AEG's Inconsistent Story Regarding MJ

This blog covers the topic of the business relationship between AEG and Michael Jackson for the This Is It rehearsal and unrealized concert series. There are several reasons I wanted to cover the topic of AEG. First, the Jacksons truly believe that AEG did not have Michael's best interests at heart. And the second reason comes from an unlikely source for this blog; that of Leonard Rowe.

I am not a supporter of Leonard Rowe in any way, shape or form. Personally, I believe that any concert promoter who sells shares of the concert shows without permission from an entertainer (R Kelly) is untrustworthy. Ne-Yo sued Rowe as well, and was awarded over $700,000. Rowe has also spent time in prison for wire fraud and bad check writing. So it really came as no surprise that Rowe was screaming that Michael's will was invalid, or that Branca should not be the executor of the will, or that Sony murdered Michael for his share of the ATV catalog. I do not agree with any of those suppositions, period. I have not read Rowe's book. However, I did run across a blog yesterday, and what I saw from Rowe's book could be, perhaps, one of the most under-reported facts in the death of Michael Jackson. But before we talk about Rowe's accusation of AEG, we need to backtrack and look at some of the history of AEG, its owner Phillip Anschutz, and AEG Live's CEO, Randy Phillips.

If you google Phillip Anschutz, the most common description of him is that he is a wealthy, reclusive Christian conservative. Reclusive is an understatement of Phillip Anschutz. He has not done an interview since 1974. The article from the previous link also states that Anschutz has used his wealth to influence politics with his conservative Christian line of thinking. To be fair, Anschutz has donated to worthy causes such as cancer research and indecency on television. However, he has used far more of his wealth to protest gay marriage, to protest evolution and promote creationism, and "campaigns for marriage and against single parenting." Anschutz doesn't really seem like Michael Jackson's "kind of guy". By that I mean, that Jackson was inclusive; heal the world, it's all for L.O.V.E, it doesn't matter if you're black or white (or gay or straight, single or married, for that matter.) Anschutz seems more of an exclusive person; pushing his personal beliefs that to be married and heterosexual is somehow the right way to live your life, and anything other than that is on a lower echelon in the game of life.

I'm surprised Anschutz even considered hiring Michael Jackson. But oh yeah, since Jackson is/was one of the biggest money makers on the planet, that fact probably had something (everything) to do with it. Anschutz hasn't been involved in any scandal except for his IPO spinning fiasco, in which Anschutz donated $4.4 million to charity and basically bought off his involvement in any wrongdoing.

Then there is Randy Phillips, AEG Live's CEO. What gives me a bad gut feeling about Phillips is how his story has changed over the past year.

The video above is a Sky news interview with Randy Phillips on June 30, 2009, only a few days after Michael's death. At 3:45, Phillips maintains that Michael insisted on hiring Dr. Murray. At 5:13, Phillips denies that Michael was frail. At 6:10, Phillips states that Dr. Murray, a social worker from UCLA and Frank Dileo told Michael's children that he had passed. Phillips' somber mood picks up at 9:08 when he speaks about the film footage that would become the movie, This Is It.

This next video (above) was done in early July, 2009. At 2:40, Phillips (rather abruptly) states that he could not tell if Jackson was taking painkillers or not. Michael Bearden corroborates Phillips statement. Phillips reiterates that Michael Jackson was excited and happy to be in rehearsal and to do the concert series.

In the next few weeks of July, Phillips stated that he had hired someone whose "sole purpose was to make sure (Jackson) ate."

The video above shows Randy Phillips in June '10. Phillips admits that Kenny Ortega and he had to go talk to Michael about missed rehearsals. Phillips previously denied that Michael had stage fright or that Jackson simply did not want to do the concert series. At 6:44, Phillips states that he believed that on the last night of rehearsals (June 24, 2009) that Michael had finally accepted that he could do the concert series.

So in June '09, Randy Phillips first maintained that Michael was happy and ecstatic to rehearsal and do the concert series, and that he could not tell that Michael was frail. A few weeks later, Phillips' admits that he hired someone to make sure Michael ate, because Phillips was worried. In June '10, Phillips admits that Kenny Ortega and he went to Michael's house, because they were concerned that Michael was not showing up for rehearsals. (And Oxman maintains that Ortega and Phillips gave Jackson an ultimatum; either Jackson started showing up or AEG was going to "pull the plug" on the concert series. However, this is Oxman we're talking about, so we have to take that statement with a grain of salt.) The point here is that when Michael first died, Phillips painted a picture of a happy and excited Michael Jackson on the verge of a comeback that nobody had ever seen before. However, as the months went by, Phillips then admits that he had to hire someone to make sure Michael was eating, and that Ortega and Phillips had to go talk to Michael about missing rehearsals. Phillips story is continually evolving. Phillips, in my opinion, only admits what he feels he has to admit. Randy Phillips' loyalty clearly goes to his employer, AEG Live first, and Michael receives a distant second.

Most fans have already read and come to the same conclusion about Randy Phillips and AEG Live. However, what has not been widely published is Leonard Rowe's accusation that AEG Live's contract was not with Michael Jackson the artist, but rather was with The Michael Jackson Company LLC. The reason why Rowe says the contract is between the Michael Jackson Company and AEG is because Michael's assets were held in the company. If Michael failed to do the tour or failed to live up to his contract, AEG could sue Michael for advances given to him and for the production costs of the tour. Michael's share of the ATV, according to Rowe, was held by the Michael Jackson Company LLC. According to this blog, Rowe is quoted in his book as writing:

"…This promissory note from Michael Jackson Company, LLC and Michael Jackson, the artist, required Michael to pay the principal amount of the note, in full on the maturity date as defined above to be about six months after the first leg of the tour in London, but not later than December 31, 2009.(whichever comes first), or six months after written request is received from AEG by Michael Jackson or his company. However, AEG gets really slick here in this promissory note, because the entire note is collateralized not by Michael Jackson the artist, but by Michael Jackson Company, LLC. Why is this you may wonder? More than likely it is because Michael Jackson’s business holding, which would include his publishing rights and catalogue, are owned by Michael Jackson, LLC and not Michael Jackson, the individual artist. So if the promissory note is for any reason not paid or defaulted upon, the assets of the Michael Jackson Company, LLC get forked over to AEG. In other words, owning Michael Jackson Company, LLC and/or its assets, means owning Michael Jackson." (Rowe, Pg. 173) (Thanks very much to the author of this blog.)

