rabbi boteach is very concerned about the children.
there have been rumours for years that janet had a child at about 16 and that rebbe jackson raised the child. she is the oldest and she was not very involved in the jackson stage push. she would be the one with the most normal childhood. most people don’t even know about her.
I’m not sure how anybody can be surprised that Michael Jackson did not have a will. Making a will is the action of a responsible adult who knows that this death is inevitable and who cares about at least one other person more than he cares about himself. Does that sound like the Gloved One?
As has been mentioned more than once in this thread, Jackson did leave a will and possibly provided for his children in other ways, such as trusts.
Facts are just a crutch for people who can’t handle their meth. 
ooooh, breaking news!!
cnn is saying that the public viewing for jackson will be at neverland on friday, private funeral to follow.
step one on neverland being open to the public.
Any news on where the pyramid is to be erected?
Why is it untouchable by creditors? At the moment, it’s an asset in his estate, just like any other asset. Why do you say that the creditors can’t go after it as well?
Just behind the Michael Jackson Sphinx, of course, although I believe the artist’s representation is inaccurate - when built, the Michael Jackson Sphinx will be missing its nose.
Because unpublished songs are basically worthless until they’re published. And I don’t think creditors can force the publishing of unpublished material just because.
Although if there really are 200 new MJ songs out there, I imagine record companies will be beating each to death with their severed limbs for the chance to publish them. Preferrably by Christmas.
But why cannot a creditor apply in probate court to have the title to the unpublished songs transferred to the creditor, taking them in satisfaction of the creditor’s debt, just like they could claim any other asset of the estate in satisfaction of their debt? The songs may be difficult to value, but that’s not an impossibility - probate courts have to deal with valuation issues all the time. And if a creditor is willing to take a chance on the value of the songs, why couldn’t the creditor claim them (especially if there’s not much cash money in the estate, which sounds like a possibility).
He had no willpower; what else is to be expected?
Because when people say “Michael Jackson was broke” they mean “Michael Jackson didn’t have enough money to keep living like he has been for the last 20 years”. That means all of the extravegant spending on crap, the taxes on Neverland and doing various “projects” that he would often just throw away.
But he’s dead now.
So there’s no more extravegant spending on crap, Neverland can be sold (the kids don’t need to live there) and the projects have all been put on ice. There are enough real assets that an unvalued asset like the publishing rights to a song would be one of the last things looked at.
Beyond that, MJ likely put the songs in his children’s names if they were meant to take care of them. If that’s the case, I don’t think the creditors can even ask about taking them.
My understanding is that the songs are the sole, individual property of the kids, not the estate. Creditors can’t take property that belongs to the kids. From what I read about it, MJ intentionally set things up so that the library would be an untouchable asset of the children.
You have to understand not everything becomes part of an estate. For instance, if you have a bank account that is POD (Payable on Death) and it has Jackson’s name and his mother’s name. When Michael died, that account is now his mother’s and not part of the estate.
If I own a car and I put my mother on it as co-owner if I die that becomes her car and isn’t part of the estate.
I asked this question in GQ and got an answer for this. Michael Jackson put a bunch money in a trust for his kids. That money is untouchable to his creditors. But Jackson used it as collateral for loans. Depending on how it’s set up the interest may be touchable but not the principal.
Everytime an artist dies his songs get bought, this brings a spike in his royalties. There is no good way to predict just how much. A creditor may give him a loan against future royalties. The issue is if you were a lender would you do it?
The last thing to remember about wills is you don’t have to win. You just have to drag it on long enough.
When you’re dealing with huge money like Michael Jackson or Conrad Hilton or whoever, you’re tying up millions maybe billions for certain people. It makes no sense to tie something up in court for tens and finally win and lose all the potential (interest, or investment opportunites) just to make a point that you were right.
Never mind that! Who owns the rights to the Beatles’ songs now?! :eek: