In Defense of Branca

I think most fans realize that the research being done about the murder is about Michael Jackson, and only him. It is not about being right. It is not about notoriety for the blogger. It is not about blog or fan base wars. It is solely about the truth and justice for Michael Jackson, period. And as Michael so often said, it's all above L.O.V.E. No matter what readers believe, if they are Michael Jackson fans, then we have something in common at the core of our being. I think that we need a reminder of that at times. With that said, this will be the last time I blog in defense of a previous blog entry.

Today, I was accused of many things by another blogger. The only reason I am defending myself is so those who read the blog will at least consider that John Branca did in fact work for Michael Jackson after 2003, and that Branca had no reason to conspire against him. Those who believe that are looking in the wrong place for the murderer(s). So here we go:

1. "Some blogs popping up rather recently have taken the defense behind the lines of John Branca and Al Malnik of all people with some convincing resources like the New York Times." The blogger goes on to discredit the sources I used as evidence of Branca's employment with Michael Jackson in late 2003. The blogger continues by stating, "Any blog lauding the 'saving' of Michael Jackson by Al Malnik is suspect to MOST sensible Jackson fans....And for one particular blog to extol the virtues of a mob connected conspirer of Michael's, all one has to do is read himself about Malnik to confirm what kind of person he is."

I am questioning whether the blogger was directing this toward my blog, because there is hardly a mention of Alvin Malnik in any of my blogs. There is one mention of Malnik in the Randy Jackson blog, which stated that Al Malnik and Charles Koppelman helped to back a $70 million loan payment that Michael owed to Bank of America. NY Times source is here, Eonline source is here. Even a source my accuser used states the same thing here. Other than that, I have not mentioned Al Malnik. This one mention of Malnik is nowhere near "extolling Malnik's virtues." I do not know enough about Malnik to make an educated decision, but the fact that Malnik was Meyer Lansky's heir apparent, and that he is known as the "King of Payday Loans" makes me a little more than doubtful as to his character.

Strike one.

2. I definitely do not need to question that the blogger is stating that I have misconstrued facts regarding John Branca's employment with Michael Jackson from 2003-2006. Here are the highlights of Branca's employment with MJ from 2003-2006:


~In late 2003, CBS would not air the special "Michael Jackson's Number Ones" until Michael publicly denied the child molestation allegations against him. Michael did an interview with Ed Bradley on 60 minutes, and Branca is credited for negotiating that deal. Source is here. If you don't believe the Daily News, here is a source from MTV News that states, "though some sources say that (Leonard) Muhammad was involved in brokering the '60 minutes' interview, lawyer John Branca and former EMI executive Charles Koppelman negotiated the CBS interview in exchange for the network putting Jackson's 'Michael Jackson's Number Ones' back on its programming schedule." Source is here.

~In January, 2004, there are numerous reports that Michael Jackson's advisors met together at the Beverly Hills Hotel to strategize their next move prior to Jackson's arraignment hearing. The picture above is from one of the articles, from NBC Miami website. USA Today reported that although Michael "was nowhere to be seen, the entertainer had been on a conference call with his advisers at that time. Source is here.

~I used the Los Angeles Times article dated April 30, 2004 as a source that stated John Branca was in fact, Michael Jackson's lawyer. Amongst rumors that Michael was in financial straits and that his career was over, the article states that Michael Jackson's "longtime music attorney, John Branca, says it would be a mistake to count him out." The accusatory blogger states that the article is now "defunct", but it is not. You just have to PAY to read it. Here are screen shots of the article so nobody else has to buy it:

~Regarding 2005, I used a Times Online article that stated that just prior to Michael's acquittal, Branca was advising him. I also used both a Daily News and a Newsday article which stated Branca could not be reached for comment, but he was representing Jackson in 2005. The accusatory blogger maintains that because Branca could not be reached for comment, this automatically means Branca was not Michael's lawyer between 2003-2006. However, I beg to differ as the many sources I have quoted above attest to the fact that Branca did indeed work for Michael Jackson between the years of 2003 and 2006.

~I readily admitted that in early 2006, I had relied on Roger Friedman's column to find a timeline for John Branca's employment with Michael Jackson. And even though the accusatory blogger stated that Friedman was a gossip columnist, she used Friedman for her own source.