Below is a screen shot of the the beginning of the contract between AEG Live and the Michael Jackson Company LLC:

The problem with this contract that I found on Radar Online is that much of the contract is blacked out. I would appreciate that if anyone has read Rowe's book could tell me if the copy he has in his book of the contract is blacked out, or if it is, in fact, the contract in its entirety. I hate to give Rowe $20 if I don't have to. Tomorrow I will attempt to cover as much as I can about the contract between AEG Live and the Michael Jackson Company.

Am I saying that AEG murdered MJ? No I'm not. I'm saying that it might behoove MJ fans to look beyond the executors of the will and Sony, because clearly others had a monetary motive to kill Michael Jackson. And AEG was not the only one.....just sayin'.

#MessagetoMJ

Today is Michael Jackson's 52nd birthday. Taj Jackson, Michael's nephew, asked fans, friends and family to use the hashtag #MessagetoMJ on Twitter to express their feelings about Michael Jackson today. It has been a wonderful tribute to Michael Jackson today; to see that over 14 months after his death, Michael is still alive in so many hearts. Below is a screen shot taken of what trended today:

Michael was a gift from God. I love him and miss him so. MJ fans need to fight for justice for him, and remember his message of L.OV.E.

MJ To Sony: Take It Or Beat It

This blog will focus on the period of time after the Invincible album was released. I will comment about Invincible briefly, specifically because most fans know what transpired between Sony and Michael during and after the making of Invincible. The subject has been rehashed so many times that I felt it would be redundant (and quite frankly, boring) to blog about this again. Instead, I wanted to blog media bias, Sony's mistreatment of MJ and the bigger picture of what MJ's protest against Sony represented.

There are numerous examples of clear media bias against Michael Jackson. Most media reports stated that Sony did not want to renew Jackson's contract in 2003. This article like many others, maintained that MJ was trying to secure leverage to leave Sony with certain assurances. Reports like these not only depict Jackson as a distressed and fading entertainer, but as one that is destined for financial and personal ruin. These reports alleged that MJ tried to influence the public and Sony in an act of desperation by publicly protesting. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, Michael wanted out of his contract with Sony. According to this article, MJ and John Branca started negotiations with Sony because Michael wanted to leave Sony's label, Epic. What the media did not report was that Michael's complaints included, but were not limited to just the promotion of Invincible. Among them were:

1. Michael Jackson's attorney, Marty Singer claimed that Jackson was upset because during the four months of marketing for Invincible, Tommy Mottola would not return Jackson's phone calls.
2. Jackson claimed that Tommy Mottola referred to another black artist as a "fat black N word", and later Jermaine identified that artist as Irv Gotti.

3. Jackson was under the impression that the rights to his master recordings would revert to him in a matter of a few years. This, in my opinion, was at the core of Jackson's complaint and decision to leave Sony. Michael Jackson had believed, in 2002, that he would not have to share his profits in a 50/50% split with Sony for much longer. Everything I could find on this says that "due to clauses in his 1991 contract, Jackson's master recordings would not revert to his sole possession for another seven years." Michael was furious. In addition, MJ also found out that John Branca's law firm was representing Sony in some capacity. Both of these discoveries outraged Michael Jackson. He felt betrayed by John Branca and felt that there may have been a conspiracy by Sony (with Branca's help) to gain control of his stake of the ATV catalog. (I will address the Branca issue next.)

There were other complaints as well. Michael felt that Sony did not promote Invincible the way it should have been promoted in a ploy to sabotage his ability to make money and pay off the loans he owned to Sony. He believed this was a deliberate attempt to gain control of the ATV catalog. Sony refused to promote the charity single, What More Can I Give. Sony refused to air a commercial during his 30th anniversary special and for that matter, refused to promote the special at all.

So we are left with several issues here.

1. Sony's mistreatment of Michael Jackson

It is clear that Sony underpromoted Jackson's album Invincible. Tommy Mottola made a racist remark to Michael Jackson so he had every right to state that Mottola was a racist. Mottola did not answer Jackson's calls for four months during the promotion of Invincible, demonstrating that once MJ had decided to leave Sony, Mottola had a vendetta against Michael. Sony refused to promote Michael's 30th Anniversary Special when Michael had been with Sony's label, Epic, for his entire adult life. Michael Jackson generated billions of dollars for Sony, but when Michael wanted to leave the label, Sony turned its back on Jackson.

The charity single, What More Can I Give, was produced by Mark Schaffel. Prior to that, Schaffel was a gay porn producer in Germany. Apparently, Jackson was not aware of that when he hired Schaffel. But once Sony found out about Schaffel's affiliation with pornography, the corporation refused to affiliate itself or promote the single or the video. In my opinion, this was a business decision and nothing more. Sony, like other corporations and artists, has a public image to uphold. Clearly, if Sony had released the single and video, and there had been a public outrage and backlash, Sony would have been accused of sabotaging Jackson's career by releasing it.

2. Was Sony's Motive to Gain Full Control of the ATV?

In a word, no. If Sony had wanted full control of the ATV, they had plenty of opportunity to take it from Michael. Michael stated that Sony had pressured him into selling the ATV. But when it came down to it, Sony did not foreclose on Michael's loans. This article states that an unknown source from Sony maintains that Sony had "no interest in foreclosing as long as Michael fulfills the terms of his agreement with us. He's paying off the interest as far as I know, and that's what's going to happen." Even Friedman admits that foreclosing on Michael Jackson's share of the ATV would be a "public relations nightmare", and goes further to maintain that Jackson will be in "hock to Sony for the rest of his life."

Sony has a history of giving their artists less than profitable royalty rates and Michael was no exception. In 1991, Luther Vandross attempted to leave Sony in a dispute over royalty rates. In 2002, the Dixie Chicks sued Sony for the same thing. In 2003, Incubus followed the Dixie Chicks lead claiming they wanted out of their contract due to a lack of royalty rates. And the piece de las resistance of all came in 2005, when Sony BMG admitted that to bribing radio stations to feature its artists and agreed to pay $10 million in fines. Michael Jackson was correct when he said that Sony took advantage their artists. However, by 2006, Michael Jackson requested Sony's help.

