Rowe's Lawyer -- Debbie Doesn't Want MJ's Money

301. when she got 8.5 million before when he gave it to her-- what in the h--- did she do with all of that fortune, it sure wasnt spent on her children.????

Posted at 10:18AM on Jul 15th 2009 by sue

302. It's all about the money...she agreed to the first agreement. then she goes around and bought alot of money into Plastic Surgery!!! even bought her ranch and her horses. She goes on TV saying MJ is a wonderful father, he should get the kids????

I am betting she wants second round of money to complete her plastic surgery possibly liposuction. The Kids rarely see her, all of their lives, they don't know her. You can see the strong bond between Paris and Janet Jackson, it shows that they did meet once or twice before MJ's death. The bond is stronger when the kids are with the Jackson Family. They are the Jacksons.
However, I am concerned about Joe Jackson turning them into another famous "Jackson 3". I would think that Joe needs to stay far away from the children but the kids stays with Katherine. Joe Jackson wanted the money too. He even had "visions" about the Kids becoming famous stars already. I think Katherine will make sure that the children live a normal life, that is if they stay away from Joe Jackson and Debbie Rowe.

Posted at 1:38PM on Jul 15th 2009 by its all about the money

303. I'm not a Joe Jackson fan, far from it, but let's be fair. He was misquoted, his words taken out of context. The reporter specifically asked him if he thought the kids would go into performing, music. Joe responded that he thinks Paris wants to do something, and that they (other family members, I assume) told him that Blanket could really dance. That's it. He is 80 years old. Whatever trauma he inflicted on the Jacksons in their youth, I seriously doubt he would be able to do the same with his grandkids. MJ and his father probably repaired the damage to their relationship in his final years, especially after he became a parent himself. That's usually how it works. He said as much during the Martin Bashir interview (boycott ABC!) in the Take Two version, that although he was strict disciplinarian he credited his father with his work ethics and discipline and for having the foresight to get them out of Gary, Indiana. That doesn't excuse what Joe did to his children, but times were much, much different back them. MJ was wise and good enough to have gained perspective and forgave his father. We should, too.

Posted at 10:35AM on Jul 15th 2009 by Jazminnie

304. 29. YAY Debbie! You go girl! I for one am behind her. I think that takes a hell of a lot of guts to stand up to the Jackson clan like this and more proves what I've said before.... there's more to this story than we know... and her confidentiality agreement I am sure precludes her from saying a word.

There's still hope!

Posted at 3:22PM on Jul 14th 2009 by Cali MJ Fan
***********************************
Debbie IS NOT going to 'stand" up for her children OR "stand' up to the Jackson's. Don't any of YOU find it strange that Debbie "hasn't" made up her mind yet as to whether she even wants custody of these kids? How can you NIOT know if you want your kids or not??? Monetary Settlement is what this is about...NOT the fact that there is one,but HOW much is Debbie going to get!!!! The lawyers are meeting...IF it was about custody they would ALL be in court...It's about MONEY....
Those of you that are "standing" behind Debbie....I think you will be very disappointed when you find that Debbie Rowe will forgoe custody of "her' kids IF the money is right! Just watch and see what happens!!!
How can you have a custody battle,when only ONE party has filed for custody? That ONE party IS NOT Debbie Rowe!

Posted at 10:58AM on Jul 15th 2009 by Marge

305. I find it strange that after 10 years and only 2 years of marriage, Michael Jackson is still giving this woman SPOUSAL SUPPORT.

Posted at 11:07AM on Jul 15th 2009 by Tricia

306. 301. she only wants the money

and beside the court should consider that the kids doesn't know her and she hasn't even made contact with the jackson family for what 10 years? do you think a mother that was gone for ten years should be have custody?

Posted at 8:41AM on Jul 15th 2009 by maki

*****
Exactly!!!! furthermore....DEBBIE has not said she even wants these kids!!!! EVER!!!!!! I don't know where these people come up with the notion that SHE shoukld get these kids,when Debbie Rowe has NOT said she even wanted custody! The most she has said is She hasn't decided if she wants them or not!!!! Doesn't sound like a woman that gearing up for a custody battle does it? Her lawyers HAVE not filed for custody on her behalf,rather they are in 'discussions" with the Jackson's lawyers..custody is decided by the courts,,,,deals are made in meetings!!!!

