial private business is not something a charity should do."

"Which leads me to the next and last curious piece of evidence. Johnson claims in a recent interview that "it is NOT true, that HTWF stopped functioning as a charity at any point since its inception in 1992." But if that's the case, why do both the California Attorney General and the IRS treat Jackson's HTWF and Johnson's HTWF as two legally distinct organizations?"



Allow me to interject here for a moment if you will. Ms. Johnson applied for trademarks and was granted one for the use of the moniker "MJ" to market computer games, toys and an online website? This seems like it would grant her the right to have exclusive access to Michael's moniker if she had been successful--which she was with respect to the Trademark Patents! Ms. Johnson registered the trademark "MJ" under US Trademark Patent # 3,567,671 on January 27th, 2009! Ms. Johnson then proceeded to file for more trademarks upon Michael's passing! **Among the trademarks filed for by Ms. Johnson were the KING OF POP, MAKE THAT CHANGE, THRILLER and, several others! To add insult to injury after she was warned to cease the IP infringement prior--according to the complaint Ms. Johnson continued to exploit the US Trademark procedure and the name of Michael. Ms. Johnson and the other defendants continued to infringe and sell merchandise in which it appears this did indeed infringe on the IP rights of the estate.


"Defendant HTWF has registered six trademarks connected to Michael Jackson, including the character marks HEAL THE WORLD FOUNDATION, HEAL THE WORLD, HTWF, and MJ. (Boyajian Decl. ¶¶ 12, 14, Exs. J, L.) In addition, Defendant HTWF has filed seven applications with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for marks using the Jackson Foundation name, including HEAL THE WORLD and MICHAEL JACKSON’S HEAL THE WORLD FOUNDATION. (Id. ¶ 13, Ex. K.) Defendant HTWF has also filed 27 applications for marks that uniquely and unmistakably point to Jackson and his persona, including MAKE THAT CHANGE, KING OF POP, GONE TOO SOON, THRILLER, NEVERLAND, MICHAEL, MJ, and MICHAEL JACKSON. (Id. ¶ 15, Ex. M.) Defendant HTWF registered and/or applied for each of these marks without Plaintiffs’ or Jackson’s consent. (Id. ¶ 12.)"

-Preliminary Injunction


Moreover, it does not seem like Ms. Johnson is much into charity as she is more on the corporate side of things here. I am referencing the U.S. Trademark applications and all of the donations and finances of the charity that she had at her disposal--which she utilized for trademark applications. Does this seem like a charitable venture to you? It truly appears that Ms. Johnson's interests were only to secure trademark patents does these sound like corporate ventures to you?
According to the court records Ms. Johnson was approached to broker a deal with a large toy manufacturer with the trademarks she obtained. She also suggested on her website shortly after Michael's passing that she was awaiting an answer from the Jackson family to continue the work of her foundation.

  • #1. What this effectively means is that if Ms. Johnson remained successfully undiscovered anything with "MJ" in it--without her prior authorization--would've been considered as US Trademark infringement. Thus, it would leave Ms. Johnson open to receive financial compensation for use of the "MJ" Trademark. Again, Ms. Johnson obtained 6 registered trademarks and filed for 41 applications associated with Michael Jackson which are identical to or confusingly similar to the MJJ Trademarks according to the complaint.
  • #2. The companies being charged with this would have had to pay Ms. Johnson for the usage of that US Trademark symbol meaning she would have also been able to broker deals using them! The court documents state that her speech was suggestive; in which her speech alluded to make it appear as if she had a relationship with the Jacksons to the public--this was considered as a false association according to the court documents. I am quite sure that if Ms. Johnson had a relationship with the Jacksons they would have advocated on her behalf to prevent all of this from transpiring.
Does this sound right to you? Let me also state for the record that you may gain access to many documents which are available. You just need to know where to go to obtain them. She could have also just as well gotten these documents as I have acquired the ones you see here.
"INJUNCTION-A court order that orders a party to do or refrain from doing a certain act (or acts) as opposed to a money judgment. For example: An injunction might be obtained to prevent a copyright infringer from reprinting copyrighted materials; in divorces there are frequently mutual restraining orders (a form of injunction) requiring both parties to leave another alone; A court order which restrains one of the parties to a suit in equity from doing or permitting others who are under his control to do an act which is unjust to the other party; If a party has threatened to remove marital property, or has threatened to kidnap, a court might prohibit the party from touching any marital property or removing the child from the county. Emergency injunctions that are in effect only a short time are called temporary restraining orders. Courts can also issue preliminary injunctions to take effect immediately and effective until a decision is made on a permanent injunction, which can stay in effect indefinitely or until certain conditions are met."

"Cease and Desist-A judge may issue a cease-and-desist order with the intent to halt an illegal activity. This prohibition is sometimes used as the outcome of a trial, in which case it is a permanent injunction against the activity. It can also be used as an emergency measure to prevent possibly irreparable harm, in which case it takes the form of a temporary injunction. An injunction against speech issued before it occurs (e.g. preventing a pending publication) is called prior restraint."


Melissa Johnson says she was working with Michael Jackson and his lawyers. But back in 2001 and 2002, the story is a different one. On pages 3 and 4 of the PDF displaying the injunction against Heal The World Foundation you will find the following, relevant information:


"Michael will not go forward with Heal The World Foundation, without me." (July 2001 Letter to Evvy Tavasci)."

"The letter also described an incident where Johnson appeared unannounced and uninvited at Mr. Jackson’s residence at Neverland Valley Ranch where his security personnel refused to accept a package [Johnson] sought to personally deliver to Mr. Jackson. (Id.) It cautioned Johnson that her “behavior and attempted communications with Mr. Jackson are harassing, highly inappropriate and constitute a security risk to Mr. Jackson and his employees. (Id.)"