In 2006, Jackson was close to foreclosure on his massive loans once again. If Sony had wanted had an agenda to take full control of the ATV catalog, they certainly had the opportunity. If Michael had defaulted on the payments for the loans, Sony automatically had the first rights to the catalog. But that did not happen. Instead, Michael Jackson requested help from Sony. If MJ had been so suspicious of Sony regarding control of the ATV, why did he enlist the help of Sony to renegotiate the loans in 2006? I'll tell you why. Because MJ's suspicions of Sony no longer existed. MJ clearly did not want to be a part of Sony's label, Epic. But Michael also knew that Sony would help to ensure that Michael kept his part of the ATV. Below is a screen shot from Branca's law firm, taken from Oxman's court filings, which clearly states that Michael requested the help of Sony to renegotiate his loans.

(This letter should also, for once and for all, end the speculation that Branca only worked for Jackson until 2003. This letter is proof that Branca did in fact work for MJ until April of 2006, at which time he left MJ's employ). A huge thanks to sparkle socks for sending me the court docs.

3. Last issue...John Branca


For those who are still claiming that Branca is in a conspiracy with Sony, consider this. In July of 2009, Bloomberg reported that Sony (Epic) and the MJ estate were in a dispute about who owned the rights to MJ's songs. The article claimed that Branca had "begun a lengthy inventory of the 150 songs the singer left, to determine whether they may be free of Sony, and thus available to be peddled to another record company for a likely hefty up-front payment."


So who ultimately retained the rights to these songs? Was it Sony? Nope. The estate retained the rights to Michael Jackson's master recordings of the unreleased songs. Branca fought against Sony, and for the MJ estate, to keep the masters to the unreleased songs. Not only did Branca keep the masters, but he negotiated the highest royalty rate ever for these songs, and only the songs. Sony gets no money for Michael's publishing, the Cirque de Soleil deal or merchandising.


In parting I wanted to say one thing. Recently I was called "gutless" for not revealing my identity publicly. In rebuttal, I want to reiterate that I am not Taraborrelli. I would also like to state that what I find cowardly, is using tabloid trash journalism tactics with absolutely no source to continue to make malicious and libelous claims against others. Speculation coupled with grandiose delusional disorder does not a truth seeker make.

This Is It: Dividing the Profit

Recently on Twitter I was asked whether I was sure of the division of profit from This Is It that was on my previous blog involving the Michael Jackson Trust. The first question had to do with whether the estate really received 90% of the total profit from TII, or whether the estate received 90% of the profit from the $60 million sale to Sony. After researching the material again, I do believe that the MJ estate receives 90% of the total profit from TII.

I went through some old and new information and here is what I came up with. Unless I am missing something, the contract between AEG Live, the MJ estate and Columbia Pictures (a division of Sony) is not available for viewing on the Internet. So I have to rely on what I can find without viewing the document.

July, 2009 - Article from Billboard states that Sony has bid $50 million for the rights to This Is It. Sony bid against Paramount, Universal and 20th Century Fox. However, "Sony Pictures has a leg up on other bidders because Sony Music distributes Jackson's music and is in a 50-50 partnership with his estate in Sony/ATV Publishing."

July, 2009 - Article from L.A. Times maintains that Sony buys the rights to This Is It for $60 million. The author does not paint Michael Jackson in a positive light and is skeptical about the movie's ability to generate a large profit. The author also reiterates what many fans felt; that This Is It was an exploitative move on the part of both AEG Live and Sony.

August, 2009-Article from EOnline! also states that Sony bought the rights to This Is It for $60 million. EOnline! elaborates on the contract between the MJ estate, AEG and Columbia (Sony) when it states that the estate receives 90% of the profit, and that the contract states that Michael Jackson must be portrayed in a positive light.

August, 2009- Article from CNN maintains that probate Judge Mitchell Beckloff has approved the estate deal with AEG regarding This Is It. Article also states that Katherine Jackson objected to the 10% of the TII profit AEG would receive, but that AEG claimed that had already made enough concessions to the estate, and they would not make any more.

I stand corrected. I thought that the estate was to receive 90% of the profit, and that Sony was to receive the other 10%. Not true. True, the estate got 90% of the profit, but the other 10% went to AEG. So then my question was, how would Sony make a profit from This Is It? If the estate gets 90% and AEG gets 10%, how does Sony fit into this picture? Clearly, Sony did not pay $60 million for the rights to a movie that it would not generate a profit from.


I searched for a few hours on the Internet looking for answers to this question. I found a few answers, and it they are relatively complicated. So here is a breakdown of the answers:

According to the previous Billboard article above, described Sony's $50 million bid as being "on par with the cost of making a mid-range budget movie, and is offset by the fact that the Sony group of companies would benefit from the music licensing rights attached to the film."

I happen to have the soundtrack to This Is It, and so I went to look up the tracklist. The songs include Wanna Be Startin' Somethin', Jam, They Don't Care About Us, Human Nature, Smooth Criminal, The Way You Make Me Feel, Shake Your Body, I Just Can't Stop Loving You, Thriller, Beat It, Black or White, Earth Song, Billie Jean, Man in the Mirror, This Is It, She's Out Of My Life (Demo) and a Planet Earth poem. According to this list, 9 songs on this soundtrack are owned by MIJAC. 5 are not. So is Sony profitting from MIJAC? This is one possibility. Another possibility is stated in this Bloomberg article, that states that licensing fees for nontheatrical performances such as the This Is It movie generate about a 7% profit or roughly $24 million for Columbia/Sony.

The other possibility is given in the same article from the L.A. Times above. It states that "Sony gets its cut from the studio's distribution fees on the film, though the studio has to foot the bill for the marketing costs of the release. ...According to insiders, Sony's distribution fee is slightly above 10%, with escalator clauses in the deal providing for the studio with a bigger cut if the film performs better at the box office."

To sum it all up, there are several possibilities for Columbia/Sony's profit from This Is It. The first is that Sony is receiving a music licensing fee which in one article states that this is generally 7% of the profit, or $24 million in the case of TII. Another possibility is that Sony is receiving a distribution fee that is approximately 10%, or $30 million for TII. And the last possibility is that Sony is profiting from the music rights of TII, in which more than half of the songs are owned by MIJAC. This last possibility would seem to be a clear conflict of interest with the MJ estate, but again, it's just a hypothesis, and I have no solid proof that this is the case.

