Insanity X Lives (-X1) Blanaid X Lives

12/18/11

*~THE NEVER-ENDING 6 INXTIGATION SERIES John G. Branca ~


The Run Interference On The Inferior Report 
John G. Branca Grows Wings


"THE GET BRANCA MENTALITY"

X1 On Prologue:


Why are we still hanging on to excess baggage and myths when the truth shall set us free? We all know that there were no conclusive evidential findings to solidify the information contained in the Interfor Report. If I now must assume the role of the myth-buster then so be it. OK--fair enough. Many are still clinging to their personal suspicions and opinions from nothing more than their vivid imaginations. Many are fabricating wrong doing out of the thin air what's this "The Fear Factor"?  The fact remains that this Interfor Report, mitigating circumstances, and other outside influences made a man hand in his resignation. It seems that John G. Branca will be forever scorned no matter how many spectacular things he does. Is this a case of we just need somebody to blame so let's dump on John and use him as a scapegoat? John G. Branca the chosen one.






How much is enough? How much is a person required to prove themselves? Even if John G. Branca was to grow wings and fly that wouldn't put a damper on the innuendo or false claims flying around the community. Red Bull must give John wings because he's been flying for a minute now. It's high time that someone challenged the ethics of this report what better time than the present? For now is that time the truth shall prevail.
________________
 
Daniel Lamarre, president and CEO of Cirque du Soleil; Chuck Bowling, president and COO of Mandalay Bay; Jackie Jackson, brother of Michael Jackson; John Branca, co-executor of The Michael Jackson Estate; and Jamie King, writer and director of Michael Jackson: The Immortal World Tour, at Mandalay Bay on April 27, 2011.
  • "Michael Jackson’s older brother Jackie Jackson is convinced that the late King of Pop is fully supportive of all the Cirque du Soleil show developments and the two productions set for Mandalay Bay starting in December. “He’s definitely watching over this. He’s going to be alive in everybody’s minds for all the years to come now. He lives on,” Jackie said. “Michael would have loved what’s going on now for his legacy. He always loved the business and the entertainment all his life. He loved the flash. He loved Las Vegas. He loved Cirque and saw every Cirque show they produced." 

 ________________

Chapter I:

The Get Branca Mantra ("Get Shorty"):



X1:

This report needs to be challenged with factual information. To date it has been allowed to circulate in our community without giving it a second thought. Thus, this tabloid has attained a bogus credence, following, and merit in the eyes of many. This bogus report will no longer go unchallenged--this will simply not be tolerated. Attempting to convict John Branca without one shred of valid and conclusive evidence or a trial for that matter? That would indeed be hypocritical.  Are you telling me many have an abundance of mere daydreams, assumptions, and fantasies to corroborate this rhetoric? Michael Jackson wasn't the only client of John Branca. Michael Jackson also had plenty of bottom feeders around him unfortunately.
John Branca Shaman

My, my, what do we have here?!!! Mrs. Jackson has stated the following:


  • "It is only natural for people who loved Michael, including family members, to be suspicious about the circumstances surrounding Michael’s untimely death. So far I have not seen one shred of evidence that anyone associated with Michael’s estate conspired to kill him. She continues, "If such evidence ever comes to my attention I will be the first to bring those facts to light."

    -Mrs. Katherine Jackson
*I'm analyzing what's the next move of others as a direct result of Mrs. Jackson's admission. I don't think Mrs. Jackson has any reason to lie about something as serious as this. She didn't have to issue this statement at all and she did so of her own free will! Quite frankly, I believe that she's telling the absolute 100% truth.* What's this new distortion tactic applied by fans all about? Why is it being utilized as a weapon in which its primary function is a mass destruction of the truth? A new tactical maneuver is aimed at attempting to dilute the statements of the Jackson Family to suit a "Michael Was Perfection" agenda. This insulting tactic is utilized whensoever there's something that's not to the advantage of the "Michael Was Perfection" crowd--diabolical. 



I have personally bore witness to plenty of diatribes which stated that Mrs. Jackson was being diplomatic regarding her statements about the estate administrators. I find extreme difficulty when processing the full spectrum of these statements. Then they proceed to dissect Janet Jackson's statements regarding substance issues via the "Michael Was Perfection"--which is ridiculous.


 
Plenty have stated that Janet must be mistaken about her brother including any issues he would have! The majority of this clan hasn't ever gotten close enough to Michael other than a concert! They are just reading news reports and referencing community gossip! I have not been in Michael's inner circle just as well which is why I defer to his family. I also reference them along with countless others which have attested to this fact. I would like to remind you of Michael's own words regarding his recollection of events in 2003. Michael stated he could have been impaired. He also stated he didn't know or he couldn't recollect at times.  There have been certain instances which dictate the cross checking of facts. I look to verifiable sources for any confirmation when this arises. Please I beg you to immediately cease! It can't be stated that Michael was taken advantage of by these various physicians if there is no admission of Michael's issues. Knowingly taking part in this behavior is severe a miscarriage and obstruction of justice! There's more than enough conclusive evidence to prove this as the case. However, this is for another blog back to the "Get Branca Mantra".

**I ponder just what's the justification for this reported animosity against John Branca??? I am clear that members of the family would like to run the estate all on their own without any supervision from its special administrators. Mrs. Jackson stated that she has no verification/evidence to corroborate that members of the estate (or anyone associated with it) conspired to kill Michael. NOW WHAT? The dismantling of the Interfor Report is warranted--another small step for mankind.
 ________________

Chapter II

Putting The Branca Lie To Bed I

*On Board Sony Music:

X1:

Absolutely! John G. Branca was on the board of Sony/ATV! How many people have I heard make an attempt to distort this as conflict of interest? I cannot count them on my fingers and toes. This is misinformation if you are spreading this lie please stop! This simply isn't true. This does NOT constitute a conflict of interest! The actual truth is that John G. Branca was representing Michael on the board of Sony/ATV because Michael was a shareholder of this company. John Branca's share was linked to Michael's share--Michael's interests were John Branca's!

John Branca Attending The 4th Annual MAP Awards
November 5th, 2003 Beverly Hills, California
I am attempting to comprehend how all of this fallacious information is being generated. There must be a factory which processes falsehood. This factory distributes generously so that it may run amuck in the community causing dissension. Anyone at all is able to research these facts. And you know what instead of going with whatever is popular this month in the community know what it has its foundation in before you lend your support. Just because it appears to be a good cause and everyone seems to be backing it does not make it a great thing. How many times have I stumbled upon the same frivolous claims being thrown around carelessly? Not one individual has had the ability to prove or substantiate any of these claims. What where their rants really all about regarding this man? Someone, somewhere, somehow, read some unsubstantiated propaganda in a blog or while on a vacation to St. Elsewhere (pun intended)! Then they played an elementary game of telephone by repeating something they heard someone else relay. Lies run sprints but the truth runs marathons! You would think by now that we comprehend what this can do to a person look at what occurred to Michael in 1993!
"Branca has represented such industry heavyweights as Berry Gordy, Dick Clark, Richard Branson, and Rick Rubin, and such independent labels and investors as SBK, Interscope Records, Fujisankei, JVC, MCI, Vivendi, Rhino Records, and Motown Records, among others. Branca also handled the acquisition of ATV Music (the Beatles catolog) for Michael Jackson, and the merger of ATV and Sony Music, on which he represents Michael Jackson on the Board of Directors." -MAP AWARD  -MAP AWARD 


Has anyone ever seen the MAP article before? Well, here is the PDF in its entirety as it relates to the MAP Award.  Please read it carefully so that you will learn some interesting facts.  If this was such a conflict of interest why would this "conflict of interest" be listed in an article citing the MAP Award?
John Branca Map Award
Besides, I can find no prior or current information stating that John Branca represented Sony in the capacity of being Michael's attorney when he wasn't aware. Furthermore, the law allows representation of two separate parties.

Rule 1.7: Model Rule Comparison states the following:

[here

1.7:101      Model Rule Comparison

  • "CRPC 3-310 addresses conflicts of interest with a different structure than MR 1.7 and related MR provisions. CRPC 3-310(C), dealing with conflicts between concurrent clients, is the California provision most analogous to MR 1.7(a). CRPC 3-310(C) differs from MR 1.7(a) in several respects. First, CRPC 3-310(C) does not contain a provision similar to MR 1.7(a)(1) which requires the lawyer to reasonably believe that the representation of one client will not adversely affect the relationship with the other client. In contrast to MR 1.7(a), CRPC 3-310(C) allows a lawyer to represent two separate clients notwithstanding an adverse effect on the relationship with one or both clients, so long as the informed consent of each client is obtained."
CONFLICT OF INTEREST

If we needed more tabloid media it would be the hottest career of the decade and of "The Brave New World". "The WRAP" series was an interesting read and it had lots of information. However, it quoted Al Malnik and when it came to Michael and John Branca it was biased in certain sections--we'll get to Al Malnik later! "The Wrap" called Michael paranoid! Can the average reader discerningly isolate the bias in certain segments of "The WRAP" for themselves? Our job as bloggers is to pinpoint when certain information is biased. If we are valid and accurate we can confirm or discredit anything which is factual or unfounded. There are very few blogs that I will bother to ever read. I read them and they provide me with confirmed and substantiated information. To conquer ignorance you need knowledge and understanding.

JOHN BRANCA NO DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS
________________


Chapter III

CONFLICT OF INTEREST:

Rodgers & Hammerstein



"Refers to a situation when someone, such as a lawyer or public official,
 has competing professional or personal obligations or personal or financial 
interests that would make it difficult to fulfill his duties fairly."
X1:

Please for the love of Michael stop it! There are a few things here we hope to clear up with this blog. Rodgers & Hammerstein WAS NOT WE REPEAT WAS NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. John did work for Michael for a portion of 2006 and in 2007 he sold his share in Sony/ATV back to Michael.  This was not a conflict as you have seen in preceding sections! The reality of this situation is that John had other clients. When John finally did excuse John for the life of John did not stop!  Was John supposedly to sit at home unemployed and watching daytime television just because he resigned from his post as Michael's attorney? Life doesn't stop for anyone!
"Kendall Minter is an entertainment attorney based in Atlanta, GA, with satellite offices in many other U.S. cities. He is a graduate of Cornell University, and is co-founder and a member of the Board of Directors of the Black Entertainment and Sports Lawyers Association. His past and present clients include Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Shabba Ranks, Lena Horne, Hugh Masekela, The Government of Jamaica, The Backstreet Boys, Teddy Riley, Freddie Jackson, The Fat Boys, Peter Tosh, Onyx, and many others."

The issues I see regarding this are numerous. I cannot count them on my hands and toes. I hope that the video above can offer some clarification and closure. Many people don't realize just what constitutes a conflict of interest.  My presumption was perhaps if you could hear it from a real attorney it would really shut down these rumors and insinuations!

By right you should build a relationship with your clients. I think that John did do this with Michael. There were always many people in the mix of things concerning Michael. This is where the attorney client privilege became paramount to uphold.  Beyond that after representing someone for all those years they become your friend as well.

John Branca & Michael Jackson

Was John a friend to Michael??? After learning all of the new things which many have here please tell me what do you think? Sure, John gets paid to be an attorney; however, how many people would go bat for someone after they were let go in 1990? I don't care how much they paid you. If your integrity took a beating and vicious accusations were hurled your way how would you address that?....Unless this individual was your friend how would you address this? For the average client you would refuse to render services. We're also about to venture into why John charges the fees that he does. It has already been established in prior sections that many clients are ecstatic over John's representation. Look how much revenue he generates for his clients--let's be realistic. What's his retainer fee supposed to be $50.00/50 EUR??? LOL! These are million dollar deals we're discussing here! This is on a grand scale these are not nickle and dime ventures...

I'd like to add that the Rodgers & Hammerstein Catalog deal was done in 2009 before John retook the post as Michael's attorney. John Branca had given Michael his resignation in 2006.
_____________
  • "In 2008, changes in the tax law that allowed songwriters to pay a small capital gains tax instead of a larger income tax prompted Branca to advise some of his clients that this was the perfect time to sell their music publishing catalogs, thereby establishing new precedents in valuation. Ensuing sales included: Kurt Cobain and Nirvana copyrights; Steve Tyler's Aerosmith publishing catalog of 160 songs to Primary Wave Music Publishing for $50 million; Julian Lennon's share of The Beatles' royalties, and the catalog of the legendary song-writing team of Leiber & Stoller to Sony/ATV, which created a new yardstick by which the worth of catalogs was measured. He also sold Berry Gordy's Jobete Music to EMI, which changed the method and standard by which catalogs were valued."
  • "In 2009, in a highly-watched move, Branca beat out Wall Street investment banking houses to represent the Rodgers & Hammerstein Organization and sold their catalog for an excess of $200 million, despite predictions by the Wall Street Journal and others that the catalog wouldn't fetch more than $150 million."
  • "In addition, Branca helped songwriters such as Don Henley of The Eagles regain copyrights of their songs, or to help them secure royalties that they’ve lost, as he did with John Fogerty of Creedence Clearwater Revival.
  • "These deals prompted Marty Bandier, CEO and chairman of Sony/ATV Music Publishing, to call Branca the "number one music publishing lawyer in the country."
            John Branca Music Publishing
       
Michael Jackson & Paul McCartney
  • "Before bidding, he said he checked with Lennon’s widow Yoko Ono and McCartney’s lawyer and brother-in-law John Eastman to see if they were interested. They were not. It took a year of bidding against others — including British industrialist Richard Branson — before he closed the deal. In 1995, he merged it with Sony to create one of the largest such collections in the world. In earlier years, Branca also helped Jackson obtain the rights to his recording masters and brokered the purchase of Neverland Ranch, originally offered for $60 million, for a final price of $17.5 million, including all furnishings"
  • "Those deals helped transform Jackson from a rich pop star into a man of extraordinary wealth, and turned Branca’s career in the direction of buying and selling music assets. (He recently negotiated the sale of the Rodgers and Hammerstein catalog for $200 million.)" 
  •  "But life with Michael was not all about money, Branca says. At first they were friends, traveling to Disney World together, socializing at Branca’s home. Jackson was the best man at Branca’s first wedding, bringing with him his pet chimp Bubbles, who was clad in a tiny tuxedo. Little Richard was the minister." “His personality,” Branca says when recalling the young pop superstar, “was just infectious.” 

