http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/...5875-21485302/
Printable View
the only time im gonna believe whats true or not about his kids is if theres fact from dna tests or something, im not gonna believe any stories i read otherwise cos theres so many, most of them are gonna be made upQuote:
Originally Posted by Jojo
Michael Jackson's will has been filed in a Los Angeles court, giving his entire estate to a family trust. The document, dated 7 July 2002, also reveals the star "intentionally omitted" to provide for his former wife, Debbie Rowe.
Jackson's mother, Katherine, is named as a beneficiary of the trust and the guardian of the singer's three young children, who are named in the will.
It estimated Jackson's estate at that time to be more than $500m (£303m).
Custody rights
The Michael Jackson Family Trust would benefit his three children, his mother and unnamed charities, according to Reuters.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image...570053-2-1.jpg Katherine Jackson is currently looking after the children
The news agency also reported that Jackson's five-page will said: "I have intentionally omitted to provide for my former wife, Deborah Rowe Jackson."
Rowe married Jackson in 1996 but filed for divorce in 1999. She gave up custody rights to the children but sought them again in 2003.
They agreed a settlement in 2006 but the terms were never disclosed.
She is the biological mother of Jackson's eldest children - Michael Joseph Jackson Jr, known as Prince Michael, 12, and Paris Michael Katherine Jackson, 11.
The singer's youngest son - seven-year-old Prince Michael II - was born to a surrogate mother whose identity has never been revealed.
Long-time friend and singer Diana Ross is also named as guardian for Jackson's children in the event that his mother was unable to fulfil her duties.
Katherine Jackson was granted temporary guardianship of Jackson's three children on Monday.
'Remarkable legacy'
The will said Jackson's estate consisted almost entirely of "non-cash, non-liquid assets, including primarily an interest in a catalogue of music royalty rights which is currently being administered by Sony ATV, and the interests of various entities".
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gifhttp://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/...t_quote_rb.gif The most important element of Michael's will is his unwavering desire that his mother, Katherine, become the legal guardian for his three children http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/...d_quote_rb.gif
Executors John Branca and John McClain
That refers to the singer's share of the Sony/ATV Music Publishing catalogue that includes rights to the songs of The Beatles.
The will names Jackson's lawyer John Branca and John McClain, a music executive and a family friend, as co-executors of the will.
In a statement, Mr Branca and Mr McClain said: "The most important element of Michael's will is his unwavering desire that his mother, Katherine, become the legal guardian for his three children.
"As we work to carry out Michael's instructions to safeguard both the future of his children as well as the remarkable legacy he left us as an artist, we ask that all matters involving his estate be handled with the dignity and the respect that Michael and his family deserve."
Meanwhile, the Jackson family issued a statement saying that no "public or private viewing" of the singer's body would be held at Neverland.
Speculation of a viewing had prompted fans and reporters to gather outside the property, but the family said they would announce plans "regarding a public memorial" shortly.
they also mentioned on the news that he wont be able to be buried in neverland because there is no cemetery licence there
Burying him at Neverland would be a risky business anyway. There'd be issues with the body and security if Neverland was to be sold, which I imagine it will be, and also with access for the family.
Diana Ross is a random choice for reserve guardian. Taking on three young kids at her age would be a task. Why hasn't Debbie got joint guardianship with Katherine? I know she gave up her rights to the children but if I was her I'd want to be there and take care of them now that their father is dead.
But I believe that Debbie has never had any contact with the children, it will be so difficult for the kids to adapt to live with a total stranger, even if it is the biological mother, poor little mites.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZTDe5S-HMU&feature=fvst
I think this sums up his career perfectly. A great artist has died but his music will live on.
A public memorial service for Michael Jackson will reportedly be held in Los Angeles on Tuesday morning.
According to Sky News, sources have confirmed US reports that the 'Thriller' star will be honoured in a ceremony at the Staples Centre at 10am.
The sports facility is owned by AEG Live, the company behind Jackson's comeback concerts in London.
It is understood that screens will also be installed outside the building for the thousands of fans who are expected to attend.
Jackson's family have yet to comment on the report, but recently dismissed speculation that his body would be put on public display at his Neverland ranch.
The 2,500-acre property had emerged as an early possibility to stage his funeral, but it has been suggested that his family were unable to obtain the necessary burial permit within the time limits.
From: http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/showbiz/...r-tuesday.html
E News said that Diana Ross now might be looking after his kids :confused:
From: http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/showbiz/...eman-kids.html
Michael Jackson wanted to adopt the eight babies of "Octomom" Nadya Suleman shortly before he died, it has been claimed.
The mother-of-14's ex-publicist Victor Munoz told The Mirror that Jackson's representatives had called him three times to enquire about him taking care of the babies before the singer himself got in touch.
According to Munoz, Jackson said: "Blanket would love to have more siblings. I could take care of all the babies, they could live with me and wouldn't need for anything. They would have a bright future.
"I want to take care of Nadya. She will be happy and won't have to worry about caring for her children anymore."
Munoz added: "It was creepy. He was basically offering to buy the children. I was a bit shocked. Michael clearly thought Nadya was unfit and decided he wanted to help those children.
"He sounded genuine. He was genuinely concerned about the children. He asked if they were all going to be healthy. But I just blew it off. I knew Nadya would never want to get rid of her kids so it wasn't important."
Pot calling kettle black springs to mind - another 8 kids walking the streets with scarfs over their faces :rolleyes:
But appearing in public with their faces covered allows them anonymity. Does anyone apart from close family and friends know what his children look like?Quote:
Originally Posted by Perdita
One of Michael's close friends was on This Morning on Monday saying he could take the three kids out with his own kids and nobody knew who they were. They weren't hounded by the public, followed by the press, they didn't have their photos in the papers the next day and plastered all over the internet.
Look at the Beckham's and Katie Price. Their kids have very well known faces. They can't go out with family and friends without having their photos in the paper the next day. There was kidnap threats against Brooklyn Beckham and they had to step their security up.
Its all very well papers blurring out children's faces but those pictures still exist as originals with the child's face clearly visible. It only takes one person to circulate the original on the internet or print it in another media and then its fair game for kidnappers and other paparazzi to print.
Maybe some people do think it's extreme but Michael was simply protecting his children from the glare of the camera that he experienced for five decades. Is that so abnormal?