I welcome your input in this subject. It certainly would help if a reader that had knowledge with regard to the profit division of This Is It would help here. Peace to all and justice for Michael Jackson.

Yellow Bloggerism and the Unholy Trinity

Recently I have blogged about the unity of Michael Jackson fans. I have written that despite our differences, we all seek the same outcome; justice for Michael Jackson. Normally I would not address those who relish in hate because they are just a waste of time. However, the chaos that some of the so-called MJ fans are causing makes this issue impossible to ignore. None of these people know me, and unfortunately most Jackson fans are aware of them.

The definition of yellow journalism (or in this case yellow bloggerism) is "biased opinion masquerading as objective fact. Moreover, the practice of yellow journalism involves sensationalism, distorted stories and misleading images for the sole purpose of boosting sales and exciting public opinion." This, MJ fans, is exactly what is occurring in the campaign to boycott Sony products.

Member numero uno in the unholy trinity is guilty of yellow journalism. An example of this is yesterday's blog, in which the author feebly attempts to tie Sony to Michael Jackson's refinancing of his debt through Fortress Investments. Time after time, this blogger takes information and fits it into her agenda, in an attempt to prove that Michael Jackson was murdered by Sony for his 50% in the ATV catalog and that the estate executors are in cahoots with Sony. In addition, the blogger's "facts" are not objective, but are sensational, distorted and misleading, fitting all categories of yellow journalism. Let's check the blogger's "facts":

1. Blogger claims that the MJ estate has until the end of the year to pay the Barclay's loan or refinance or the estate could lose the ATV catalog (true) and MIJAC (false). MIJAC (and it would certainly help the blogger's credibility if she learned how to spell MIJAC) was refinanced by the estate. Prior to Jackson's death, the interest rate on the MIJAC loan was 16.5%. The estate has refinanced the loan with a new interest rate of 4%. The Barclay's loan has nothing to do with the MIJAC catalog and everything to do with the ATV.

2. Blogger maintains that through the Sony deal, the estate executors have enough money to pay off the Barclay's loan, but have no incentive to do so. (Apparently in a conspiracy to gain control of the ATV catalog.) What the blogger fails to mention is that the Sony deal with the estate spans over a seven year period. The estate did not automatically gain $250 million in one fell swoop. Sony did not just drop $250 million into the pocket of the Michael Jackson estate. The estate executors were pressed to pay off the loans that were dire and looming, such as the mortgage on the Encino compound before foreclosure began, Jackson's condominium, Tom Messereau's legal bill from 2005 and other bills that were pressing.

3. Blogger brings Transitional Investors LLC into play. Transitional Investors was supposedly hired by Michael Jackson, and through it, Prescient Capital linked Jackson's Bank of America loans to Fortress Investments. There are several inconsistencies in blogger's account of what happened here.

a. Blogger maintains that "Barclay's has a lawsuit against the estate". Not true. Barclay's has no lawsuit against the estate, it is a simple matter of a loan being due at the end of the year.

b. Blogger has tied the imaginary "Barclay's lawsuit" to that of the Transitional lawsuit, claiming that it is still pending. Not true. Transitional Investors LLC requested a dismissal of their claim a year after it filed the claim. Blogger does not mention the dismissal of lawsuit, but does provide the original court documents.

c. Darien Dash of Prescient Acquisitions was supposedly hired by Michael Jackson to help refinance the Bank of America loans. Michael claimed he never hired Dash, and by most accounts, Dash was hired by Don Stabler and Randy Jackson under duress during the child molestation trial of 2005. True. However, blogger maintains that because Dash has several ties to Sony, that Sony interjected Dash into Michael Jackson's world in order to steal all his assets when Michael was not paying attention, due to the trial. Blogger provides numerous links to Dash's connections to Sony, but has yet to provide one credible link that Dash was hired by Sony in an attempt to seize Jackson's assets. Where is the proof? It's an assumption, and a lame one at that.

4. Blogger again claims that Branca and McClain will not pay the Barclay's loan at the end of the year, stating "let's see how motivated (the executors) are to pay off the Barclay's loan before it comes due this fall." However, according to a Bloomberg report, on June 24, 2010, Branca publicly stated that the estate will not sell the ATV catalog in order to pay the Barclay's loan.

Worst of all, this blogger takes her cue from the next member of the unholy trinity, that we are either "Michael Jackson fans or Sony fans". The second member of the unholy trinity proudly tweeted direct from atop her high horse that "YOU ARE EITHER A LOYAL FAN TO MJ OR A SONY SUPPORTER--YOU CAN'T BE BOTH" complete with a link to the first member of the unholy trinity's yellow blog.

Oh, and by the way, anyone who follows the racist rants of a lunatic who uses the "N" word at least 50 times, must be racist themselves. Oh yah, I'll be sure to follow the instructions of someone who claims to be a Michael Jackson fan, yet uses the "N" word when they are mad. Michael Jackson is of African American heritage. Yet followers have somehow either forgotten or forgiven the demeaning and downright racist remarks that this so-called fan has said publicly. Yes, this makes perfect sense to me.

The last member of the unholy trinity seems to have her own agenda in mind. Her quest to become famous through the MJJ community has earned her the loss of many well respected groups, fans and yes folks, even a restraining order.

The three members of the unholy trinity seem to have their hearts and minds set on "investigating" through hate and attacks. This is the antithesis of Michael Jackson's message. At this point, they are doing nothing to help the community and everything to distract, divert and distress Michael Jackson fans.

Somebody had to call attention to these three and urge Jackson fans to ignore their tactics. It's all for L.O.V.E. fans, and I urge the fans who realize that to continue their quest for justice for Michael Jackson. Simply put, whether we buy Sony products or not, is up to the individual fan. I personally believe that buying Michael's new CD coming out in November will help the estate to pay off debt and help Katherine and the children. However, if a fan does not buy a Sony product, I nor anyone else has the right to judge them, period.

Regarding Conrad Murray: Why?