-Preliminary Injunction


Lawyers for Michael Jackson warned her of her "harassing and threatening behaviour toward Mr Jackson and Ms. Tavasci". She also appeared unannounced and uninvited at Neverland. She was warned that her behaviour was "harassing, highly inappropriate" thus constituting a security risk for Mr. Jackson. In my opinion, this does not sound as if Mr. Jackson and Ms. Johnson were ever working in unison. Ms. Johnson's actions appear to be those of a stalker.


And not for anything the tone of the correspondence with regard to Ms. Tavasci sounds very much like extortionist behavior. Furthermore, why would any seasoned business professional(s) require the assistance of Ms. Johnson to apply for US Trademarks? I have a better one why would they require her assistance for anything?

Professionals have the business savvy to do this all of their own accord without enlisting the help of one Ms. Johnson. I seriously doubt that it would be a wise business decision for anyone to allow someone that runs a home health care agency out of their home to apply for US Trademarks for an estate which manages a deceased megastar!

This would effectively involve this individual in a legacy--which in this case is *generating high amounts of revenue on the behalf of Michael's estate. Please also bear in mind that Ms. Johnson's name bears the same initials as Michael's (Melissa Johnson/MJ). We will also note for the record that poor writing skills are used in video number two--in which an excerpt was not utilizing professional writing skills. *You cannot convince me that this is the work of someone with corporate experience. *They would not put out such work with ill-preparation as this is NOT professional behavior. It appears to be the behavior of someone that has minute to no corporate experience--pardon me.

I seriously doubt that this was a legal document. Could this have been an excerpt from the court minutes? Was this a statement which she personally edited because it is costly to hire qualified assistance? In addition Ms. Johnson has the documentation online and I must say some of the emails I question the validity of being that you can tamper and make things say what you like. If she had all of this evidence why did a judge not honor her by allowing her to continue with her charitable works? Amidst the various pieces of documentation which Ms. Johnson has provided she states that she has helped individuals with a disadvantaged status. Therefore, to date can Ms. Johnson state for the record where that money has gone which she procured in exchange for memberships?

Can Ms. Johnson show itemized records for the money she claims to have spent regarding her charitable assistance for the disadvantaged? I see other sorts of documentation where is this kind? Has the money gone into any type of legitimized charitable works or back into her charity (*trademarks venture*)? Where are Ms. Johnson's itemized charitable expenditures?

Where are the videos of the disadvantaged people or the testimonials of the individuals which she has proclaimed to help/provide assistance for? I assure you if you help people in need they will vouch for you as they do not forget things of this nature. Have any of them come to her aid? Can she put real names and faces along with some serious accounting behind the disadvantaged statements?

This is tax deductible--where is she showing records of this? *In all candidness, categorically this is what she needs to show here. Being under a 501(c) (3) status did Ms. Johnson apply for any grants or additional funding? Did she apply for loans under the corporate umbrella of the charity? These are some serious questions that require answers. I do not dispute that some of the documentation is legitimate; however, there are email messages which appear to be fictitious!

501 (c) (3) Status:

According to the HEAL THE WORLD FOUNDATION it has listed itself as a 501 (c) (3) under CAUSES on Facebook. Now this is indeed the case and charities have certain guidelines that they must follow. Many of the guidelines are listed below and come directly from the IRS Governance PDF Publication. Below is the current information listed on Facebook CAUSES for the HEAL THE WORLD FOUNDATION:

HEAL THE WORLD FOUNDATION EIN: 95-4329575Tax Status: 501(c)(3)

Full Name: HEAL THE WORLD FOUNDATIONAddress: 44489 Town Center Way Ste D425 Palm Desert, CA 92260
Nonprofit Scorecard
* 24 causes * 8,637 members * $356 donated * 16 donors

501(c)/501(c) (3):

Colloquially, a 501(c) organization or simply "a 501(c)" is an American tax-exempt, nonprofit corporation or association. Section 501(c) of the United States Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. § 501(c)), provides that 26 types of nonprofit organizations are exempt from some federal income taxes. Sections 503 through 505 set out the requirements for attaining such exemptions. Many states refer to Section 501(c) for definitions of organizations exempt from state taxation as well.

General Compliance Issues:

  • This is found to be true -- Under IRS's IRC Section 511, a 501(c) organization is subject to tax on its "unrelated business income," whether or not the organization actually makes a profit, but not including selling donated merchandise or other business or trade carried on by volunteers, or certain bingo games. Disposal of donated goods valued over $2,500, or acceptance of goods worth over $5,000 may also trigger special filing and record-keeping requirements.Note that "tax exempt" also does not excuse an organization from maintaining proper records and filing any required annual or special-purpose tax returns. Previously, annual returns were not generally required from an exempt organization accruing less than $25,000 in gross income yearly. However, from 2008 onwards, many such organizations must file a yearly "e-Postcard" known as Form 990-N, or risk losing their exemption.Failure to file required returns such as Form 990 (Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax) may result in monetary fines of up to $250,000 per year. Exempt or political organizations (excluding churches or similar religious entities) must make their returns, reports, notices, and exempt applications available for public inspection.The exempt organization filed IRS Form 990 (or similar such public record as the Form 990-EZ or Form 990-PF) are generally available for public inspection and photocopying at the offices of the exempt organization, through a written request and payment for photocopies by mail from the exempt organization, or through a direct Form 4506-A Request for Public Inspection or Copy or Political Organization IRS Form request to the IRS of the exempt organization filing of Form 990 for the past three tax years. The Form 4506-A also allows the public inspection and/or photocopying access to Form 1023 Application for Recognition of Exemption or Form 1024, Form 8871 Political Organization Notice of Section 527 Status, and Form 8872 Political Organization Report of Contribution and Expenditures. Failure to file such timely returns and to make other specific information available to the public also is prohibited.

