The Sad Story of Michael's Album "Invincible"

@MJonlineteam The Sad Story of MJ's Album "Invincible"

It seems fans forgot and/or want to forget about this:

Following a conflict between Michael and his record label, $ony Music stopped promoting the album Invincible !!


I WILL NEVER FORGET ABOUT THIS !!


$ony vs Michael

Michael was waiting for licenses to the masters of his albums to revert back to him, thus allowing him to promote his old material and preventing $ony from getting a cut of the profit. Michael expected this to occur early in the new millennium, however, due to the fine print and various clauses in the contract, the revert date was still many years away. Michael began an investigation, and it emerged that the attorney who represented the singer in the deal was also representing $ony, creating a conflict of interest. Michael was also concerned about another conflict of interest. For a number of years, $ony had been negotiating to buy Michael's music catalog. If Michael's career or financial situation were to deteriorate, it would have been in Michael's financial interest to sell his catalog. Thus, $ony had something to gain from Michael's career failing. Michael was able to use these conflicts as leverage to exit his contract early.

Just before the release of Invincible, Michael informed the head of $ony Music Entertainment, Tommy Mottola he was leaving the record label. As a result, all singles releases, video shootings and promotions concerning the Invincible album were cancelled. Michael made allegations in July 2002 that Mottola was a "devil" and a "racist" who did not support his African-American artists, using them merely for his own personal gain. He charged that Mottola had called his colleague Irv Gotti a "fat black nigger".
$ony disputed claims that they had failed to promote Invincible with sufficient energy, maintaining that Michael refused to tour in the United States.
The singer accused $ony and the record industry of racism, deliberately not promoting or actively working against promotion of his album.

I wanted to see more his short films!!!!
I saw Bad25documentary on TV in Japan.
Way to create of short film and recording are amazing!

After that,the precious MJ's arts were deprived.
I'm sad it.

Retired wrote:The Sad Story of Michael's Album "Invincible"

It seems fans forgot and/or want to forget about this:

Contract issues

Michael was waiting for licenses to the masters of his albums to revert back to him, thus allowing him to promote his old material and preventing $ony from getting a cut of the profit. Michael expected this to occur early in the new millennium, however, due to the fine print and various clauses in the contract, the revert date was still many years away. Michael began an investigation, and it emerged that the attorney who represented the singer in the deal was also representing $ony, creating a conflict of interest. Michael was also concerned about another conflict of interest. For a number of years, $ony had been negotiating to buy Michael's music catalog. If Michael's career or financial situation were to deteriorate, it would have been in Michael's financial interest to sell his catalog. Thus, $ony had something to gain from Michael's career failing. Michael was able to use these conflicts as leverage to exit his contract early.

Just before the release of Invincible, Michael informed the head of $ony Music Entertainment, Tommy Mottola he was leaving the record label. As a result, all singles releases, video shootings and promotions concerning the Invincible album were cancelled. Michael made allegations in July 2002 that Mottola was a "devil" and a "racist" who did not support his African-American artists, using them merely for his own personal gain. He charged that Mottola had called his colleague Irv Gotti a "fat black nigger".
$ony disputed claims that they had failed to promote Invincible with sufficient energy, maintaining that Michael refused to tour in the United States.
The singer accused $ony and the record industry of racism, deliberately not promoting or actively working against promotion of his album.

Me too I wanted to see more of Michael's creations, but I try to live on the old Michael's creation and not caring about the new products.
I do not support BAD2$ SL's Documentary.
All previous released Michael's documentary, the music release by Michael himself, Michael's own autobiography and Michael's interview, showed me and told me what SL wanted to say in the documentary interviewing ppl that I do not care about, that were hired by Michael to do a job along the years and that were put in front of a huge BAD2$ manifest (advertising flag) to talk and that eventually got paid to appear in the documentary.
The SL documentary, in my opinion, is a rip off and a shame for many reasons , including the fake tears of John Branca.
I am completely against it and it hurts me seeing fans supporting it. But it is what it is , everyone is free to do what he/she wants and believe what he/she wants .
I never liked ppl talking about what they think about Michael. They say what they think about Michael, NOT what Michael would have told us about himself. There is a big difference.
Everything released after Michael's pass is outrageous and a dirty paint that shows how Michael was seen by others....

miwa wrote:I wanted to see more his short films!!!!
I saw Bad25documentary on TV in Japan.
Way to create of short film and recording are amazing!

After that,the precious MJ's arts were deprived.
I'm sad it.

Retired wrote:The Sad Story of Michael's Album "Invincible"

It seems fans forgot and/or want to forget about this:

Contract issues

Michael was waiting for licenses to the masters of his albums to revert back to him, thus allowing him to promote his old material and preventing $ony from getting a cut of the profit. Michael expected this to occur early in the new millennium, however, due to the fine print and various clauses in the contract, the revert date was still many years away. Michael began an investigation, and it emerged that the attorney who represented the singer in the deal was also representing $ony, creating a conflict of interest. Michael was also concerned about another conflict of interest. For a number of years, $ony had been negotiating to buy Michael's music catalog. If Michael's career or financial situation were to deteriorate, it would have been in Michael's financial interest to sell his catalog. Thus, $ony had something to gain from Michael's career failing. Michael was able to use these conflicts as leverage to exit his contract early.

Just before the release of Invincible, Michael informed the head of $ony Music Entertainment, Tommy Mottola he was leaving the record label. As a result, all singles releases, video shootings and promotions concerning the Invincible album were cancelled. Michael made allegations in July 2002 that Mottola was a "devil" and a "racist" who did not support his African-American artists, using them merely for his own personal gain. He charged that Mottola had called his colleague Irv Gotti a "fat black nigger".
$ony disputed claims that they had failed to promote Invincible with sufficient energy, maintaining that Michael refused to tour in the United States.
The singer accused $ony and the record industry of racism, deliberately not promoting or actively working against promotion of his album.

knowing your opinion about Bad25documentary was good for me.

I also saw the tears of John Branca.

I can't understand his mind.

By the way who is showed & told you about Michael will release his documentary by himself?

Are people who supported SL?

Retired wrote:Me too I wanted to see more of Michael's creations, but I try to live on the old Michael's creation and not caring about the new products.
I do not support BAD2$ SL's Documentary.
All previous released Michael's documentary, the music release by Michael himself, Michael's own autobiography and Michael's interview, showed me and told me what SL wanted to say in the documentary interviewing ppl that I do not care about, that were hired by Michael to do a job along the years and that were put in front of a huge BAD2$ manifest (advertising flag) to talk and that eventually got paid to appear in the documentary.
The SL documentary, in my opinion, is a rip off and a shame for many reasons , including the fake tears of John Branca.
I am completely against it and it hurts me seeing fans supporting it. But it is what it is , everyone is free to do what he/she wants and believe what he/she wants .
I never liked ppl talking about what they think about Michael. They say what they think about Michael, NOT what Michael would have told us about himself. There is a big difference.
Everything released after Michael's pass is outrageous and a dirty paint that shows how Michael was seen by others....

miwa wrote:I wanted to see more his short films!!!!
I saw Bad25documentary on TV in Japan.
Way to create of short film and recording are amazing!

After that,the precious MJ's arts were deprived.
I'm sad it.

Retired wrote:The Sad Story of Michael's Album "Invincible"

It seems fans forgot and/or want to forget about this:

Contract issues

Michael was waiting for licenses to the masters of his albums to revert back to him, thus allowing him to promote his old material and preventing $ony from getting a cut of the profit. Michael expected this to occur early in the new millennium, however, due to the fine print and various clauses in the contract, the revert date was still many years away. Michael began an investigation, and it emerged that the attorney who represented the singer in the deal was also representing $ony, creating a conflict of interest. Michael was also concerned about another conflict of interest. For a number of years, $ony had been negotiating to buy Michael's music catalog. If Michael's career or financial situation were to deteriorate, it would have been in Michael's financial interest to sell his catalog. Thus, $ony had something to gain from Michael's career failing. Michael was able to use these conflicts as leverage to exit his contract early.