  • In 1990, Jackson tearfully told Branca he wanted to try different representation; though Branca wouldn’t confirm it, it’s been widely reported that Hollywood mogul and record company executive David Geffen advised Jackson that Branca’s influence in his affairs had grown too large. They remained apart for three years, while Branca moved on to other artists. Branca returned in 1993, at a time when Jackson was being sued in a child molestation case he ultimately settled. But the relationship was different.
  • “Later on in his career he really had a line between his business and personal life,” said Branca. “As people get older, that’s not uncommon.”
            Today MSNBC
_____________

Chapter IV

Putting The Branca Lie To Bed Part II 

Resignation Tendered In 2006:

August 2, 2006:
*"A Los Angeles lawyer who represented Jackson for 26 years, John Branca, said he could not comment on the case because he resigned in April."

"I think Michael was brilliant for a good part of his career — savvy, involved, on top of everything," Mr. Branca said. "I also think he was a marketing genius." -John Branca

X1:
We've got some really serious problems here. Was John  fired in 2003? If you observe this letter below which is taken directly from Joe Jackson's petition you can see clearly that this letter was a draft! The date in the letter submitted to the court has not even been filled in!


How can you send someone correspondence terminating their tenure and not date it? If you are serious about the termination and the relief of the fiduciary duties of your former attorney I am quite sure that you wouldn't leave yourself open. Therefore, that letter would need to be dated to specify when the effective termination date was.

I would also like to aim your attentiveness to another odd occurrence in this correspondence below. If you closely examine you will see that the letter was drafted in Aventura, Florida! To my recollection only once can I establish that Michael was in Florida during that era. That's when Michael was conducting business with Floridian businessman Al Malnik! Moreover, even if John was terminated as everyone states in 2003 he was back on the job representing Michael shortly thereafter! Michael had to have approved this if John supplied his resignation in 2006 correct?


YOU'RE FIRED!
John Branca Firing Letter

Now we're getting to the nitty-gritty--the establishment of comprehension! We need to carefully review Joe Jackson's petition filing at the probate court. Why on earth would a judge render a decision in favor of the estate administrators and not Joseph Jackson--the father of Michael Jackson? Joe's objection to the estate administrators was tossed out of court because Joe had no legal standing to object to the executors--he is not a beneficiary of Michael's will--as the judge stipulated he had no standing! Do you believe for one second the judge did not evaluate what Joe had to say? If there was "one shred of conclusive evidence" in Joe's filing which proved substantial, and thus the executors could be challenged would the judge have made that same decision?


Was this just a diplomatic way of sending a message that he considered it to be wasted labor to deal with that extensive filing which really resembled a fishing expedition? Did Brian Oxman presume or hope that the judge would find something of value in there? If all that was so convincing why didn't Mrs. Jackson take this on for the elimination of the outsiders running the family business? The judge granted Mrs. Jackson protection under the Safe Harbor Rule! There was no legal foundation or merit in any of these claims!
The majority of Joe Jackson's complaint (drafted by attorney Rickey Brian Oxman) consisted of information contained in the Interfor Report and the correspondence you see above! The picture above is in fact the actual correspondence which is contained in Joe Jackson's objection! It's factual that Joe Jackson's legal brief has made its rounds through the entire community. Furthermore, there's an abundance of misinformation hovering around and contained therein that filing.

Notwithstanding, the fact remains that the attorney which has made these insinuations was brought up on his own set of disciplinary charges! Is he even able to practice law at this time? That's for another blog! Many consider themselves to be tribunals and they actually believe these concocted falsehoods! People will actually attempt to debate with you regarding these facts. Evidently, you cannot possibly inform them that they are incorrect.
THE WILL OF MICHAEL JACKSON

I would also like to address this situation about Michael being in New York which made it impossible for him to endorse a will. Michael was a worldwide mega-star!!! What makes anyone assume that he wouldn't have the power to get 3 witnesses to hop aboard a flight/private jet to NYC to witness the endorsement of his will? Please this insinuation that Michael had to physically be in California to endorse a will is preposterous!!!
MICHAEL JACKSON'S SIGNATURE
Michael traveled all over the world what if he had to sign a will or a contract while he was on tour? Would someone have not brought the paperwork to Michael for this to occur? Michael was indeed with Al Sharpton dealing with the racism issue in the music industry on the week of July 7th, 2002. However, Michael's fingers were not broke! He had access to a telephone and Al Sharpton couldn't account for Michael's whereabouts on July 7th, 2002! July 7th, 2002 was also on a Sunday. Sunday is a day when most people deal with personal issues and relaxation!
JOSEPH JACKSON'S NOTICE OF APPEAL
I have come to believe that Michael was surrounded by some very horrid people. They made him second guess and scrutinize everything in his circumference! They also coerced him into shutting down the wrong individuals! I presume there was a trust issue and Michael was attempting to feel/weed people out. For instance if I remove this individual what will transpire now? Let's see what elements change and which don't--this to me was a dangerous way to conduct finances. Michael was the best; however, he wasn't perfection and we all make mistakes. Moreover, Michael turned to John for some financial stabilization in 1993. When times got rough for Michael, John got going.

Every time John was not involved in Michael's life--Michael's finances were able to distinguish he was gone! This is the truth of it, there was no one who could manage and broker Michael's deals better than John. I have no clue why it was/is this way--make no mistake "THIS IS IT"! John just has a natural panache for comprehending what works for music artists and their business arrangements. This is also applicable for other types of celebrities as well such as actors, directors, and producers. John's been in the business for years--he himself has made music history. John's behind many of your major deals in the 20th century.
_____________

 2004
  • "IT'S NO secret that Michael Jackson is cleaning house. First he fired longtime mouthpiece Bob Jones. Now we hear the next to go may be manager John McClain and lawyer John Branca as brother Randy Jackson is taking over more and more of Jackson's business affairs. But the singer's spokeswoman-of-the-day Raymone Bain claims that McClain and Branca are still very much on the team..."
        NY Daily News

2005
  • "The deal to bail Jackson out is pretty much written and waiting for Michael to execute it. Charles Koppelman (now CEO of Martha Stewart's company) and longtime Jackson adviser John Branca are its architects. I always refer to them as Jackson's "permanent government" because they're the ones who've kept him from the fate Auchincloss describes. It's just up to Michael to sign. "The deal is just about ready to go," says a source."
        FOX NEWS

2006
  • "John Branca, an attorney who structured the purchase for Mr. Jackson and represented him from 1980 to 1990 and periodically after 1993, said he saw no signs of wayward financial behavior in the years straddling the release of "Thriller." "I think Michael was brilliant for a good part of his career — savvy, involved, on top of everything," Mr. Branca said. "I also think he was a marketing genius."
        NEW YORK TIMES
John Branca Resignation in 2006

  • "In 1990, Jackson told Branca he wanted to try different representation; though Branca wouldn't confirm it, it was widely reported that Hollywood mogul and record company executive David Geffen advised Jackson that Branca's influence in his affairs had grown too large. They remained apart for three years. Branca returned in 1993, at a time when Jackson was being sued in a child molestation case he ultimately settled. But the relationship was different. "Later on in his career he really had a line between his business and his personal life."said Branca. In 1997 a will was drafted for Jackson--but not, Branca says, by him. Instead, he said he assigned it to a member of his firm who specialized in wills and trusts. It was redone in 2002, after the birth of Jackson's third child.  Branca said he played no role in advising Jackson on the will, but knew the singer did not want a family member in control of his estate. Jackson also felt that he did not have to take care of his brothers and sisters, Branca said. By 2006, Branca says, his relationship with Jackson was troubled once again. The star was listening to and increasingly odd set of advisers who Branca feared did not have the singer's best interests as heart. He was surrounded and I had to resign." he said. "He did not ask me to stay, I resigned amicably."
USA TODAY
Michael Jackson's Lawyers Quit NY Case
_____________
Conglomerates Run The Industry:

"Sony is one huge conglomerate comprised of many little different companies called subsidiaries. There's Sony Music, Sony/ATV, Sony Pictures, Columbia Records, Epic Records, Columbia Pictures, and much more. Please realize these are different companies under the umbrella of a huge conglomerate. Each separate company is its own entity entirely onto itself as a separate division of Sony! It would take too long to explain why this is done so I will skip the explanation for this. That will require some of your own individual research time."-X1
As Michael's attorney John was able to represent Michael both as an artist and as a shareholder. Please understand that these are two completely different instances here. John is an entertainment attorney and as such he deals with many different dynamics of the entertainment industry. Things such as contractual agreements, publishing rights, royalties, contracts, acquisitions (ATV) and other things as well are amongst his forte.

However, because of unfounded claims people are being misguided into the presumption that this constitutes a conflict of interest!  I am sorry it does not! Should it have ever Michael could have brought John G. Branca up on ethics charges! John would've been before the California Bar Ethics Committee for the proper disciplinary measures! The proper authorities would've addressed anything else if any of this propagandizing was truth. John's career and reputation as an attorney would have been dirt in Hollywood and subjected to a major scandal. Need I remind you that after Michael, John continued to represent clients. Once a snake always a snake. It would've been a rather precarious situation should John have been involved and caught in some sort of salacious circumstance which many accuse him of. A snake will shed its skin I don't care what client it is or should I say turn into a piranha? It's time to dismantle and obliterate "The Propagandizing of Interfor".
________________

Chapter V

The Devaluation of the Interfor Report A Synopsis:

Conclusion Interfor = Tabloid Trash

Interfor Investigative Report Final
  • "Interfor has investigated the background of John Gregory Branca (“Branca”). Some sources in the entertainment industry think highly of Branca. However, other sources suggest that he has built his career on the strength of his clients to a point where are rumors of irregularities involved in the accounting of legal fees."
________________

X1:

What people are missing is the HEARSAY in this statement: "OTHER SOURCES SUGGEST"!!! They are also missing something else here, "RUMORS" is the key word "RUMORS"!!! Would anyone be able to logically suggest based upon rumors that a person built a career evolving around irregularities? Especially irregularities involving legal accountability??? Rumors will just NOT cut it here anymore this is an investigation!!! An investigation (any good and thorough one) is comprised of facts, witnesses, and supportive evidence! Any good investigation is not done with hidden faces and unnamed sources!!! This is NOT A TABLOID!!! A man has the right to face his accuser in an open court of law this didn't occur. John Branca is NOT Al Malnik do you feel there's a need for witness protection?
________________

Interfor Report Final:

Additionally, Interfor’s investigation found a tight business relationship between Branca and Tommy Mottola, primarily in regard to the affairs of Jackson. Interfor has begun investigating the flow of funds from Jackson through Mottola and Branca into offshore accounts in the Caribbean. Interfor believes that, at this stage of the investigation, if we had additional time and a proper budget we could develop intelligence which would uncover a scheme to defraud Jackson and his empire by Mottola and Branca by diverting funds offshore.

Interfor interviewed former employees of Ziffren Brittenham Branca and Fischer for intelligence on John Branca.
________________

X1:

Indeed you would be able to establish a tight "BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP" between Tommy Mottola and John Branca at the time! John was representing Michael as an artist with Sony/Epic. Sony/Epic & Sony/ATV are two different subsidiaries of a conglomerate--as we just pointed out. Michael was not just an artist for Sony/Epic HE ALSO HAD A STAKE IN THE SONY/ATV COMPANY!!! John Branca was on the Sony/ATV Board to represent Michael because Michael put him there!!! THEREFORE, IF I AM YOUR LAWYER WHY WOULD I NOT REPRESENT YOU IN BOTH INSTANCES??? I CAN BECAUSE YOU ARE MY CLIENT THIS IS NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, SORRY. IF I HAVE THE MICHAEL JACKSON ACCOUNT AND I'M AN ENTERTAINMENT LAWYER THAT MEANS EVERYTHING WHICH FALLS UNDER THE AUSPICES OF MICHAEL JACKSON'S BUSINESS AFFAIRS WHICH DOESN'T CAUSE A CONFLICT WOULD BE MY PRIORITY AND JURISDICTION!!!!

If they had time and funds they "COULD DEVELOP INTELLIGENCE"??? Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda, however they didn't why??? This is because Branca put Uncle Sam in the mix as you are about to read below. Interfor is purely speculative. It's a mix of diluted conjecture and highly prejudicial speculation which states things without proper documentation/witnesses to support and corroborate its claims. Where are the account numbers and bank statements--the wiring of funds how did the FCC miss this? I mean after all John Branca is NO Bernie MadeOff! Where are the travel plans/itineraries to support the destinations to where the offshore accounts were located AND ESTABLISHED--please? Can you also state why your probe into the business of John Branca & Michael Jackson required more money? Please express this clearly for the record. Why did Interfor assert that they required more financial backing to complete this investigation? What you just read was a full fledged attempt to siphon more money out of Michael under false pretenses.
________________

Interfor Report Final:

A former paralegal said Branca is very quiet, intelligent, shy but lovely with a funny sense of humor. Another former employee described Branca as brilliant and said he acts less like a legal mind than as a comrade trying to get musicians’ careers in order. He noted that Branca’s brother is a musician.
________________

X1:

Interfor went rummaging in John's past history seeking skeletons and dirty laundry with the intent of playing dirty politics. Interfor's hopes and pipe dreams surrounded the location of a disgruntled employee who had former ties with John's firm. They came up empty handed with their battery-pack (Energizer Bunny) on E because nothing salacious materialized. Any former employees/co-workers had nothing but great news to relay regarding Mr. John G. Branca. Upon closer observation the claims made by Interfor are meritless and baseless! This was apparent from the start of this fishing expedition conjured up by Interfor.  This was established to garnish Michael they were set to sell by giving false hope--an impression of promise which would be misconstrued to mean something substantial. They were aware that this was not possible! Interfor had already finalized the investigation! They requested additional funds the time was of no consequence the investigation furnished no sound or conclusive results from the beginning! Here's fractional value of the Googol (ten duotrigintillion) junk that's running rampant around here:


1/10,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000:


"The investigators, the firm of Interfor in New York, reported in February, March, and with a final report on April 15, 2003, there was an improper relationship between Tommy Mattola and John Branca whereby Branca and Matolla were illegally funneling Michael Jackson’s money to off-shore accounts in the Caribbean."
________________


  • "There's plenty of info out there. The trick is to determine which news source and/or story is credible and then connect the dots. There are numerous people that could have great interest in seeing Michael gone. I don't doubt a conspiracy, I'm just still trying to wrap my head around the complexities of it. I probably won't be able to figure it out because I don't have access to the financials of everyone. And, I don't have the ability to follow the money or know the connections between the people. But, if you have an interest in figuring it, some of these links might help."
________________
X1:

*Does it state any of that in the final version of the Interfor Report??? *Let's do a side by side comparison:
________________
  • "The investigators, the firm of Interfor in New York, reported in February, March, and with a final report on April 15, 2003, there was an improper relationship between Tommy Mattola and John Branca whereby Branca and Matolla were illegally funneling Michael Jackson’s money to off-shore accounts in the Caribbean."