Annual Reports:

An annual report is a comprehensive report on a company's activities throughout the preceding year. Annual reports are intended to give shareholders and other interested people information about the company's activities and financial performance. Most jurisdictions require companies to prepare and disclose annual reports, and many require the annual report to be filed at the company's registry. Companies listed on a stock exchange are also required to report at more frequent intervals (depending upon the rules of the stock exchange involved).Typically annual reports will include:

  • * Chairman's report
  • * CEO's report
  • * Auditor's report on corporate governance
  • * Mission statement
  • * Corporate governance statement of compliance
  • * Statement of directors' responsibilities
  • * Invitation to the company's AGMAs well as financial statements

  • Auditor's report on the financial statements
  • Balance Sheet
  • Statement of retained earnings
  • Income statement
  • Cash flow statement
  • Notes to the financial statements
  • Accounting policies


Here are the alleged annual reports Ms. Johnson has published below. Annual Reports are a matter of public record and should always be available. Please notice that they do not include what has been stipulated above. Please keep in mind that state laws vary; however, these are IRS Federal stipulations I am also clear that her donors list below is just accounting for grants. Now where are the rest of the donations surely there must be more. *Might I add Ms. Johnson is just now getting to displaying these documents for public viewing.

HTWF Profit Loss Annual Report 2007-2008

HTWF Profit-Loss Annual Report 2008-2009

IRS Governance Practices Fundraising:

  • Section D: Fundraising. Charitable fundraising is an important source of financial support for many charities. The Internal Revenue Service encourages charities to adopt and monitor policies to ensure that fundraising solicitations meet federal and state law requirements and solicitation materials are accurate, truthful, and candid. Charities are encouraged to keep their fundraising costs reasonable and to provide information about fundraising costs and practices to donors and the public. Organizations that file Form 990 will find that Schedules G and M solicit information about fundraising activities, revenues and expenses.
IRS Governance Practices

  • Section G: Ethics and whistleblower policy. The public expects a charity to abide by ethical standards that promote the public good. The organization’s governing body bears the ultimate responsibility for setting ethical standards and ensuring they permeate the organization and inform its practices. The Internal Revenue Service encourages a charity’s board or trustees to consider adopting and regularly evaluating a code of ethics that describes behavior it wants to encourage and behavior it wants to discourage. A code of ethics will serve to communicate and further a strong culture of legal compliance and ethical integrity to all persons associated with the organization. The Internal Revenue Service encourages the board of directors to adopt an effective policy for handling employee complaints and to establish procedures for employees to report in confidence any suspected financial impropriety or misuse of the charity’s resources. Such policies are sometimes referred to as whistleblower policies. The Internal Revenue Service will review an organization to determine whether insiders or others associated with the organization have materially diverted organizational assets. Organizations that file Form 990 will find that Part VI, Section B, Lines 5 and 13 ask whether the organization became aware during the year of a material diversion of its assets, and whether an organization has a written whistleblower policy.
Transparency and Accountability:
  • By making full and accurate information about its mission, activities, finance, and governance publicly available, a charity encourages transparency and accountability to its constituents. The Internal Revenue Code requires a charity to make its Form 1023 exemption application, Form 990, and Form 990-T, available for public inspection. The Internal Revenue Service encourages every charity to adopt and monitor procedures to ensure that its Form 1023, Form 990, Form 990-T, annual reports, and financial statements, are complete and accurate, are posted on its public website, and are made available to the public upon request. Organizations that file Form 990 will find that Part VI, Section C, Lines 18 and 19, ask whether and how an organization makes its Form 1023, Form 990 and Form 990-T, governing documents, conflict of interest policy, and financial statements available to the public.
Heal the World Attorney General Registrant Information
Please note that the aforementioned document is not an endorsement it is just a registration record from the Attorney General for the Heal The World Foundation.



I also need to state for the record this was the most unprofessional document presentation that I have ever seen to date! We all know Michael stood for personal excellence. Any documentation or email correspondence should have bore the official corporate logo/watermark/letterhead. This documentation was poorly put together without even giving it an afterthought. Below are Ms. Johnson's documents which she has placed online for public viewing. *You do not require a membership to view this alleged documentation:

Was the IP Header of this email address checked? Where is the origin from? If this was someone who was authorized to act as an agent on his behalf this would be valid evidence. However, again I must state that Ms. Johnson conducts herself in a most unprofessional manner in the email below and in additional documentation which I have seen.

Now this document below alludes to this being the signature of an attorney designated to act on Michael's behalf. The document below is furnished via Ms. Johnson:

Now here is what got me to analyzing this documentation also. How could you conclude that you were trying to protect Michael's brands in an attempt to acquire rights to his stage names and further acquire domain names which bore his moniker(s)! What I see here is that this seemed like a grand scheme to gain rights to anything with Michael's name which you would have then owned the trademarks for!

If you were attempting an honest thing here why not request from Michael the right to use his name for the actual trademark applications? If for some strange reason Michael was unable to do this why did you not request to put the trademarks in the names of his children as they should have the rights to something like this!

**From a moral perspective I don't think that you should have gone here.

****From a legal perspective a judge has stated that for now you cannot go here.*


And something else is interesting here--Ms Johnson does not make it clear what this domain transfer agreement is about--Ms Johnson received USD $25,000 in exchange for returning certain trademarks she had registered to MJJ Productions:

Lavely & Singer specializes, among other issues, in trademark litigation and internet domain name law...


We have heard the name of this law firm before. This is the company that is mentioned in relation to John Branca (the August 14, 2009 conflict of interest waiver). It may be worth visiting their website for this reason--a definite recommendation by the authors of this blog; Lavely & Singer were *long time litigation attorneys* to Michael Jackson:

"MJJ Communications released a statement today to the attention of the media world."Several 'home' videos of Michael Jackson and his children, filmed while they were at the Neverland Ranch during the 1998/1999 Christmas/New Year Holiday and while in their hotel suite at Disneyland Paris in July this past summer, were recently stolen in France. Shortly after the theft, an anonymous caller demanded $100,000 for the return of the stolen tapes. Images from the tapes recently surfaced in Los Angeles and Jackson's legal counsel took immediate action to prevent the publication of the photographs taken from the stolen videos.