Strike two.

3. The accusatory blogger maintains that my blog "contains a falsified copy of court testimony in which supposedly attorney LeGrand is questioned by Tom Messereau about the investigations done into the people surrounding Michael at the 2005 trial, and LeGrand exhonerates (sic) Branca while implicating Wiesner and Konitzer. The real court document found at this source says something quite different." The accusatory blogger's source is here.

Below is a screen shot of the accusatory blogger's source for the court document.

Now, please see below for a screen shot of my source for the same court testimony:
Please take a look at the two screen shots and compare them. Is it not the same exact wording? I implore you to look at both of our sources. Had the accusatory blogger bothered to delve deeper, they would have realized that the court transcripts I provided were one in the same with theirs. In any case, LeGrand did not in any way implicate Branca. Moreover, my source for the court transcripts was not falsified. Here is the accusatory blogger's source, and here is my source.

Strike three. You're out!

The accusation of a "Sony-slanted blog" is a joke. I have not posted anything remotely positive about Sony, as I am aware of what happened prior to, during, and after the making of Invincible.
I'd like to say it was fun playing blogger baseball but it was not. It is tedious to have to repeat yourself in defense of information that is readily available to the public, if they choose to dig deep enough to look.

Branca 2005-2006

I want to discuss the refinancing of Michael's loans in 2005, which helps us to understand and transition into 2006. "Jackson, who was then awaiting trial on criminal child molestation charges, authorized his advisors to negotiate a solution that would have erased his debts and provided him with income of about $10 million a year...As part of the agreement, Sony Corp. would have purchased half the singer's interest in the Sony/ATV catalog for $200 to $250 million. But at the last minute, Jackson balked at the deal...Over the objections of Jackson's advisors, Bank of America then sold the loans to Fortress." Source is here. Instead, B of A sold the loan to Fortress Investment Group. An article detailing this can be found here.

My personal opinion is that Bank of America was worried. First, during the trial, a forensic accountant testified under oath that Jackson had "an ongoing cash crisis", because he had $415 million in liabilities and was spending $20-30 million above and beyond what he was making annually. Secondly and more probably, Bank of America was betting that Michael Jackson would be convicted, and Bank of America would be left holding the note.

Many will say that of course Michael balked at this deal. Michael did not want to give up part of his share of the Sony ATV catalog. However, consider this: according to a Roger Friedman report, "Branca --who was the architect of Jackson's Beatles purchase in the 1980's--has a 5% stake in the Sony catalog. Experts tell me that his percentage is tied to Jackson's, whatever happens." Reports state that Branca was making in the vicinity of $20 million from the proceeds of his 5% (some state 2.5%) of the ATV. So why would Branca conspire with Sony to take the ATV catalog away from Jackson, when clearly this would have been a huge financial loss for Branca? It simply makes NO SENSE.

Before we move on, I must admit that there is not a lot of information out there regarding John Branca's employment with Michael Jackson in early 2006. I have often relied on gossip columnist Roger Friedman. If anyone should hold a PhD in Michael Jackson, it is Friedman. I usually do not always agree with Friedman's assessment of Michael Jackson the human being, but Friedman's timeline is extremely helpful in understanding Jackson's complex business deals and partnerships.

However, Friedman is not infallible with regard to Michael Jackson. In an April 15, 2005 report, Friedman states that Jackson was offered a deal to sell part of his stake in the ATV catalog, and that Michael is being advised by what he calls Jackson's "permanent government, not the many shady characters coming and going over the years. This 'government' includes Charles Koppelman, John Branca, Al Malnik and Jane Heller." This information, is partially true. Heller, according to the prior report by Friedman in this blog, was not involved in the deal. In addition, Friedman also states in the same report that Branca is his "former attorney" and that Michael considers Branca to be conspiring against him to take away the ATV catalog. Friedman essentially states that Branca is and is not Michael Jackson's attorney in the same report.

