Report: Michael Jackson cut his father out of his will. (Yes, a valid will exists.)

[Lancer]

Jackson 'cut father from last will'

7 minutes ago

Michael Jackson cut his father out of his last will in a move that would deprive him of a share in the singer's fortune, it has been reported.

The Wall Street Journal said the document, which was drafted in 2002, divides the pop star's estate between his mother, three children and a number of charities.

Jackson's body will return to his Neverland ranch on Friday, when a public viewing will begin, and a private funeral will take place on Sunday, CNN has reported.

It also emerged that Jackson was worth a net 236 million dollars (£143 million) in March 2007.

Financial documents showed the singer held 567.6 million dollars (£345 million) in assets and 331 million (£201 million) in debt at that time.

The apparent emergence of a will contradicts earlier statements from the Jackson family which implied the pop star died intestate - without a will in place.

In court documents filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on Monday, the singer's parents - Joe and Katherine - stated they had not come across a will.

But according to the Wall Street Journal, a document does exist, naming lawyer John Branca and a music executive John McClain as executives.

The lack of his father's name as a beneficiary in the will follows earlier allegation that the Jackson patriarch used to hit Michael and his brothers.

In his 1988 book Moonwalk, the singer wrote that Joe was strict with his children and would beat them if they missed a step or note during rehearsals.

http://tinyurl.com/nekjs6

[get the red out]

1. I hope this is true

It will be very helpful to his children if it is.

[ronnykmarshall]

2. Joe will be selling merch at the funeral.

[CatWoman]

11. Ronny, I swear

that is the funniest shit!!!!

I can just see him, too!! :rofl:

[SidDithers]

3. Any word on the rights to the Beatles music?...

there was a rumour floating that Jackson had left the rights to the Beatles catalogue to Paul McCartney.

Would make a nice story, if true.

Sid

[Lancer]

4. It's hard to believe anyone could leave such an absolute mess in his wake

(but we've seen it before). It's hard to see how those children are ever going to have anything close to a normal life.

[monmouth]

12. God have mercy on them if they can sing or dance....n/t

[undeterred]

5. But if Katherine Jackson is still married to Joe Jackson

aren't half of her assets his?

[Holly_Hobby]

6. Inheritance is not marital property, at least where I live, in Ohio n/t

[timeforpeace]

9. Joe will be just fine.

[bdamomma]

7. I wonder if Katherine will update her will? and make sure

Joe Satan does not get any contributions.

[InvisibleTouch]

8. Good! n/t

[joeybee12]

10. And the only way they get money is if they get custody of the children...

...bet that thought never crossed anyone's mind.

[CoffeeCat]

13. Please, please, please let this be true!!!!

This is not about Joe "abuser" Jackson.

This is about Michael Jackson, the victim of a horrendous childhood and loads of child abuse.

If Michael had the strength and wisdom to purposely cut his abusive father from his will---that means that
Michael Jackson understood that his father was an abuser. This is a major epiphany for any abused child--because
they often are tormented, blaming themselves and believing that they deserved horrendous treatment. Usually the
abuser convinced their victims that they are worthless and deserving of horrible treatment.

If Michael Jackson somehow came to understand what a sonofabitch his father was--maybe some healing did take place.

It's obvious, from the way he protected his children--that he did not become like his father Joe.

In that sense, Michael did triumph over evil. I really hope he knew in his heart--that he did not deserve such
abuse.

People often wonder why Jackson covered his children. I bet you anything he wasn't shrouding them from the public. I bet
this was an attempt to keep distance between those kids and abuser Joe Jackson. I was raised by a Joe Jackson, and I cannot
even bear the thought of my abuser knowing what my children look like. I could not protect myself, but I can protect my
own children. And in wanting safety and security for them--I've learned that I was worthy of the same respect that I'm giving
my children.

This stuff may sound bizarre to others, but when you've had every boundary violated since birth (psychological, physical,
sexual, spiritual)--and you are faced with the notion of your own abuser knowing your own precious children---you either
go into denial or you become very protective. I refuse to allow anyone who even knows my abuser to take pictures of my
children. I do not want him to know what they look like. It's just a boundary and a protection measure that I must have.

It pains me so much to hear that Joe Jackson is allowed within a mile of these children. Joe Jackson should be banned
from being around any child. He's a menace and he will harm children again. He must have a lot of anger toward Jackson
if he was cut out of the will. That will mean that these children are in even more danger than Michael was, because they
could be used as retaliation.

In the end, I hope Michael Jackson unraveled the great struggle of the abused child---learning that you were not at fault and
that the responsibility rests squarely with the abuser. Such a liberating realization--but it comes with the pain of realizing
that you were unloved and alone as a child, and dependent upon people who viewed you as nothing more than an object.

It can take years, sometimes decades, to understand this. It sound like Michael realized it, or was at least on his
way to realizing it.

[lindisfarne]

14. A public viewing? Of a closed casket? I can't imagine they'd have an open casket.n/t