Posted at 11:07AM on Jul 15th 2009 by Marge

307. I saw some documents regarding financial info of Debbie that is available on the web through a link posted on someone's blog directing to the article in Huffington Post. Check this for real facts and not rumors: http://webofdeception.com/deborahrowe.html
And apparently she took 8.5 million in 1999 for kids (let's call it "divorce settlement") plus 900.000$ yearly payments for the 5 year period. Then in 2001 she got another deal from MJ for 5million and a house ( about 1 million). She also got a SUV.
Check for the details about her house sale (the one in Beverly Hills), addresses, her new ranch and Trust in documents provided through the link above.
I'd say she is well paid for, but she thinks she is not - so in 2009 she needs more money....

Posted at 1:29PM on Jul 15th 2009 by info about Debbie

308. Debbie Rowe’s Uterus Is Up For Hire !!


Think about the whole scenario from the moment Debbie Rowe offered Michael Jackson to give him children “as a gift!” IF IT’S A GIFT THEN WHY THE HELL HAS SHE BEEN ASKING FOR MONEY?? That’s a lie you don’t ask for money if you GIVE someone a gift !!! Females do not give children as ‘gifts’ through marriage and then declare ‘they are not my children, but so-and-so.’ They do it for money, using the uterus as a hired object!!! From one female to another, that was sheer stupid, but conniving, what she was really thinking of primarily was ‘MONEY’, fame and . . . .’Oh my . . . having a celebrity, like Michael Jackson, having his children.’ She planned it all from the very beginning in her weasel conniving mind. Let’s not forget that she knew Michael enough to know how to get to him and trick him to her own devise. She came up to him and basically offered her ‘uterus up for hire ! !’ Meaning . . . MONEY FOR CHILDREN, in her mind! Therefore, she was a surrogate, she offered to be a surrogate . . . NOT A WIFE ! That’s all! So for a surrogate she got more then she should have received when it comes to money. If anything, she owes the Jackson family money back. Once the contract for the ‘uterus for hire was paid’ she was not entitle to any more money. Therefore, whatever money she got over and above the original contract was purely FRAUD, AND THEFT! She never wanted to be a wife nor a mother, neither was it ever her intention because she said she never wanted children. She just never came out and boldly just said it verbally she wants money. That just EVOLVED ! Remember that!

Surrogates do not have any parental rights what’s so ever, just like in the case of the surrogate for Prince Michael II (blanket). Which would explain why she did not live with Michael or the children? The same with Debbie Rowe. She was a married surrogate for him, but a surrogate nonetheless. Soon after the 2nd child, the ‘uterus up for hire contract’ was completed. Of course, to the media they would make up stories to cover that up, like, she gave up the children for . . . . whatever the excuse that was given, and there are a few.

How do we know that? Well, I’ll bet that the marriage idea came from Michael, NOT Debbie. Did they not marry only when she was 6 months pregnant or so?? . . . . just to make sure that she did indeed get pregnant! Find out, I’ll bet you, Michael did it because HE felt a moral sense because of his previously trained conscious, which told him it would be immoral to have children out of wed-lock. Therefore, for him it looked better in the public’s eye, and his conscious was put at ease.

This present issue with Debbie Rowe wanting custody of the children is NONE EXISTING FOR SURROGATES !! She just wants money again over and above her ‘uterus up for hire contract!’ DON’T LET HER. THROW IT INTO HER FACE THAT SHE IS A SURROGATE WITH A UTERUS UP FOR HIRE !!!
Surrogacy Lawyer Speaks: I asked California surrogacy lawyer Stephanie M. Caballero to provide my readers a basic understanding of the contractual process involved in surrogacy cases and the rights of the surrogates and/or donors and how this relates to Michael Jackson and his children.
In an email reply, Ms. Caballero stated: Gestational carriers in California do not have any custodial or visitation rights to any surrogate child they give birth to because the intent to parent controls in these cases and the Intended Parents, whether they used their own genetic material or a donor egg or sperm, are the only legal and natural parents of that child.
Even if Michael Jackson used a sperm donor to father his youngest child, that sperm donor is not the parent. Custody would have been relinquished in this case by a judgment of parentage signed by the judge and certified by the court, allowing Michael Jackson’s name to be listed as the only parent, since he was not married at the time.