Jackson's long-time litigation counsel, Lavely & Singer, issued a stern warning to any would-be publishers of the stolen videos or any photographs taken from the videos: 'Any photographs or videotape which might be offered to the media depicting Michael Jackson and/or his children over the holidays at Neverland Ranch or at Euro Disney are stolen and should not be published by any entity. Jackson is the sole and exclusive owner of the copyright in and to the stolen home videos and any photographs made therefrom. Any entity which publishes any portion of the stolen videotapes or any photographs taken therefrom will be subject to an immediate action by our client for, among other claims, copyright infringement, violation of rights of privacy, misappropriation of rights of publicity, and conversion, in which Jackson will seek substantial damages, and all attorneys fees and costs incurred in pursuing any such action.' "


The deal that the estate just brokered with SONY--should there have been any mention of one of your trademarks SONY would have had to pay you! If the estate made a profit off of one of Michael's own trademarks it would have had to give you a percentage for the usage of the trademarks which you applied for--in your name as you had exclusive rights to the trademarks! Forgive me however, this does not clear you in the least bit. This actually does more damage and you can pass this documentation off on someone that doesn't know any better or does not know professionalism. You cannot however pass this off on me. Domain Squatting.....

This one really got me! I am serious! This does not mean that Michael or the estate which protects his interests would not have any interest in HEAL THE WORLD ever again. This was Michael's creation! Notice that it says has or had--it does not say "Will not ever/Will never have any interest again!"

You may view more of the documentation that Ms. Johnson has made public by going to the following URL below:


Can Ms. Johnson for the record produce any photographs/videos she has done with Michael? Surely if she was as close to him and he entrusted her with sensitive business ventures--there would be some type of photo/video evidence of the two of them. One thing which Michael always made time for was children and charities. Can Ms. Johnson produce this? *I am having an extremely hard time here establishing that her story is a credible one!

*You may view part one of Ms. Johnson's video series below:

Please also note that part two of the set of videos that were pegged to clear Ms. Johnson's name was removed by the user that was hosting it on a Youtube channel. The URL to the video which was removed is below:
I was able to locate the same video which bore a different URL. That video is visible below please point your attention to 0:35. Also at 0:44 there is evidence which strongly suggests that this document has been edited in some form. Were the highlighting/captions done with a video tool? On the other hand the actual document itself could have been photocopied and then the alterations were applied. I seriously doubt that someone would alter any potential evidence which might prove their case in a court of law. This would subject the document to scrutiny due to its altered state.

You will see highlighted caption below in white which states the following:

"Trademark records show attorney Mr. Harrison representing Mr. Jackson and his Triumph International AND Ms. Johnson working together to stop this non Jackson related kid also named Michael Jackson from registering an MJ trademark back in 2008."


I will pose this question again, why would they require Ms. Johnson (a seasoned entertainment law professional) to assist them with any business ventures? In addition, why does Ms. Johnson have a disclaimer on her Facebook page which clearly emphasizes her disassociation with the estate? Furthermore, if the evidence in this video series was so compelling why didn't a judge side with Ms. Johnson? I am longing to bear witness to this proposed legal team.

It has been stated that there is a fund to support the associated costs of court/attorneys fees which will be funded by the charitable donations of fans. Moreover, if the legal team we see is Pro Bono can the fans get refunds? Or will Ms. Johnson account for what charitable venture the legal funds were utilized for? This will be an impressive feat should there be a victory in the case of Ms. Johnson.

1. " According to the court order, the judge ruled that Johnson -- who has attempted to register at least 40 trademarks with a direct connection to MJ -- operates websites that "convey to consumers a false affiliation with Michael Jackson."

2. This clash of the new technology with preexisting trademark rights resulted in several high profile decisions as the courts of many countries tried to coherently address the issue (and not always successfully) within the framework of existing trademark law. As the website itself was not the product being purchased, there was no actual consumer confusion, and so initial interest confusion was a concept applied instead. Initial interest confusion refers to customer confusion that creates an initial interest in a competitor's "product" (in the online context, another party's website). Even though initial interest confusion is dispelled by the time any actual sales occur, it allows a trademark infringer to capitalize on the goodwill associated with the original mark.



3. According to the trust documents, 20% of the gross value (based on the federal estate tax estimate) will be paid out towards childrens charities--"as soon as reasonably practical". These charities will be selected by a committee consisting of the trustees (John Branca and John McClain) and Katherine Jackson. This means that if the estate is valued at e.g. USD$ 500 Mil, USD$ 100 Mil will go towards these charities. After that, the taxes, expenses, debts, fees and any other costs (e.g. funeral expenses) are to be paid. Whatever remains will be put aside in trusts for the children and Katherine, respectively, each trust receiving 50% of the remaining value.

4. "The law of trusts and estates is generally considered the body of law which governs the management of personal affairs and the disposition of property of an individual in anticipation of the event of such person's incapacity or death, also known as the law of successions in civil law. Its techniques are also used to fulfill the wishes of philanthropic bequests or gifts through the creation, maintenance and supervision of charitable trusts."


Below is a spectacular and very comprehensive listing of charities which Michael supported and stamped his approval on. I am quite sure that they were all well researched as Michael was very wise and well versed about philanthropy. I would encourage you to venture further, research and seek out these charities--donate to them.

Michael Jackson's Humanitarian Efforts 1979-2003


I would like to give a special thank you and many accolades to Stephluvsmj who painstakingly took the time out to publish this document. Thank you for sharing this with all of us-it is phenomenal! Michael would have been so proud of you. The fact that she took the time to highlight Michael's philanthropy shows that this is an enormous labor of love.