Interfor Report Final:
  • "Additionally, Interfor’s investigation found a tight business relationship between Branca and Tommy Mottola, primarily in regard to the affairs of Jackson. Interfor has begun investigating the flow of funds from Jackson through Mottola and Branca into offshore accounts in the Caribbean. Interfor believes that, at this stage of the investigation, if we had additional time and a proper budget we could develop intelligence which would uncover a scheme to defraud Jackson and his empire by Mottola and Branca by diverting funds offshore."
http://tinyurl.com/interfor
________________
X1:

How does it go from "tight business relationship" to "improper relationship"?  How'd it go from "investigating the flow of funds" to "illegally funneling Michael Jackson's money to off shore accounts"??? After digesting the interpretation above please direct your attention to the next excerpt from the Interfor Report below.
________________

Interfor Report Final:
  • Through very sensitive and confidential sources, we have learned that Branca sent a letter to the Justice Department describing his relationship with Jackson and the services he provided to Jackson throughout the years and indicating that his services were recently terminated. Furthermore, Branca stated that Jackson has now retained the services of Alvin Malnik (“Malnik”) and suggested that the authorities will want to review Malnik’s background. Furthermore, Branca suggested that Malnik’s goal in this relationship is to utilize Jackson’s financial resources and cash business to facilitate Malnik’s comprehensive money laundering scheme activities.
________________

X1:

I assure you that I would contact the Justice Department as well if there were people stalking me! Interfor was attempting to rummage through John's personal history and financials with the cause being unwarranted and unjustified! I indeed hope John did contact the Justice Department as he was dealing with Al Malnik! Also, please explain why would a person with offshore accounts contact the Justice Department--to be jailed perhaps???? Define the logic of that!

I really can't see how a person would be so ignorant, after arranging any offshore accounts to contact the Justice Department to get the business from them!! This is just not plausible!!! Does anyone know the penalties regarding taxation and offshore accounts around here???

You may mess with Uncle Sam's money if you choose and find out what the business is about! Does anyone comprehend fundamentally just what the role of the Justice Department is??? This is what the Attorney General of the U.S. Justice Department does:
________________

 
(See Al Capone)


  • "In most common law jurisdictions, the attorney general, or attorney-general, is the main legal advisor to the government, and in some jurisdictions he or she may also have executive responsibility for law enforcement or responsibility for public prosecutions. The term is used to refer to any person who holds a general power of attorney to represent a principal in all matters. In the common law tradition, anyone who represents the state, especially in criminal prosecutions, is such an attorney. Although a government may designate some official as the permanent attorney general, anyone who comes to represent the state in the same way is referred to as such, even if only for a particular case." 
ATTORNEY GENERAL
  • "In the federal government of the United States, the Attorney General is a member of the Cabinet and as head of the Department of Justice is the top law enforcement officer and lawyer for the government. The attorney general may need to be distinguished from the Solicitor General, a high Justice Department official with the responsibility of representing the government before the Supreme Court. In cases of exceptional importance, however, the Attorney General may choose to represent the government himself or herself to the Supreme Court. The individual U.S. states and territories, as well as the Federal capital of Washington, D.C. also have attorneys general with similar responsibilities. The majority of state Attorneys General are chosen by popular election, as opposed to the U.S. Attorney General who is a presidential appointee."
ATTORNEY GENERAL
________________
  • "The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the Office of the Attorney General which evolved over the years into the head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government. The Attorney General represents the United States in legal matters generally and gives advice and opinions to the President and to the heads of the executive departments of the Government when so requested. In matters of exceptional gravity or importance the Attorney General appears in person before the Supreme Court. Since the 1870 Act that established the Department of Justice as an executive department of the government of the United States, the Attorney General has guided the world's largest law office and the central agency for enforcement of federal laws."
UNITED STATES JUSTICE DEPARTMENT

"Legal issues:
  • "If you’re a U.S. citizen, it’s not illegal per se to open an offshore account. If the underlying reason, however, for setting up the account is an illegal act, you might be keeping your money safe, but you could still be in hot water. For example, if you’re accused of tax evasion and you’ve sent the funds abroad, you could still face criminal charges here. The offshore bank account, however, may remain free from the long arm of the law."
Offshore Account

Risk Defined
  • "When you bank in the U.S., you can be secure in the knowledge that your money is insured by the government. No such guarantees exist with offshore banks. In other words, a country could have a coup or a natural disaster or an accounting scandal one day and all the money could be gone the next. Furthermore, you could find yourself scammed; it does happen. Remember, this is a business built on skirting the law, so you won’t always deal with the most honest people (but that varies by country)."
Offshore Account Risk
_____________

X1:

***Many know the TRUTH! Thomas Mesereau has put that "GET BRANCA MANTRA" up to the test in open court and actually CLEARED John Branca ON THE RECORD AND FOR THE RECORD.  John Branca has not been convicted or disciplined for any wrongdoing if so he would have been in jail! To date nothing has been proven. When do we get to a point where there is some acceptance regarding this? It is time to look at this as educated adults now. However, many are running this same antiquated mantra. It has been disproven and it is now growing cobwebs; thus, they're coming up short. The writing is on the wall. We can surmise and presume that the witness has perjured himself all we would like. However, do these assumptions make this so? If what Tom Mesereau did here was circumstantial--it would effectively dictate that Thomas Mesereau--the attorney which cleared Michael Jackson in 2005--was involved in a scheme to defraud Michael out of his fortune! Is this what many are stating here? Let's re-visit Thomas Mesereau's examination of his witness LeGrand once more:


PLEASE READ THIS BELOW:

11 A. The investigator‟s report indicated that

12 Sony had transferred money to the account.

13 Q. Sony had transferred money to that account

14 for the benefit of Mr. Jackson‟s lawyer, right?

15 A. That‟s what was indicated in the report.

16 It -- I need to be very clear here that that

17 was not verified, with a reasonable degree of

18 certainty, that I would have acted upon that

19 information. And Mr. Branca‟s a fine lawyer. And,

20 you know, there is no -- I have no proof of these

21 statements.

22 Q. You investigated Mr. Branca because, in your

23 words, you thought he was involved in self-dealing,

24 right?

25 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Improper

26 opinion; no foundation; leading.

27 THE COURT: Overruled.

28 THE WITNESS: Again, you know, I want to be

1 clear. I consulted with my partner and, you know,

2 other lawyers, and we collectively made a decision

3 to -- that it was prudent to have our investigator

4 look into the possibility of such actions being

5 taken by Mr. Branca.

6 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You were concerned that

7 all of the individuals you investigated were

8 involved in self-dealing, right?

9 A. No. That‟s not right. For example, I did

10 not suspect Mr. Malnik of self-dealing in any way.

11 Q. Then why did you have an entirely separate

12 and more comprehensive investigation done of Mr.

13 Malnik?

14 A. I had done an Internet search on Mr. Malnik

15 before I met him. That Internet search indicated

16 that he had ties to organized crime; that he was

17 rumored to be the, you know, quote, heir

18 Lansky.

19 There were, you know, sufficient clouds in

20 the public record of Mr. Malnik‟s past that, again,

21 we, the lawyers, made a collective decision that it

22 was prudent to further investigate Mr. Malnik. We

23 did not know who he was. And he was becoming a more

24 and more powerful figure in Michael Jackson‟s life.

25 Q. Did you at any point determine that Malnik

26 had ties with Sony?27 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Foundation;

28 improper opinion; leading.

1 THE COURT: Sustained.

2 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you know whether or not

3 Mr. Malnik has ever had a position with the Sony

4 corporation?

5 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Same

6 objection. Add relevancy.

7 THE COURT: Relevancy, sustained.

8 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: When you did your

9 investigation, you and your partner, both former

10 prosecutors, were you concerned about Mr. Malnik‟s

11 relationship with Sony?

12 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Same objection.

13 THE COURT: Overruled.

14 THE WITNESS: I really don‟t recall that we

15 had any concern over Mr. Malnik's relationship with

16 Sony. In fact, I‟m not aware that he had a

17 significant relationship with Sony."

 _____________

Chapter VI

The Legalities Of Star Power

A Ziffren Story:
Kenneth Ziffren


X1:

Here's the story of Kenneth Ziffren he's the founding partner of Ziffren, Brittenham, Branca, Fischer, Gilbert-Lurie, Stiffelman, Cook, Johnson, Lande & Wolf (Ziffren Brittenham LLP). Wow, I'm exasperated by attempting to actually say that! Ziffren is a Hollywood mover and shaker. He created and built his firm by attaining access to the Hollywood stratosphere. Quite simply Kenneth Ziffren went places where no entertainment attorney has ever gone before. Ziffren's firm had its share of scandal because of industry dominance regarding clientele, money, and power.
John Branca UCLA Law Mag
  • "Few other entertainment law firms in the nation even come close to matching the high-wattage clout of this century city dynamo. With a client list that boasts such Hollywood A-listers as actors Tom Hanks, Harrision Ford, Bruce Wills, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Sacha Baron Cohen, Steve Carell, Hugh Laurie, Jay Leno William Petersen, Tony Shalhoub, and Matt Damon; music clients including YoYo Ma, singers Shakira, Justin Timberlake, Kelly Clarkson, Eminem, Britney Spears, and Alicia Keys; and rock acts like Korn, Aerosmith and Maroon5--not to mention a Blackberry's worth of instantly recognizable directors, producers, writers, studio heads, independent music labels and corporate clients like Liberty Media Group, DreamWorks, SKG, Veho, Strategic Data Corpl and Seagate Technologies--Ziffren Brittenham is widely regarded as the most powerful entertainment shop in the country, if not the world."-UCLA LAW
Citing Ziffren, Brittenham & Branca With Conflicts of Interest
X1:

I have news for you back in the 1990's there was an ethics scandal regarding the law firm of Ziffren Brittenham LLP. This scandal rocked the entertainment industry's legal world. Prince (The Artist Formally Known As Prince) had a manager who was being represented by this firm. Prince chose to sever ties with the manager. The manager was no longer represented by the firm when he ceased tenure with Prince. The firm then proceeded to retain Prince as a client. The former manager of Prince alleges confidential information obtained while the firm was representing him was utilized in the dispute.  He stated that this information was utilized via Ziffren Brittenham LLP to the advantage of the newly retained client. That client was in fact Prince.
________________
  • "Steve Fargnoli, who was represented by the Ziffren firm when he managed Prince, alleges that the lawyers later persuaded the performer to withhold management fees to Fargnoli's company. The Ziffren firm is also accused of using confidential information, gained while representing Fargnoli, to benefit Prince in the dispute.The firm started representing Prince after the musician fired Fargnoli in 1988.Fargnoli's attorney, Larry A. Sackey of the Herbert Hafif law office, alleges that the three conflict cases reveal a pattern whereby the Ziffren firm, which wields unparalleled influence in television through its representation of top talent, is sacrificing the interests of lesser clients to those of superstar clients."The Ziffren firm wields considerable influence in the (entertainment) industry," Sackey said. "There are a lot of people who have been harmed who are afraidto bring this issue up."The suit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, seeks more than $5 million in damages. It names the Ziffren office and three individual partners--Skip Brittenham, John Branca and Gary Stiffelman. Dennis Perluss, the Ziffren firm's outside counsel, called the claims unfounded. Perluss said that any lingering disputes between Fargnoli and the Ziffren office should have been resolved as part of the settlement of a lawsuit the manager brought against Prince.The Ziffren firm has also denied any wrongdoing in two previous conflict cases--one brought by another former client, TV producer Philip DeGuere Jr. ("Simon& Simon"), and the other by a former Ziffren law partner, Gregg Homer. Perluss said the other suits started a "feeding frenzy."