Just before the release of Invincible, Michael informed the head of $ony Music Entertainment, Tommy Mottola he was leaving the record label. As a result, all singles releases, video shootings and promotions concerning the Invincible album were cancelled. Michael made allegations in July 2002 that Mottola was a "devil" and a "racist" who did not support his African-American artists, using them merely for his own personal gain. He charged that Mottola had called his colleague Irv Gotti a "fat black nigger".
$ony disputed claims that they had failed to promote Invincible with sufficient energy, maintaining that Michael refused to tour in the United States.
The singer accused $ony and the record industry of racism, deliberately not promoting or actively working against promotion of his album.

I am saying that MJ's already released those :-)
I do not need any new releases.
There are old documentaries and autobiography that talk about Michael seen from Micahel's own eyes...

Branca is fake and false. He wants to acquire support of more and more fans, that is why he is always appearing in an new release. He wants to use any occasion to "show" that he cares for MJ, when instead he was involved in everything bad before and after Michael's dead...

miwa wrote:knowing your opinion about Bad25documentary was good for me.

I also saw the tears of John Branca.

I can't understand his mind.

By the way who is showed & told you about Michael will release his documentary by himself?

Are people who supported SL?

Retired wrote:Me too I wanted to see more of Michael's creations, but I try to live on the old Michael's creation and not caring about the new products.
I do not support BAD2$ SL's Documentary.
All previous released Michael's documentary, the music release by Michael himself, Michael's own autobiography and Michael's interview, showed me and told me what SL wanted to say in the documentary interviewing ppl that I do not care about, that were hired by Michael to do a job along the years and that were put in front of a huge BAD2$ manifest (advertising flag) to talk and that eventually got paid to appear in the documentary.
The SL documentary, in my opinion, is a rip off and a shame for many reasons , including the fake tears of John Branca.
I am completely against it and it hurts me seeing fans supporting it. But it is what it is , everyone is free to do what he/she wants and believe what he/she wants .
I never liked ppl talking about what they think about Michael. They say what they think about Michael, NOT what Michael would have told us about himself. There is a big difference.
Everything released after Michael's pass is outrageous and a dirty paint that shows how Michael was seen by others....

miwa wrote:I wanted to see more his short films!!!!
I saw Bad25documentary on TV in Japan.
Way to create of short film and recording are amazing!

After that,the precious MJ's arts were deprived.
I'm sad it.

Retired wrote:The Sad Story of Michael's Album "Invincible"

It seems fans forgot and/or want to forget about this:

Contract issues

Michael was waiting for licenses to the masters of his albums to revert back to him, thus allowing him to promote his old material and preventing $ony from getting a cut of the profit. Michael expected this to occur early in the new millennium, however, due to the fine print and various clauses in the contract, the revert date was still many years away. Michael began an investigation, and it emerged that the attorney who represented the singer in the deal was also representing $ony, creating a conflict of interest. Michael was also concerned about another conflict of interest. For a number of years, $ony had been negotiating to buy Michael's music catalog. If Michael's career or financial situation were to deteriorate, it would have been in Michael's financial interest to sell his catalog. Thus, $ony had something to gain from Michael's career failing. Michael was able to use these conflicts as leverage to exit his contract early.

Just before the release of Invincible, Michael informed the head of $ony Music Entertainment, Tommy Mottola he was leaving the record label. As a result, all singles releases, video shootings and promotions concerning the Invincible album were cancelled. Michael made allegations in July 2002 that Mottola was a "devil" and a "racist" who did not support his African-American artists, using them merely for his own personal gain. He charged that Mottola had called his colleague Irv Gotti a "fat black nigger".
$ony disputed claims that they had failed to promote Invincible with sufficient energy, maintaining that Michael refused to tour in the United States.
The singer accused $ony and the record industry of racism, deliberately not promoting or actively working against promotion of his album.

OH,I got it.
Could you tell me what the title of MJ's old documentaries & autobiography do you recommend?

and

Do you know When did Branca was fired by MJ and Why was it?

my knowing is he embezzled MJ's money.

and Why did he return to MJ?

Retired wrote:I am saying that MJ's already released those :-)
I do not need any new releases.
There are old documentaries and autobiography that talk about Michael seen from Micahel's own eyes...

Branca is fake and false. He wants to acquire support of more and more fans, that is why he is always appearing in an new release. He wants to use any occasion to "show" that he cares for MJ, when instead he was involved in everything bad before and after Michael's dead...

miwa wrote:knowing your opinion about Bad25documentary was good for me.

I also saw the tears of John Branca.

I can't understand his mind.

By the way who is showed & told you about Michael will release his documentary by himself?

Are people who supported SL?

Retired wrote:Me too I wanted to see more of Michael's creations, but I try to live on the old Michael's creation and not caring about the new products.
I do not support BAD2$ SL's Documentary.
All previous released Michael's documentary, the music release by Michael himself, Michael's own autobiography and Michael's interview, showed me and told me what SL wanted to say in the documentary interviewing ppl that I do not care about, that were hired by Michael to do a job along the years and that were put in front of a huge BAD2$ manifest (advertising flag) to talk and that eventually got paid to appear in the documentary.
The SL documentary, in my opinion, is a rip off and a shame for many reasons , including the fake tears of John Branca.
I am completely against it and it hurts me seeing fans supporting it. But it is what it is , everyone is free to do what he/she wants and believe what he/she wants .
I never liked ppl talking about what they think about Michael. They say what they think about Michael, NOT what Michael would have told us about himself. There is a big difference.
Everything released after Michael's pass is outrageous and a dirty paint that shows how Michael was seen by others....

miwa wrote:I wanted to see more his short films!!!!
I saw Bad25documentary on TV in Japan.
Way to create of short film and recording are amazing!

After that,the precious MJ's arts were deprived.
I'm sad it.

Retired wrote:The Sad Story of Michael's Album "Invincible"

It seems fans forgot and/or want to forget about this:

Contract issues

Michael was waiting for licenses to the masters of his albums to revert back to him, thus allowing him to promote his old material and preventing $ony from getting a cut of the profit. Michael expected this to occur early in the new millennium, however, due to the fine print and various clauses in the contract, the revert date was still many years away. Michael began an investigation, and it emerged that the attorney who represented the singer in the deal was also representing $ony, creating a conflict of interest. Michael was also concerned about another conflict of interest. For a number of years, $ony had been negotiating to buy Michael's music catalog. If Michael's career or financial situation were to deteriorate, it would have been in Michael's financial interest to sell his catalog. Thus, $ony had something to gain from Michael's career failing. Michael was able to use these conflicts as leverage to exit his contract early.

Just before the release of Invincible, Michael informed the head of $ony Music Entertainment, Tommy Mottola he was leaving the record label. As a result, all singles releases, video shootings and promotions concerning the Invincible album were cancelled. Michael made allegations in July 2002 that Mottola was a "devil" and a "racist" who did not support his African-American artists, using them merely for his own personal gain. He charged that Mottola had called his colleague Irv Gotti a "fat black nigger".
$ony disputed claims that they had failed to promote Invincible with sufficient energy, maintaining that Michael refused to tour in the United States.
The singer accused $ony and the record industry of racism, deliberately not promoting or actively working against promotion of his album.

miwa wrote:OH,I got it.
Could you tell me what the title of MJ's old documentaries & autobiography do you recommend?

and

Do you know When did Branca was fired by MJ and Why was it?

my knowing is he embezzled MJ's money.

and Why did he return to MJ?

Branca was fired for stealing from Michael and for his conflict of interest.
Branca was never rehired.
I suggest you to read the article below:

http://teammichaeljackson.com/archives/6027

and all the topics here:

http://teammichaeljackson.com/mj-estate-fraud

All the truth and the answer u are looking for are in there. They did and do a great job in publishing facts.

Branca got caround Michael becasue Branca was working for AEG..... it was not in Michal's mind to have something to do with Branca. Michael did not want to see Branca anymore.

The Legend Continues
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0248182/

This is the only Michael's Autobiography
https://michael-corner.forumotion.com/t89-michael-moonwalk#201

Thanks for your answer.

About Bramca.

Exactly reading　this site is difficult for me.
but I almost got it.

The picture that Michael have is saying every thing that Michael feel about Branca.

Michael's Autobiography 'moonwalker' was released in Japan too.
Of cause I read it. it was so lovely book.