It is also thoroughly understandable that Michael felt that there were those conspiring to take away his ownership of the ATV catalog. Michael was surrounded by vultures his entire life, as we all know. At this time period, Jackson was backed into a financial corner and emotionally drained from the stress of the 2005 trial. We know that he was in financial straits because Bank of America sold the loans to Fortress. If Michael had had any leverage, Bank of America would have negotiated with Jackson. However, as I stated above, it would make no sense for Branca to conspire to allow the ATV catalog to go into default. Branca could have taken a considerable financial loss if anyone was allowed to take control of his 5% interest.

By 2006, Michael was once again refinancing his loans. This time, Michael acquiesced and agreed to a contract to give Sony the option to buy 25% of the ATV catalog in the future. The refinancing would pay off a $272 million loan to Fortress, and would give Jackson some spending money. Jackson was assisted in the deal by Ahmed Al Khan, an attorney for Prince Abdullah. Of course, we all know that after the trial, Michael left for Bahrain and was residing with Prince Abdullah.

As I stated above, there is not a lot of information regarding John Branca's employment with Michael Jackson in 2006. However, when the Joe Jackson petitioned the court to remove Branca as an executor, his attorney Brian Oxman freely admitted Branca worked for Jackson until 2006. Joe Jackson claimed that Branca had been fired by Michael for embezzlement of funds in 2006. Joe Jackson and Oxman apparently had their dates confused, as we know that Branca was fired and rehired in 2003 after Michael realized Branca was truthful and fair. There is no evidence that John Branca was fired in 2006.

Branca states that by 2006, Michael was listening to an increasingly odd set of advisers who Branca feared did not have the singer's best interests at heart. "He was surrounded and I had to resign. He (Jackson) did not ask me to stay. I resigned amicably." In 2006, after MJ fired other attorneys, reporters contacted Branca, and he maintained that he had left MJ's employ in april of 2006. For 26 years, Branca never left of his own accord until 2006. Branca's decision to resign is indicative of just how dangerous those who had surrounded Michael had become, and Branca knew it. Branca sold his 5% of the ATV back to Michael, and left amicably.

Branca obviously felt there was some kind of threat in order for him to make the decision to leave Michael Jackson. Michael, clearly had been surrounded by those who did not have his best interests at heart before, like in 2003 with Wiesner, Konitzer and Schaffel. But Branca stayed by Michael's side. Yet for the first time in 26 years, Branca left Michael's side.

WHY? And just who were these people who Branca was afraid of? Branca's instinct was right...just look at Peter Lopez.

Branca Returns, Wiesner Departs

Before I move on to 2006, I would like to mention something that I did not add to the previous blog, Branca, 2003-2006. I want to go back to the beginning of 2003.

Michael claimed in a 2007 lawsuit against Wiesner that he was under the influence of prescription drugs at the time that he handed control of some of his business affairs to Dieter Wiesner in early 2003. See video above.

• Wiesner was in control of MJ's financial affairs in January, 2003, while Michael claims he was under the influence of prescription drugs. This was the time period that Branca was fired. Branca was fired in February, 2003 because Michael suspected that Branca was embezzling funds into offshore accounts.


• Michael trusted Wiesner when he whispered into Jackson's ear that Branca was embezzling funds from him. However, after Michael's attorney (LeGrand) found that there was no evidence against Branca, Michael rehired him in October of 2003.


• Let's not forget that before the upcoming trial between Jackson and Wiesner, Wiesner's attorney Howard King released audio taped conversations in which Jackson was accused of making defamatory remarks against Jews. Wiesner was no friend to Michael Jackson.


• In the end, Michael realized that it was not Branca who had been disloyal to his employer, but it was Wiesner. Wiesner et al. could not account for a $965,000 deficit in Michael's bank account.
  Now we can move on to 2006, and detail the relationship between Michael and Branca.
  

John Branca 2003-2006

Enough is enough. I have seen blogs everywhere that maintain that John Branca was fired by Michael Jackson, never to be rehired again. Had any one of them bothered to delve deeper than their "one-source-research", they would realize that John Branca was both fired and rehired by Michael Jackson in 2003, and worked for him until 2006. This blog covers the timeline of 2003 through 2006, and the professional relationship between Jackson and Branca.

