Michael Jackson Will Filed in Court: Mother, Diana Ross appointed as Guardians, No Public Memorial at Neverland

By On 07/01/2009 · 54 Comments · In Uncategorized

The will Michael Jackson filed in 2002 is now part of public record. From MTV.   In it, he appoints his mother Katharine as guardian, and long-time mentor Diana Ross as backup.   He specifically omits his ex-wife Debbie Rowe from the will.   Jackson appointed his long-time lawyers as co-executors.   (read more at AP).  

Plus, the family has announced there will be no public memorial at Neverland tomorrow as previously reported.

I would expect the family to contest the will.

LOS ANGELES ‘“ Michael Jackson‘s 7-year-old will was filed Wednesday in a Los Angeles court, giving his entire estate to a family trust while making his mother the guardian of his children and cutting out his former wife Debbie Rowe. The will, dated July 7, 2002, estimated his estate at that time at more than $500 million.

It names his mother, Katherine Jackson, as a beneficiary of the trust and the guardian of Jackson’s children, who are also named as beneficiaries of the trust.

It also names entertainer Diana Ross as a successor guardian for the children and their estates if something happens to Katherine Jackson.

Jackson’s longtime lawyer John Branca and John McClain, a music executive and a family friend, are named in the will as co-executors.

The executors moved quickly to take control of all of Michael Jackson’s property, going to court Wednesday to challenge a previous ruling by the judge that gave Katherine Jackson control of 2,000 items from Neverland.

 
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
Reddit Facebook Twitter Delicious Mixx StumbleUpon Digg
  • abbysee

    I hope that his will stands. He and Diana go way back, in fact the family moved in with her when they came to the west coast in the 70′s. She was instrumental in their launch. He once proposed to her, but she turned him down. She may be a diva, but she has a track record of raising well balanced children in a fish bowl environment. Katherine is elderly, so this choice isn’t quite so bad. Of course they will contest it.

  • Lu

    Well, seeing this makes me feel better. I had no idea he ever proposed to Diana!

  • Renee in CA

    I think Michael chose wisely for his children – choosing those who can nurture, independent of family connections. Hope that the court affirms this.

  • abbysee

    I think Michael chose wisely for his children – choosing those who can nurture, independent of family connections. Hope that the court affirms this.

    Well, seeing this makes me feel better.

    I agree.

  • lurksalot

    Anyone know if DR is godmother to any of these kids? Just curious.

  • abbysee
  • mmb

    Not surprised by the Diana Ross choice…he has always been obsessed/in love/in awe of her and they were very close…and she has raised her kids apparently very well, almost all of them went to (good) colleges and are employed….no huge scandals etc…..altho it is a little odd that one of his many siblings is not the back up

  • cookcricket

    I think Michael chose wisely for his children – choosing those who can nurture, independent of family connections. Hope that the court affirms this.

    I don’t get it, doesn’t having his mom as guardian mean they’ll be with Joe too? From comments here, it does sound as if DR is a good choice, but she’s not the immediate guardian.

  • Tess

    Well, Diana ain’t no spring chicken, either. She’s way older than me and that makes her about as old as Methuselah….Having a 7 year old running around when your 65 won’t be much fun for her.

    I have a feeling the Nanny will stay in the picture…regardless what anyone is reporting that she may have send some derogatory things about Michael (rumour and inuendo I believe).

  • sallyas1

    I thought that as well, but someone else said Joe and Katherine have not lived together for years. If that is the case, then I think Katherine is the best choice for the kids. I also suspect that may be why Michael specifically mentioned Katherine by name as guardian and then went to Diana Ross as “2nd choice”.

    Not surprised he did not leave anything to Debbie Rowe, why would he at this point. Kinda surprised he specifically mentioned her by name though.

  • gingerly

    cookcricket
    Jul 1st, 2009 at 5:56 pm
    I think Michael chose wisely for his children – choosing those who can nurture, independent of family connections. Hope that the court affirms this.
    I don’t get it, doesn’t having his mom as guardian mean they’ll be with Joe too? From comments here, it does sound as if DR is a good choice, but she’s not the immediate guardian.

    That’s the way I took it too. It seems that Michael was only trying to make a point with his father. He did nothing in his will to protect his children from the man.