Posted at 6:52PM on Jul 15th 2009 by big fan of MJ

309. Debbie Rowe’s Uterus Is Up For Hire !!
Think about the whole scenario from the moment Debbie Rowe offered Michael Jackson to give him children “as a gift!” IF IT’S A GIFT THEN WHY THE HELL HAS SHE BEEN ASKING FOR MONEY?? That’s a lie you don’t ask for money if you GIVE someone a gift !!!’ SHE DID it for money, using the uterus as a hired object!!! From one female to another, that was sheer stupid, but conniving!! What she was really thinking of primarily was ‘MONEY’, fame and . . . .’Oh my . . . having a celebrity, like Michael Jackson, having his children.’ She planned it all from the very beginning in her weasel conniving mind. Let’s not forget that she knew Michael enough to know how to get to him and trick him to her own devise. She came up to him and basically offered her ‘uterus up for hire ! !’ Meaning . . . MONEY FOR CHILDREN, in her mind! Therefore, she was a surrogate, she offered to be a surrogate . . . NOT A WIFE ! That’s all! So for a surrogate she got more then she should have received when it comes to money. If anything, she owes the Jackson family money back. Once the contract for the ‘uterus for hire was paid’ she was not entitle to any more money. Therefore, whatever money she got over and above the original contract was purely FRAUD, AND THEFT! She never wanted to be a wife nor a mother, neither was it ever her intention because she said she never wanted children. She just never came out and boldly just said it verbally she wants money. That just EVOLVED ! Remember that!
Surrogates do not have any parental rights what’s so ever, just like in the case of the surrogate for Prince Michael II (blanket). Neither did she keep on asking for money. Which would explain why she did not live with Michael or the children? The same with Debbie Rowe. She was a married surrogate for him, but a surrogate nonetheless. Soon after the 2nd child, the ‘uterus up for hire contract’ was completed. Of course, to the media they would make up stories to cover that up, like, she gave up the children for . . . . whatever the excuse that was given, and there are a few.
How do we know that? Well, I’ll bet that the marriage idea came from Michael, NOT Debbie. Did they not marry only when she was 6 months pregnant or so?? . . . . just to make sure that she did indeed get pregnant.
This present issue with Debbie Rowe wanting custody of the children is should be NONE EXISTING FOR she is a SURROGATE!! She just wants money again over and above her ‘uterus up for hire contract!’ THROW IT INTO HER FACE THAT SHE IS A SURROGATE WITH A UTERUS UP FOR HIRE !!! someone should put a sign on her front gate,” Debbie Rowe’s Uterus Is Up For Hire.” And put her ph num.
Surrogacy Lawyer Speaks: I asked California surrogacy lawyer Stephanie M. Caballero to provide the readers a basic understanding of the contractual process involved in surrogacy cases and the rights of the surrogates and/or donors and how this relates to Michael Jackson and his children.
Ms. Caballero stated: Gestational carriers in California do not have any custodial or visitation rights to any surrogate child they give birth to because the intent to parent controls in these cases and the Intended Parents, whether they used their own genetic material or a donor egg or sperm, are the only legal and natural parents of that child.
Even if Michael Jackson used a sperm donor to father his youngest child, that sperm donor is not the parent. Custody would have been relinquished in this case by a judgment of parentage signed by the judge and certified by the court, allowing Michael Jackson’s name to be listed as the only parent, since he was not married at the time.