My presumption is that people are just not clear as to what a TRUST is or what powers it has. If they were they would comprehend why this is the case. It is a very serious thing when you venture into a game for which you do not know the players or how to play the game. Moreover, the people which manage these sorts of affairs have years of litigation experience and in contrast the people setting up these foundations in Michael's name at best they are just novices!

The family has the right and may have an opportunity to address some of the issues regarding the estate in the near future. Let's be clear here we will see litigation regarding the estate for many years to come as there will be additional claims which are filed which stem from various business deals as they surface. People have been waging claims against the estate since this first started. Not many of them have been successful with any of these claims!

*Below is a little information regarding IP Rights:

Insight on Estate Planning 2009
"Intellectual Property Rights "Trademarks and Patents. Intellectual property is a business asset. Like other kinds of property, intellectual property needs to be protected from theft and misuse."
"Intellectual property (IP) is a term referring to a number of distinct types of creations of the mind for which property rights are recognized--and the corresponding fields of law.[1] Under intellectual property law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs. Common types of intellectual property include copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and trade secrets in some jurisdictions."

Raymone Bain vs Michael Jackson Lawsuit

Branca Allowed to Sell Image of Michael



With all of the court victories it is clear and transparent to me. I do not need to see the documentation which proves this--according to the WILL Michael chose to grant to the estate the Intellectual Property Rights to his NAME/LIKENESS and ASSETS. It is also a fair analysis that Michael also granted the estate powers over the scope and body of work--which he encompassed during his lifetime! This would very much stand to reason and be a logical conclusion to draw. Michael owes no one anything as he gave so freely of himself during his lifetime! Furthermore, Michael's responsibility is to his children and whosoever else he has deemed. We as supporters and fans have the legacy of his body of work. We have the many good memories Michael gave us--along with the joy and enlightenment and above all UNIVERSAL LOVE FOR MANKIND.




Now I am NOT one to believe everything I hear about a person until I am presented with some sort of valid proof. After seeing Michael exploited extensively for so many years I know what slander can do to a person.

Therefore, before I present damaging material I do my best by triple checking/investigating the sources to ensure that the information is as accurate as possible. It is imperative NOT to slander a person in any way. You should refrain from making commentary on anything that is non-factual; this is if you are NOT sure of the source of information as this can be damaging to anyone. I do my very best to present the facts; also my feelings surrounding them once they are proven to be factual.

You cannot ask for anything better than that as far as impartiality goes. I have a tendency to lean toward granting an individual the benefit of the doubt. I would hope someone would equally do the same for me.

In this case this individual is an attorney and I think that I did owe him the respect as a man--to check out the sources regarding him by sifting through the rumors--while just focusing on the factual information that is available.

To make a long story short many supporters/fans have taken Mr. Rickey Brian Oxman at his word and considered him to have the best intentions with regard to being the spokesperson for Mr. Jackson--Michael's father. For all I know he could have the very best intentions concerning Mr. Joseph Jackson--I support these positive actions. However, after careful consideration--I am unable to ignore the various disciplinary actions that are on Mr. Oxman's record. And for the record here is a full account of the ethics charges along with the documentation which supports this section of the blog for your review. The documents are directly from The State Bar of California.


Initiating Document Trickey Rickey Brian Oxman 07-O-11968


The "NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES" covers three proceedings:
a) Counts 1 and 2: Related to a marriage dissolution (2007)--we will omit this here for brevity's sake but feel free to read the entire PDF.

b) Counts 2 to 4: Related to a trust (1992-2007) Rickey Brian Oxman's law firm partner (and wife) was the sole trustee of a family trust and refused to distribute $70,000 to the beneficiaries maintaining that she is owed $10,000 as attorney's fees (about $592.000 had been paid out before). He was involved in the ensuing legal proceedings. We let the State Bar do the talking...
  • 31. On or about April 5, 2007, a hearing was held on the petition to remove Respondent Jaroscak as Trustee in the Quatrochi Trust case. Lieber, Gerald and Susan appeared. Neither Respondent Jaroscak nor Respondent Oxman appeared. The superior court struck Respondent Jaroscak’s response to the petition, removed Respondent Jaroscak as Trustee, ordered Respondent Jaroscak to prepare an accounting, and ordered Respondent Jaroscak to release all funds belonging to the Trust.
  • 34. By failing to account and disburse in violation of her fiduciary duties as the sole trustee of the Quatrochi Family Trust, Respondent Jaroscak committed an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption."
c) Counts 5 to 8: Related to a client trust account (2008-2009) Ricky Brian Oxman and his wife transferred personal funds to a client trust account to hide them from their creditors, and again we let the State Bar do the talking:
  • 45. By depositing personal funds in the CTA and leaving personal funds in the CTA for withdrawal as needed to pay their personal expenses, Respondent Oxman and Respondent Jaroscak commingled funds belonging to them in a client trust account.
  • 48. Respondent Oxman and Respondent Jaroscak deposited their funds into the CTA in order to hide the funds from creditors, including but not limited to the State of California Franchise Tax Board and the County of Los Angeles.
  • 49. By this conduct, Respondent Oxman and Respondent Jaroscak committed acts involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption."
*I am wondering... this is the attorney who filed a petition to remove executors and trustees!


"Brian Oxman has been a Jackson family attorney for more than 20 years. He came to her defense recently, and told News Channel 3 Johnson is telling the truth."

"She provided me with a whole description of what she wanted to do with Heal The World Foundation,” Oxman said. “It was a great big, huge book. It had descriptions of all of the things. We presented it to Michael, and he went over it, and (he) said it was fine with him. He had no objection to anything Melissa Johnson did."

"The lawsuit filed by the estate claimed Johnson unlawfully obtained names and phrases, such as "King of Pop," "Neverland" and "Thriller" in order to deceive people and rake in donations."

"She said it was all done to protect Jackson's legacy."