X1: 



I have more news for you this didn't fly back in the 1990's and it's most certainly not going to fly now. When Prince's former manager alleged that there was a conflict of interest all of a sudden a slew of lawsuits were hurled toward the firm. There were no similar instances prior to this time regarding the firm to the best of my knowledge. Please observe that this litigation although focused upon the firm specifically targeted Ziffren himself and not John Branca. This case was dismissed! The judge cited the reasons for dismissal as being the case had already been part of a settlement regarding a former litigation. 
________________
  • "A conflict-of-interest suit filed by pop star Prince's former manager against a top entertainment law firm has been dismissed by a Los Angeles Superior Court judge.Judge Ronald E. Cappai ruled Friday that Steve Fargnoli has no legal grounds for suing the law firm of Ziffren, Brittenham & Branca, because the firm is exempted under a previous settlement of a lawsuit between the rock manager and Prince."
  • "Fargnoli had accused the law firm, led by Hollywood power broker Kenneth Ziffren, of telling Prince that he overpaid his management team under a contract the Ziffren firm negotiated for Fargnoli."
  • "The suits, two of which are still active, have helped spark debate in Hollywood over the potential conflicts lawyers and agents have when representing clients who sometimes have competing interests.Larry A. Sackey, one of Fargnoli's lawyers, said the judge's decision will be appealed, arguing that the Ziffren firm should not be exempt from Fargnoli's claims".
Ziffren The Pope of Hollywood 


X1:


As a matter of fact back then Ziffren had a legal entertainment monopoly going on. If you were not with Ziffren you were... There were a legion of celebrities and high ranking clients on his roster which got him dubbed as "The Pope Of Hollywood". A multitude of individuals alleged that Ziffren welded too much influence and power. Some even went as far to state that Ziffren had as much power as a movie mogul!  We all know that when people feel threatened and are faced with an option to eliminate the opposition they do. This evidently did not work till this day that firm is still in operation. Thank goodness that John Branca is helping to ensure the financial future of Michael's children and their children as well:) He is a professional, name a person that can do it better!
________________
  • "In Hollywood, there's one entertainment lawyer who's so powerful that some colleagues fearfully refer to him as "the pope."Kenneth Ziffren of Ziffren, Brittenham & Branca arguably wields as much clout as any studio chief or network honcho, thanks to a thoroughbred stable of clients that includes Eddie Murphy, Harrison Ford and Ted Danson. He's credited with personally resolving the writers' strike that paralyzed the industry in1988, and his small Century City office is said to take in more than $10 million a year." 
  • "But now Ziffren's vast influence is the focus of attention for another reason. Conflict of interest charges have been leveled against his firm in two high-profile lawsuits--one filed by a former client and the other by a former partner. The suits allege that the firm has put its own interests ahead of those it represents. In the broader scope, they portray Hollywood as a place where deal-makers wield more control over movies and TV shows than the people who make them. Ziffren denies any wrongdoing and said he expects to easily triumph in court. But in Hollywood, the cases are seen as a strike against the insular system in which a handful of top law firms represent both talen tand their employers, occasionally at the same time. "It's a real dangerous issue," said one top Hollywood executive who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "By the very nature of their business, these people represent producers, stars, sometimes even studios.The same people are in play all the time, so you're bound to come across conflicts."The two cases against the Ziffren firm, which were filed separately, involve Philip L. DeGuere Jr., who produced the television series "Simon and Simon," and Gregg Homer, a former partner in Ziffren, Brittenham & Branca. DeGuere maintains that the law office conspired with CBS and Columbia Pictures Television to defraud him of more than $900,000 in connection with a television series deal. Homer said he was fired for refusing to "take positions adverse to his clients' interests when involved in deals with other clients of the firm."News of Homer's suit was bannered across the Hollywood trade paper, Variety, late last month. The attorney, who joined the Ziffren firm in 1985, said he came under growing pressure to subjugate his clients' interests to those of the firm and its top clients. Homer said the firm also cut his pay when he insisted on disclosing conflicts of interest. He did not cite specific examples in the Los Angeles Superior Court case.Homer left the Ziffren office last year. His attorney, Thomas G. Stolpman, said Homer was ousted for challenging the status quo. "Everybody always says, 'This is the way it's done,' " Stolpman said. "But that's just not an acceptable excuse, even in Hollywood."Ziffren maintains that the conflict-of-interest allegation is a red herring designed to divert attention from the real events surrounding Homer's dismissal. In its formal court response, the firm calls the Homer suit"an act of desperation by a former partner" who "was unable to accept the fact that he did not measure upto the professional standards" of the firm." 
  • "The Ziffren firm contends that Homer's career started to collapse when he alienated clients, outside lawyers, studios and network personnel, none of whom are named. Despite the firm's rehabilitative efforts, Homer eventually developed a persecution complex and was dismissed in May of 1991, the response states. The Ziffren firm says Homer was allowed to stay on for several months while looking for another job, and that he was generously compensated for his work, even as the partners were in the process of cutting him loose."
  • "For example, former partner Gregg Homer sued after the firm fired him, alleging Ziffren lawyers made deals that benefited "more important" clients to the detriment of those seen as less important. The firm denied wrongdoing and settled that case for an undisclosed amount. A more recent suit, filed in December by Showbiz Entertainment, makes similar allegations, saying lawyers as Ziffren "intentionally chose profits and money over their loyalty and duties to their own clients." 
-LA Daily Journal
________________


X1:

There always seems to be a double standard lurking in the shadows somewhere. In 2005 when disgruntled former employees from Neverland Ranch testified against Michael it was noted they were vengeful. However, with Ziffren this is not applicable? The hypocrisy is starting to wear me thin!  The cry for bluntness is long over do! Our community has double standards one standard is for Michael which entails making excuses for each and every instance as if Michael was not a human being. The other involves burning any person which has reportedly done wrong (even if it is a rumor or insinuation) at the stake! I presume many must blame someone even if they are incorrect in their accusations...

Ziffren also decided to settle with producer Philip L. DeGuere Jr. which was reported in October of 1993. In both instances there were settlements reached. Nevertheless, if you pay close attention to this one most importantly this settlement made a former client walk away satisfied. The settlement with Gregg Homer was more of severance pay and a gracious thank you for your services while you look for another place of employment. If anything was going to materialize Phillip & Greg could have refused to settle and taken these cases to trial! I wonder why Phillip & Greg didn't...
  • "Philip L. DeGuere Jr. is receiving an undisclosed amount in settling his lawsuit against the powerful entertainment firm Ziffren, Brittenham & Branca and Columbia Pictures Television. The suit alleged that his television pilot "Triangle" was canceled in 1989 as part of a scheme to conceal payments related to CBS' hiring of Jeff Sagansky as its entertainment chief. The suit, one of several that have raised the issue of conflict of interest among Hollywood law firms, alleged that the Ziffren firm did not properly represent DeGuere's interests when working for him because it was also having business dealings with CBS and Columbia. CBS is not included in the settlement."
________________

Chapter VII:

Wall Street Shenanigans Corporate HIGH JINX 


The Goldman Sachs Proposal

BX:

April 15, 2003



In 2003, Goldman Sachs put a proposal on the table on how to use Michael’s music publishing catalogs, i.e. his 50% share in the Sony/ATV catalog and his MIJAC catalog, to invest into a much larger asset. The partners in this business would have been Goldman Sachs, Sony and Michael Jackson. This proposal is outlined in a paper titled “Discussion Materials” which was drafted April 15, 2003.
Goldman Sachs Secret Rescue Plan--Discussion Materials  


Like any good discussion paper, it starts with a description of the current status (page 1). As per April 15, 2003, Michael’s liabilities are listed as 254 Mio USD:


  • Bank of America: 200 Mio USD, secured by Michael’s share in the Sony/ATV catalog, maturing December 20, 2005 
  • Bank of America: 35 Mio USD, secured by MIJAC, Neverland Ranch, personal guarantees by Michael and by other assets, maturing January 31, 2005 
  • Cash flow need of 12 Mio USD (“accounts payable”)
  •   Sony: 7 Mio USD, secured by MIJAC
Back then, MIJAC would generate about 5 Mio USD (before taxes), and Sony/ATV about 41 Mio USD (before taxes; Michael’s share would have been 20.5 Mio USD before taxes, presumably).

On page 2, you will find the risk analysis. In essence, as per Goldman Sachs, Michael may not have been able to find a suitable buyer within the comparatively short time frames until the loans matured; also, Sony would have had to consent to any transfer of Michael’s share in the Sony/ATV catalog. Thus, according to this paper, Michael had to refinance the loans; also, he had considerable outstanding payments (12 Mio USD). This means, again according to this paper, that Michael not only had to refinance the loans but there were also indications that he was in need of new cash, i.e. an increase of the loans or find another way to receive a substantial amount of cash.


If there was no refinancing and if Bank of America proceeded to retrieve the money they had given to Michael, this would have meant foreclosure and seizure of Michael’s 50% share in Sony/ATV and all of his MIJAC catalog. Michael would have been left without these revenue generating assets, but with costs associated to them and other assets he had (e.g. operating costs for Neverland, taxes etc.).
 
On page 3, Goldman Sachs describe what they envisage as goals for Michael: “Financial Stabilization and Value Maximization”. This includes refinancing and reducing the loans over time, if not even eliminating them, and generating cash to cover operating expenses.

On page 4, they describe their business proposal.


1. Michael would have to transfer his 50% share as well as MIJAC to a new company called “Music LLC” where Goldman Sachs would be his partner, his share in this company would be 50%.


2. In return, he would receive 135 Mio USD from Goldman Sachs as a once off payment to eliminate loans or partially eliminate them (he would still be left with a refinancing need of 132 Mio USD for the large Bank of America loan) and to receive fresh cash. 


3. In addition to revenues generates from MIJAC and his 50% share in the Sony/ATV catalog (combined about 25.5 Mio USD/year), he would receive an additional 3.5 Mio USD/year for the duration of 10 years, so Goldman Sachs offers Michael 135 Mio cash upfront and 35 Mio cash spread out across 10 years, i.e. 170 Mio USD.


4. They estimate the value of his share in Sony/ATV at 394 Mio USD and deduct his share in the debt (125 Mio USD) which means his share in Sony/ATV is valued at 269 Mio USD. Taking this value and adding the 170 Mio USD and taking into account some financial mechanisms, and assuming a sales of Music LLC after five years, they offer Michael 519 Mio USD for both catalogs, 20.4 times the current annual revenues before income tax which about two times more than other catalogs were valued at the time (they compare EMI and Warner-Chappell).


5. Also, they state that if Michael would have to sell his share in the Sony/ATV catalog to escape foreclosure and associated costs, he would have had to sell his share for about 17 times the annual revenues to be able to pay back the loan and cover all associated costs.

This business plan involved Charles Koppelman, former Chairman and CEO of EMI Music Publishing (1990-1994) and CEO of EMI Records Group, North America (1994-1997): Goldman Sachs and Charles Koppelman would have overseen “MJ’s financial and business needs”.
Michael Jackson Bill Gates
As a by-note, I wonder what had happened to the plans of Dieter Wiesner, Mark Konitzer and Marc Schaffel – they were around in early 2003 pursuing their own plans.

August 18, 2003 

This is the day Michael signed the Third Amended and Restated Promissory Note for the Bank of America loan the MIJAC catalog served as collateral for. He instructed the co-trustees of the MJ Publishing fund--of which he was the sole beneficiary--to enter into and sign this loan agreement which doubled the original loan of 35 Mio USD. The co-trustees at this point in time were John McClain and Al Malnik. The interest rate was not fixed but consisted of the Prime Rate, an index which Bank of America would establish at its own discretion (and change at its own discretion) plus 4%. This amended note is accompanied by an intercreditor agreement which shows that Michael had also received a loan from Sony for the amount of 12.8 Mio USD per August 18, 2003--presumably to be able to pay the outstanding invoices as listed in the Goldman Sachs business plan described above.
________________
  • “Ahead of the proposal, he and Florida businessman Al Malnik also arranged to double -- to $70 million -- one of Jackson’s two loans with Bank of America, where a Koppelman friend, Jane Heller, happened to handle his and Jackson’s personal accounts.“
________________



 BX:

If you look at the Goldman Sachs documents shown up to this point, you will realize that Michael’s future is painted in most dramatic colours here, presenting this proposal as the only way Michael could get back control of his debts and financial obligations – but in reality, Goldman Sachs and Charles Koppelman would have been in control. It is interesting that during these procedures, Charles Koppelman and Al Malnik proceeded to double the debt secured by the MIJAC catalog, putting Michael’s own songs at even more risk. Michael may have needed a cash injection, this is true, however, it put him under even more obligations and financial pressure.



January 7, 2004



Goldman-Sachs presents a plan on how to develop a joint music publishing business which is essentially about taking the business plan they had already presented to the next level.


1. Michael's publishing trust “MJ-ATV Publishing” and Goldman Sachs would form a joint venture (“Music LLC”). MJ-ATV Publishing would contribute Michael’s 50% share in the Sony/ATV catalog complete with all attached non tangible assets (e.g. voting rights within the Sony/ATV entity) as well as Michael's own catalog, MIJAC.


2. Music LLC would be governed by a board of between 7 and 10 directors, and MJ-ATV Publishing Trust would be entitled to elect 2 directors.


3. Provided that Charles Koppelman is not already one of those 2 directors, MJ-ATV Publishing can elect him as a third director on behalf of MJ-ATV. All board decisions would be based on a majority vote. Michael would be the Chief Creative Officer of Music LLC.


4.  This joint venture, Music LLC, would acquire another major catalog in partnership with Sony and Goldman Sachs. Following this, a new company would be formed (“Newco”) that holds both the Sony/ATV catalog and the newly acquired catalog. In this company, Music LLC (the joint venture between Michael and Goldman Sachs), Goldman Sachs and Sony would be partners.

What does all this mean? MJ-ATV Publishing Trust would not have been an equal partner of neither Music LLC nor Newco. Given MJ-ATV Publishing Trust would have been represented by a maximum of 3 out of a minimum of 7 directors on the board, this 50% partner would have had less than 50% voting rights. This is even more true for Newco, where Music LLC would have been one of three partners and, given the voting rights situation for Music LLC, would have been represented by Goldman Sachs elected directors.
Goldman Sachs TermSheet


Let us briefly look at Charles Koppelman. This here is a brief history of his career in the music business.
________________

Martin Bandier
  • In 1976 Charles Koppelman and Martin Bandier formed the Entertainment Company which was responsible for many hits including those by Barbara Streisand, Dolly Parton, Lionel Richie and Diana Ross.  By 1985, Koppelman and his partners had formed S.B.K. Entertainment World, which became the world's largest independent publisher and, in 1989, S.B.K. Entertainment World merged with EMI Music.  The transaction was the largest music publishing sale at the time.  Koppelman took over as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of EMI Music Publishing from 1990 to 1994.  From 1994 to 1997, he served as Chief Executive Officer of EMI Records Group, North America.
The Apprentice Rules Charles Koppelman
________________

BX:

This rings a bell or two, or maybe ten?