I am only going to cover the firing of John Branca in a limited manner in this blog, because it would be repetitive. My other blog with regard to Branca's firing by MJ is here. In that blog, it is already established that Michael Jackson began to have doubts about John Branca's loyalty and believed that Branca may have been funneling MJ's money into offshore accounts. Jackson fired Branca and replaced him with Las Vegas attorney, David LeGrand. The infamous letter that has circulated the Internet thousands of times dated February, 2003, can be seen here. In the letter Jackson asks Branca for "all of my files, records, documents, accounts for myself and all companies I own or control which may be in your possession. You are to deliver the originals of all such documents to Mr. LeGrand immediately. He will arrange copies to be returned to you."

After the investigation, Michael must have realized that John Branca did not embezzle any money, because in November of 2003, Branca was once again Michael Jackson's attorney. In November of 2003, Neverland was raided by the Santa Barbara Police Department. On November 19, 2003 a New York Times article regarding the raid stated that "John Branca, Mr. Jackson's lawyer, did not return a phone call seeking comment."

On December 25, 2003, Michael Jackson did an interview with Ed Bradley on 60 Minutes, to deny the molestation charges against him. There was a lot of drama that ensued over this interview. CBS refused to air the special "Michael Jackson's Number Ones" until there was a public denial of the charges by Jackson. This was when an offer was made to CBS to do an interview with Ed Bradley. Dieter Wiesner took the credit for contacting and making the deal with 60 minutes, but an MTV article dated January 4, 2004, states that "lawyer John Branca and...Charles Koppelman negotiated the interview with CBS in exchange for the network putting Jackson's 'Michael Jackson's Number Ones' back on its programming schedule." Roger Friedman's article dated December 31, 2003, states that the Bradley interview emanated from MJ's advisors, John Branca and Charles Koppelman. Part 1 of the 60 minutes video can be seen below. There are several parts to the interview, part 2,part 3 and the transcript. Although it breaks my heart to hear Michael talk about this ordeal, it was imperative that Michael's side of the story was heard. According to several sources, John Branca negotiated this deal with CBS, in late 2003.

So it is safe to believe that Branca was working for Michael Jackson in 2003, only months after he had been fired. In January of 2004, a group of Michael's advisors met at the Beverly Hills Hotel to plan their strategy for their employer and show their support through solidarity. Michael's senior advisor at the time, Charles Koppelman, stated that "it so happened that we were all in the same place, and thought it would be great to sit down together." This same article reported that despite the rumors, "John Branca, one of the singer's business attorneys, stated 'Michael is in charge.'" Below is a picture of that meeting. Branca can been seen at the table, on the left.

In April, 2004, the Los Angeles Times wrote an article which I could only access when I paid for it. However, this article was written when Michael was gearing up for the trial. Many were counting on the downfall of Michael Jackson, as most of us realize now. Yet, the LA Times states that "Jackson's longtime attorney, John Branca says it would be a mistake to count him out. Michael was counted out once before, when the Jackson Five lost popularity and came back bigger than ever, Branca said. Michael speaks to a worldwide audience like no other artist in history."

In October of 2004, the New York Post stated that "the role of Jackson's long time lawyer, John Branca, have been greatly diminished to make way for Brian Oxman and Thomas Messereau." We have to take this statement with a grain of salt. First, the source is the NY Post. Secondly, the statement is ridiculous. John Branca is an entertainment attorney, not a criminal defense lawyer. Branca's specialty is entertainment law and publishing rights. Oxman and Mesereau were brought in for Michael's criminal defense, and therefore did not diminish Branca's role as Michael's entertainment lawyer. However, the Post does maintain that Branca was employed with Michael Jackson as of Oct. 2004.

Logic would tell us that since Branca covers the entertainment legalities of Michael's life, we would not hear a lot about him in early 2005, while the molestation trial was going on. Most of the articles are exploitative in nature regarding Michael Jackson in early 2005. There are few that are objective. A Times Online article maintains that Branca was advising Michael Jackson in early June of 2005 regarding the ATV catalog. The article states that Michael "is being advised in the matter by John Branca, a well-known music industry lawyer, and Charles Koppelman..."