I honestly do not believe I will rest peacefully until I know why Michael Jackson died. Prior to his death, I cannot say that I followed his every move. I did not. I knew that he was going to attempt to do a tour. I assumed that he would, and that it would be hugely successful. I had bought his CDs, watched his specials with anticipation, defended him against haters to my friends. I knew of his humanitarianism, I knew that he was a kind and gentle man. On June 25, 2010, I got a call that informed me that Michael Jackson was dead. This had happened some months back and I just assumed it was another media hoax. The news reports were everywhere. Birdseye shots of UCLA, Jermaine at the microphone saying "My brother, the legendary King of Pop..." with Tohme standing in the background, Katherine Jackson's grief stricken face behind a car window, these are all images that are seared into my memory until I die. After that, it is a blur; I felt like I had my head out the window of an airplane. I could only hear a WHOOSH; Michael Jackson was dead. For the past 14 months, I have been asking why.

I am certainly no exception in the MJ community. MJ fans want to know why there is no justice for Michael Jackson. But in order to attain justice, we have to narrow our focus to Conrad Murray for the moment. I believe I am in the majority of Michael Jackson fans when I say that I believe Conrad Murray did not work alone in the murder of Michael Jackson. However, please take the time to be proactive in the fight for justice against Conrad Murray, MJ fans. Write to the LADA and tell them your opinion. If the LADA received even a fraction of email messages from the millions of Michael Jackson fans worldwide, they might feel the pressure to take other measures against Conrad Murray. Jackson fans should be questioning the LADA why.

Why isn't Conrad Murray being charged with practicing medicine that is outside the scope of the license for which he possesses? Conrad Murray administered propofol to Michael Jackson, which falls into the category of the unauthorized practice of medicine. No cardiologist administers propofol (Diprivan) to patients, an anesthesiologist does. There are laws against physicians who practice outside of their scope, and they include jail and prison sentences among other things. Why not set a precedent with Conrad Murray?

Why isn't Conrad Murray being charged for practicing medicine in the state of California without a medical license? A license is required to practice medicine in the state of California, which Conrad Murray did not hold. The medical board of California states that the license to practice medicine must be renewed every two years. Is it legal to practice medicine in California if you hold a medical licenses in Texas and Nevada?

Why didn't the states of Texas and Nevada strip Conrad Murray of his license to practice medicine? According to this article, Murray has claimed he will not practice medicine or prescribe medication in the state of California, however "there is no legal bar to him changing his mind and engaging in practicing in this state." The article also states that the Medical Board of the state of Texas believed that "it is not just (Murray's) prescribing practices that are in question, but his fundamental judgement and skill as a physician." If Texas' medical board feels that Murray's prescription practices and his fundamental judgement is in question, why is Murray still holding a medical license?

Why didn't Jerry Brown know that Judge Michael Pastor did not have the authority to suspend Conrad Murray's license? On June 14, 2010, Jerry Brown argued in court that Murray's license should be suspended as one of the conditions of his bail. Yet Judge Michael Pastor stated that he did not "have the ability to to revisit the action of one of my colleagues." Pastor meant that he could not reverse the decision of the prior judge who allowed Murray to keep his license but barred him from administering or prescribing propofol. Jerry Brown should have foreseen this, and taken action so Conrad Murray would be barred from practicing medicine. Texas and Nevada would more than likely have followed suit.

There are so many other whys. Why was Conrad Murray administering the anesthetic propofol in a home setting and why is that legal? "Propofol is only supposed to be administered by an anesthesia professional and in a medical setting. The patient requires constant monitoring because the drug depresses breathing and heart rate while also lowering blood pressure, a potentially deadly combination." Unbelievable. Since administering propofol is legal, the "prosecutors must show that Murray deviated from accepted medical norms when he administered (propofol) in a non-medical setting while Jackson already had other sedatives in his system." That shouldn't be too difficult to prove. How many of us had even heard of propofol before the death of Michael Jackson? And how many professional medical practioners would give a patient an anesthetic without the proper monitoring equipment? I'd say that the prosecutors' job there will be a no-brainer.

Why would Conrad Murray leave the room for even two minutes? Of course there are varying reports on just how long Murray left the room with Michael Jackson under the anesthetic propofol. Murray's phone records, along with the account of that day are hazy at best. Perhaps one of the most devastating articles I read was Alberto Alvarez' account that Murray was hiding propofol bottles rather than trying to save Michael. That coupled with the account that Murray was performing CPR on the bed rather than on a hard surface are completely beyond my comprehension.

Above all, why is Conrad Murray being charged with involuntary manslaughter rather than second degree murder? The definition of second degree murder is a "non-premeditated killing, resulting from an assault in which death of the victim was a distinct possibility." If Conrad Murray were to be convicted of second degree murder, he could be sentenced to life in prison. It is disheartening to say the least that the LADA decided to take the easy way out with regard to the death of Michael Jackson. I believe there is still time to change the charge for Conrad Murray. Many decisions in government (as well as corporate business) are made because they feel pressure from the public to do something. If we as fans are more proactive, perhaps Conrad Murray will get what he truly deserves.

I look at Katherine Jackson's picture and my heart just breaks for her. (I purposefully rarely mention the children and do not include their pictures out of respect for the family.) Katherine Jackson, the Jackson family, their friends and fans deserve to see justice for Michael. It all starts with Conrad Murray. Murray knows more than he's saying, and it is up to the fans to take control of this situation through sheer numbers. Stand up and shout. Justice for Michael Jackson.

Dare to Think Different

This blog will be focused on daring Michael Jackson fans to think different. Step out of your comfort zone MJ fans; step away from your blogs, your MJ fan sites, your friends at Facebook and Twitter and consider this: Why is the focus on Sony right now and not on Conrad Murray? We are 10 days away from Murray's preliminary hearing, yet we are hearing about boycotts of Sony?

Think different. Murray's preliminary trial is something tangible; something Michael Jackson fans could potentially have an impact on. It does not look like the prosecution is ready, meaning that Murray's preliminary trial will most likely be postponed on August 23, 2010. At first, this will seem like a blow to Michael Jackson and his fans. Will we ever see justice for Michael? But MJ fans, this is our opportunity to change the circumstances regarding Conrad Murray and his evidentiary hearing on involuntary manslaughter charges.