DING!-X1
________________


“In June 1985, Jackson and Branca learned that Charles Koppelman's and Marty Bandier's The Entertainment Co. had made a tentative agreement with Holmes à Court to buy the catalogue for £30,500,000 ($50,000,000), but in early August, Holmes à Court's team contacted Jackson again, with both sides making concessions. These included Holmes à Court adding more assets and agreeing to establish a US university scholarship in Jackson's name. Although Koppelman/Bandier offered a higher bid, Jackson's bid of £24,400,000 ($40,000,000), was accepted because he could close the deal quickly, having completed due diligence of ATV Music prior to any formal agreement. The deal was signed on 10 August 1985.”
  • “At one point, Branca says, he had a handshake agreement to acquire the catalog from Australian businessman Robert Holmes à Court, only to discover that the seller had turned around and struck a deal with a rival bidder. "He fucked me," is how Branca puts it. Then the attorney learned that one of the financiers of the rival deal was a colleague he'd done business with over the years. "I went to him and asked him to pull the financing," Branca recalls. The colleague agreed, effectively killing the deal with Jackson's competitor, Martin Bandier, then co-owner of The Entertainment Company.”
Call Lawyer
________________
 BX:
Charles Koppelman
For Charles Koppelman and Martin Bandier and their company The Entertainment Company this was probably a deadly blow-- it is likely they had put all their means into the acquisition of the ATV catalog. When their financing collapsed, they had no chance with their bid against Michael Jackson. They sold the company in 1989. Charles Koppelman was with EMI for seven years--but this is not the same as having your own company and being a big player. Sony became a big player in the publishing business once it acquired 50% of the ATV catalog business from Michael Jackson, recall. Martin Bandier is currently the Chairman and CEO of Sony/ATV:
________________

Martin Bandier:


"Chairman and CEO Of Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC Martin Bandier, musician Jerry Leiber, musician Mike Stoller attend the cocktail reception and book signing for Leiber & Stoller's "HOUND DOG" at the Sony Club on June 9, 2009 in New York City. (Photo by Larry Busacca/Getty Images for Sony ATV Music Publishing)" ***
  • “Sony Corporation of America announced today that Martin Bandier has been named Chairman and CEO, Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC. As part of the agreement, Mr. Bandier will also make an investment in Sony/ATV, which is co-owned by Sony and trusts formed by Michael Jackson. "I am thrilled that Mr. Bandier has agreed to become Chairman and CEO of Sony/ATV Music Publishing,” said Michael Jackson. "Marty has over 30 years experience in the music publishing industry, and not only brings with him a wealth of knowledge about the industry, but the vision and ability to take the company to new heights. I look forward to working with him"
Webwire Press Release
  • “Mr. Bandier serves as a Founding Partner of SBK Entertainment World Inc., (SBK). Mr. Bandier served as Co-Chief Executive Officer of EMI Music Publishing a subsidiary of Emi Group PLC., from 1991 to March 6, 2007. He entered the music publishing business in 1975 as a founding partner of the Entertainment Music Company and the Entertainment Television Company and, together with his partners, created SBK in 1986.”
Businessweek
________________

BX:

It is interesting that neither Charles Koppelman nor Martin Bandier mention each other, having founded a company together and having been co-CEOs of EMI Music Publishing. Charles Koppelman may have considered the 2003/2004 Goldman Sachs proposal as his chance to get back to the top in music publishing, utilizing the publishing catalog he had lost back in 1985 to Michael. At the same time, Michael would have lost control of the ATV catalog altogether.

On July 28, 2003, John Branca sent the following letter to Charles Koppelman, pointing out the weaknesses of the proposal. Alternatively, you could say he put a foot up or – he lit a fire under Charles Koppelman. Read this letter carefully keeping in mind what you just read here.
Branca's Secret Letter


It seems to me that John Branca saw through the mechanisms behind the Goldman Sachs/Koppelman proposal.
________________


Chapter VIII

Al Malnik Like Good Ole' Gangster Movie:

70 Mil Loan Restructuring from BOA 

Aug 18th, 2003


X1:

I did promise we would get to Al Malnik didn't I? Just read this and tell me if you would contact the Justice Department if you were any kind of a friend to Michael and if you feared for your life!

*Al Malnik, Michael Jackson, Chris Tucker,  Friends


You tell me at the end of the day what type of character this guy was. I am not here to stand in judgment of anyone. However, here you have someone with an agglomeration of vivid and wild accusations being hurled their way. There has not ever been one shred or fragment of wrongdoing proven. To further express this the said individual which has been exonerated in a court record and is very much unlike the aforementioned individual. The aforementioned individual has been called out in numerous settings as being a reputed mob boss. This has also been done on the court record and for the record! What type of society do we live in where this can transpire? Not only has this individual been called a reputed mob boss he has also been denied certain types of licensing based upon his associations with alleged crime bosses and syndicates! 
_____________
  • "Through very sensitive and confidential sources, we have learned that Branca sent a letter to the Justice Department describing his relationship with Jackson and the services he provided to Jackson throughout the years and indicating that his services were recently terminated. Furthermore, Branca stated that Jackson has now retained the services of Alvin Malnik (“Malnik”) and suggested that the authorities will want to review Malnik’s background. Furthermore, Branca suggested that Malnik’s goal in this relationship is to utilize Jackson’s financial resources and cash business to facilitate Malnik’s comprehensive money laundering scheme activities."
http://tinyurl.com/interfor



  • "Ahead of the proposal, he and Florida businessman Al Malnik also arranged to double -- to $70 million -- one of Jackson’s two loans with Bank of America, where a Koppelman friend, Jane Heller, happened to handle his and Jackson’s personal accounts."

Jackson s 70 Mil Loan Trustee Malnik Bank Of America Note and Sony

_____________

Chapter IX:

Holy Explicative Ca$h Crisis (€) No Kidding:

X1:

If you think you have seen something you have seen nothing yet!  By now after all of this with the $70 Million Dollar loan (featured in The Wrap) Al had other things on his mind. Being that he had unparalleled access to accounts which were belonging to Michael things started to occur which indeed appeared to be very suspect. I believe right about now Michael started to catch on regarding what was occurring with John Branca and how they had set him up!



With everything that's transpired just what did Al Malnik do which demonstrated business genius regarding Michael's financial affairs? Where was the spectacular business savvy for his friend Michael Jackson? According to the information below Al Malnik has business savvy for Al Malnik. What's friends got to do with it?  Mr. Malnik's business reputation precedes him!  In my opinion Mr. Malnik is a self preservationist and a predatory lender.  As you will see Michael indeed began to develop his own suspicions regarding Mr. Malnik.  Then we also have another situation to evaluate and contend with. We need to revisit this situation again!  How does this play into the grand scheme of things:




This entire situation appears to be a huge scheme to get a hold of Michael's assets.  You know the situation that everyone's been speaking about? You had multiple players involved! Everyone seems to equate this to John Branca; however, there was an investigation which found noting fruitful or substantial. We have just shown that John Branca had nothing whatsoever to do with the Goldman Sachs proposal and most certainly was not one of its architectures--for this, you have to look elsewhere. In fact, he acted in the best interest of Michael Jackson. Yet the people which need to be questioned are going under the radar and rendered undetectable! This is due in part to all of these false allegations flowing around the community. Somebody turn off the faucet! To date I've seen more time wasted on John Branca's dealings than I've ever bore witness to regarding Al Malnik!
_____________
  • "[UPDATED: Holy EXPLICATIVE. Jose Lambiet got Malnik on the phone, and he said Michael Jackson named him the executor of his will and godfather and guardian of Jackson's youngest son, Prince Michael "Blanket" Jackson. Read Lambiet's "Page 2" post here. Malnik also spoke with CBS4's Lisa Petrillo and said he was executor of the will in 2004, but he's not sure if he's still in the will. Considering the fact that Jackson reportedly believed he was the victim of a "conspiracy" by Malnik and Tommy Mottola to grab his assets, I doubt Malnik is still either executor or guardian of Blanket. But wow, Malnik really got his hooks into the King of Pop. The crazy thing is that neither Lambiet nor Petrillo mentioned Malnik's Mafia past, which is arguably the best part of the story. Guess that's why Malnik talked to them. This Malnik thing is going to get madly interesting, I'm afraid. Facing a criminal trial and millions in bail costs and legal bills, Michael Jackson found a "friend" in a local man: reputed mobster Al Malnik."
Al Malnik
  • "Malnik, owner of the Forge restaurant in Miami and a former close associate of Mafia kingpin Meyer Lansky, befriended the pop king and let him stay in his 15-bedroom, 35,000-square-foot Palm Beach County mansion in Ocean Ridge. Jackson even sat with Malnik at the head table during Malnik's 70th birthday bash at the Forge in 2003."
From Left To Right:
Al Malnik, Michael Jackson, & Nancy Malnik
  • But Malnik, in his business dealings, has never been known for helping anyone without expecting more in return. He learned from Lansky, after all, and was dubbed the mobster's "heir apparent" by Reader's Digest when Lansky died in 1983. He was banned from Atlantic City casinos by the New Jersey Gaming Commission after it was determined he was associated with criminals, including Lansky and mobster Sam Cohen. (The feds charged Malnik with tax evasion in 1969 after gathering heavily incriminating audiotapes, but the case was tossed when it was determined the tapes were illegally obtained by agents.) But Malnik and Jackson at some point had a falling out. Fox News' Roger Friedman, who dug into the relationship, reported that it might have been because Jackson had surrounded himself with the Nation of Islam. Still another report claimed it was because Jackson noticed that Malnik had a statue on his property that looked like the devil."
Al Malnik
  • Vanity Fair's Maureen Orth reported in 2005 that a cloak-and-dagger source named Gordon Novel told her that Jackson came to believe that Malnik was part of a conspiracy by Sony, which owned half of the Beatles catalog, to take over the entire asset of songs. Involved in the alleged conspiracy was former Sony head Tommy Mottola and Hollywood director Brett Ratner, who grew up in Miami under Malnik's wing. Here's a passage from Orth's story:" 
Al Malnik
  • "Jackson explained to Novel that the conspirators had introduced him to Al Malnik, a wealthy Miami attorney who had once represented Meyer Lansky. Malnik later helped Jackson refinance his loans. That was not what Jackson told Novel, however. According to Novel, Jackson said he was lured to Malnik's house in Miami Beach by film director Brett Ratner to see a house so beautiful it would make him catatonic. He said that once he was there, however, Malnik, who Jackson claimed had Mafia ties, wanted to put his fingers in the singer's business. Jackson also said he received a call from Tommy Mottola while he was there, which aroused his suspicion, but he did not tell Novel that he later put Malnik on the board of the Sony/ATV Music partnership. (Reached by telephone, Malnik scoffed at the idea of a conspiracy or of his having any Mafia ties. He said, "It does not make any sense." Ratner confirmed that he took Jackson to Malnik's house and that he considers Malnik a father figure.)"
Al Malnik
  • This is laughable. The two men were indeed friends at one time, but there's a reason the photographs date all the way back to 2003. The two men had a falling out after Jackson began to believe that Malnik, who has known Mafia ties and was once a close associate of Meyer Lansky, was trying to wrangle Jackson's rights to half the Beatles catalog of songs from him, rights that are worth an estimated half billion dollars. The source of this information is Gordon Novel, a character of intrigue himself from the Kennedy assassination, Watergate, and Waco. Novel worked in the Lyndon Johnson administration and spent years working as an investigator for former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark. Vanity Fair's Maureen Orth first reported that Novel had met with Jackson in 2005 in an attempt to get the investigator to find proof that Malnik was part of a conspiracy involving Sony's Tommy Mottola and film director Brett Ratner, a Malnik protoge, to take over his assets. "According to Novel, Jackson said he was lured to Malnik's house in Miami Beach by film director Brett Ratner to see a house so beautiful it would make him catatonic,"
  • "Orth wrote. "He said that once he was there, however, Malnik, who Jackson claimed had Mafia ties, wanted to put his fingers in the singer's business. Jackson also said he received a call from Tommy Mottola while he was there, which aroused his suspicion..." I contacted Novel over the weekend, and he confirmed meeting with Jackson at Neverland Valley during the time of the 2005 trial. He told me that he was originally contacted by Jackson's brother Jermaine and that Michael and the family wanted Novel to gather proof of the Malnik/Mottola conspiracy and further find evidence that Mottola was behind the criminal child molestation charges. The ultimate goal was to blow the trial out of the water so Jackson wouldn't have to face prison time.  Novel said he flew in March 2005, about a month into Jackson's trial, from his home in New Orleans to the Los Angeles home owned by Jackson's parents, where he stayed several days before Jackson finally had him over to Neverland Valley. He said the two of them met in a bungalow on the property before Jackson drove him around the ranch in an old pickup truck.
  • "The whole thing centered on Tommy Mottola setting him up," Novel told me. "Mottola and him were at odds, and Jackson's information was that Mottola and Malnik got together to fuck him. He said he believed Malnik was representing the Mob."  He said Jackson had special loathing for Malnik because he felt betrayed by him. When I told him that Malnik was saying that Jackson had made him executor of his estate, he was dubious. "He had split up with Malnik," said Novel. "He never said anything about Malnik being executor of his will. And based on how pissed off Jackson was at him at the time, I wouldn't believe it on a bet." When asked what Jackson was like at the meeting, Novel didn't hesitate: "He was afraid, very very afraid. He didn't want to go to jail and didn't think he would be treated very well there." Was he fearful that he would be killed in prison? "Yeah, you can say that," Novel said. But he also said that Jackson's mental state was "excellent" and that the pop star was lucid and extremely intelligent. He didn't believe Jackson was on any drugs during the meeting. I asked Novel if he believed Jackson's theory about the conspiracy against him. He said that he thought Jackson was not guilty of the criminal charges and that he was probably set up, but he had no idea if Mottola was involved.  "He thought that Mottola was Mob-connected and that Malnik was representing the Mob, but I can't vouch for any of that [EXPLICATIVE]," Novel said. "I don't have anything against Tommy Mottola and don't know if what he thought was true or not. I don't want to get on Mottola's bad side. My sources in New York say he's a dangerous guy."  Novel never conducted an investigation and said that, in the end, Jackson "deadbeated" him. He said that when he got to the airport to fly home, there was no ticket as promised by Jackson. He said that he contacted Jermaine and that the family paid for his flight. He said Jackson still owes him $25,000 for his consultation at Neverland. (Orth reported in Vanity Fair that Jackson apparently took a lot of Novel's advice, but at that time, Novel claimed Jackson owed him just $5,000.)
_____________

You Rock My World Economy!

Predatory Lender = Ca$h Cri$i$

X1:

Nothing that this cartoon character did helped Michael! In fact it got Michael sinking deeper in the quicksand and mire.  He didn't even offer Michael an olive branch or a paddle as he sold him down the river!  I have delved into the story of predators. The majority of us from the U.S. are thoroughly acclimated with the catch phrase "Predatory Lending". This indeed is a hostile lending practice and "Predatory Lending" was a contributing factor.  The proverbial "Economic Bubble" has burst and damaged the entire "WORLD ECONOMY" we are ever so aware!  All of these Hedge Funds, Derivatives, and, Predatory Lending schemes are what got us into this mess in the first place! Is there anyone in the U.S. (my country) which is astonishingly that naive? Would they presume that in the next seven to ten years we're not going to experience an earthquake--and aftershock of effects?  Many are nonsensical regarding our current state of affairs. The slashes and budget cuts have taken their form in a bipartisan way and are rapidly descending down the pike. This will inevitably affect the poor, working poor, and middle class hierarchy in the United States! Will we even be able to garner the term "Middle Class" anymore? Meanwhile, people like Al Malnik will live lavishly, while us lowly peasants scrape to get buy!