After Michael's acquittal in 2005, he was sued by the scam artists, Prescient. The financial group Prescient claimed that they helped Michael to find a way to refinance his loans and sued him for $48 million; the claim turned out to be false. Newsday, dated July of 2005, stated that "John Branca, a lawyer representing Jackson, could not be reached for comment." In December 2005, while Michael was in Bahrain, refinancing occurred again, and the Daily News reports that John Branca, Michael's attorney, could not be reached for comment.

And so we arrive at the beginning of 2006. At this point, we have established that Branca was fired in early 2003, and rehired in late 2003, and worked for Michael Jackson until the end of 2005. Since it is late and early 2006 is complicated with regard to the Jackson/Branca working relationship, I will continue this tomorrow.

There are a lot of blogs and articles that seem reliable, but they are not. Again, I urge MJ fans to
dig deep before passing judgement on Michael Jackson's business partners and friends.

Colony Capital Buys Miramax?

Most of us know by now that Tom Barrack of Colony Capital assumed the loan for Michael Jackson's Neverland, and "saved" Jackson from foreclosure. We also know that not even a month after Michael Jackson died, Colony Capital attempted to contact representatives of the Jackson family and SONY in an attempt to bid for the ATV catalog. Link is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/business/20fund.html (Notice that Jackson did indeed own 50% of the ATV/SONY catalog at the time of death, which has been disputed on this blog.)

It was unsettling, to say the least, when Tom Barrack, a supposed friend and business partner, inquired about the ATV catalog less than a month after Michael's death. Everyone knows Michael Jackson WOULD NOT part with the ATV catalog and that it had not only a huge financial value, but that Michael adored the songs that comprise the catalog. The lyrical content of the ATV catalog, in my opinion, was why Jackson bought the catalog in the first place. However, to be fair, there were others that inquired about the catalog that had been connected to Michael as well, so I put my doubts about Barrack on the back burner for the time being. But a lingering thought that prevailed was...less than a month after Michael dies...how can you even think about bidding on the catalog?


We are also aware that Tom Barrack joined with Prince Al Waleed of Saudi Arabia to form a partnership that created a huge hotel realm including Raffles and Fairmont hotels, which run domestically and overseas. http://www.colonyinc.com/articles/news_article.php?fileToUse=news_flying.txt I could bore you with more connections here, but I realize that most fans by now, understand the rigid web that Barrack et al. created, literally surrounding Michael Jackson prior to his death. Make no mistake, Tom Barrack is a tricky character and some have likened to him to one smooth criminal, er...I mean operator.

Take, for example, Fortune magazine's April 27, 2007 cover of Barrack, heralding him as the "world's greatest real estate investor." (Just a small tidbit...Fortune Magazine is owned by Time Inc., and Prince Al Waleed happens to be a major shareholder in Time Warner....coincidence or convenience?) Tom Barrack of Colony Capital has been one busy guy in the last year. Dealing with the bankruptcy of Station Casinos, buying $1 billion in distressed properties from FDIC, helping to manage Annie Leibovitz' finances, buying First Republic Bank from Bank of America are just a few of the transactions that have taken place, and all in a year's work for Tom Barrack. http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/colony-capital/

So what is the greatest real estate developer (cough, cough) doing bidding on Miramax studios? We know that Tom Barrack has been interested in entertainers, since he is connected to Michael Jackson through the This Is It concerts and AEG. There are reports that Barrack helped to revive Barry Manilow's fledgling career by signing him to a contract exclusively held at Barrack's Las Vegas Hilton. http://www.allbusiness.com/services/amusement-recreation-services/4560182-1.html


It seems as if Tom Barrack has developed a pattern of buying distressed properties with little to no empathy for anyone. Take, for example, Colony Capital's merger with Vivendi, Accor and Blackstone in August of 1999. (And before you ask, yes that is the same Vivendi that is a division of UMG and Bravado, which holds the licensing to Michael Jackson's image. Is there a connection? I can't put one together, can you?) http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/decisions/m1596_en.pdf

But back to the subject....in 2005, Sebastian Bazin, who runs European Operations for Barrack, ousted the Accor CEO. In 2008, Bazin did the same thing to the the CEO of Carrefour (owned by Colony Capital). "Bazin made headlines for sacking two presidents of (Colony Capital's) Paris soccer club, Paris-Saint-Germain, in two years. ....Everywhere Sebastian Bazin goes, people lose their jobs." http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aZkPLfM2wkdw Bazin's boss is Tom Barrack. The above picture demonstrates how the fans of the Paris-Saint-Germaine soccer club feel about Tom Barrack and Colony Capital.