Murray was spotted recently in Miami in July, 2010, on vacation with his girlfriend Nicole Alvarez and their young son (deliberately omitted from the image). Murray is on vacation? Where is the money coming from to afford vacations, interstate flights and private attorneys? Michael Jackson is DEAD, and his physician, who admitted to giving him propofol in a home setting which ultimately led to his death, is free and ON VACATION?

And while we're on the subject: Why is Murray being charged with the lesser offense of involuntary manslaughter? Yes, we've all heard the explanation that LADA/LAPD felt that they should indict on I.M. in order to be able to ensure a conviction, but that doesn't hold much water with Jackson's family, friends or fans. Most people are scared Conrad Murray will walk scott free, or do a minimal jail stint for the death of not only the greatest entertainer of our time, but a wonderful, kind humanitarian who did not deserve to die at the age of 50 and orphan three minor children.

Think different. Michael Jackson fans have the chance to make a difference for justice. Write to the LADA, and demand justice for Michael. Michael Jackson fans have the chance to have their voices heard. There must be a consequence for Conrad Murray's actions, whether a fan believes it to be criminal negligence or pre-meditated murder. All Michael Jackson fans must be proactive in this fight for justice. Our voices can and will be heard.

Mailing address:

District Attorney's Office

Los Angeles County

210 West Temple Street, Suite 18000

Los Angeles, CA 90012-3210

Phone number:

(213) 974-3512

Email link

Another email link

Think Different

Here's to the crazy ones

The misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers

The round pegs in the square holes

The ones who see things differently

They're not fond of rules

They have no respect for the status quo

You can quote them, disagree with them

Glorify or villify them

About the only thing you can't do is ignore them

Because they change things

They push the human race forward

And while some may see them as the crazy ones

We see genius

Because the people who are crazy enough

To think they can change the world

Are the ones that do.

Michael Jackson fans already think different, like Michael did. Do not let distractions get in your way. We are the ones who see things differently and who change things. Concentrate on a conviction for Conrad Murray for now. Michael Jackson has millions of fans worldwide. Nothing can get in our way unless we let it. One L.O.V.E.

Where Your Money Goes When You Buy Sony

Before I start, I just want to preface with the concept that this particular blog is neither pro- nor anti- Sony. The only goal is to follow what happens to the money that a consumer spends on one Michael Jackson CD at current market value.

When Michael died on June 25, 2010, many speculated that his estate was worth in the vicinity of $100 million after his debts were paid. Most of us know that there were bids made on Michael's half of the ATV/Sony catalog shortly after he died, including Colony Capital. During the past year, according to Bloomberg Businessweek, the estate had considered selling Michael's stake in the ATV/Sony catalog to address the debt Michael left when he died. However....Branca had "been trying to avoid selling the publishing business because of its long-term value and the consistent revenue it generates..."

In the past year, the Michael Jackson estate has made a lot of money. His death motivated fans to buy millions of albums worldwide, and it has been said that 2/3 of Michael's album sales have been outside of the U.S. So while Michael's estate may have been estimated at $100 million immediately after his death (and past his debts), Michael's estate is worth much more a year later. I read many fans' posts that state that the $86,000 a month that Katherine and the children receive is too low. However, the estate does have massive debts to repay, and the estate is not only focusing on the present, but only the future of the estate and how it will benefit Michael's children.

Many have questioned whether they should buy Sony products or not. There are those who say that if a fan buys an MJ album, they are not truly a fan because of the public feuding between Michael and Sony while he was alive. There are others who say that if a fan buys a Michael Jackson (Sony) product, they are helping to contribute to the estate, and therefore they are helping to contribute to the future for Michael Jackson's children. So let's take a look at where the money goes that a consumer spends on ONE Michael Jackson CD at the present.

I found a really interesting article written by David Byrne that explains in detail how the music industry works from a financial standpoint, and how a consumer's money is distributed when an artist sells a CD. The article goes into a lot of depth of which I will not attempt to explain. Byrne explains six different models of the distribution of funds, however I chose to use the standard distribution model. Interestingly, Byrne mentions Michael Jackson in this model, and uses him as a case in the "danger of debt and overextension". This article was written in 2007, and we all know that Sony did in fact, exploit and manipulate Michael in the past. Sony's exploitative nature regarding Michael Jackson is not the point of the blog. Below is a graph of what I believe the Michael Jackson estate would receive per CD based on an average selling price of $15.99.

1% goes to musicisans unions: $ .16
5% goes to packaging/manufacturing: $ .80
5% goes to publishing royalties: $ .80
5% goes to retail profit: $ .80
6% goes to distribution: $ .96
25% goes to Michael's royalties: $3.99
11% goes to Sony's profit: $1.76
11% marketing/promotion: $1.76
18% label overhead: $2.88
13% retail overhead: $2.08
Total: $15.99

You will notice that I have changed some of the percentage figures. This is due to the fact that although most artists receive an approximate 12% royalty fee, Michael Jackson has had a deal in place with Sony for a 25% royalty fee for years. This was a deal that John Branca and Michael Jackson put together with Sony. Therefore, these figures are merely estimates, but the royalty and publishing rights fees remain constant.
From these figures, we can take the $3.99 royalty rate and the $.80 publishing rights rate (Michael owned the copyrights to his own songs) which totals $4.79 per CD. The "This Is It" soundtrack sold approximately 5 million albums. If we take that number, and estimate that Michael's CD that has a release date of November, 2010 sells the same amount, we are looking at $4.79 multiplied by 5 million, which equals $23.95 million that the estate makes. This excludes downloads, ringtones and Itunes. Also excluded is the fact that Branca's deal with Sony gave the estate an extraordinarily high royalty rate for overseas revenue. This means that the figure of $24 million is probably a low estimation, because the royalty rate of overseas CD sales is higher than 25%. Contrast the estate's take of $4.79 per CD to that of Sony, who will take in $1.76 per CD.

Most MJ fans know that Michael's $300 million loan with Barclay's will be due at the end of the year. More than likely Sony will back this loan so the estate does not have to sell the ATV catalog. However, for those fans who believe it is in the best interests of the estate to boycott Sony, how do they propose to pay off the massive loans that the estate still owes?

