Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt The good news is that Joe and Katherine Jackson are separated. I think it's odd that Diana Ross was named Katherine Jackson's successor in the will for custody of his children. Diana Ross. Really Michael?
Originally Posted By wonderingalice ^^Probably better than any other family member (except maybe Janet), I'm afraid... I wondered who it would be. Since she's 79, it's really difficult to say how long Katherine will be able fully care for them. I'd guess she'll be hiring a nanny to assist.
Originally Posted By Lisann22 Everything I've ever read about Diana Ross is that she is and has been an excellent mother.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt What about Rebbie Jackson? She seems level headed and stable. Haven't several of Michael's brothers been happily married with kids for years? There's nothing wrong with Diana Ross, but to me it would be like asking Liza Minnelli or Barbra Streisand to be the guardian of your children.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>What about Rebbie Jackson?<< Mr. October! He'd be a great dad, I'm sure and... Oh, you said Rebbie.
Originally Posted By DAR I was a fan of Jackson's music and it's sad to see him no longer with us. But I've been hearing reports of some of his fans commiting suicide because they're so distraught over his death. Really? Really?
Originally Posted By ecdc So far the reports sound anecdotal from the president of the Michael Jackson fan club. And those reports are from European fans, so it's harder for American press to verify. I can see a handful of people getting that distraught. These are people as disturbed as Jackson was. It's sad - they needed help long before this.
Originally Posted By dlkozy If Mrs Jackson does get custody, I hope that someone else responsible is in charge of the $. Seems Mr and Mrs Jackson also are multi-million dollar debtors-about $24 million according to the news. I just don't understand that kind of debt, nor do I understand sticking it to businesses that give you the credit to begin with.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt It doesn't matter how much debt they have if they have money in the bank to pay their bills. MJ's problem was that he had tremendous debt and was relatively cash poor with only about a half million dollars on hand.
Originally Posted By Sara Tonin My 'on hand' money got down to about a half million one time...I think that was the day I finally decided to Just Say No.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "If California had evidence, damning and convincing evidence, of guilt against Jackson in the first half of the 90's then why did it not compel the 'victim' to testify in a criminal complaint? " They weren't about to compel a minor child to testify about something like this. It was as simple as that. "Why would the state allow Jackson to continue his lascivious ways with children under 14 when it had oportunity to try and stop it via formal indictments and ultimately a trial." Without a good witness, no conviction. There were assurances all around this was an aberration. No conviction, no registering as a sex offender. "The DA's "client" is California and not the "victim" per se and what is more important to California: option(1) insulating 1 child from having to testify or option(2) protecting more children from future sexual abuse?(because everyone one of us knows that those who have a sexual appetite for children usually do not stop at one, they typically keep going)" I understand why you're asking, but it just isn't/wasn't that easy. There really isn't anoher explanation. It's also why the Santa Barbara D.A. was so hot to trot to get Jackson in 2005. He was privy to the info from 1993, he felt he had a recidivist molester in his jurisdiction, and when the charges were made, he jumped at it, probably a little too eagerly and not as deliberate as he should have.
Originally Posted By dshyates I understand SPP's bias. From my dealings with the "system" from being in the news industry, the people in the system industry believe everyone taken into custody is guilty regardless of contridictory evidene.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Yeah, but what contradictory evidence exists that says Jackson wasn't too fond of children?
Originally Posted By dlkozy >>>"It doesn't matter how much debt they have if they have money in the bank to pay their bills. MJ's problem was that he had tremendous debt and was relatively cash poor with only about a half million dollars on hand."<<< Mr and Mrs Jackson declared bankruptcy in the late 90's. Obviously they did not have money in the bank to pay their bills. Just another set of Hollywood freeloaders that don't think the rules apply to them.
Originally Posted By dlkozy I don't know. But, for the kid's sake, I hope that a real financial planner is put in place to safeguard MJ's assets.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt According to CNN "...the family trust created by Jackson to receive all of his assets includes his mother, his children and a list of charities.... Katherine Jackson's 40 percent share would go to Michael Jackson's three children after her death" So, his father isn't getting a cent, and everything not going to charity will be left to his mother and his kids.
Originally Posted By mele Surprise, surprise. <a href="http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Debbie-Rowe-I-Want-My-Children.html" target="_blank">http://www.nbclosangeles.com/n...ren.html</a>