Maybe DVD's that is not translated in Japanese are difficult for me.
and region cord of DVD is different between USA toJAPAN.

I think a lot of Japanese fans can't know exactly information.

but the information of MJ's estate is translated by MJFC Japan.

Retired wrote:

miwa wrote:OH,I got it.
Could you tell me what the title of MJ's old documentaries & autobiography do you recommend?

and

Do you know When did Branca was fired by MJ and Why was it?

my knowing is he embezzled MJ's money.

and Why did he return to MJ?

Branca was fired for stealing from Michael and for his conflict of interest.
Branca was never rehired.
I suggest you to read the article below:

http://teammichaeljackson.com/archives/6027

and all the topics here:

http://teammichaeljackson.com/mj-estate-fraud

All the truth and the answer u are looking for are in there. They did and do a great job in publishing facts.

Branca got caround Michael becasue Branca was working for AEG..... it was not in Michal's mind to have something to do with Branca. Michael did not want to see Branca anymore.

The Legend Continues
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0248182/

This is the only Michael's Autobiography
https://michael-corner.forumotion.com/t89-michael-moonwalk#201

miwa wrote:Thanks for your answer.

About Bramca.

Exactly reading　this site is difficult for me.
but I almost got it.

The picture that Michael have is saying every thing that Michael feel about Branca.

Michael's Autobiography 'moonwalker' was released in Japan too.
Of cause I read it. it was so lovely book.

Maybe DVD's that is not translated in Japanese are difficult for me.
and region cord of DVD is different between USA toJAPAN.

I think a lot of Japanese fans can't know exactly information.

but the information of MJ's estate is translated by MJFC Japan.

It is unfortunate that just MJ's Estate are translated in Japanese.

I wish teammichaeljackson would add a Japanese version of their page .

I understand that the language may be a problem

Also you are right about the region code of the dvd

Do u guys have MJ's products with subtitles ?

Hi!

I have the documentary DVD was released When Michael was alive.
It's 'the one'.
http://www.amazon.co.jp/%E3%82%B6%E3%83%BB%E3%83%AF%E3%83%B3-DVD-%E3%83%9E%E3%82%A4%E3%82%B1%E3%83%AB%E3%83%BB%E3%82%B8%E3%83%A3%E3%82%AF%E3%82%BD%E3%83%B3/dp/B0009J8GJ4/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

It's translated to Japanese.

I have a lot of not official DVD too.


'teammichaeljackson' has a function to translate to Japanese.
but,

Only this page http://teammichaeljackson.com/archives/6027
doesn't work.

I want to confirm, Michael didn't meet to Branca since 2003,right?

Retired wrote:

miwa wrote:Thanks for your answer.

About Bramca.

Exactly reading　this site is difficult for me.
but I almost got it.

The picture that Michael have is saying every thing that Michael feel about Branca.

Michael's Autobiography 'moonwalker' was released in Japan too.
Of cause I read it. it was so lovely book.

Maybe DVD's that is not translated in Japanese are difficult for me.
and region cord of DVD is different between USA toJAPAN.

I think a lot of Japanese fans can't know exactly information.

but the information of MJ's estate is translated by MJFC Japan.

It is unfortunate that just MJ's Estate are translated in Japanese.

I wish teammichaeljackson would add a Japanese version of their page .

I understand that the language may be a problem

Also you are right about the region code of the dvd

Do u guys have MJ's products with subtitles ?

[quote="miwa"]Hi!

I have the documentary DVD was released When Michael was alive.
It's 'the one'.
http://www.amazon.co.jp/%E3%82%B6%E3%83%BB%E3%83%AF%E3%83%B3-DVD-%E3%83%9E%E3%82%A4%E3%82%B1%E3%83%AB%E3%83%BB%E3%82%B8%E3%83%A3%E3%82%AF%E3%82%BD%E3%83%B3/dp/B0009J8GJ4/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

It's translated to Japanese.

I have a lot of not official DVD too.


'teammichaeljackson' has a function to translate to Japanese.
but,

Only this page http://teammichaeljackson.com/archives/6027
doesn't work.

I want to confirm, Michael didn't meet to Branca since 2003,right?


[quote="Retired"][quote="miwa"]

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=it&tl=ja&twu=1&u=http://teammichaeljackson.com/archives/6027&usg=ALkJrhh3XR49uazSL6g8BGPMaLq9mU7kMA

Is the translation correct ? Does the translation make some type of sense ?

Branca was fired in 2003.

WOW!
is it Italian to Japanese?

Bud the translated by machine is a little strange.hahaha

I sometime use other's will on my normal work.
Executor must be trust strong from the client.

Most important is how Michael was thinking about Branca in 2009.

I'm reading teammichaeljackson.com slowly.
I'm leaning English once a week since Michael was died.
But It's not enogh.

and I belong MJFCJapan's as a member.
I had a suspicion to them when Katharine Michael was missing on this summer.
Because They are saying only not fair things.

Can I ask you more question?

Trend Michael was fired by Katharine Michael?

[quote="Retired"][quote="miwa"]Hi!

I have the documentary DVD was released When Michael was alive.
It's 'the one'.
http://www.amazon.co.jp/%E3%82%B6%E3%83%BB%E3%83%AF%E3%83%B3-DVD-%E3%83%9E%E3%82%A4%E3%82%B1%E3%83%AB%E3%83%BB%E3%82%B8%E3%83%A3%E3%82%AF%E3%82%BD%E3%83%B3/dp/B0009J8GJ4/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

It's translated to Japanese.

I have a lot of not official DVD too.


'teammichaeljackson' has a function to translate to Japanese.
but,

Only this page http://teammichaeljackson.com/archives/6027
doesn't work.

I want to confirm, Michael didn't meet to Branca since 2003,right?


[quote="Retired"]

miwa wrote:

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=it&tl=ja&twu=1&u=http://teammichaeljackson.com/archives/6027&usg=ALkJrhh3XR49uazSL6g8BGPMaLq9mU7kMA

Is the translation correct ? Does the translation make some type of sense ?

Branca was fired in 2003.

about Branca representing both Michael and $ony in Michael's record contract, i'm not sure it was actually Branca who was Michael's lawyer at the time.
i think he was fired in 1991 and rehired in 1993, so when the contract was inked, i'm not sure if he was already there. there's another lawyer being mentioned here, Allen Grubman. this article is about Billy Joel suing Grubman for conflict of interests.

excerpt from http://www.businessweek.com/stories/1992-11-01/music-rap-the-case-against-allen-grubman

The case is largely about conflict of interests in the music business, where everybody who is anybody knows everybody else. A clique of lawyers handles most of the deals--often while on retainer to both artists and their labels. In Grubman's case, the suit alleges that, although Joel's recording contract was with CBS Records, neither Grubman nor his firm ever "fully advised" Joel of its representation of CBS, or asked him to sign a conflict-of-interest waiver. "Isn't there a risk a lawyer isn't going to be as aggressive for the artist-client because he doesn't want to offend the record company which is hiring him to do other work?" says Joel's lawyer, Leonard M. Marks. Grubman claims the firm didn't represent CBS Records until shortly before Joel fired him.

Is there a conflict inherent in what Grubman does? "Of course there's a conflict of interest there--that's why people want Allen for their attorney," industry executive Irving Azoff says bluntly. "Allen knows everyone in the industry, so he knows who has the money and who doesn't." Grubman represented MCA acts when Azoff headed MCA Records Inc. a few years ago, but that didn't stop Azoff from hiring Grubman to represent MCA in various deals.

Grubman, whose record at Brooklyn Law School was undistinguished, admits that clients aren't buying his legal mind. Rather, he is renowned as a relentless bargainer who makes good use of his connections. "The relationships we've created allow us to do great things," says Grubman. He negotiated Michael's estimated $30 million deal with $ony Music and orchestrated Madonna's $60 million package with Time Warner Inc.

although of course, the contract was for much more than $30 million.

i would also like to share here what a supposed insider posted at one of the major forums back in 2001-2002. in essence, he said that the problem was much more than just Invincible...i don't know if this is gospel-truth, but i'm inclined to believe him. however, before Michael could make his big move, he was accused of child molestation and had to fight his way in court. was it $ony's revenge? your guess is as good as mine...here goes..........