  • abbysee

    Joseph and Katherine live separately and have for more than a decade. Considering he didn’t cut himself off totally from his father during his lifetime, I don’t see how he would do so with his children, after his death. I mean what recourse did he have regarding that? Unless they had charged Joseph with something at some point, he is the children’s grandfather, though the devil incarnate he may be.

  • abbysee

    Kinda surprised he specifically mentioned her by name though.

    I think it was to insure that her omission was not an oversight, it was a public nose thumbing, imho.

  • djasgirl

    Well, we know Michael loved his mom, but I’m not sure this was the best choice. She’s very elderly and isn’t she still with Joe? I don’t want those kids anywhere near Joe, and Katherine still has ties to him. Until Joe is completely out of the picture, those kids have no business in her house.

    I wonder why he didn’t mention Janet? Maybe he didn’t want to burden her. Janet would’ve been a good choice, because she has her own money, so there’s no reason for her to take advantage of those kids.

  • Tess

    I just watched that really “silly” and “over-dramatic” TV movie (on You-tube all 25 segments) titled ‘The Jacksons-An American Dream’. A few things were out of context and a few dramatic liberties were taken but all in all it was pretty representative of the early years…and neither Joseph or Katherine came out smelling like a rose. Katherine played the martyr for a long time, and didn’t have the guts to speak up to Joseph like she should have for the sake of her kids.

    It really did move me to tears (especially knowing the guy who played Michael in the second half of the movie had died 1 year after the filming of lukemia).

    Even though the film came out in ’93, before most of Michael’s troubles, you could already see his eccentricities coming out.

    Now that the will is out it would be interesting to note the terms of the trust and how each individual is taken care of. One good thing is that no one, even the kids, will get a “lump sum” settlement or be held personally liable for the debt. The trust has to take care of itself, debts and profits.

  • abbysee

    I think he omitted Janet because Janet does not have children (rumors aside). Therefore although he loves her, I don’t think he would necessarily know what kind of parent she would make. Also chosing her, above his other 8 siblings could very well fuel the fire in a already incendiary family.

    I think his will was quite masterful. I don’t think however he thought he would die before his mom, but he idealized her, so in his eyes he did the right thing for them. They all seem to adore her, so even though she was a party to the madness, she must have done something right as far as her children are concerned. They have always seems partial to her. They call their father Joseph, but they call her Mom.

  • Lu

    I think his will was quite masterful. I don’t think however he thought he would die before his mom, but he idealized her, so in his eyes he did the right thing for them. They all seem to adore her, so even though she was a party to the madness, she must have done something right as far as her children are concerned. They have always seems partial to her. They call their father Joseph, but they call her Mom

    I agree. After all the speculations by the press, I’m happy to see that Michael seems to have made some very well thought out choices for his children. I too am sure that he did not expect his mother to survive him. I know I didn’t. Dammit, Michael… why did you have to go and die so young? :(

  • http://myspace.com/susanatfox sumidol

    Isnt Diana Ross an alcoholic, maybe she is sober now – not sure but she’s been arrested for drunk driving several times hasnt she? This is one time, I think someone other than her would be better suited to raise the kids.

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/dianaross1.html

  • SpenserJ

    I’ll believe Katherine isn’t still ruled by Joe when he stops having press conferences acting like he’s all in charge of everything.

    Hopefully, the trust is set up in such a way that the financial interests of his children are protected, and that it’s not just looted before they ever reach adulthood.

    I just watched that really ‘silly’  and ‘over-dramatic’  TV movie (on You-tube all 25 segments) titled ‘The Jacksons-An American Dream’.

    I’ve seen that movie too. I believe it was made by people who worked very closely with the Jackson’s during the early years. So, I think there’s probably a lot of truth to it.

    But, if there’s no public memorial, how will Joe advertise his new record company? And where oh where will he put his merchandise table?

  • butte009

    But, if there’s no public memorial, how will Joe advertise his new record company? And where oh where will he put his merchandise table?

    :lol_tb:

  • clearone

    But, if there’s no public memorial, how will Joe advertise his new record company? And where oh where will he put his merchandise table?

    Hee…….perhaps he can buy some commercial time on CNN!

  • MommaDuck

    According to local news reports there will be a public memorial. It is reported that possible venues being considered are The Staples Center and the LA Coliseum.

    Not really surprised that there won’t be anything at Neverland since Michael had vowed to never return to his former home. Memorializing him there would have been ghastly since it would have been against his wishes.