The deal is done, MJ fans. The Michael Jackson estate and Sony are bound together until 2017. By buying Michael's CD's, we are reducing the debt of the estate. This is exactly what MJ fans should be trying to do; use their buying power to help get the estate of out debt. By the year 2017, Michael's oldest son will be nearing the age of 21. (And according to the trust, when a majority of adult beneficiaries want to oust an executor, they can. Michael's son and Katherine, if they feel the need to so so, can fire Branca and McClain in four years.) Michael's oldest son will be able to negotiate a new deal with whomever he pleases, along with Michael's daughter.

Michael Jackson fans want the estate out of debt for two reasons. The first being thatsome of the profits from all things MJ will go directly toward the estate. The second is that Michael's children will profit, and I believe that every MJ fan wants to help the children of Michael Jackson.

The Common Denominator

Before I start, I want to state that I read something today that made a lot of sense to me. A comment made on Facebook said, "Michael's legacy and the injustice that is happening is what we fight for. Attacking the family and smearing their name based on speculation will only harm. In fact, it would do to them exactly what the media and others have done to Michael and still continue to do to him. Smear his name based on speculation. Something Michael HATED the most."

I sat back and thought about this statement. How true these words were. I am not proclaiming that this blog is based on speculation; far from it. But I have decided to no longer include any of what I perceive to be the Jacksons' improprieties on this blog. The blog regarding a member of the Jackson family has been pulled and will remain on the shelf. On to the next subject.
Today, and every day Michael Jackson fans, we celebrate the life of Michael Jackson. A man who throughout his lifetime of suffering and abuse, continued to model himself in a such an admirable fashion. His message of peace and humanity will continue a ripple effect throughout the MJJ community... and on to new generations of fans.

He still thrills us like no other. He is metaphorically, "divinity in motion". We cannot explain to others how Michael's life and death has so profoundly affected our daily lives. They do not understand. Over a year after his death, we cannot rest without justice. We, as Michael Jackson fans, are all in agreement that Michael Jackson has, for better or for worse, bound us together as one large family.

Michael told us in beautifully subtle melodic harmonies how he had been railroaded and framed in his lifetime. That fact tugs at our collective heartstrings. Most of us believe that even though there is an ultimate judgment day, we want to see justice in the lives of those who persecuted Michael Jackson. We reason that if Michael Jackson was made to suffer, so should his persecuters.

Michael had a way of speaking to masses yet it seemed as if his message was personal; it spoke to each one of us. His music and his humanitarianism and meaning crosses culture, race, age and gender.

Michael was there for us. He stood for peace, harmony, unity and justice. It was, and still is, all about L.O.V.E. And so Michael Jackson fans, we continue to fight with peace, harmony, unity and dignity. After all Michael Jackson fans, that is our common denominator. We all want JUSTICE FOR MICHAEL JACKSON. We are one.

The Trust Continued

I wanted to continue this blog by reiterating what a south Florida attorney/estate planner had to say about the Michael Jackson Trust.

1. The first issue is the estate tax. Michael Jackson's Estate could have been subject to an estate tax of 45% of the value of his property and assets. However, the estate tax is only imposed on the net value of the estate. Liabilities (of which we knew Michael had many) can be deducted from the estate. Also of interest is that there is a charitable tax deduction, meaning that the money Michael left to charity will be deducted from the estate, lowering the tax imposed on the estate. Lastly, the estate may deduct the cost of administering the estate. Yes, that's right MJ fans, administering the estate is a tax deduction regarding estate taxes.

2. The second issue is why anyone (including Michael) should leave their assets in a trust. The author of this blog speculated that Michael had a taxable estate of $200 million, half to his mother Katherine outright and half to be divided among Michael's three children. (Blog was written far before the Trust was revealed.) If this was the case, then because of the 45% tax on the estate here is the monetary breakdown:

Taxable estate: $200 million - Tax on estate (45%) $90 million = $110 million

Therefore, Katherine would receive $55 million outright, and the three children would receive $18,333,333.00.

Katherine was 79 years old when Michael died, and when she passes away, the estate tax would have to be paid again. If she left her money to Joe, it would not have to be paid, but when he died, it would have to paid again, and so forth. If her taxable estate was $55 million, then when she dies, another $24,750,000 would have to be paid to the IRS. The author states that giving Katherine the money she inherits from the estate would be an "absolute tax disaster".

3. The third issue is non-tax reasons for leaving property in trust: control and protection. The author states that while he is sure that Michael wanted to take care of his mother Katherine while she was alive, he also wanted to determine what would happen to those assets once she has passed away. If Michael had left the money to Katherine outright, there would be nothing to stop her from leaving the money to Joe or her other children. By leaving the money in trust, "Michael controls from the grave over the disposition of his assets."



The author covers protection of Michael's assets as well. Although he is a Florida attorney, he maintains that the premise is the same in all states. Because Katherine's assets are held in trust, if she were to be sued personally, the person suing her cannot collect against the trust's assets.


So for those that say Katherine should be able to access her inheritance outright, there are many protections for her and the estate put into place which tell us that is not the right thing to do. Katherine is protected if she is sued. She is also protected against the 45% estate tax. She is given an allowance that keeps her in a lifestyle she is accustomed to.

However, more importantly, Michael's children's assets are protected as well. Katherine's share reverts back to Michael's children upon her death. If she is sued before she dies, her share of the inheritance cannot be taken. It will revert back to the children's inheritance, as it should be.

Insight: Michael Jackson Trust

This blog will cover the contents of the Jackson Family Trust, not the will. In addition, any comments made regarding the validity of the will are not relevant to this blog. Apparently, Judge Mitchell Beckloff disagrees with MJ fans who believe that the will is invalid. Therefore, it is pointless to discuss because it has already been admitted into the court system, and Branca and McClain have been made executors of Michael's estate. A short timeline of what happened in court in the months after Michael's death is shown below:

June 29, 2009 - Katherine and Joe Jackson claim that Michael died without a will, and ask for Katherine to be appointed administrator of the estate. Katherine also asks to be appointed legal guardian to Michael's children.

July 1, 2009 - John Branca and John McClain admit a will that they say was signed by Michael Jackson on July 7, 2002. Branca and McClain ask to be appointed executors of the estate based on the will. The will specifies that Katherine as the person Michael wanted to be guardian of his three children.