In the headlines for the past few days have been speculations that Colony Capital/Ron Tutor have basically closed the deal to buy Miramax studios. Disney now owns Miramax, but the Weinstein brothers were the original owners. The Weisteins named the studio after their mother, Miriam and their father, Max. The Weinsteins lost the company but had hoped to buy the studio back.

I realize the billionaires consider acquisitions a business decision without regard to personal feelings, it happens all the time. However, I see an emerging pattern here with Barrack. Barrack bulldozes his way through every business venture he has ever been involved in. This is one of the reasons that he buys "distressed" properties. As a friend of mine said, a person has to be a touch stoic to do this day after day... to oust people from their jobs, and buy distressed properties from people who obviously hold onto it for sentimental and financial reasons.

Tom Barrack has had tremendous financial success. But at what price? And the bigger question here is...if Barrack treats everyone he does business with, with a lack of empathy...what makes us think it was any different with Michael Jackson? Was he Michael Jackson's friend? The acquisition of Neverland is a BUSINESS transaction and Barrack didn't think he would make a profit he would have never "saved" MJ from foreclosure. Does this make Tom Barrack a cold blooded murderer? Nope, but Barrack's history of a lack of empathy sure does make him one cold piece of work. It makes Tom Barrack at least questionable with regard to Michael Jackson's best interests.

In conclusion, there are MANY, MANY more connections between Colony Capital and other business associates that were involved with Michael Jackson. Colony Capital is connected to Dr. Tohme, Randy Phillips, AEG, William Bone, Sunrise Colony, Prince Al Waleed, Neverland, Saudi royalty, Phillip Anschutz, and more. Once again, I urge fans to research the players in this game of conspiracy to murder Michael Jackson.

One last note...Tom Barrack/Colony Capital bought a strip of land and its hotels, etc. in Sardinia, Italy from the Aga Khan, who happened to be at one time, Rita Hayworth's father-in-law. This strip of land is a vacation spot for the elite and rich of the world. Barrack and Rob Lowe were there in the past few days...possibly discussing the Miramax deal, or maybe the land-use possibilities that Lowe could provide for Barrack with regard to Neverland. It is also the place that Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed spent their last night alive. Maybe nothing...a coincidence...or maybe.....

Mesereau's Thoughts on John Branca

At this point in the game, I have been reading and researching about Michael Jackson for almost one year. There are so many players in the life of Michael Jackson that it is sometimes hard to keep them straight and to remember facts. However, one figure is impossible to forget. JOHN BRANCA. The names of Michael's children are misspelled, making the will's validity questionable. The letter that Michael Jackson wrote to John Branca in 2003, ordering the attorney to "cease expending any effort of any kind on my behalf" and the termination of Branca and his law firm's services. For the 4 people left of the planet who have not read the original document themselves, here is a link where you can read it: http://mjhoaxlive.blogspot.com/2009/11/letter-from-michael-jackson-to-branca.html

I must admit that I've wavered about John Branca. So I decided to research Branca's alleged "crimes" and the hysteria that has caused fans to not only detest him, but to publicly denounce the validity of the will and Branca's executorship of the Michael Jackson Estate. I decided to start researching from the point where Tom Mesereau came into the picture. Tom Mesereau seems to be universally loved by Michael Jackson fans. And so, I start with Mesereau and the '05 trial.


Branca is accused of being fired in 2003 by Michael Jackson. Michael, at the time, believed there was a conspiracy to force him into involuntary bankruptcy, in order to gain control of the ATV catalog. The letter above attests to this; that in fact, Michael did fire Branca in 2003. Per the letter, Michael then hired attorney David LeGrand to investigate the many people who surrounded Jackson at the time. At this point in time, Michael was surrounded by people who did not have Jackson's best interests at heart. Among them were Ronald Konitzer and Deiter Weisner.