"We bought the trademarks only days after he died,” Johnson said. “It wasn't until a week after he died and days of begging the new Jackson management to preserve his trademarks that we finally said 'enough is enough."

"Johnson said estate executors didn't have an interest in the charity, until a $30 million offer came in for one of the trademarks."

"Streisand adds, "She certainly would never tap Brian Oxman for the job of filing any kind of lawsuit for her or the kids."

"According to the Daily Law Journal, Oxman’s probation began Jan. 21. He signed a stipulated settlement with the Bar. He received two years stayed suspension and — get this — must attend ethics school. I know a lot of people who would like to attend that graduation ceremony!"

"The reason was that lead defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. fired Brian Oxman from the team. Oxman had come to the case as Randy Jackson's lawyer from previous domestic skirmishes within the Jackson family. But he had no experience in criminal defense matters, and often slept through crucial sessions in Jackson's child molestation case. My sources say that Oxman — who'd been missing from court for over a week — had been told by Mesereau not to appear yesterday. Oxman ignored him, however, and showed up at the start of court. When he tried to take his seat, Mesereau ordered him to sit with the public and not with the defense. Once seated, Oxman was then served with official notice that he'd been fired. The result was a fight in the parking lot with Oxman screaming at Mesereau and associate Susan Yu. But this latest move should have come as no surprise to him."

"Oxman — who was once suspended for a year from practicing law in California — got a rough start in the Jackson trial when he was publicly admonished by Judge Rodney S. Melville. Since then, he's been forced to sit behind the defense attorneys at what observers call "the children's table.",2933,154573,00.html


Stipulation Trickey Rickey Brian Oxman


My questions regarding Mr. Rickey Brian Oxman are as follows:

Can Trickey Rickey Answer These 10 Questions?
Take The Trickey Rickey Quiz Below:
  • #1. Why is Mr. Rickey Brian Oxman not utilizing his first name when he is representing Michael's father. I have noticed that when a search result is done it is very hard to locate the disciplinary actions for him when he has left out an important factor--his first name. The acutal disciplinary actions taken against him by The State Bar of California are filed under his full legal name.

  • #2. Why would he always be in the media with information on the up and coming strategy for the wrongful death suit filed on behalf of Mr. Jackson. I can recall in the distant past that Thomas Mesereau as an attorney for Michael Jackson avoided the media like the Black Plague.

  • #3. Mr. Oxman knows more than likely that Michael's father will win this lawsuit because it is much easier to prove wrongful death as opposed to Manslaughter or Murder charges. This case has already been tried in the court of public opinion; therefore again, what is the need to consistently stay in the media's eye?

  • #4. Why would Mr. Oxman include Michael's children and mother in the wrongful death suit initiated on the behalf of Michael's father? Mrs. Katherine Jackson has her own attorney and they have stated they would not enlist Mr. Oxman to file any claims on behalf of the children or Mrs. Katherine Jackson.

  • #5. Why would Mr. Oxman return to court during the child molestation trial for Michael after falling asleep which was very unprofessional and cause public spectacle when he was relieved of his duties for his actions which were detrimental to his client? Did he not want the best possible defense for Michael?

  • #6. Why was Mr. Oxman sanctioned by The State Bar of California regarding prior disciplinary actions on February 28th, 1998 for Professional Rules/Conduct under Business and Professions code rule 6668(i) and Rules of Professional conduct, rule 3-110(A)?
  • #7. Why would Mr. Oxman be mandated to report to a probation department based upon disciplinary actions if what he was doing was indeed warranted?
  • #8. Why is Mr. Oxman required within one year to attend an ethics training session as a stipulation of this disciplinary action?
  • #9. Why does the disciplinary action cite Mr. Oxman as having caused "Harm significantly to a client and the public administration of justice"?
  • #10. Why does it appear as if Mr. Oxman was in some serious trouble and about to lose his license to practice law in the state of California based upon the disciplinary actions therein in the PDF document above?

I happen to trust and hold with great regard the legal professionalism of Thomas Mesereau. Thomas Mesereau would not have helped Michael as much as he did without an immense deal of legal insight, professionalism, and ethics. There are many more questions that I would like to inquire about with regard to Mr. Oxman and these actions taken against him. I will however save those for a different time. The fact remains that there are too many questions surrounding the Trickey Rickey saga of Mr. Oxman.

I hope that this does not turn out to be another one of these ethical situations for him. I have to seriously question the ability of Mr. Oxman to handle this situation in an ethical fashion based upon his track record as an attorney. His record speaks for itself. To be quite candid with you I think I would trust John Branca before Mr. Oxman as my personal attorney if they both specialized in the same types of law based upon the factual evidence that has been provided in this blog. Question to ask you--would you trust Mr. Oxman with your legal affairs? I am asking this based upon the information which has just been imparted upon you--which you have just bore witness to--pardon me?!


Many have stated that Branca was fired by Michael for some extremely questionable business practices. The Jackson Family has also questioned the authenticity and validity of the will. The questions range from Michael being in New York City with Al Sharpton (regarding the date of the signature next to Michael's name) to Michael's signature on the will being a complete forgery. There is a part of me which is inquisitive were there ever any handwriting experts which analyzed the Will?

There were also questions raised surrounding John Branca being fired at one time. There is such a letter signed by Michael stating just that. There have been references made stating that John Branca was involved in some sort of money transference to offshore accounts. Here is the letter above informing John Branca of his termination. This documentation was released to the public as part of the Joe Jackson court filing against the estate. The documents were released shortly after Joe Jackson petitioned the court to have the executors of the estate removed.
Michael Jackson Fires John Branca Joe Jackson Filing Against the Estate

For the supporters and fans that put on a poker face show (not knowing anything about how the game is played) and claim that they have contacted all of these attorneys and this great legal representation please be mindful that these are seasoned attorneys they have years of litigation experience and are the best in the business! Do you have the cash flow to support an ongoing lawsuit? Also, if you are in the process of stating something that is subject to scrutiny or controversy regarding a person's livelihood be sure you can prove your claims! According to Fox News back in 2003 (March 6), the first reference to John Branca being fired by Michael surfaced. The reference to the actual allegation is below. *I personally am not stating either or for the record. I am just providing the evidence which I have come across.