...$ony may be taking his pawns, but in the end, the black King will reign, and checkmate will be called on the corporate powers that be. Ever heard of Enron? Remember that question, because there is more to the tale of $ony vs MJ than you have been led to believe. The corporate suits have much more to lose than Michael leaving. Much more. They have done some deeds, and Michael can make them pay the price. Trust me on that one. I'm not talking about wrongdoings to Michael, Mariah, or George Michael. I'm talking about things far more serious. Wait and see...

---------------------------

You see, this would be a lot easier for me if I could tell you what tactics $ony has engaged in, and what they have done, and been able to accomplish as a result. I'm not talking about tactics against Michael in particular, but tactics in general. Michael, co-owner of $ony's Publishing, has a responsibility. In exercising his obligations, Michael made some decisions that stirred things up with $ony. But he had a responsibility to do so. Michael attempted something which made $ony very very mad and scared...and they tried to put him in his place, but no one can tell Michael what to do, not even his mother. Let's just say that Michael's original attempt was foiled, because corporate money and power is too much for any individual, including Michael. But Michael is far from stupid. He has aligned himself with a big unit, and I'm neither talking about Fayed, Cochran or Sharpton. Michael has been trying to relaunch what he failed to accomplish in attempt one. But this time, he has corporate backing...believe me when I tell you, $ony shook the first time Michael tried, and undertook initiatives to have it blocked, and Michael's attempt originally got lost and blocked in legalities and corporate politics. But attempt # 2, which is bloody imminent, is very real, and very certain...in fact, it's very much underway. $ony knows it's coming...$ony knows it has begun. $ony's corporate suits originally tried to get MJ to stop by flexing their muscles...but now they realize this battle will not only continue, but Michael is not going to give in. Their only choice now is to destroy Michael, his character, and his fan base. Their mission is not to stop Michael from relaunching his attempt, or to persuade him to reconsider...They now know he won't. Their mission now is to make him pay the price for doing so, to destroy him. To kill what is left of him. To destroy everything he's worked for, and has accomplished. They want to rape his name. Why? Revenge. This is not just revenge for walking away with half their publishing...it's much more than that...it's those attempts...those attempts scare $ony, and they should...I just wish I could spill everything to you guys, but I can't...If, with corporate backing, Michael can supercede the political and legal crap, $ony will be exposed...and there will be more than just firings. Their wrongdoings, I have been told in detail, are very very very serious. Michael knows too much. Michael has corporate backing. $ony's corporate suits are trembling as they try to destroy Mike Jack.

Let's just say, music means nothing at this point. MTV is bullshit for Michael right now. VH1 and BET likewise...there is no tour, and you know what? It's not important. Invincible is not important. Music is not Michael's concern right now...he has responsibilities to his people, to his stake in $ony Publishing. That has a billion dollar price tag, and he has a responsibility. Remember, Michael may own half of $ony's publishing, but the business aspects are all taken care of by $ony. Let's just say that Michael wasn't sleeping when $ony thought he was asleep.

----------------------

For years now, the system was in control
Living lives of lies in his name, an asset became his artistic soul
In times of financial hardship. it was all ran by their book
Thinking that forever, this artist would not look.
The suits never did dream
That their own may burn the pages of history.

But history books are full of lies
A man once told you that, his words so very wise.

--------------------

An audit may reveal, lies and lives built on games.
But as I've told you before,
Silly games, find the need to hide away.
But it's too late, the man is awake.

The messages in red from an "insider" are very interesting. Can you reveal what forum they were posted on?

From things I've read here and there I've gradually been getting surer and surer that there was some kind of a reciprocal buy out arrangement of $ony ATV in the contract MJ had with $ony. What I mean by that is that I believe Michael had the ability (via a clause in the Michael/$ony contract) to buy out $ony's share of $ony ATV and perhaps this clause could have been triggered around 2003. That there was a battle between Michael and $ony was obvious and I think "Invincible" was only a part of it. What the "insider" wrote on the forum seems to be one more piece of the puzzle.

If Michael was thinking to exercise a right to buy out $ony's share of $ony ATV, it would explain many things that happened around that time. Would be interested to hear people's views on this.

Thank you both for writing and make this conversation interesting and educational for understanding more the relation
MJ - $ony :-)

Imagen wrote:The messages in red from an "insider" are very interesting. Can you reveal what forum they were posted on?

From things I've read here and there I've gradually been getting surer and surer that there was some kind of a reciprocal buy out arrangement of $ony ATV in the contract MJ had with $ony. What I mean by that is that I believe Michael had the ability (via a clause in the Michael/$ony contract) to buy out $ony's share of $ony ATV and perhaps this clause could have been triggered around 2003. That there was a battle between Michael and $ony was obvious and I think "Invincible" was only a part of it. What the "insider" wrote on the forum seems to be one more piece of the puzzle.

If Michael was thinking to exercise a right to buy out $ony's share of $ony ATV, it would explain many things that happened around that time. Would be interested to hear people's views on this.

these were originally from KOP, by a poster using the screen name SOTT (Sitting On The Toilet)

i would not know if the original merger contract specified that Michael had the right and option to buy out $ony, but still another insider writing around 2007 at MJJC said Michael did.

here's part of what he said:

posted June 1, 2007 by "back"

"All I can say is, those bigwigs at $ony were shaking in their little boots when "rumors" of potential business deals from "friends across the oceans" started circulating. How insulting it would be at the close of 2005, with Vindication ruining their spirits for nearly 6 months, if that single owner "exercised" that option and RIGHT to own it all?"

if you remember, the Prescient case in 2005 said that Michael wanted to borrow enough to be able to buy out $ony - at least according to disclosures by Prescient. it was a messy deal, however, with Michael initially denying that he dealt with Prescient, but Prescient sued and Michael eventually settled. seems that Prescient did its part and was able to transfer Michael's loan to Fortress.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/06/19/us-michaeljackson-idUSWEN882720070619

when Michael was in the Middle East, $ony executives went to him to "help" him refinance again, but this time, the clause about the "right to first refusal" was inked into the contract. i'm absolutely sure that $ony had always wanted to have Michael's ATV. Michael's original ATV was worth a lot more than $ony's original stash when the merger was completed.

and even if i am very doubtful of Branca, i have to say that he did a very good job with the merger. initially, as reports went, Michael just wanted to sell half of his ATV to $ony. what Branca did was to merge both $ony and ATV, with Michael becoming co-owner of $ony as well, which necessarily expanded his catalogue. to top it all, $ony paid him for the merger, if not around $90M, then $150. i have already forgotten the figure.

Branca retained a 5% equity, maybe as his payment for the role he played in the merger. and if the 5% had always been with BRanca, i do wonder how the distribution of equity between $ony and Michael was. from whose side was the 5% equity subtracted? or maybe 95% was divided equally between $ony and Michael.

but then after the transfer to Fortress, Branca sold his 5% to Michael - which would have upped his share over $ony. at least that's how i understand it - but i have searched and searched and no article has ever wondered about that. all articles kept talking about how Michael was in danger of losing his catalog, and even if they reported on Branca's 5% going to Michael, media never speculated that this could have put Michael in a more solid position as co-owner of $ony-ATV. i also read somewhere that in the original merger contract, Michael had Branca put in a clause that says $ony can never buy out Michael, or can never force Michael to sell his share. however, to pay Branca for the 5%, Michael had to mortgage Neverland - and the rest is history.

Branca could have sold his 5% to $ony, but he sold to Michael - again, this could have been a contractual agreement. but, it could have made Michael major stockholder...possible, because "back" spoke about Michael's clout. he said that Martin Bandier's entry into $ony-ATV had to be approved by Michael. and that only Bandier and Michael were authorized to talk about business deals. and if you go back to older articles, it's kinda true that $ony would just always say 'no comment'. official news releases about $ony-ATV would come from Bandier.

finally, as we know, the right to first refusal clause had become moot. $ony was never able to bid for Michael's share because Michael had always been able to refinance his loans.

Lol at SOTT! Thanks for posting the "back" comments - he does sound like an insider. The Transitional/Prescient court docs was one place I saw the proposal for Michael to buy out $ony's share of $ony ATV. The Wrap article was another that showed that Michael was considering other options around that time. But I agree - I'm sure that $ony wanted to own ATV outright too.