It appears that Al Malnik is part of this legal loansharking syndicate.  In my opinion the predatory cartel consisting of Al Malnik needs to be stopped dead in their tracks.  Al Malnik jacks up interest rates on loans for the average American family by approximately a whopping 200% or more! Al Malnik does not matter one bit let everyone else tell it!  John Branca is the crook here! It should appease you to know that Al Malnik has been caught doing off shore accounts in his past dealings! Title Loans Of America is one such company which (http://www.1-hour-cash-advances.com/) focuses on predatory loans and puts people in debt for the rest of their lives with uncontrollable interest rates.  Now we know how he can afford that lavishly splendid Miami lifestyle!

Well it looks like Michael was taken advantage of in much of the same way if you look above you will see that there was a Bank Of America loan. The interest rates on this loan were so high that Al Malnik brokered for Michael--doubling the original loan. This tells you Al Malnik was not attempting to assist Michael out of any distress! Is there any wonder why Michael made songs like "Blue Gangster/Gangster No Friend Of Mine"???

According to media reports Mr. Al Malnik spearheaded a predatory lending business which charged its consumers a whopping 200% on car loans! Is it any wonder how Al Malnik saw fit to increase Michael's BOA loan--doubling it? It works to your advantage if your prey defaults on what they borrow.  If you're in the business of predatory lending that's a wonderful thing. This would pave the way for all the vultures which posed as friends!  They may then swoop down and devor any remaining assets.
_____________
Al Malnik & Michael Jackson
  • "The ultra-wealthy Malnik, who made a fortune in the shady and predatory title loan business and also has ties to notorious con man Joel Steinger, not only helped Jackson pay the costs of the criminal case but also reportedly helped him try to pay off massive loans Jackson took against the value of the Beatles' catalog he co-owned with Sony. The Beatles' song rights are reportedly worth about a billion dollars." 
Al Malnik
  • "Mr. Jackson faces an immediate cash crisis with a $70 million loan from the Bank of America that is due on Tuesday and has no money to repay it, the advisers said. But Al Malnik, a Miami entrepreneur who is helping repair Mr. Jackson's finances, said that he was trying to have the loan extended. Mr. Malnik said he met with Mr. Jackson's business managers this week to discuss the loan. Together, he said, they were ''working toward a positive resolution of Michael's financial affairs and business affairs that will result in a reorganization of his valuable assets."
MJ Cash Crisis
Michael Jackson With Al Malnik & Family
  • "Mr. Malnik is a multimillionaire who in 1993 was alleged to have had ties to the mob, an accusation he denied. He is the owner of a national chain of loan stores, Title Loans of America, which consumer advocates have criticized as lending at exorbitant rates. At least two groups of investors who were prepared to make business deals with Mr. Jackson last year have backed away from them because of the criminal charges, people involved in the deals say. At the same time new sources of income for Mr. Jackson in the form of records or concert tours seem to be out of the question until the molestation charges are resolved. Mr. Jackson is accused of nine felony counts related to acts involving a 13-year-old boy. His lawyers are to appear in court on Friday to set a date for a preliminary hearing. Meanwhile creditors and vendors, like law firms, Internet providers and marketing companies, are being asked to discount their invoices even as Mr. Jackson has rented a $70,000-a-month home in Beverly Hills, Calif., while his 2,700-acre ranch, Neverland, stands empty, two vendors said.
  • "One adviser said that Mr. Jackson had about a half-dozen sources of income, including royalties from BMI and other music companies. But his most valuable asset by far is the Beatles catalog of about 250 songs, which Mr. Jackson and Sony Music Entertainment jointly own as part of the ATV Music Publishing catalog, with an estimated value of $800 million to $900 million. The catalog of Mr. Jackson's own music, including hits like ''Billie Jean'' and ''Beat It,'' has an estimated value of $75 million to $90 million. Mr. Malnik said that he was helping Mr. Jackson out of friendship. The loan is guaranteed by the Jackson music catalog, which would revert to the Bank of America if Mr. Jackson defaulted, said several of his advisers. They explained his financial affairs in detail on condition of anonymity, some saying that they were unhappy about the Nation of Islam's involvement, others saying that they wanted to counter inaccurate reports about Mr. Jackson's finances. A spokeswoman for the Bank of America declined to comment."

  • "Mr. Malnik and Charles Koppelman, a business manager for Mr. Jackson, hope to extend the loan's due date to December 2005, now with the backing of a New York-based hedge fund, the advisers said. If Mr. Jackson were to default in 2005, the hedge fund would take over the Jackson-music catalog. State financial filings in California show that Mr. Jackson owes millions of dollars to the Bank of America. In addition to the $70 million loan, there is also a $200 million loan, guaranteed by the ATV music catalog that he owns with Sony. But the Jackson advisers said that asset was also leveraged for an additional $250 million to buy other music libraries by other stars. If the catalog were sold to pay the Bank of America debt, there would be nothing left for Mr. Jackson once the proceeds were divided with Sony and the taxes paid, the advisers said.
Michael Jackson Faces Cash Crisis - New York Times
  • "Even now, half the money earned by Mr. Jackson goes to the bank under the loan agreement. ''All of the funds coming into the bank as income from projects and music royalties, the bank retains 50 percent of that to retain a credit line,'' one adviser said. ''He can use the other 50 percent.'' As part of the terms of the two loans, Mr. Malnik must act as a trustee over Mr. Jackson's spending. Mr. Malnik became involved with Mr. Jackson a year ago when he faced bankruptcy from creditors, including hotel chains and security companies. Mr. Malnik said that the bank was about to place a lien on Neverland and other assets last year when he stepped in. Mr. Malnik was linked to organized-crime figures in 1993 by a New Jersey gaming commission. ''The evidence establishes that Mr. Malnik associated with persons engaged in organized criminal activities,'' the commission said in a report, ''and that he himself participated in transactions that were clearly illegitimate and illegal.'' Some close to Mr. Jackson say that Mr. Malnik wants to legitimize his image by helping Mr. Jackson."
 MJ Cash Crisis
Car Title Loans the Latest Predatory Lending Tactic
  • "It is to Malnik, a multimillionaire whose suspected mob connections have been fodder for federal files since the 1960s, that Jackson is believed to have turned for help in erasing debt said to approach $200 million. A lawyer, real estate developer and proprietor of the supertrendy Miami Beach hot spot The Forge, Malnik is also owner of Title Loans of America, a national chain that lends money legally at annual percentage rates reaching 264% - higher than most loansharks' vig".
  • "As Jackson's fiscal woes mounted, the singer began to be seen more and more with the Miami Beach mogul, often dining with him at The Forge. By April, their names began cropping up together in Miami gossip columns. The self-styled King of Pop was living in royal splendor at the loan king's lavish home in Ocean Ridge, Fla., while he tried unsuccessfully to sell his Neverland estate in California for $50 million. The relationship hit its showbiz zenith on May 17 this year, when Jackson - decked out in a vintage '70s glitter shirt and outsized Afro wig - was host of a 70th birthday disco party for Malnik at The Forge. In attendance were B.B. King, Smokey Robinson, F. Lee Bailey and a gaggle of South Florida glitterati."
  • "Mob stoolie Vincent Teresa once swore in an affidavit: "It was a known fact among the criminal world that dealing with Al Malnik was the same as dealing with Meyer Lansky." Malnik, who declined to be interviewed for this story, has long maintained he set eyes on the famous gangster only once - in a chance encounter in an elevator."
    Boardwalk Regency Corporation Office Of Administration Alvin Malnik
  • "The feds opened their first dossier on Malnik in 1963. It was two years after he graduated, first in his class, from Miami Law School. He had helped set up the Bank of World Commerce in Nassau, the Bahamas, an alleged loot laundry that investigators said involved "some of the nation's top gangsters." Acquitted on tax fraud charges in 1964, Malnik was heard discussing Lansky two years later on bugs placed by cops probing whether casino profits were invested overseas on the mobster's behalf. Government agents have linked Malnik's name to Lansky ever since. When the mobster died in 1983, Reader's Digest labeled him the "heir apparent." The moniker stuck. But by then, Malnik - who purchased his first Rolls-Royce at age 29 - had long been a fixture in Miami's fast lane.
Michael Jackson & Al Malnik
  • "The indelible Lansky stain deepened after the crime czar's stepson, Richard Schwartz, shot and killed the son of mobster Vincent Teriaca in a dispute that began at the bar of The Forge. Two years later, Malnik's Rolls-Royce was blown up in the parking lot of the Cricket Club, a Miami high-rise he developed with Cal Covens, who served three years in prison after being convicted with Teamsters boss Jimmy Hoffa of conspiracy and fraud. No one was injured in the blast, and no suspects were arrested. Through it all, Malnik continued to thrive, living on a palatial 34-acre estate in Boca Raton, complete with bowling alley and an arena for Arabian horses. When he married for a second time in 1995 to a woman 36 years his junior, 288 guests attend his wedding. He presented the bride with a 50-carat emerald and diamond necklace. Malnik would be wildly rich even if his only business was Title Loans of America, which provides quick-cash loans at interest rates of up to 22% a month by capitalizing on lending law loopholes. For years, critics have tried to change the law. They say it allows legalized loansharking. That's something even Meyer Lansky couldn't pull off."
 Al Malnik Alleged Mob Ties
_____________

Chapter IX

X1:

Beyond Bailout Period Fortress:
BX: Straightforward 2006


There comes a time when you've reached the pinnacle of debt accrual. Eventually, you can't continue to wager against already taxed assets in the hopes that this will keep you afloat. Ask anyone that's filed bankruptcy, or someone which has been confronted with any kind of credit issue. What they do is rob Peter to pay Paul by borrowing from one line of credit to pay another. By engaging in this practice they're facing some astronomical interest rates as a direct result of this behavior. The more unsatisfactory your credit score and history the less appealing you appear to a lender. Then it becomes much tougher to find loans with lowered interest rates you become what you call "High Risk".  At this point and time when creditors and lending institutions assess your creditworthiness you appear riskier than the other borrowers. Then they proceed to analyze your credit to debt ratio. They compile a complete financial snapshot of your portfolio with a tally of your total income. Doing this allows them to see what your generated income is versus your expenditures and debt accrual.

Fortress Investment Group Assets Under Management

BX:


In May 2005, Michael was informed that Bank of America had sold his debts (a principal of 270 Mio USD as outlined in the section on Goldman Sachs) to Fortress Investment Group LLC. At this time, he had been in arrears with interest payments.
_____________

  • “While on trial in April, Jackson was late with part of a $3 million quarterly interest payment, risking default. Supporters, including grocery magnate Ron Burkle and the Rev. Jesse Jackson, successfully petitioned Bank of America for a grace period and arranged a bridge loan. "Michael came up with $2.6 million that week, on April 1," the Rev. Jackson says. "He was $400,000 short. He came up with that the next day. The bank was inclined to not accept it because it was a day late. If I had not intervened to stop them from foreclosing on the second or third, it would have triggered a complete collapse. It was like using a technicality to put him out of business."
USA TODAY
_____________

BX:

A few weeks prior to this, the Goldman Sachs proposal was on the table, and Michael had declined to sign it. 
_____________
  • “On the other hand: A deal awaits him that clears up his $275 million debt to Bank of America, leaves him with a substantial percentage interest in Sony/ATV Music Publishing and frees up collateral of $100 million in cash. The mortgage on Neverland would be removed, and Jackson would have a $7 to $8 million annual income. If Mr. Auchincloss thinks that's not enough money to live on, he should double-check his own household budgets. The deal to bail Jackson out is pretty much written and waiting for Michael to execute it. Charles Koppelman (now CEO of Martha Stewart's company) and longtime Jackson adviser John Branca are its architects.”
FOX NEWS
_____________

 BX:

(Please ignore the overall negative approach of this article, just focus on the bits of data in there.) If you read the letter John Branca had sent to Charles Koppelman in July of 2003, you may have an idea as to why Michael declined to sign off the deal in the end. John Branca points out the weaknesses of the proposal, seen from Michael’s point of view. Most of the paragraphs are marked “OK”, however, we do not know what the final proposal looked like. It is clear Goldman Sachs and Charles Koppelman wanted to have control in this. As for Roger Friedman’s claim that the Goldman Sachs deal was architected by Charles Koppelman and John Branca, I do not see any evidence for this. The Goldman Sachs proposal was headed by Charles Koppelman, while John Branca gave his input as Michael’s lawyer. A close reading of the letter sent by John Branca should make this more than apparent. Also, refer to this statement:
 _____________
  • “(A lawyer for Branca responds: “While the Goldman proposal might have divested Michael Jackson of his interest in the Beatles and MIJAC catalogues in the long run, it would have created a larger entity that increased the value of his interests. If sold, Branca's fee would have gone to his firm, not directly into his pocket. Branca advised Jackson that he would be giving up too much control based on the proposal and Jackson vetoed the deal.”)”
THE WRAP
_____________

BX:

In view of Jesse Jackson’s account of the events it makes you wonder why Bank of America did not grant their client an extension of a day or two on a minor part of the interest payments, and quickly proceeded to sell the debt.
_____________
  • “But did they make the right call by backing away from collateral like part of the Beatles catalog? Fortress obviously liked what it saw in that collateral, and Goldman Sachs was reportedly interested in it too.”
WSJ BLOGS
_____________

BX:

This is indeed a valid question. These loans were secured by assets that were worth more than the actual loans, and other financial institutions were highly interested. So why did Bank of America exert that kind of pressure, and why did they sell so quickly?