  • lavender1960

    I have to say that I was mystified when Larry King interviewed the “Jackson” family lawyers, last night, London McMillan, was very dismissive of this will and skeptical that John Branca was again working for Michael especially given the music industry people already were aware that Branca was indeed back with MJ and was likely co-executor [according to HDD].

    Yes someone was wondering who even thought to suggest the idea of the public viewing at Neverland. Apparently it was a zoo when Liz Taylor got married there – it is just not a good place to hold an event like this.

    In terms of not naming Janet, for all we know Michael asked Janet if she would be comfortable with guardianship and she wasn’t. The wise thing to do is ask the people you are considering first so you make sure you name someone who, at least at the time the will is drawn, is ready willing and able to be a guardian.

    I didn’t know Joe and Katherine lived separate lives – she may be a smarter cookie than anyone of us know. She figures, let Joe make a fool of himself, I’m the one in CONTROL…….

    I don’t know that naming older individuals as guardians is masterful planning per se but if those are the individuals who he trusted and they were willing to take on the challenge, then it is good.

  • Lu

    I’ll believe Katherine isn’t still ruled by Joe when he stops having press conferences acting like he’s all in charge of everything.

    He may act like he’s all in charge but based on what I’ve seen and read about Michael’s will, it doesn’t sound like he’s large and in-charge in this situation.

  • Tess

    I get the feeling that the Jackson children have learned that the best thing to do with Joe is to give him enough rope so that he can “hang” himself. And he always does a grand old job. Katherine and Joe have lived pretty seperate lives since she found out about his “on the road” affairs in 1984.

    The man is a total egomaniac and he still feels that the success of his family was all his hard work and dedication. He really never came to terms with the fact the boys fired him as their manager, also in 1984.

    I am sure that with Michael naming Katherine and Diana (who, along with Liz Taylor were the 3 women he really “loved” in his lifetime) that he was pretty sure that they would make sure, if they couldn’t, that they would find the best caretakers for his children.

    The one thing that does seem to ring true with every person who speaks about Michael is that he was a total loving and caring Father who raised his kids with loving discipline and really thought that the world was them. Private pictures that are now surfacing with him and his children really show a very devoted and loving (if unusual) family unit. Other than the “stupid” window incident no one has yet revealed any bad behavior on Michael’s part toward those kids. And all three of them are beautiful children from what you can see in the pictures.

  • abbysee

    The one thing that does seem to ring true with every person who speaks about Michael is that he was a total loving and caring Father who raised his kids with loving discipline and really thought that the world was them. Private pictures that are now surfacing with him and his children really show a very devoted and loving (if unusual) family unit. Other than the ‘stupid’  window incident no one has yet revealed any bad behavior on Michael’s part toward those kids. And all three of them are beautiful children from what you can see in the pictures.

    He did a cover story for Ebony magazine a while back. The writer of the article said she was struck by how paternal Michael was, how firm he was with his kids, and how ‘normal’ they seemed. I think he wanted to be a father unlike his own. I hope they remember that, that is their legacy from their Dad. Something he never had himself.

    Isnt Diana Ross an alcoholic, maybe she is sober now – not sure but she’s been arrested for drunk driving several times hasnt she? This is one time, I think someone other than her would be better suited to raise the kids.

    If everyone who was an alcoholic, both diagnosed and undiagnosed, was declared unfit to parent. There would be foster homes filled with kids. As a matter of fact, there would be a dearth or foster families. I don’t think that that in and of itself makes one unfit. She got help as she should have and is still known to be a good mother.

  • unique28v

    Its funny how people are now backtracking from the Neverland public memorial when the family never said it was going to be there. In fact, Joe Jackson said at the BET Awards that those rumors weren’t true. I can’t wait to see what other rumors aren’t true. The National media are becoming as bad as the tabloids.

    As far as the will is concerned, I hope it stands. I will be very surprised if it doesn’t actually….

  • unique28v

    Hopefully, the trust is set up in such a way that the financial interests of his children are protected, and that it’s not just looted before they ever reach adulthood.

    I think that is why he didn’t make any of his family members the executer of his estate. They’re not in charge of anything. Its almost like they will get an allowance but thats it. I actually think the will was a smart move. This way, the money won’t be spent before his children are of legal age.

  • SpenserJ

    It is reported that possible venues being considered are The Staples Center and the LA Coliseum.

    That’s even better. Maybe Joe can get a cut of the concessions.