"There is chaos in the world of Michael Jackson. On Monday he fired his longtime adviser and attorney John Branca. By fax, of all things. Branca has represented Jackson on and off since 1980 and is considered, with Frank DiLeo, one of the architects of the Thriller phenomenon back in 1983-84. Replacing Branca is a combination of interesting people, starting with Las Vegas attorney David LeGrande."

"The investigation delivered no evidence whatsoever to substantiate the claims against Branca and Motolla. *In fact it became clear that it was Konitzer who had ties with Sony and both he and Weisner were stealing money from MJ."

"Entertainment attorney John Branca who was terminated by Jackson in 2003 for embezzlement, and other "white collar" crimes including surreptitiously representing both sides in contract negotiations. Branca shows up right after Jackson's death with a questionable document entitled "The Last Will Of Michael Joseph Jackson" which he alleges is Jackson's will from 2002. This document makes Branca executor of Jackson's estate and gives him control over all the superstar's "real [and] personal" property. Jackson's mother and three children are the heirs, but in name only, to the mega star's billion dollar empire. They are to receive a monthly stipend, the amount of which was decided by Branca, which we know to be a pittance of the estate executor's commission."


The following article may be an interesting and revealing read as well:

Could it be that certain people considered it a prerequisite for being able to get control of Michael's life and money? Could it be Branca was in their way? Certainly Brian Oxman and Joe Jackson can make good use of the letter, but could it be that it needs to be seen in context?

Right now, Marc Schaffel, one of the people who took control back then, is back digging into business opportunities using Michael's name--in a way that is not authorized by the estate (documentary)! He just sold 26 hours of private footage (covering 2003 birthday celebrations at Neverland) to Howard Mann--for a profit! Watch all of the utter chaos which ensued the years after 2003--note that most of the lawsuits and claims against the estate date from the period following this. This is the period of time Ms Johnson is referring to, repeatedly--she is stating that she was in contact with Michael Jackson's team during this time, and working with them--a period of time where Michael Jackson's world was in chaos, and after John Branca left in 2006.

"HTWF staff were working with a Jackson estate attorney and law firm to protect, preserve and defend Mr Jackson's charity brands for over a year before Mr Jackson died.",2933,304977,00.html

BX: Also, remember this:

For whatever it may be worth there may be some truth to the following statements made by Rickey Brian Oxman on June 25, 2009.


"T.J. Holmes: You spoke of these “enablers” who didn't help Jackson and that he was over-medicating and it had a lot to do with these drugs. Your quote was that the Anna Nicole Smith case was nothing compared to what happened with Michael Jackson. Do you know what kind of medication he was on?"

"Brian Oxman: I have not discussed what medications he's on, because I think that's a matter for Michael's privacy, which should not be discussed. My main point has been that I talked to this family about it. I warned them. I said that Michael is over-medicating and that I did not want to see this kind of a case develop. And in particular, in the Anna Nicole case, I said if that's what's going to happen to Michael, it's all going to break our hearts."

"And my worst fears are here. I do not know what the cause of Michael’s death was. I don't know if it’s cardiac arrest. I don't know if it's an infarct. I don’t know if it’s a congenital abnormality. We have to await the coroner's results and the toxicological screening to make sure we know before we can say any kind of allegation to anyone."

"Holmes: You say he was over-medicating. He was getting this stuff from somewhere. Was he surrounded by people who were doing everything they had to do in making sure they kept this medication close by when he wanted it?"

"Oxman: He had over-medication and it was a serious problem. And the exact people who were doing this – I'm not going to point any fingers. All I know is that I had warned that this was a problem and this is my worst fear. It is a nightmare."


Note that the date of the "firing letter" falls into the period Michael is talking about in this 2006 deposition. On the other hand, the letter was apparently written in Florida (top right corner) in February-Michael was in Florida staying with Al Malnik from February 20, and back in Neverland on March 2. The March 6, 2003 article says it was faxed - I do not see any fax stamps on the letter...

Numerous sources on the Internet state John Branca resigned in 2006 - he must have been back after this letter was sent, and there should be documents in the possession of his law firm to prove this. And in fact--John Branca was involved in the negotiations surrounding the 300 Million loan Sony was backing. You can find the relevant documentation in the PDF displaying the court filing of Brian Oxman/Joe Jackson (petition to remove John Branca and John McClain as executive administrators of the estate). The relevant letter is dated April 2006--John Branca was still around in April 2006, and not finally fired in 2003. Also, Raymone Bain saying this in an interview August 16, 2009:
  • "Bain: Well I know this and uhm truthfully speaking uhm after the second settlement agreement with Debbie Rowe in early 2000 [sic]. I asked Mr. Jackson if he had a will. And I would not have been responsible as general manager had I not, because this was a major legal uhm effort having uhm taking several months. He told me there was a will in place.
  • Geraldo Commentary: That’s in 2007?
  • Bain: This is early 2007. I asked him. Later in 2007 as we were finalizing the Sony/ATV loan agreement I asked him.
  • Geraldo Commentary: How much was that? I’m sorry.
  • Bain: 360 million dollars.
  • Geraldo Commentary: Yikes! Uh Huh
  • Bain: I asked him was there a will in place. Well he was a little bit more disturbed with me for asking the question a second time. He was so adamant on the fact that there was a will that I realized not only was he aware of a will but he was very comfortable with the decisions he made regarding it and uhm. That’s all I can say."