Among other areas of interest, Fortress Investment Group LLC earns its money with undervalued assets and distressed credits:
_____________
  • “Fortress’s Credit business was launched in 2002 by Pete Briger. Today, the Fortress Credit team consists of over 300 professionals and is focused on investing globally, primarily in undervalued assets and distressed and illiquid credit investments. The investment team led by Co-CIOs Pete Briger and Dean Dakolias has a long and established track record investing throughout a number of credit and distressed cycles around the world, including the RTC Workout and the Asian Financial Crisis.”
FORTRESS
  • “Despite Jackson's shaky finances, the long-term value of his $475 million worth of song libraries drew Fortress Investment's interest, speculated James Dunn, a vice president at InvestorForce, a Wayne, Penn.-based investment adviser to institutional investors.  “That's clearly the trade they're making" in placing a bet on Jackson's debts. Hedge funds are increasingly popular, largely unregulated investment vehicles that are designed for wealthy investors looking for big returns on riskier bets. According to InvestorForce, there are more than 4,000 such funds with more than $800 billion in assets. HedgeWeek, an industry trade publication, reported last month that U.S. hedge fund assets recently $1 trillion in the first quarter of 2005. A small fraction of hedge funds invest in what are known as distressed securities, such as debts like Jackson's.”
CNN
_____________

BX:

If you recall what was said in the Goldman Sachs discussion paper Bank of America did not what anyone may have anticipated, i.e. foreclose themselves on the collaterals Michael had provided (his 50% share in Sony/ATV, MIJAC, and Neverland). Did they just opt for staying away from the possibly immense publicity surrounding a foreclosure?
_____________

  • “He [Jesse Jackson, BX] says the singer, whose assets are two-thirds greater than his debts, is not sinking into poverty, explaining that the crisis erupted only because of a gap between the arrival of royalty payments and the loan deadline.  He sees validity in Jackson's theory that parties eager to obtain Sony/ATV pressed the bank to lean on the singer. "Who was forcing the bank's hand and what did they stand to gain?" he wonders. "That must come under scrutiny. I think the bank sold the loan rather than face the heat."
USA TODAY
_____________

BX:

Here is what Brett Pulley, Senior Editor of Forbes at the time all this happened, had to say back then:
 _____________

  • "While Michael has this tremendous amount of debt secured by his assets, he still has a fair amount of equity in those assets," Pulley says. "He does not want to sell his publishing, so his alternative is to restructure those debts. If he's able to restructure under favorable terms, where the revenues of those assets can service the interest payments, he can handle it. If he can't restructure, he might have to sell a percentage of his publishing.  "He has to curb expenses. One obvious place to do that is Neverland. While it may be something he treasures, it's not as valuable as his publishing holdings." The talk that Jackson is nearly destitute is ludicrous, Pulley says. However, the alarm surrounding his late loan payment was real. "The guy's had a difficult time making those interest payments," he says. "It doesn't mean instant calamity. However, he is on the precipice of having to sell assets he doesn't want to sell. "When you hear the (Sony/ATV catalog) valued at $1 billion, that's relatively conservative. Those businesses are extremely valuable, and they grow in value over time."
USA TODAY
_____________

BX:


The most important statement in here is certainly this one: “The talk that Jackson is nearly destitute is ludicrous”--this tunes in with what Jesse Jackson said and what Michael himself was saying. As long as your assets exceed the value of your debts--which they did in Michael’s case--you are not insolvent or bankrupt or broke, whichever term you prefer. The secret was to curb expenses to be able to serve the interest payments, and possibly a constant refinancing of the debts--and generating new and additional revenues to pay down those debts over time. That was not a destitute situation. However, in view of the trial and the expenses related to this as well as the loss of value his brand had suffered, this task was harder than what it should have been. This is probably why Brett Pulley suggested to cut down on costs for Neverland (I do not think he suggested to sell it, he suggested to scale down operations). Generating new revenues would have been much harder in view of the trial and its repercussions in the court of public (media) opinion.
_____________
  • "Michael's no longer the King of Pop," says Forbes senior editor Brett Pulley. "He can no longer put out an album that will sell 25 million units and have the whole music industry at his feet. He has this terrible image problem now that to some extent will never go away. "What does Michael still have that makes the music world beholden to him? His valuable music publishing business. He'll fight to the bitter end to hold on to it."
USA TODAY
_____________ 


BX:

Thus, in a nutshell, Brett Pulley probably got it right--cut down expenses drastically as a first step to be able to serve interest rates, work on constant refinancing for a while as a second step (with a reliable credit history and a good business plan not such a big deal considering the assets resp. potential collaterals) and in a third step, start generating new revenues to pay down the principals of the debts over time. In fact, if you look at it, this was what Michael did during the following years--not without hurdles and some wrong turns, but he cut down on costs for Neverland and worked on refinancing the debt burden. You can look for the media for a lot of the negative press surrounding this. In reality, his moves corresponded to what a good business plan for him would have looked like. As for creating additional and new revenue streams, we all know what this involved:  the This Is It concerts. I will leave it at that as this is a different blog for a different time.


Returning to the Bank of America/Fortress transaction, the least to observe here is a close chronological link between the unwillingness of Bank of America to grant an extension to the interest payment (beginning of April 2005), Michael's final rejection of the Goldman Sachs/Koppelman proposal (ready to be signed in March 2005 but rejected by Michael some time in April according to Roger Friedman--quote below), immediately followed by the Fortress transaction (beginning of May 2005). After all, Michael was going through a trial which may explain a payment delay by a few days so this unwillingness is a bit peculiar. Let us revisit some articles:
_____________
  • “The confidential files from those days were provided by a member of the Goldman Sachs group, which grew out of a chain of relationships started by “Rush Hour” director Brett Ratner in late 2002.”
THE WRAP
  • “But last month Jackson refused a deal they offered that would have bailed him out of debt. He didn't like it because he thought they would get something out of it. ... Malnik, properly insulted, quit. The bank, which considered Malnik their only link to reality, obviously had had enough.”
_____________


BX:

In the section about Al Malnik, you will find out that Brett Ratner and Chris Tucker are close friends of Al Malnik. Roger Friedman suggests that Al Malnik was involved in the Goldman Sachs/Koppelman proposal or deal, and we know Al Malnik had access to Michael for some time. Now, if this is true, if Al Malnik was involved in some way, would this suggest some links and more than meets the eye, i.e. that Al Malnik was the "hidden" architect behind the Goldman Sachs/Koppelman plan? And was this architect pulling a few strings behind the scenes to exert pressure on Michael to panic and sign the proposal? And when this architect did not get what he was looking for, did this architect pull a few more strings to hit Michael badly? I do not know. The close chronological link between those two events remains striking:
 
Al Malnik & Michael Jackson
  • Bank of America exerting pressure with regard to a minor default (minor if seen in context): beginning of April 2005
  • Michael not signing the Goldman Sachs/Koppelman deal which was on the table for him, ready to sign: April 2005
  • Bank of America selling the debt to Fortress Investment Group LLC: end of April/beginning of May 2005
There is this part of the lore as well:
_____________
  • “It was Jesse Jackson who two years ago caused an avalanche in Michael’s finances. Jesse Jackson, sources say, interfered in Michael’s business by attempting to call Bank of America president Ken Lewis to complain that Michael was being “ripped off” in some way over his $270 million. Lewis refused to speak with Jesse Jackson. He was so annoyed by Jackson’s interference that he ordered the banker in charge of the account to sell the loans to Fortress Investments. The result was a sale and subsequent refinancing that put Jackson another $50 million in the red. Jesse Jackson at the time had convinced Michael that business partners Alvin Malnik and Charles Koppelman’s plan to bail out the singer was no good.”
FOX NEWS
_____________


BX:

I do not know who Roger Friedman’s sources were. However, this story here seems to provide a good explanation for the speed with which Bank of America proceeded. But what president of a major bank would get so annoyed that, in the heat of the moment, he orders a transaction like that which appears to have taken place within a few days? A debt that is secured by assets worth far more than the principal? You can place this story safely on the heap of crap you tend to encounter when reading about Michael.

Now, recall what Jesse Jackson said--"That must come under scrutiny. I think the bank sold the loan rather than face the heat”.  By selling the debt Bank of America certainly escaped scrutiny in this matter--but suspiciously fast and it appears, unfounded.  Are we then looking at it from the wrong end?


_____________

X1:
 
I am afraid that once Michael started to limit John from his affairs things really started going downhill. Long gone was the sound business advice that Michael had to lean on. To Michael's defense he made good business decisions in the past. The people that were around him now--which had infiltrated deep within his inner circle--did not have his best interests involved. Now by no means was Michael dead broke! However, he was cash poor as I expressed here. 

Now providing Michael was surrounded by the right people in his camp and on his team there was no reason why he could not generate revenue. This is Michael Jackson we are having a discussion about here. This is not just an everyday Joe like you or me. There where a number of things Michael could have considered other than continuously taking out loans with interest he could not afford to pay. Mind you all of these dysfunctional and shady advisers were attached to these loans!
Michael Jackson Bailout Said to Be Close Fortress - New York Times

Here's a brief synopsis for those which don't recall this moment in Michael History. Fortress acquired the loan from BOA (Bank Of America). This is partly the same loan with all of the radical interest rates that Al Malnik negotiated for on behalf of Michael. Can you gather what all of his outstanding business expertise did for Michael? I ask this simply because I can't!  I don't see how these loans were going to help Michael out of debt! This just held the bill collectors at bay for Michael.  Michael needed to generate more income then he was taking home.
_____________
  • "As part of the new agreement, Fortress has agreed to provide a new $300 million loan and reduce the interest payments Mr. Jackson must make. Under the deal he has been negotiating, Mr. Jackson would agre to provide Sony/ATV Music catalog with him--with an option to buy half his stake , or about 25 percent of the catalog, at a set price, according to thet people briefed on the deal.Should Sony execute its option on the music catalog, it would ensure that Mr. Jackson was able to pay his debts, these people said. Executives involved in the deal cautioned last night that some of the details had yet to be completed and that the agreement could still collapse. Representatives for Sony and Fortress declined to comment last night. A representative for Mr. Jackson did not return a call."
Fortress Loan
  • Edens is an eclectic investor. In 2005, for example, he refinanced $272.5 million of debt that pop singer Michael Jackson owed to Bank of America Corp., according to documents from a legal dispute over the deal. Jackson was a sketchy bet at the time.
    Fortress Places Sketchy Bet
  • "Jackson, who according to 2005 court testimony was spending $30 million more a year than he earned, will still collect profits from his remaining 25% share in Sony/ATV, and will receive royalties from his own compositions, which remain separate from Sony/ATV. However, the publishing rights of those songs will be used as collateral for the refinanced loan, putting them at risk if Jackson defaults.""There's no more people in the shadows to help him out," said Debra Opri, and attorney who represents Jackson's parents. "He's selling everything because no one else will finance him.
LA Times
  • "When the Fortress-owned loans came due in December, the singer lacked sufficient funds to repay them. Sony officials including Chief Financial Officer Rob Wiesenthal, worried that Fortress might seize Jackson's interest in Sony/ATV, helped the singer negotiate an extension. But the loan's interest rate increased to about 20% a year and the total amount owed ballooned to more than $300 million."
LA Times
  • "The Bank of America agreed to loan him £92 million, secured against his half-ownership of the Sony/ATV music catalogue, a massive earner which includes The Beatles' songs Yesterday and Hey Jude. The loan ought to have sorted him out for years to come but, according to his former business manager Myung Ho Lee, it wasn't enough and had to be increased to £166million. Further disasters followed  -  flurries of actions against him from former lawyers, managers and advisers over deals gone sour and unpaid invoices. By last year, he owed at least £178million, and had defaulted on his Bank of America loan to the tune of £198,000. Michael Jackson Michael Jackson holds his son from a third floor balcony back in 2002. The Bank of America sold his debt on to a New York company, the Fortress Investment Group, which specializes in 'distressed' debt. Again, that loan was defaulted and a date was set to auction Neverland. Then a group called Colony Capital bought the loan, and earlier this month Jackson filed a grant deed on the ranch that makes the new owner an entity called the Sycamore Valley Ranch Co."
Daily Mall
  • In fact, Fortress presciently hedged its outlay to Macklowe in a way the developer's lead lender, Deutsche Bank AG, did not. After the market tanked and Macklowe lost control of the buildings to Deutsche, the bank offloaded them for less than he had paid, recording a loss. But not Fortress. The junior lender insisted that its loan be collateralized not by the seven buildings purchased in 2007 but by another, the longtime crown jewel of Macklowe's domain, the General Motors Building in Manhattan. And when the beleaguered Macklowe was forced to sell even that prize, Fortress, say sources familiar with the matter, not only recouped its entire loan but rang up a tidy profit besides.
Inside Fortress
_____________

Chapter X (a)

*John Branca & Sony Made Michael...

The Pilfering Of His Catalog:


Michael Jackson speaks about how his Invincible Album Was #1

By reading the quotes above you suddenly realize that business is shrewd. Most people attempt to analyze and measure what occurred with Michael in terms of feelings.  Business does not have feelings!  This is harsh however it is very true. Above is a TRL interview with Michael when he came to New York City. The interviewer states that Michael has the #1 album in the world. Many say that Sony used Invincible as a means to bankrupt Michael--I disagree. I do agree that Tommy Mottola definitively did everything in his power to impede Michael's INVINCIBLE sales. At that time Tommy Mottola had the head position at Sony Music! 

Although Invincible sales in the United States were not as hefty as Michael's releases of the past--do not be misled Michael made money off of Invincible. Michael had a strong European following--he always did. We in the United States also supported Invincible (I know I did I loved it!). Invincible went double platinum here in the United States. That's actually a very decent sales figure for any artist when you take into consideration illegal downloads and widespread piracy of the new millennium. Granted, Invincible did not have the sales success of Michael's prior albums such as Thriller; however, it did sell and quite well.
Michael Jackson Ticket Price Highest Ever 1999

In 1999 one of Michael's concerts had ticket prices recorded as the highest ever in Seoul! All 63,000 tickes sold out and it was stated that the profits reached 7 billion Won! That didn't include broadcasting rights and music sales. We aren't going to do a currency comparison; however, we know this equated to several million dollars without the inclusion of the other rights. While we're discussing shows let's not forget the ticket sales from Michael's 30th Anniversary Special. It was stated the tickets to that event were very pricey as well. That event was made into a video and was aired on syndicated television. I am quite sure that the proceeds for this event tallied to the tune of several million also.
Sony Music Entertainment & Michael Jackson Sign Historic Publishing Deal


In 1995 Michael sold his share of the ATV catalog to Sony Music to the tune of $95 Million Dollars for a stake in a new company which would be called Sony/ATV. How is it that on top of what Michael had made throughout his lifetime that he still had such money issues. Even only with this amount Michael should have still been able to get by decently. $95 Million dollars is a lot of money. 









video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

We all know that people took advantage of Michael. There were many seedy characters which came into contact with Michael.  Many say that Michael gave all of his money to charity. Beyond a shadow of a doubt Michael was indeed very generous. He has broken the Guinness Book of World Records for the most charitable donations ever! Michael donated his earnings from companies like Pepsi to charity. He also donated all of the proceeds from his songs like "We Are The World" and "Man In The Mirror". Michael made enough money to be able to afford to be so generous!  