Posted at 6:53PM on Jul 15th 2009 by big fan of MJ

310. Debbie Rowe’s Uterus Is Up For Hire !!

Think about the whole scenario from the moment Debbie Rowe offered Michael Jackson to give him children “as a gift!” IF IT’S A GIFT THEN WHY THE HELL HAS SHE BEEN ASKING FOR MONEY?? That’s a lie you don’t ask for money if you GIVE someone a gift !!! She did it for money, using the uterus as a hired object!!! From one female to another, that was sheer stupid, but conniving, what she was really thinking of primarily was ‘MONEY’, fame and . . . .’Oh my . . . having a celebrity, like Michael Jackson, having his children.’ She planned it all from the very beginning in her weasel conniving mind. Let’s not forget that she knew Michael enough to know how to get to him and trick him to her own devise. She came up to him and basically offered her ‘uterus up for hire ! !’ Meaning . . . MONEY FOR CHILDREN, in her mind! Therefore, she was a surrogate, she offered to be a surrogate . . . NOT A WIFE ! That’s all! So for a surrogate she got more then she should have received when it comes to money. If anything, she owes the Jackson family money back. Once the contract for the ‘uterus for hire was paid’ she was not entitle to any more money. Therefore, whatever money she got over and above the original contract was purely FRAUD, AND THEFT! She never wanted to be a wife nor a mother, neither was it ever her intention because she said she never wanted children. She just never came out and boldly just said it verbally she wants money. That just EVOLVED ! Remember that!
Surrogates do not have any parental rights what’s so ever, just like in the case of the surrogate for Prince Michael II (blanket). Neither did she keep on getting money. Which would explain why she did not live with Michael or the children? The same with Debbie Rowe. She was a married surrogate for him, but a surrogate nonetheless. Soon after the 2nd child, the ‘uterus up for hire contract’ was completed. Of course, to the media they would make up stories to cover that up, like, she gave up the children for . . . . whatever the excuse that was given, and there are a few.
How do we know that? Well, I’ll bet that the marriage idea came from Michael, NOT Debbie. Did they not marry only when she was 6 months pregnant or so?? . . . . just to make sure that she did indeed get pregnant! This present issue with Debbie Rowe wanting custody of the children is should be NONE EXISTING FOR SURROGATES !! She just wants money again over and above her ‘uterus up for hire contract!’ DON’T LET HER. THROW IT INTO HER FACE THAT SHE IS A SURROGATE WITH A UTERUS UP FOR HIRE !!! someone should put a sign on her front gate, “Debbie Rowe’s Uterus Is Up For Hire.” And then put her ph num.
Surrogacy Lawyer Speaks: I asked California surrogacy lawyer Stephanie M. Caballero to provide my readers a basic understanding of the contractual process involved in surrogacy cases and the rights of the surrogates and/or donors and how this relates to Michael Jackson and his children.
Ms. Caballero stated: Gestational carriers in California do not have any custodial or visitation rights to any surrogate child they give birth to because the intent to parent controls in these cases and the Intended Parents, whether they used their own genetic material or a donor egg or sperm, are the only legal and natural parents of that child.
Even if Michael Jackson used a sperm donor to father his youngest child, that sperm donor is not the parent. Custody would have been relinquished in this case by a judgment of parentage signed by the judge and certified by the court, allowing Michael Jackson’s name to be listed as the only parent, since he was not married at the time.

Posted at 11:10AM on Jul 19th 2009 by big fan of MJ

311. Can I ask a really stupid question? If I am married, then get divorced, is my ex-husband supposed to support me from beyond the grave?? I would think it would be a given that support would end when his life does. Should his estate have to provide for me? BTW, I am not married but just think it sounds like the craziest thing I have ever heard!

Posted at 11:33PM on Jul 15th 2009 by annie2

312. Are you kidding me??? Debbie Rowe has been all about the money since the day she met Michael Jackson. She has been receiving thousands of dollars a month for many years. Debbie Rowe's interest is NOT the best intentions for those beautiful children but for the best interest of herself! She is a very selfish and self-centered person with dollars signs in her eyes!

Posted at 2:27AM on Jul 16th 2009 by theresas804

313. You can't sell children to their own father.

If she didn't care, she wouldn't have let the one she thought would be the better parent have custody

She got a divorce settlement, and considering what he was worth, it wasn't a whole lot

I like the fact that she looks like a regular, normal person, she doesn't need to please all of you, who only judge by appearances

Posted at 10:29AM on Jul 16th 2009 by cinderella

314. When a person such as MJ has so much money, it is in a trust or estate. At death of the person, all debts the estate owes are to be paid.

The agreement MJ made with Debbie will have to be honored as an estate obligation, just as all the others should get paid
also. The debts, taxes and attorney fees have to be paid, if anything is left it goes to the people in the will, that is why it is done in percentages, noone knows how much if any is left. Katherine will get 40% of what is left.

The average person might differ according to their divorce settlement or alimony arrangement

Posted at 8:31PM on Jul 16th 2009 by lulu