I'm distrustful of articles that promote Branca at the expense of Michael. They usually overlook that it was Michael who earned the money that put him in a position to be able to purchase the things he did, including the ATV catalog. It was Michael who told Branca not to lose that ATV deal and it was Michael who owned ATV outright for 10 years before the merger with $ony Publishing.

If Michael owned 50% of $ony ATV at his death, then it seems that's the answer to Branca's 5%. Branca was brought back in through Weitzman in 1993 after being fired a few years before and it was in 1995 that the $ony ATV merger happened and Branca gained his 5%. That Michael had to mortgage Neverland to buy back that 5% is something that, well, bothers the hell out of me. But Michael wanted that 5% badly enough to mortgage Neverland to get it back and he obviously had his reasons.

Michael said "they" were after his publishing and "they" could only mean $ony. Or did it just mean $ony? Any company in the music publishing business would have wanted the ATV catalog. In any case, who or what benefited the most from the $ony ATV merger and who or what is still benefiting today?

I don't think Michael's long battle with $ony has ever been reported on in full detail. Reports have always had Michael in a bad position, with Michael in trouble one way or another, through phony extortionist charges or supposed lack of funds. Reports suggest $ony was the "good guy" and "helped" Michael. The funny thing is that every time $ony "helped" it seemed to be $ony who gained more. Yet, through all that was thrown at Michael, he still owned 50% of $ony ATV in June 2009. And the reaction to Michael's TII concert tour is proof that Michael's earning potential had not diminished, if anything, it had increased.

No, through all the crap that Michael had to put up with, I definitely don't think Michael's side of the $ony ATV story has ever been properly told. I think there was a battle royale going on for a long time and to keep reading that $ony and Branca were "helping" Michael, when we know what Michael himself has said and we know some of what he went through over the years, frankly that doesn't make one bit of sense.

In June 2009 Michael was asset rich. In June 2009 Michael himself had limitless earning potential. If anyone tries to say different, I know they're spreading disinformation.

I think "back" was on the money as they say, and I think his comment still applied in 2009.

let me just say again, i'm NOT a Branca fan. LOL i felt i needed to clarify that in case i'm thought of as a Branca-defending troll, and especially in this forum. but although all of this is true,

Imagen wrote:They usually overlook that it was Michael who earned the money that put him in a position to be able to purchase the things he did, including the ATV catalog. It was Michael who told Branca not to lose that ATV deal and it was Michael who owned ATV outright for 10 years before the merger with $ony Publishing.

Michael and Branca appeared to be in some sort of extended honeymoon during the time of the ATV acquisition. Branca was a tough negotiator for Michael. when Michael wanted to discard the Thriller short film, it was Branca who came up with the idea of putting in that disclaimer. i can't imagine a world without the Thriller short film! he also took care of financing the Making of Thriller video with the brilliant idea of selling the rights for airing to MTV and one other, i think. i'm just saying that in fairness, Branca did a good job back then, and Michael seemed to think so.

of course the relationship turned sour, as we know. he was with Michael on and off. i don't know when Branca started to grow horns, if he really did, but at any rate, it goes without saying that i believe Michael wouldn't have fired him several times if he didn't have significant reasons. i don't know what went on between them when Michael was still here, especially in recent years. i only just started questioning Branca after Michael left, in relation to his administration of the Estate, which is a whole other ball game. i don't remember if there's a thread for that, but anyway - that's another topic altogether.

here's a very detailed article about the ATV acquisition, in case some of our members here would like to read. it's by Robert Hilburn.

http://www.latimes.com/la-et-hilburn-michael-Michael-sep22,0,6887230.story

i think this can be a trusted article because Michael knew Hilburn personally.




about Branca's 5%, i'm pretty sure Michael had always known about that, and i'd like to think that that was the ace in his sleeve. it made sure that when push comes to shove, or if he was backed into a wall, $ony Publishing could not just dismiss him as an insignificant partner. the refinancing after the trial was apparently the right time for Michael to claim back the 5% from Branca.

it is also my understanding that his share was only ever in danger from $ony. the catalogue is held in trust, which means that no creditor can try to grab it - not even AEG. the AEG contract held The Michael Company liable, true, but the catalogue is not part of this company's assets. it's with either the New Horizon Trust or his music publishing trust.

it's even always been safe from $ony, despite the fact that $ony was salivating for it. "back" posted some more about it, back in 2007, by which time the right to first refusal clause has already been put in place. apparently, though, they were just words. $ony really could not afford to spend so much on acquiring 50% of Michael's share.

"All is well.... that catalogue's going no-----where, umkay?"

Certain things are "stipulated" to for the purpose of protecting "both" sides and not as a way to "grab" the upper hand, because in the end, exercising said "options" leaves one side in an even bigger bind. Let's just say attempting such a move would have made the 2 most recent acquisitions IMPOSSIBLE. Give up over 1 Billion and see where it leaves "your side" as a Fortune 500 entity whose GOAL is "bottomline profits." The company shall expand and the "single" owner on the right side shall continue to balance his side of the scale. For sure.

"Friends in all corners".....................

to still better explain it, he posted:

"let's just propose a simple theoretical scenario.........

You have two "owners" of a large castle.
Each lives on their separate sides.
Each side has 20 rooms and each side is worth 2 billion.
One side enters an agreement saying i'm gonna give you 1 billion + for half of your side because i want to have 30 rooms instead of 20. Unfortunately, in order for me to get those 30 rooms, I'll probably have to get rid of all my servants, fire my Knights, take down the golden drawbridge, sell my crown on thy ebay, pawn my many jewels and cross my fingers the rooms will still be standing by the time I restore my "paper status". But at least you'll still own half your side of the castle - worth over a billion dollars (+) and you'll have nearly 1 and a half billion in your pocket. Can I borrow a dollar? I'm hurting.

Nah...never mind. I can't win. You're gonna be "King" of the castle no matter what I do. Best just leave it be.

Perhaps that helps...or not? Spending $350mil to buy another catalogue shows no sign of exercising "convoluted" options. There was only fear that "friends" from other lands would front the money to take it ALL. Don't be fooled.

Either way, the cat - - goes nowhere. I've said it repeatedly. "They ain't gonna get it."


don't you just love "back?" some people thought he was Michael, himself. we can only speculate, but for whatever it's worth, i also THINK back is Michael. and the fact is, what he wrote here was proven right. the catalogue continues to be safe.

Do u really think the catalog is safe ?

The catalog doe NOT belong to MJ's Kids... that is a fact and it had been used to cover debts created by others, in purpose.

Branca stole from MJ and MJ clearly said that he did not want to see Branca anymore.


http://teammichaeljackson.com/archives/5928

Retired wrote:

Are u a Branca supporter and/or an Estate supporter ?

http://teammichaeljackson.com/archives/5928

ok, that is what i was afraid of that's why i put in that disclaimer at the beginning of my previous post.

the catalogue is still owned by Michael's Estate. eventually, it should go to the children. but i WILL change my opinion if you can provide me with supporting documents, even if mere articles, about this:

Retired wrote:

The catalog doe NOT belong to MJ's Kids... that is a fact and it had been used to cover debts created by others, in purpose.

could you please explain what you meant? maybe there's something i missed? to my thinking, even if Branca should have the evil plan of eventually selling Michael's catalogue to the highest bidder, or $ony, he CANNOT justify to the courts how a very precious, money-making asset, probably Michael's most prized asset, would need to be sold. that is why i still say the catalogue is safe. it can't get into anyone else's hands, especially with the whole world watching the Estate's every move. so Branca could be the devil, himself, but there's no way he can transfer ownership of that catalogue to someone else.

and i VERY MUCH agree with Team Michael's report. i, too, doubt that Branca was re-hired, especially because when he said he met with Michael on June 16, 2009, NO ONE from the whole TII crew, ever said they saw him. on that day, too, Michael wasn't even at rehearsals, according to the dates mentioned on the leaked emails.

i think you misunderstood me. my previous post was all about Michael being able to hold on to his catalogue, despite machinations from $ony and some other people who were trying to force him into bankruptcy, with the hope of getting their hands on the catalogue. it was not meant to defend current-day Branca or $ony. it was a mere declaration of happiness on my part that Michael continues to own the catalogue. also, i cannot deny that Branca helped Michael with the acquisition of ATV. that was many years ago, when i said he was "apparently" doing a good job for Michael. the present is a separate topic for discussion, and is a different story, but this is not the thread for that. so pardon me if i didn't spew hate on Branca or $ony on this thread. anyway, i don't do that as a rule, especially because i am a mere spectator looking in. no one among the fans holds the facts. we can only speculate, as there are many things that even Michael kept from public knowledge. i was happily speculating in my previous post.

sometimes, however, there are FACTS to go by, such as the decisions and actions the Estate have been making, which help us in forming our opinions. but then again, this is not the thread for that. if there is a discussion going on about that, please link me to the thread. not for me to spew hate, but just to state why i am anti-Estate.