However, Michael did not ever give up the publishing rights to these compositions he knew that he needed to survive somehow. His income from endorsement deals such as Pepsi (which Michael selflessly donated) wasn't a snapshot of his earnings portfolio overall.  Some people assume that because Michael didn't want to perform anymore that this meant he was entirely done with Sony. Too much of Michael was invested into Sony for him not to have an affiliation with Sony. As far as recording deals and Michael, that's for another blog. If Michael truly wanted to rid himself of Sony why broker any further deals concerning ATV? Michael could have easily gone to Warner Chappel or any other publisher and scored a deal with what he had. Michael decided himself to give Sony/ATV (a company he had a stake in) an option to buy half of his 50% stake. These were Michael's wishes.



Michael Jackson Refinances to Stave Off Bankruptcy (Update2) - Bloomberg

  • "Under the agreement, Jackson gave Sony Corp. an option to buy half of his 50 percent stake in Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC, allowing him to refinance about $300 million of loans, according to people familiar with the transaction. The catalog, which includes songs from Bob Dylan and John Mayer, is worth more than $1 billion. The sale may help Jackson pay debts that mounted as he fought child-molestation charges.``He wasn't going to give it up willingly,'' said media analyst Hal Vogel, chief executive of New York-based Vogel Capital, who values the catalog at $1 billion. ``He didn't want to give it up unless he had to.''Jackson, 47, bought the catalog 21 years ago, outbidding Beatle Paul McCartney and John Lennon's widow, Yoko Ono. Grahame Nelson, a lawyer representing Jackson at Qays H. Zubi, didn't return calls seeking comment. Sony spokeswoman Lisa Gephardt declined to comment beyond saying Sony is committed to its partnership with Jackson."
BLOOMBERG 2006
______________
 
X1:
 
Michael was on the verge of eventually forfeiting his share of Sony/ATV on his own! Instead he made a business decision. Why then would anyone expect Sony NOT to attempt to gain access to the catalog which was part of an earlier merger and acquisition? It would be feasible and good sound business sense to have the catalog remain at Sony/ATV--this was in the event of a default... If you've fully accessed the prior information you will see Sony actually helped Michael when it came to these bailouts. 

Sony attempted to keep Michael as a partner. It would not have been to the advantage of Sony to take on another unknown partner at this stage. The catalog has increased in value since the merger with Michael. It is worth way more than it was yesterday when Michael obtained it.
 



Why then is Sony being singled out for decisions which an adult Michael Jackson made himself?  When Michael chose to continuously refinance his loans he knew that eventually there would come a day when he would have to go back to work. (*That day was the day he endorsed the AEG Contract.*).   I would much rather have seen Sony manage the catalog before Michael defaulted.  This would be better than to have a bank which knows NOTHING regarding the value of music obtain it!  I would like to know how Sony was/is attempting to steal Michael's catalog when Michael granted them the option to purchase it. At the end of the day the estate which is set up for Michael's children benefits from the increasing value of its Sony/ATV stake.
John Branca LA Times Sony/ATV
  • "To avoid foreclosure on several loans, Jackson signed a $325-million refinancing agreement that would require him to sell half of his 50% stake in  Sony/ATV Music Publishing to partner Sony Corp. within the next few years. Proceeds will pay off a large portion of the performer's debt, owed primarilly to Fortress New York hedge fund Fortress Investment Group.  The deal is a coup for Sony, which has long hoped to acquire a larger interest in the thousands of copyrights owned by Sony/ATV, which include 251 Beatles songs and Bob Dylan's "Blowin In The Wind". People familiar with the deal, who asked not to be named said that Sony was likely to pay Jackson about $250 million. The Sony/ATV catalog is valued at about $1 billion, but is expected to be worth more by the time Sony buys half of Jackson's stake because revenue has grown by more than 10% in the last two years. Representatives for Jackson and Sony/ATV declined to comment on the deal."
______________

Chapter X(b):
Branca's Firm 5% =
$20 Mil In Michael Money:





X1:

Many people just don't understand the way business works. If they did they wouldn't get so angry over certain things like being paid for your work. This would be the prime example of the type of beating John G. Branca takes all the way around the board. Who do you know that works for free? Anyone? You? By show of hands please???

While John is busy running amuck protecting the estate and the future of Michael's children he is being confronted with drama from every possible angle! You have people like Howard Mann, UD Group, and honestly the Jacksons as well as they keep brokering side deals with these shady characters. Anyway let's get to how Branca's firm got 5% of Michael Sony/ATV shares!
_____________
*Within Three Years...

LA TIMES
  • "In 1995, Jackson merged ATV with Sony Music Publishing. Sony, betting that the singer and the songs he owned would be popular for years, paid him $115 million and agreed to contribute future compositions by other artists. As a result, today Jackson profits from the tunes of Destiny's Child and Will Smith, among others. The Sony/ATV catalog generates an estimated $80 million in yearly revenue, about half from Beatles songs."
LA TIMES
  • "Well, we won't feel too bad for the lawyers. Jackson's primary attorney, John Branca, knows his efforts will pay off one day. His firm, Ziffren, Brittenham, Branca & Fischer, has a 5 percent stake in Sony/ATV Music Publishing, in which Jackson himself is a 50 percent owner. "That's how they bill most of their clients, on a 5 percent basis," says one observer. You'd think that Ziffren et al. would want the publishing company to be sold for hundreds of millions, but my source says: "It's not going to be sold. And Sony will not foreclose on it. They don't have the right to take it from Michael. They simply guaranteed a loan." Jackson also employs at least two other law firms. The second one, which handles litigation (lawsuits) is Lavely & Singer, run by the notorious celebrity-defending bulldog Martin Singer. When Schaffel was "rubbing people the wrong way" last fall, Branca called Brian Wolf at that firm, and Wolf sicced a private eye on Schaffel to get the goods. When the P.I. turned up the news that Schaffel made adult videos, another firm stepped in. That was the one run by Zia Modabber, another celebrity defender. Everyone in the chain has a purpose. The only one not always in lockstep, unfortunately, is Michael Jackson."
  • "Ahead of the proposal, he and Florida businessman Al Malnik also arranged to double -- to $70 million -- one of Jackson’s two loans with Bank of America, where a Koppelman friend, Jane Heller, happened to handle his and Jackson’s personal accounts."
  • "Yet, Branca hardly could be shut out, given a 5 percent interest in Jackson’s Sony/ATV stake. Branca would have pocketed $17 million from the dealings, Malnik said in a recent interview. In a letter to  Koppelman on July 28, 2003, Branca underscored his financial interest in writing, to be passed on to Goldman. (See: Branca's Secret Letter) With his interest linked to Jackson’s, Branca seemed to have little choice but to be a zealous advocate for the entertainer. In case Michael wanted out of the venture, “an exit strategy needs to devised for [him] to receive fair market value.” Skeptical of Goldman’s power grab, he insisted that “Michael should have some control over the management and operation of the venture.”
  • "There is also a $25 million lien against it held by Fortress Investments, created so Jackson could buy out his former attorney, John Branca, from a five percent interest in Sony/ATV Music Publishing."
  • "In 2006, Jackson’s and Branca’s on-again, off-again relationship hit a new low. Branca quit Michael this time in what, according to two top music industry executives familiar with the situation, was a broader dispute. "They suggest that Branca, Michael and Sony clashed over the lawyer’s 5 percent when it became a complication in Michael’s bail-out. The settlement: Branca sold it back for millions of dollars".
  • "Today,those assets are worth more than 10 times that, and sources say Branca, who owned 2.5% of the Sony/ATV venture, has already pocketed as much as $20 million when Jackson bought out his share as a part of Thursday's refinancing agreement."
  • "And with Branca now owning the 5 percent stake, Jackson became paranoid that his lawyer would want him to sell his song rights.  On the other hand, Branca did see an ATV transaction with Sony as an answer to Jackson’s cash crisis. But instead of an outright sale, he proposed a merger of Sony’s music publishing operations and ATV. Mickey Schulhof, the CEO of Sony Corp. of America at the time, was privately elated, one person close to the former executive recalls. He saw a merger as the first step toward Sony’s eventual full ownership of ATV. A brief visit once to Jackson’s Century City apartment -- a fantasyland of overstuffed animals -- had convince Schulhof that Sony’s troubled star someday would spiral toward the poor house and be forced to sell everything."
"THE WRAP"
_____________


And Finally Interfraud!???


X1:

Juval Aviv

Without any further delay I present you Juval Aviv--does anyone have any idea who this guy is?  Well, I am not going to give it all away.   What do you know about Juval Aviv?  Have you researched him?  Have you ever questioned any information which came from him?   I am going to challenge this.  There are a multitude of conflicting stories regarding just who Juval Aviv is.  I don't even think the Country of Israel will acknowledge him in any capacity.

My thing is not to go into a laundry list of Juval Aviv's past associations or business connections.  My intention is to get as many as people as possible to realize what type of element was around Michael.  When you look to someone to provide you with facts you look to reputable and trustworthy individuals. You seek for companies with ample resources, integrity, manpower, and qualifications.  The people around Michael referred him questionable people.

I would not trust anyone involved in my $70 million dollar loan or other business ventures to provide me with anyone which would supply me with objective information.  Mind you these are just my feelings on a personal level.  In my opinion if there is an issue with your credentials and there is a serious matter--then, I need to be able to count on your professionalism.  I don't need  the added aggravation as  I  attempt to put the spotlight on other things in my life which cause me great worriment!  Snakes prey on the fears, vulnerability, and discontentment of others. For the rest of this section you're smart enough to figure out for yourselves.  Therefore, I will allow this section to take us out just as it brought us in...

_____________
 
  • "Founded in 1979, Interfor, Inc. is an international investigation and security consulting firm offering comprehensive domestic and foreign intelligence services to the legal, corporate and financial communities. 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."
  • "In response to Aviv's report, and investigative news stories based on them, government officials launched an attack on Aviv that went well beyond simple denials. In letters to newspaper editors and on network TV, diplomatic and intelligence officials called Aviv a "fabricator" who had lied about his entire background. Asked recently to back up that characterization, Hurley, formerly of the DEA, faxed us a letter dated May, 1990. The letter, signed by Yigal Carmon, "Israeli Prime Minister's Advisor for Countering Terrorism," says Juval Aviv never worked for Israeli intelligence and was fired from a low-level job with El-Al airlines for "dishonesty." The letter is on plain white paper, not Israeli government letterhead. We faxed it to the Israeli Embassy in Washington DC. A spokeswoman said the letter did not have the look of a letter sent from the Office of the Prime Minister. When reached at an office in Tel Aviv, Yigal Carmon said he "did not know of anyone called Juval Aviv" and refused to discuss the contents of any letter with us. A spokesperson for El-Al Airlines in Tel Aviv said he was unaware of any such incident of "dishonesty" by Juval Aviv, or of any firing of Aviv. Aviv, for his part, produces several documents that he's entered into court refuting the accusation that he lied about his background. The documents include an FBI memo about Aviv from 1982, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, and a contract between Aviv and the US Justice Department, dated 1984. Both refer to Aviv's past association with Israeli intelligence. As late as 1993, an FBI agent wrote to Aviv asking for assistance in a tax-recovery investigation, even as other government officials were publicly calling Aviv a fabricator."
Juval Aviv
  • "However, our investigations show that Aviv never served in Mossad, or any Israeli intelligence organisation. He had failed basic training as an Israeli Defence Force commando, and his nearest approximation to spy work was as a lowly gate guard for the airline El Al in New York in the early 70s. The tale he had woven was apparently nothing more than a Walter Mitty fabrication. How, then, did Steven Spielberg and his producer, Kathleen Kennedy, choose Aviv's tale as the source for their film Munich? Last July, when we approached the film's producers, the Spielberg PR machine denied any connection to Aviv. But the film's opening scene states that it was inspired by real events, and at the end it gives a credit to Jonas's book."
Juval Aviv
  • "The second thing you need to know is that while Juval Aviv is a bona fide corporate security consultant operating out of New York, his credentials as an intelligence expert have been questioned by both journalists and government sources. A 2006 article in The Guardian reported that "Aviv never served in Mossad, or any Israeli intelligence organization," and "his nearest approximatin to spy work was as a lowly gate guard for the airline El Al in New York in the early '70s." A letter written to the U.S. President’s Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism in 1990 by Israeli counterterrorism adviser Yigal Carmon makes the same allegations, further claiming that Aviv is known to have been involved in "various acts of fraud and impersonation." Notwithstanding specific claims made in the email above, I've found no legitimate sources confirming that Juval Aviv issued a warning to the Bush administration a month before the 9/11 attacks, nor that he predicted the London subway bombing one week in advance during an appearance on the Bill O'Reilly Show. Regardless of the controversies surrounding Mr. Aviv himself, it goes without saying that one shouldn't rely on forwarded emails for critical advice on terrorist attacks and emergency preparedness. I recommend the Department of Homeland Security's Ready.gov instead."
Juval Aviv


_____________

To Cut The Neverending 6 Story Short:

BX:



As disparate as this blog may seem at the surface--all its parts have a common denominator. This blog highlights the years from about 2003 until 2006, more precisely, the year of the alleged "firing" of John Branca (February 2003) until about the middle of 2006 when John Branca and Michael finally parted ways. The common denominator here is that John Branca has been branded as the villain in this drama by many, most notably Joe Jackson with his now notorious motion to have John Branca and John McClain removed as administrators of Michael's estate. Many based their evaluation of the situation on the mere existence of this filing and on statements that were made--whithout questioning their validity or spending a thought on the motivation behind all this.

However, if you look at what was presented to you in this blog it can all be read and understood in quite a different way if you approach the matter independently and in an unbiased way. In fact, it can be argued that John Branca was one of the few honest people around Michael during these years. Other players emerge wanting a piece of Michael Jackson--a piece for which there was no basis whatsoever, though. John Branca simply did what he was asked to do--when Michael gave him business proposals to read he made suggestions for their amendments. The very fact that Michael asked John Branca for his opinion on the the Goldman Sachs proposal should tell you in whom Michael placed his trust.

We feel we have only scratched the surface of this for now. Michael was surrounded by vultures in these days while the child molestation allegations were being hurled at him. John Branca, however, was not one of them. 
_____________
*All quotations have been properly sourced and given attribution.-X1 Blogger
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)