    They’re not in charge of anything. Its almost like they will get an allowance but thats it.

    I think it really all depends how the estate reads. Typically, “executors” are the people who make sure the will, trust, etc. are probated correctly and manage the situation until the probate is closed. They’re not necessarily the overseers of the Trust. That’s who will really be in charge of Michael’s assets longterm – the Trustees.

    It is always smart when selecting a guardian for your children in the event of your untimely death, to select someone else to manage the trust you leave them. Gotta have that check and balance system in place. If Michael appointed the lawyers or some other disinterested party as the trustees, then that was smart.

    I suspect Michael made no provisions for Debbie Rowe because he had already paid her handsomely for her services. All evidence seems to indicate that bearing those children for him was a business transaction.

  • lg

    Reuters has reported that the funeral will be held Tuesday July 7 at the Staples Center.

  • Lisa

    One week tomorrow. Funeral not till next week. That will be one *ripe* body. Glad I am not going.

  • unique28v

    Reuters has reported that the funeral will be held Tuesday July 7 at the Staples Center.

    Reuters is always reporting something. I’ll wait until I hear from the family.

  • Lu

    This is off topic but I just read that Taj Jackson who wrote Elliott’s big hit Wait for You is MJ’s nephew… Never even thought it was the same family…

  • sonyab

    abbysee says

    I hope that his will stands. He and Diana go way back, in fact the family moved in with her when they came to the west coast in the 70′s. She was instrumental in their launch. He once proposed to her, but she turned him down.
    ===================================
    He purposed to her?!!?! I had no idea!

  • sonyab

    SpenserJ says

    But, if there’s no public memorial, how will Joe advertise his new record company? And where oh where will he put his merchandise table?
    ===================================
    Oh no! Poor Joe! What is he going to do!?! :eek_wp:

  • sonyab

    Tess says

    I just watched that really ‘silly’  and ‘over-dramatic’  TV movie (on You-tube all 25 segments) titled ‘The Jacksons-An American Dream’. A few things were out of context and a few dramatic liberties were taken but all in all it was pretty representative of the early years’ ¦and neither Joseph or Katherine came out smelling like a rose. Katherine played the martyr for a long time, and didn’t have the guts to speak up to Joseph like she should have for the sake of her kids.
    =========================================
    Oh no no no.. :) That movie isn’t silly. It’s actually pretty good. Have you ever seen the movie Man in the Mirror: The Michael Jackson Story? THAT is silly!!! Horrible movie!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jWAXHU2R2Y

  • sonyab

    abbysee says He did a cover story for Ebony magazine a while back. The writer of the article said she was struck by how paternal Michael was, how firm he was with his kids, and how ‘normal’ they seemed. I think he wanted to be a father unlike his own. I hope they remember that, that is their legacy from their Dad. Something he never had himself.
    =======================================
    Awwww!! He broke the cycle of abuse! You did it Michael! :)

  • Lu

    He did a cover story for Ebony magazine a while back. The writer of the article said she was struck by how paternal Michael was, how firm he was with his kids, and how ‘normal’ they seemed. I think he wanted to be a father unlike his own. I hope they remember that, that is their legacy from their Dad. Something he never had himself.

    Yep, this is what I’m hearing as well. Nice.

  • SpenserJ

    This is off topic but I just read that Taj Jackson who wrote Elliott’s big hit Wait for You is MJ’s nephew’ ¦

    He’s Tito’s kid I think. He and his brothers had a band in the 90′s for a while.

  • Lu

    ^^
    Yep, Tito’s kid. I never made the connection with the name.

  • cookcricket

    I get the feeling that the Jackson children have learned that the best thing to do with Joe is to give him enough rope so that he can ‘hang’  himself. And he always does a grand old job. Katherine and Joe have lived pretty seperate lives since she found out about his ‘on the road’  affairs in 1984.

    Well I know he completely creeped me out during that red carpet interview. Ugh! I have heard they are separated, so hopefully she can keep him away as much as needed.

    ^^^It’s nice to hear that Michael seemed to be a good father.

  • MommaDuck

    OK…Los Angeles news outlets report that there will be a memorial service on Tuesday, July 7th at the Staples Center.

    As an aside…My husband was an acquaintance of Germaine and Tito…he lived around the corner from the current “Compound” and remembers that Joe was a real asshole! One day, the older boys threw Michael into the pool and Joe really gave him (Michael) crap because he had a rehearsal later that day. Needless to say, my hubby was quite taken aback by Joe’s actions and would never go to their home again unless Joe was away.