The allegations related to John Branca are based on the testimony the attorney who replaced John Branca, Richard LeGrand, gave during the 2005 trial. Richard LeGrand was Marc Schaffel's attorney as well. I wonder however how many of those who are quoting the allegations John Branca embezzled money from Michael actually read the *source*, i.e. the court transcripts of the testimony, and how many of them read the *complete* transcript of the session of that day, May 13 2005.

What about this part here???

Court transcript from May 13, 2005:

Questions by Mr Auchincloss Answers by Mr LeGrand

  • 13 Q. As far as the John Branca and Tommy Motolla
  • 14 investigation by Interfor, Interfor never found any
  • 15 evidence that Mr. Motolla or Mr. Branca were engaged
  • 16 in any fraud with Mr. Jackson, did they?
  • 17 A. That’s correct. I had no evidence delivered
  • 18 with that report to substantiate those claims.
  • 19 Q. And in fact, that report only indicate that
  • 20 Sony was depositing money in some offshore account,
  • 21 apparently for Mr. -- on Mr. Jackson’s behalf, true?
  • 22 A. I’m not sure about the “Mr. Jackson’s
  • 23 behalf.” I would need to see the report.
  • 24 Q. Okay. But you have no reason to believe
  • 25 that any funds transferred to an offshore account by
  • 26 Sony, you have no reason to believe that those funds
  • 27 were somehow defrauding Mr. Jackson?
  • 28 A. I was given no credible evidence to support 10235
  • 291 those charges. I would be doing Mr. Branca and Mr.Motolla a great wrong if I said otherwise.

The investigation company that was hired by Mr. LeGrand, Interfor, states the following:

"Interfor is staffed by highly skilled investigators and fraud examiners, many of whom have been associated with government, defense, and intelligence agencies worldwide, including the British Secret Service, Israeli intelligence, various European agencies, and the United States CID, CIA, DEA and FBI agencies. Our investigators are also supported by a sophisticated research division using state-of-the-art technology. Interfor is fully licensed and operates in the United States, Europe, the Middle East, the Americas, Africa and Asia. While the nature of Interfor services precludes disclosing the identity of specific clients, they include Fortune 500 companies, major law firms, an international airline and a number of Western governments."



This company was not able to dig up conclusive evidence. *In fact it became clear that it was Konitzer who had ties with Sony. *Interestingly, Mr LeGrand himself was laid off a few days after he started asking questions in relation to funds ending up with the then managers of Michael Jackson. This chain of events can be taken as mere coincidence--of course...

"Enter entertainment attorney John Branca who was terminated by Jackson in 2003 for embezzlement, and other "white collar" crimes including surreptitiously representing both sides in contract negotiations. Branca shows up right after Jackson's death with a questionable document entitled "The Last Will Of Michael Joseph Jackson" which he alleges is Jackson's will from 2002. This document makes Branca executor of Jackson's estate and gives him control over all the superstar's "real [and] personal" property. Jackson's mother and three children are the heirs, but in name only, to the mega star's billion dollar empire. They are to receive a monthly stipend, the amount of which was decided by Branca, which we know to be a pittance of the estate executor's commission."


This can be considered as slander if this person chooses to file damages against you should your statements be proven false. You should consider this before you do it during or before litigation with the parties. Commentary on news articles is one thing this is totally another. In the case of John Branca if what he has been accused of was proven it would be called embezzlement! I think this would in fact make Mr. Branca eligible for a jail sentence.

Did Mr. Branca do any jail time or was he ever convicted of these things which people are claiming they know to be factual? According to the New York Times this does not seem to be the case. Please read the excerpt below. The New York Times was forced to retract a statement which appeared to be damaging against John Branca because it violated a policy! I will leave you to guess why they were so happy to retract that statement made by this unidentified source....

"The article should have noted that the reporter sought a response from the executors, but that a spokesman declined to speak on the record. (In later editions, the article included a comment from a spokesman who called the reporter back to say there was no evidence that the executors had taken advantage of Mr. Jackson.)"

"Bates appealed to me. He said the first he and Branca knew of the allegation was when it was published. He said his comment that was eventually published was taken from a call he made to the reporter to complain that the accusation was false and defamatory and should be removed." "Graustark said she felt terrible about it. If the sources could not be named and did not provide proof, she said, “then we and I should have removed the accusation, whether or not the executors were reached for comment.”

"That allegation was attributed to “people close to the Jackson family who asked not to be named,” and in later copies of the newspaper the original article reported that a spokesman for the executors denied it. Times editors should not have published the anonymously made accusation, unsupported in the article by any evidence or publicly available corroboration — with or without a denial."


Do you recall who MADE-OFF is? Please allow me to refresh your memory he was convicted of the biggest pyramid scheme known to mankind. If you are incorrect in your statements not that this would happen you could be sued for slander and deformation of character--for making unsubstantiated claims and false allegations. You are not prepared for this! Business is business and business is what business does it is a cut throat affair. If you are not knowledgeable in this arena please do not profess to act as if you are. I know that even with some of what I know I would not attempt even remotely to do something which even suggests IP violations knowingly! *I do try my very best to avoid these sorts of things.....

Please do yourself a favor if you are planning to form any sort of foundation exclude Michael's name from the title of it. This is the way-they cannot fault you for having events and doing fundraisers. Please also refrain from having his pictures or name in any pamphlets or flyers when hosting fundraising events it is just safer this way! This gives the estate the ammunition to state that you are infringing on the Intellectual Property rights which belong to the estate. Be sure to include disclaimers on ALL of your literature stating that you are in no way affiliated with the estate. Should you make a decision to do any websites do them with your own name to avoid this sort of confrontation! You can still support Michael you should just refrain from using his name and image to promote the marketing of goods or services on your websites. One thing for sure there are a million fish in the sea and while you may be a piranha these people are SHARKS--swim wisely fishes lest you be eaten or devoured guppies...


*California Business Law John Branca The Best In The West News Article*
*Any court documents provided in this blog are a matter of public record and as such require no sources.