Hi MJNotes. Thanks so much for your posts and I didn't think you were a troll

The Thriller video disclaimer story kind of illustrates what I was talking about regarding the promotion of Branca. That Branca came up with the idea for the disclaimer for the video is always mentioned - how many times have we heard it? It's seldom mentioned that it was John Landis who actually wrote the disclaimer. It shouldn't be forgotten either that the disclaimer came about because of a lie Branca told to Michael and one way or the other, I don't think that video would ever have been destroyed, disclaimer or not. As for the ATV acquisition, Branca was told by Michael, in no uncertain terms, not to lose that deal. What I'm saying is, whatever Branca was able to achieve on behalf of Michael, he represented Michael and all that meant - a great artist with power, money, earning potential, etc., so he had a tremendous bargaining base with Michael as a client, and everyone knew it. Michael had the ability to purchase and pay for the ATV catalog and Michael's presence at a Telethon in Perth, Australia was what sealed that deal.

I love that note about Robert Hilburn you posted. It's always great to read and hear from Michael firsthand. I trust those things above anything else.

Branca's 5% of $ony ATV - I have many questions about this, including why it was ever part of a retainer agreement to begin with. It was apparently part of the October 1993 agreement when Branca and the Ziffren Brittenham firm were brought back into Michael's circle. I've heard Harry (Skip) Brittenham speak about that firm's policy of a having a blanket 5% deal with clients rather than being paid an hourly rate for the work they do. However, I question whether this should apply to a percentage ownership in the $ony ATV catalog or any asset ownership by a client. Also that 5% agreement was to be for the "term of their engagement." If that is the case, and Branca and his firm were terminated by Michael in 2003, why didn't this 5% of $ony ATV come to an end at that time as well? Even if you take Branca's word that he left Michael and it wasn't the other way around, it still means their agreement was terminated. But the 5% agreement was still in effect at the time of the 2006 refinancing deal. Why? It seems that despite Michael's attempts to extricate himself from Branca and his firm, he was not able to until the firm itself said so. And the firm did say (in writing) as part of the whole 2006 arrangement that:

"...the Firm shall no longer be representing you in any capacity or providing any legal or other services to you."

That Michael had to deal with the attempted extortionist crap and subsequent trial from 2003 to 2005 serves to muddy the waters surrounding these financial dealings. The timing of the attempted extortion and trial is highly suspicious to me, very highly suspicious, and that's being polite.

Both Michael's publishing interests ($ony ATV and Mijac) are included in the New Horizon Trusts. Whether they will remain safe or not, who knows? What we do know is that the executors of the estate have entered into deals involving the publishing assets within these trusts since June '09.

Yes, I do love "back." Thanks again for that added information. Speculating now but it makes me think that neither Michael nor $ony Publishing wanted to extend themselves at that time to buy the other out, although they both possibly could have. But, one interesting thing about that, is that Michael would have only had to answer to himself. $ony Publishing, on the other hand, was and is a subsidiary of $ony Corporation. Hmmm.

thank you, Imagen. it's kinda hard when i try to be objective because i am misunderstood. i may not like Branca, but i just can't NOT give him credit for whatever way he has helped Michael in the past - call it very distant past, if you will. otherwise, it would be kinda changing history. i totally agree with you on Michael having been the total driving force behind the ATV acquisition, and Branca was his mere errand boy. but when Michael learned from Branca that ATV was available, he was traipsing around the world doing BAD. when he was done with the tour, he was very busy being the global superstar that he was. he had to have someone make the negotiations for him. any other BIG person would need a lawyer/negotiator, i would think, for such a huge deal. that's simply what i'm saying. i think that Branca cannot be taken away from the equation, simply because he happened to be the lawyer Michael trusted to do the job at the time. it is by no means an attempt to diminish Michael in any way. but i do agree that Holmes a Court sold the cat to Michael and not to the higher bidders (Bandier and Koppelman) not because of Branca, but simply because of Michael's name and credibility.

Branca's role in the Thriller disclaimer, i got from JRT's book. the book says Branca came up with that idea after having done some reading on Bela Lugosi, who had been playing Dracula in the movies. John Landis was against the disclaimer, but eventually had to give in to what Michael wanted. he may have written the disclaimer, himself, but at the suggestion of Branca. as for JRT, i know it's a highly debated book. he wrote stuff as if he was actually a fly on the wall listening to the "quoted conversations." maybe it was his writing style, but whatever... i don't believe there is any book out there, written by other people, that is completely accurate.

Imagen wrote:

Branca's 5% of $ony ATV - I have many questions about this, including why it was ever part of a retainer agreement to begin with. It was apparently part of the October 1993 agreement when Branca and the Ziffren Brittenham firm were brought back into Michael's circle. I've heard Harry (Skip) Brittenham speak about that firm's policy of a having a blanket 5% deal with clients rather than being paid an hourly rate for the work they do. However, I question whether this should apply to a percentage ownership in the $ony ATV catalog or any asset ownership by a client. Also that 5% agreement was to be for the "term of their engagement." If that is the case, and Branca and his firm were terminated by Michael in 2003, why didn't this 5% of $ony ATV come to an end at that time as well? Even if you take Branca's word that he left Michael and it wasn't the other way around, it still means their agreement was terminated. But the 5% agreement was still in effect at the time of the 2006 refinancing deal. Why? It seems that despite Michael's attempts to extricate himself from Branca and his firm, he was not able to until the firm itself said so. And the firm did say (in writing) as part of the whole 2006 arrangement that:

"...the Firm shall no longer be representing you in any capacity or providing any legal or other services to you."

if $ony had to pay Michael 90mil for the merger, i presume that they also paid for the legal costs, because they wanted to co-own ATV so much. and that's how Branca was paid - through the 5% equity. whatever happened along the way, or how it came about, the important thing is that he sold to Michael in the end, and not to $ony. it may not even be a FAVOR he did for Michael, but simply the honoring of an agreement stipulated in an old contract. but as i mentioned, i think it upped Michael's standing as co-owner. no way he could be bought out IF he was major shareholder, or an equal partner. as to why the 5% deal did not co-terminate with the law firm's services, i would think it's because the 5% was not a service. it was actually a payment made to Branca so Branca OWNED the 5% - (some say only 2.5%) the only way it could be taken from him is if someone buys it. if ownership was co-terminus with the law firm's services, i would think Michael would have bought it much sooner, in 2003. but i don't think it was something that can be surrendered or returned because it's owned. it had to be bought. and i think Michael bought it when he thought he needed it most.

Imagen wrote: That Michael had to deal with the attempted extortionist crap and subsequent trial from 2003 to 2005 serves to muddy the waters surrounding these financial dealings. The timing of the attempted extortion and trial is highly suspicious to me, very highly suspicious, and that's being polite.

and i do agree that the investigation and charges brought against him in 2003 were orchestrated. "back" referred to Bashir as one piece of the whole lying structure or something like that. if we take SOTT seriously, it seems that what happened in 2003, starting from the Bashir docu, was a result of the things SOTT revealed. he did warn that $ony was intent on ruining everything for Michael because of Michael's attempt - which i think was the anti-$ony demo, and because Michael was attempting something else to expose $ony. still, all speculation on my part...