  • lavender1960

    That is the one thing I don’t understand, why the need to specify that he leaves nothing to Debbie Rowe in the will anyway – they are not married anymore and he has full custody of the children so she has no legal entitlement from what I can see. Seems kind of cold.

  • lavender1960

    Hits Daily Double was reporting that Rev. Al Sharpton is now distancing himself from Joe Jackson and his lawyer London McMillan because he expects a nasty legal battle with Joe challenging the will and he’s figured out that would not be good for his own PR. Rev. Al, why were you snuggling up to Joe in the first place? Or maybe once Al realized Joe was cut out of the will there was no reason to snuggle up to Joe for?
    Bwah.

  • Lu

    That is the one thing I don’t understand, why the need to specify that he leaves nothing to Debbie Rowe in the will anyway – they are not married anymore and he has full custody of the children so she has no legal entitlement from what I can see. Seems kind of cold.

    I’m guessing that it was on advice of his attorney(s).

  • clearone

    That is the one thing I don’t understand, why the need to specify that he leaves nothing to Debbie Rowe in the will anyway – they are not married anymore and he has full custody of the children so she has no legal entitlement from what I can see. Seems kind of cold.

    From watching coverage last night they said there could be a couple of reasons.

    1) The she is provided for in the trust that is set up and details of a trust are not allowed to be made public

    2) That she was already well provided for when they divorced and that in specifying he is leaving nothing more to her, he is indicating that he didn’t forget about her so that can’t be a reason to contest the will.

    I thought they said the circus was going to be at the Staples Center starting on the 6th so how can the service be there at the same time?

  • LVanna

    “He really never came to terms with the fact the boys fired him as their manager, also in 1984.”

    Regardless, perhaps there was still a father/son love between Joe and Michael and that Michael actually did care for his father? See this pic from 2005 and notice their hands:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7181495/

    Also, Michael was certainly old enough if he wanted to disown or distance himself from Joe yet he chose to name both of his son’s middle names after his father:

    Michael “Joseph” Jackson, Jr. and Prince Michael “Joseph” Jackson II. Although the boys are Jr. and the “second”, he didn’t have to leave in his father’s name. JMO.

  • TwigLA

    The Circus is on the 8th, but it still takes time to set up. The Sparks are playing on the 5th, with no other events in between.

    Maybe Ringling Bros. are renting out the 3 Ring and sideshows for this other type of circus. I’m having bizarre mental images of all the lawyers, hangers on, paparazzi, etc. emerging from clown cars. My sympathies to those who will have to clean up the elephant sized poop when it’s all over.

  • oceana

    I’ve always thought that ‘The Jacksons-An American Dream’ was a good movie. Maybe romanticized a bit, but it seemed to strive for truthfulness. I’ve seen it several times over the years, it makes you feel sorry for and somewhat understand Michael. But I do think he’s had sexual interactions with children, and that bothers me a great deal. It always bothers me when people can get away with henious actions because they are rich and famous, I was surprised and relieved when Phil Spector was found guilty of murder. Michael had many redeeming qualities, being a musical genius and a gentle man, but even with his sad childhood, it’s probably true that most if not all pedophiles and other sick people had traumatic childhoods.

    It was probably necessary to mention Debbie’s name in the will so that her potential lawyers couldn’t later say it was an oversight on his part to leave her out. It had to be spelled out in black and white so that his intention was known.

    Whereas he didn’t mention Joe or his siblings, perhaps in order not to cause hurt feelings, and perhaps they are taken care of elsewhere in the trust provisions.

    I agree it seems like a thoughtful will, except for the parties named as guardians being so elderly. Perhaps they, in their wisdom, will name guardians in case of their own deaths.

  • dusty

    avender1960 Jul 2nd, 2009 at 7:10 am

    That is the one thing I don’t understand, why the need to specify that he leaves nothing to Debbie Rowe in the will anyway – they are not married anymore and he has full custody of the children so she has no legal entitlement from what I can see. Seems kind of cold.

    Estate attorneys say it is not meant to be cold but it is common to clearly state that you have not overlooked an ex, you are just specifically not leaving them anything. It is something that’s done to avoid confusion. The one that I saw on the news said it is not meant as a public nose thumbing to the ex. Just clarity.