July 6, 2009 - John Branca and John McClain are made temporary estate executors, although Katherine objects. Source is here. On July 21, 2009, an MTV article surfaces that says that Katherine Jackson, through attorney Londell McMillan, is contemplating objecting Branca and McClain as estate executors. The article states that this move "has angered most of Michael's siblings, with Randy being the notable exception."

August 6, 2009 - Katherine agrees not to contest the will, but asks the judge for permission to file a legal petition to disqualify Branca and McClain as estate executors. An ABC article states that Londell McMillan, one of Katherine's attorneys, makes a statement that Branca and McClain have not been forthcoming regarding the contract between Michael and AEG. However, a CNN article states that Judge Beckloff "ordered Katherine Jackson to be given copies of her son's contracts in connection with a series of concerts that had been scheduled this summer."

September 17, 2009 - Court documents made public reveal that Katherine is receiving $86,000 per month for herself and Michael's three children. A CNN article states that Katherine receives a monthly stipend of $26,804, and Michael's children receive a combined monthly allowance of $60,000. An ABC article maintains that Beckloff approves 100% of Katherine's request for her personal allowance, but 83.5% of the children's allowance, due to some monetary duplications. On September 19, 2009, Radar Online states that in addition to the estimated $86,000 that Michael's children and Katherine receive monthly, "the MJ estate is separately paying the mortgage, gardeners, insurance and taxes associated with the (Encino compound) property."

September 18, 2009 - The judge gives Katherine permission to challenge the estate executors (Branca and McClain) for "undue influence" without losing her rights as a beneficiary. Radar Online reports Katherine Jackson is free to contest will, and provides documents to prove it.

October 22, 2009 - Katherine changes attorneys. A CNN article states Katherine fired Burt Levitch and Londell McMillan, and replaces them with attorney Adam Streisand.

November 10, 2009 - Katherine drops her legal objection to the estate executors. Joe Jackson calls the act "despicable" and tries to pick up where Katherine left off. However, the judge states that Joe Jackson is not a beneficiary of the estate, therefore he has no valid claim. A Reuters article states that Adam Streisand maintains that "Katherine approves of Branca and McClain."

February 3, 2010 - The judge approves Branca and McClain's request to receive 10% of all new deals they sign for the estate, with the exception of the movie This Is It profits and previously released music. Radar Online source.

March 17, 2010 - Branca and McClain ink a deal with SONY for an estimated $250 million dollar deal over the next seven years. It is reported that Branca and McClain net $12.5 million each for the deal.

May 30, 2010 - UK tabloid News of the World publishes a copy of the Michael Jackson Family Trust, revealing that Katherine gets the use of 40% of Michael's assets during her lifetime. The balance then goes to Michael's children. Michael's children receive 40% of the assets. 20% of the assets are taken off the top of the Trust and given to charity.

June 20, 2010 - Billboard Magazine reports that the Michael Jackson Estate has earned more than a billion dollars since he died, in just under a year. Source for this timeline is here. On June 23, 2010, a Housing Watch article reports that Michael's condominium that was nearly foreclosed on has been paid off. The estate also paid Tom Mesereau nearly $341,000 that Michael still owed him for the 2005 trial.

I read blog after blog that complain about how the Michael Jackson Estate is being handled. Here is the top complaint (besides the incessant rants about the invalidity of the will/trust):

Branca and McClain are making too much money from the Michael Jackson Estate. If the estate has made $1 billion in a year, then Branca and McClain split 10% of that, so each has made $50 million in a year. Contrast that to Katherine Jackson's and Michael's children's income, which adds up to roughly ($86,000 x 12)= $1,032,000.00.

Once again, had MJ fans looked beyond their own negative stance regarding Branca, they would have realized that this information is incorrect. First, Branca and McClain did not receive 10% compensation for the proceeds of This Is It, until AFTER AEG was paid. A website called thenumbers.com maintains that This Is It gross revenue in theaters was roughly $252 million. In addition, it states that as of August 3, 2010, DVD sales total roughly $44 million. Therefore, combined revenue would total $296 million. Since the estate earned 90% of the profits from This Is It, we multipy $296 million by 90% the result is a total of $266.4 million for the estate. Branca and McClain would additionally subtract $60 million, the amount that SONY paid to AEG for the rights to This Is It. Therefore, we are now looking at $266.4 million - $60 million, for a total of $206.4 million. Branca and McClain receive 10% of this total, which is $20.64 million, or $10.32 million apiece. This means the final gross profit for the estate was $256.4 million, which was used to pay off debts. (We now have just shaved off $9 million that Branca and McClain were supposed to have received in the past year.)

In addition, Branca/McClain also are exempt (by their own doing) from a 10% cut of MIJAC or SONY/ATV profits. Billboard magazine estimates that normally MIJAC generates about $25 million annually, but because of the interest due to Michael's death, "that number could have doubled to as much as $50 million." According to this same article, the revenue from the SONY/ATV catalog is estimated at $80 million annually. $80 million + $50 million = $130 million. 10% of that is $13 million that Branca and McClain did not receive. (Another $13 million shaved off what Branca and McClain are supposed to have received.)

So many readers will say...$100 million -$22 million still leaves $78 million, divided by two is $39 million dollars for both Branca and McClain. But remember, Branca is subject to income tax. I looked up the income tax rate in California and a person who made $39 million falls into the 35% tax bracket. This means that the tax on this income is roughly $13.6 million dollars. So now we are down to $25.4 million dollars that Branca (and McClain) made for a year of running the Michael Jackson Estate.

Even if we do not take income taxes into account, $78 million dollars is only 7.8% of $1 billion, not 10%. In the state of California, probate code 10800-10805 states that standard executor fees should be 10.5% on an estate that has a value of less than $15 million, and should be determined by the court for an estate valued at over $25 million. Branca and McClain are accepting less than the standard, along with McClain's offer to do work in "Marvin's Room" (Marvin Gaye's old studio) for virtually free.

When we contrast Branca/McClain's income against Katherine's we have to remember two things. The first is that Branca works for the estate, and Katherine benefits from it, as it should be. Executors are paid depending on the complexity of the estate. With that in mind, we must remember although Katherine objected at one time to the appointment of Branca and McClain, she never objected to the amount Branca and McClain were getting paid from the estate. If a primary beneficiary of the Michael Jackson Estate did not object to the executor's fees, why should we??