Imagen wrote:Both Michael's publishing interests ($ony ATV and Mijac) are included in the New Horizon Trusts. Whether they will remain safe or not, who knows? What we do know is that the executors of the estate have entered into deals involving the publishing assets within these trusts since June '09.

for now, the catalogue is safe, in my opinion. to speculate that it might not be safe in the future is just that - speculating. you could be right about the "who knows?" but for now, we have facts to back up the truth that it is with the Estate and supposedly, the children will own it when the time comes. LOL i just thought about this - when i say it's safe, i don't mean it's safe BECAUSE it's in Branca's hands. i mean to say that it's safe because even Branca can't touch it. as i mentioned previously, no way can the catalogue be thought of as a useless asset. its value continues to increase even as i post. no one will believe him if he says it needs to be sold. even Michael-hating media reluctantly concedes that it continues to be one of Michael's big, and very stable, money-earners, along with Michael's very own MIJAC.

still, i admit that nothing is impossible if brilliant thieves would conspire to do the unimaginable. it's just that the Estate itself reported that the loan was refinanced under more favorable terms, and was slowly being paid. most of the other creditor claims have been settled, too, so i can't think of any situation that could compromise either MIJAC or $ony-ATV.

thanks again, i really appreciate your seeing my posts for what they are - just an attempt to bring in some possibly new or interesting info to the discussion table. i am in other forums that are obviously run by pro-Estate people, and i can tell you how suffocating that can be.

You're welcome. I do understand what you're saying. Yes, Michael did have to have someone to negotiate for him. It was fortunate for Branca that he was that someone. Branca did tell Michael the Bela Legosi story but that's all it was - a "story." Branca lied about that. But as I said, I very much doubt that video would ever have been destroyed.

I understand the 5% was part of an October 1993 Retainer Agreement between Michael and Branca and his firm, which was in place before the $ony ATV merger. This appears to be where the claim for 5% of all Michael's publishing interests originally came from. It continued on through the $ony ATV merger.

The 1993 Agreement says this:

We shall render services for you as your general counsel in the music business (and, ancilliary to music, in the television and home video businesses). We shall render services in other areas (such as real estate acquisitions) as we shall mutually agree upon. You shall have the right to terminate our services at any time.

During the term of our engagement, we shall receive five percent (5%) of any gross monies actually received by you or any related entity from songwriting and music publishing (including the publishing companies comprising ATV and Mijac), recording, television, home video programs, merchandising, personal appearances, commercial endorsements, sponsorship and from the operation, sale and/or disposition of any assets owned by you or such entity, provided, however, that excluded from the foregoing commission shall be personal appearances, engagements and sponsorships performed in 1993. [Me - that was big of them.] Notwithstanding the foregoing, our commission fee with respect to recording income shall commence in connection and simultaneous with the renegotiation of your $ony Records contract with respect to the delivery of a studio or "Greatest Hits" album, and our commission with respect to your Mijac publishing shall also commence simultaneous therewith.

The foregoing compensation does not include any out-of-pocket costs such as travel, telefaxes, messengers, photocopying and long-distance phone calls. These costs will be billed periodically. In addition, the retainer does not include any services which this firm does not customarily provide, such as litigation, tax, securities or trademark representation. [So much for the 5% blanket arrangement, mentioned by Brittenham elsewhere.]

Anything that Michael earned right through 1993 until 2006, any agreement he entered into and more, 5% of that was to be paid to Branca and his firm. Note that, according to this agreement, the firm's services could be terminated at any time. That's why I asked in an earlier post, why didn't this 5% arrangement come to an end prior to 2006. For example, why didn't this 5% arrangement come to an end in 2003?

There was another letter dated January 1994 to Michael from the firm, which was a supplement to the October 1993 Agreement. This is part of that letter:

...This agreement is in addition to, and not a lien of or otherwise offset by that certain prior fee agreement between you and us.

In consideration of our services as general counsel to you and your companies, separate and apart from serving as counsel to you in the recorded music, personal appearance and music publishing fields, including, inter alia, advising and coordinating the services of your other professional advisors, including business managers and other counsel, in areas of charities and not-for-profit organisations, real estate, motion pictures and television, tax, litigation and corporate practice, during each year of the term of our engagement commencing as of January 1, 1994 and continuing at leats [sic] one year, we shall receive Seven Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($750,000) per year, payable in twelve, equal monthly instalments on the first day of each month...

5% of everything and then some.

Branca can and has dealt with Michael's music publishing interests since Michael's death. As executors of the estate, he and his (virtually silent) partner control them. They made the deal that has $ony benefiting for years to come, they brought Mijac from Warners to $ony. The executors can do pretty much whatever they want with anything Michael owned.

Sounds like it was Branca (and his firm) and $ony who had the "mutually beneficial relationship."

You mentioned in an earlier post that you were doubtful about Branca. What was it that made you doubtful?

about the 5%, the only thing i can think of that could be the logical answer is that the merger contract in 1995 was different from this 1993 contract, specifically because there was another entity involved in 1995 - $ony Publishing. in this contract that you showed, Branca's law firm gets, among others, a 5% commission on the earnings of Michael's share of ATV and MIJAC. it's a regular contract specifying commissions that the law firm is entitled to, as they represent an artist. when Michael bought Branca's 5% share of $ony-ATV in 2006 or 2007, articles i've read did not say he bought them from the law firm, but from Branca alone. so i really think it wasn't part of "services rendered." i mean - it was, for sure - but the 5% was not a commission, and instead was payment - based probably on the terms of a different contract. of course i am just speculating, but it's the theory that makes sense to me. otherwise, that 5% should have gone back to Michael - or should have been surrendered to Michael - when the law firm was terminated. also, Michael shouldn't have paid to get it back, but he did. shouldn't Michael have sued Branca instead for holding on to the 5% equity if that was not how it should be? sadly, Michael never talked about these things to make it clear for us. i'm just going by my understanding of what actually transpired, to find possible answers to the puzzle. but it sure was an on again, off again relationship. i suppose you know that in 2008, Branca's law firm was still around. it handled the copyright claims for Thriller 25 DVD and The Essential CD, both released in 2008. for both, copyright claimant was MJJ Productions, not $ony - so the client was Michael. it was likely a rehire because as we've been told, Branca left Michael or was terminated again in 2006.

http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=1&ti=1,1&Search_Arg=Michael%20Michael%20Thriller%2025th%20anniversary&Search_Code=FT*&CNT=25&PID=HsTt8W2rtHuZrx9HgBVH9Xd8edc&SEQ=20130131235643&SID=14

http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=1&ti=1,1&Search_Arg=Michael%20Michael%20Thriller%2025th%20Anniversary&Search_Code=FT*&CNT=25&PID=_ATMLZVc_WiNR6mHlPhY04ZuwcRa&SEQ=20130201001207&SID=3

http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=1&ti=1,1&Search_Arg=Michael%20Michael%20The%20Essential&Search_Code=FT*&CNT=25&PID=1W0d6RYpUWU3VipY3UnftbOYGL&SEQ=20130201000036&SID=15

maybe the best i can say about all the previous controversies is that nothing is in black and white. there are a lot of grey areas, and we simply do not have all the facts. that is why i do not make sweeping generalizations and unfounded accusations because i don't want to be challenged by the Branca supporters and have nothing to show to support my arguments.

fast forward to current-day...and yes, i don't just doubt the Branca sitting on Michael's Estate. i suspect him of not working in the best interests of Michael. first is the controversy about the will. the date and place of signing was not the major issue for me. i think it's possible that before Michael flew to NY, he signed the documents, and the witnesses signed afterwards. i could have left it at that but something went wrong with this theory when one of the witnesses said that she was in NY when she signed but forgot where she was, so wrote LA by mistake. it's a very weak defense to me. even i can make that up just to shut people up. and THEY left it at that, as if it erased all controversy about the will. at best, the will seemed like a mere draft. it didn't even get the children's names correct. to my thinking, no lawyer presents something as sloppy as that to Michael.

there's also the matter of why Branca kept a copy of this will when he was specifically ordered to hand over everything to his replacement, back in 03. there was a YT video of some journalist who also said that in 2005, she talked to Branca and supposedly, Branca said, "there is no will." (Raymone Bain, as we know, insisted there was one when she asked Michael in 2007, even if she did not actually see it.) personally, i think the media should have followed that up, but no one was interested. and yet there's also something that bugs me. if that will is invalid, why didn't anyone pop up with the genuine will? fans speculate that perhaps it was with Peter Lopez, but Mr. Lopez had more than enough time to present it before he died - or was murdered, according to some speculation. was he planning to come out with the truth? i sure don't know and don't want to speculate.