  • sonyab

    LVanna says

    ‘He really never came to terms with the fact the boys fired him as their manager, also in 1984.’ 

    Regardless, perhaps there was still a father/son love between Joe and Michael and that Michael actually did care for his father? See this pic from 2005 and notice their hands:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7181495/
    ==============================
    He has said in an Oprah interview that he loves his father and forgives him. He also said that he doesn’t know him. Well I don’t blame him for not knowing him. I mean his father wanted him to call him Joseph. So there is a little disconnect there.

  • sonyab

    Has anybody seen private home movies of Michael? I never seen it. They are so funny! Especially when he says Macaulay Culkin is a reckless driver! ROFL! I laughed so hard I had tears. :)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jck_nM_1wPg

    Watch all of it and when you are done watch more

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6IzRz1pD6M

  • reinharv

    I think that no matter what jerks parents are, they are still your parents. In light of Joe Jackson, though he was a tyrant and an idiot, I am sure MJ still loved him. He may have not liked him, but he was his father.

    It is customary to ask potential guardians if they would consider being guardians prior to stating so in a will. Generally, you don’t spring that on someone after the fact because if they can’t or won’t then what? The executor is the individual who carries out the instructions in your will. This is not an honorary role. The role of an executor of a will gathers all your assets; prepares an inventory for the probate court: completes paperwork to change the title of assets from the decedent to the estate; files periodic reports to the probate court; pays all your debts and taxes; defends your estate against any lawsuits or other difficulties; and distributes your assets as you direct in your will. The executor is also paid to do this out of the assets.

    After all the debts are paid and it’s determined how much $$ is left, could be a reason for Debbie to pursue her rights as the biological mother. Money talks and she would gain financially to ensure that the children are brought up in the manner and style they have become accustomer to. Though Debbie Rowe is an ex-wife and gave up her rights to the children, she could say she was co-erced and did not fully comprehend the implications, or was in a financial bind and felt desperate so she felt she had no choice but to consent to giving up her rights to her biological kids. It’s also a case of the power of the rich with their fancy lawyers and not having the means to fight that. The primary concern for the court is the welfare of minor children. A case could be made that MJ got screwed up being brought up at that home shared by Katherine & Joe and that Katherine didn’t protect her children from Joe and considering that Katherine & Joe are not divorced could also come into play. The court considers biological parents. How many times couples “hire” surrogates or go through the adoption process and then the mother changes her mind even after the fact, and the child is returned to the biological mother. The only reason that MJ married her is that he, being the husband, could state his claim to children born during the marriage. The biggest plus for her is that MJ was not their biological father. I bet an argument can be made that she was so desperate for money and/or didn’t understand the implications, etc., would weight heavily on the court. The court might look at that fact to determine the best interests of minor children considering that MJ got so “weird” and a case can be made that he really wasn’t of sound mind when he wrote that will. That’s a big factor when writing a will – the “sound mind” thing. It could still be a factor though. Wills are not iron clad. There is no doubt that MJ was weird that’s for sure. The biggest factor against Katherine if Rowe contests, is that she is not their biological grandmother.

  • reinharv

    I am totally perplexed about all this MJ stuff. People seem to be putting him on a pedestal and excusing his behavior and that it’s okay because he contributed so much to the music world as if that’s so important in the big scheme of things. All this will stuff, the memorial and whatnot. Michael was Wacko Jacko through and through. People are forgetting that he was sued for child molestation. It was a lawsuit only and nothing more. Yes, he was acquited but he paid a huge sum of money to “settle.” Innocent people who are acquited in a lawsuit do not settle. That’s the whole point in a lawsuit. You win, you don’t pay (except gobs to your “team” of crack lawyers, which he had. What he and his lawyers feared was that even though he could win in a lawsuit that they could still go to civil trial (versus criminal trial) and that’s a whole different ball of wax and different rules apply. I have no doubt that the jurors didn’t feel they could convict him, feared the aftermath of possible riots and remembering the circus of O.J. Simpson; however OJ was acquited, he did go to civil court and was found guilty. This is what Michael’s lawyers feared the most and therefore suggested that Michael settle and that stipulation would be that he could not be further persued in civil court. I also have no doubt he is guity of improper conduct with children. Sleeping with little boys, giving them “Jesus juice” and the strange & secret goings on at Neverland is clear to me he was not of sound mind & deeply disturbed. Now he’s a saint.