The results of David Legrand's investigation became a turning point for Michael Jackson's 2005 trial. When questioned by Tom Messereau, LeGrand stated that Jackson had in fact, hired him to investigate the people surrounding MJ in 2003. Under oath and penalty of perjury, LeGrand stated that there was no evidence that Branca had anything to do with any offshore accounts, period. He also stated that Ronald Konitzer and Deiter Wiesner had informed LeGrand that they wanted to manage Michael Jackson's business affairs, which made LeGrand suspicious. According to court transcripts of the 05 trial:



Mesereau: "Didn't you investigate Mr. Branca because you were concerned that he
and SONY had set up an offshore account to funnel money so they could defraud Michael Jackson?


LeGrand: "...I instructed the firm Interfor to investigate Mr. Branca because Mr.
Konitzer had indicated in several conversations that he was very concerned about Mr. Jackson and that Mr. Jackson had expressed concern about Mr. Branca's loyalty."


Mesereau: "As far as the John Branca...investigation by Interfor, Interfor never
found any evidence that Mr. Branca...(was) engaged in any fraud with Mr. Jackson right?"


LeGrand: "I was given no credible evidence to support those charges. I would be
doing Mr. Branca a great wrong if I said otherwise."


There is much more to this testimony that the few lines that I wrote here, but it clearly maintains that Branca did not embezzle funds. Both Tom Mesereau and Michael Jackson were in that courtroom and both were fully aware that Branca was innocent of those charges. A link to the copy of the court transcripts is here: http://www.geniusmichaeljackson.com/court/Transcripts/Court%20Transcript%205%2013%202005.txt


LeGrand maintained that those who were whispering in Jackson's ear, Konitzer and Wiesner, had also taken nearly $1 million from Michael Jackson without his knowledge. In addition, LeGrand helped to bolster the defense's claim when he stated that Janet Arviso "seemed satisfied being there (at Neverland). She expressed support for Mr. Jackson." Link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/12/entertainment/main694915.shtml


First point, LeGrand found that Branca had NOT been involved in any offshore account embezzlement, and Michael Jackson rehired John Branca. Second point...when John Branca was either fired or left Michael Jackson's employ...he sold his ATV equity interest BACK TO MICHAEL JACKSON. Branca owned 2.5% of the ATV....and I REPEAT...HE SOLD IT BACK TO MICHAEL JACKSON! (I stand corrected, I originally stated it was 5%). In 2006, while Michael Jackson was restructuring his finances once again, Branca sold his 2.5% interest straight back to Jackson. Source is here: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-jackson14apr14,1,248358.story?coll=la-headlines-business

Does anyone understand that if John Branca's first loyalty was to SONY, that he would have sold his interest in the ATV to SONY? This 2.5% that Branca owned, would have given SONY a majority stake in the ATV, and left Michael Jackson with considerably less control.
Yes, Branca sits on the board at SONY. But so does Ahmed Al Khan...does anyone know who HE is? Khan is the King of Bahrain's personal counsel, who also renegotiated Michael Jackson's finances with Sony while Jackson's was staying there. Source: http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,1183804,00.html
And conveniently, Ahmed Al Khan now ALSO sits on the board at SONY. Source: http://www.ameinfo.com/139030.html
And yes, Branca's LAW FIRM did represent SONY, but not Branca personally. Are there connections? Yes. Enough damning evidence to try and convict Branca? I don't think so.

Third and last point...has anyone considered that Michael Jackson might have hired Branca 8 days before he died to PROTECT him? I've read on so many blogs that Michael KNEW...he knew and lived in fear that someone would murder him. Has anyone considered that he hired Branca and possibly DiLeo because he knew that in his fear and desperation, Jackson may have reached out to those who he felt would protect him and his best interests?

If Tom Mesereau believes in Branca's innocence, then what does that say? I live in America where I have the option to think INDEPENDENTLY. I urge Michael Jackson fans not to rely on one blog (including mine) or article to form an opinion about those who surrounded him prior to death. Take a good look at the information that is available and form your own opinion. Happy Independence Day everyone. Enjoy your holiday and above all, be safe. Peace.