it's easy to speculate, though, that even media seems to be in Branca's pockets. i notice that while media is always as prepared as a Boy Scout to trash Michael or write malicious articles about him, they draw the line where Branca is concerned. articles that mention him are respectful. it was just Forbes that once tried to tell it like it is, but the Estate quickly asked them to edit the article. i have forgotten what it was about, but most of you possibly remember. i think Taaj has it on the Team Michael archives. anyway, this leads me to the Estate's accounting, showing various payments to different PR firms. what makes me angry is that the Estate is using Michael's money to hire PR firms specifically to make Branca and Weitzman look good, but NOTHING is being spent on correcting erroneous and malicious articles about Michael. whereas Janet's lawyer was quick to issue an ultimatum to TMZ when they "reported" that she slapped Paris, this Estate just sits on the continuous Michael trashing that is going on. TMZ, in Janet's case, had to retract its statement in response to Janet. so it is possible, it can be done, if only the people officially in charge of taking care of his legacy would do what they are supposed to.

LEGACY. i agree with someone on twitter who said that Michael's legacy had been made before he died. nothing and no one can tarnish it anymore. but to me, it doesn't mean that the Estate can just put its feet up and ignore, shrug their shoulders, or not comment on nasty speculations or malicious one-liners. protecting this legacy should be at the forefront of their campaign. for instance, every time that "drug addict" is mentioned, why is it ALWAYS the fans who rise up to clarify that the autopsy report showed ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to support this rumor about drug addiction?

they are not just careless with his legacy; they make a mockery of it when every release they make in his name is of sub-par quality, and definitely not of a caliber befitting the KOP. John Branca has always known how Michael would not let such a tiny thing as "budget contraint" keep him from doing what he wants. i do not know how Michael would have felt had he been here to see the Walmart promotion of his IJCSLY single. my friend in the US said she had to ask the manager where it was when she got tired of looking. the outlet she went to also had just 3 copies. the same situation was reported by other fans in different US locations.

Estate has approving authority over all releases. when Visions came out, it was criticized by fans for the poor quality, when $ony definitely had the means and the technology to improve it. it's like they're saying, 'never mind, leave it at that, they'll lap it up anyway." at least one fan has better quality footage of BAD - Wembley than the official release. and the biggest fiasco is the Ca$cio tracks. if Branca had to personally talk to the manager of Jason Malachi to make sure the recording wasn't of Jason's, then there was already something very wrong. Branca should not have proceeded. a truly brilliant mind, if used in Michael's best interests, would have discarded those tracks from the get-go because he should have FORESEEN the damage and division it would do to the fan community. using impersonators just to fill up an album is a crime. forensic results that cannot even be made public are highly questionable, at the very least. for one insider saying the tracks are authentic, there's another saying they're not. there were Jackie's concerns, McClains', Cory Rooney's, the family's, which all fell on Branca's deaf ears. with all that has transpired, sometimes i don't even think "careless" anymore. try "sabotage." because it is a possibility. if Michael has been sabotaged enough that sales of anything Michael dwindles down, would Branca then be able to say, "sorry, there's just not enough money coming in to pay for the loan which collateralized Michael's share of $ony-ATV"? what then? it needs to be sold to the entity owning the right to first refusal -> $ony? but that's getting ahead of ourselves. as i mentioned in my previous post, speculation. fortunately, $ony-ATV and MIJAC publishing are earning well on their own. i even think that those loans have become self-liquidating due to the sheer majesty of both publishing assets. well, ATV and MIJAC. not necessarily $ony.

i do understand that it is Branca's duty and responsibility to grow the Estate and make it profitable, and eventually make it solvent. otherwise, even probate court can question him. but he has apparently become more intent on making money for himself. he doesn't carefully look into the deals he goes into for the Estate, as long as his 10% is secure. some of the official statements are also, to me, senseless. for instance, why even dignify with a response, an obviously ignorant article saying it's not true that Michael's Thriller is the best-selling album of all time? there's Guinness - hello? there's WMA 2006 at Earl's Court on YT. and sales upped even more after June 25, 09. why not respond instead to the still raging controversy over the Ca$cio tracks and the Julien's - Bush auction? when Bush was interviewed for the NBC investigation, his stance just seemed like he was a wilting flower. no righteous indignation, no strong AND CREDIBLE words for accusers. he actually seemed SCARED! i feel strongly about that issue because i have seen plenty of evidences with my own eyes, thanks to determined and persevering fans who made comparison after comparison. i do not believe that it is even necessary for the autograph authenticators to see the items in person. it won't change the curves of the letters or the general lean of the handwriting. it won't erase the stupid XX at the bottom, which Michael never did. and it won't change the similarity of these signatures to Bush's own handwriting. the ideal thing to have happened was for the Estate to tell Bush something like "it's nothing personal, but we're obliged to look into the controversy and authorize an investigation of the signatures." turns out that is just wishful thinking.

why be so deferential towards Bush, when in fact, Henry Vaccaro has more legal standing when it comes to ownership of Michael/Michael family stuff than Bush has? we only have Bush's word for it, Vacarro has legal documents. and yet the Estate is ok with whatever Bush decides to do with Michael and The Jacksons stuff, while Katherine needed to go through a needle to get that book published? Michael's own family, his blood kin, had to go through so much red tape to be able to mount a tribute for Michael - and was disallowed the use his image and likeness, which was why they had to stage it outside of the US. i find it so ridiculous that his own mother cannot do projects using photos from her family albums, without Estate approval.

for that matter, why doesn't the Estate address the issues raised by the Jacksons in their letter? instead, the Estate's response was a hefty demolition job on those who signed the letter. during that period, the sarcastic, belittling articles came almost daily. it was obviously a desperate attempt if even Janet was pictured as poor. what a laugh! i think Radar Online is the go-to tabloid for the Estate. TMZ, on the other hand, has long been trash for me.

there may be other issues for me, but i know this is more than long enough. the only other thing i can think of right now is the issue about the Estate (Weitzman) lawyering up for AEG to make a fraudulent insurance claim against Lloyds. apparently, AEG and Estate had an arrangement that would distribute the claim between the two of them, if paid out by Lloyds. AEG has since dropped the claim but as far as i know, the Estate continues to pursue it. the thing is, AEG suffered NO LOSSES because the Estate covered them all from the proceeds of TII.

so i hope that i have cleared the matter. i wouldn't have joined this forum if i supported Branca. but, no hate campaigns for me, either. i just watch, ask questions, and form opinions when there is sufficient basis. i enjoy exchanges of opinion, especially on matters that are hazy. sometimes i don't know what to think anymore. but i try to be as objective as i can, and don't throw out accusations carelessly. i may not have much to say AGAINST Branca about events prior to June 25, 2009, but that's only because i don't know the facts. there's very little written, if at all, about Michael's relationship with Branca in all those years. if i praised him for his help in the past, it's because the ATV acquisition was so big it had been written about here and there. lots of info. but Michael did not even speak about him. i certainly haven't heard Michael say that he hated Branca. that was LaToya. perhaps a tape exists somewhere, i'd be very interested.

how Branca is handling the Estate is a different story, however. i don't need to hear Michael say he's not happy with the way some things are going. we clearly see what is happening, and this allows us to make informed opinions.

however, and this is not to be controversial again, i don't think the move of MIJAC's administration to $ony-ATV is necessarily bad. i don't see that the next step is for $ony to be finally owning the whole ATV and MIJAC as well. for as long as Branca continues to brag about how they are making money for the Estate, i will believe that the catalogues are safe. he can't justify any need to sell them. if and when he starts reporting that no income is coming in because no one buys anymore, that's when i worry because then, he might be up to something really bad...

Hi MJnotes, pls keep posting. I would never be as detailed and knowledgeable as u. I go by my instinct on what I read and feel. U post fact and comment on that. I appreciate u share your opinion.Pls continue to express your thoughts, if u wish and pls forgive me for what I said. Thank you