TMZ

Our TV Shows

Got a Tip?

Call TMZ at (888) 847-9869 or Click Here

Katherine Jackson's Secret Contract

11/12/2010 9:00 AM PST BY TMZ STAFF

Katherine Jackson has been bitterly complaining the Michael Jackson Estate is not giving her enough money, and now we know what she's done to supplement her income in a big way.

1111-katherine-jackson-bn-tmz-launch-2

TMZ has obtained a contract Katherine signed with Vintage Pop Media (VPM), the company that owns tens of thousands of photos, videos and other MJ items.  Under the deal -- which is not sanctioned by the MJ Estate -- Katherine agreed to participate in the production of "The Katherine Jackson Story," some sort of MJ documentary set to music.  Katherine also agreed to pen the book that was just released, "Never Can Say Goodbye."

In return for her work, VPM -- owned by her controversial business partner Howard Mann -- agreed to pay Katherine 25% of the net profits with a minimum monthly guarantee of $10,000-a-month.  But here's what's really interesting ... there's no end date for the $10-grand-a-month, so if you read the contract literally, VPM agrees to pay Katherine at least $10k-a-month for the rest of her life.

And get this.  The contract also says Katherine has the legal right to "forever bind" Michael's kids, Prince, Paris and Blanket.  According to sources familiar with the MJ Estate, Katherine does not have the power to contractually bind Michael's kids.

Katherine is already raking in $26,000-a-month from the MJ Estate, but she's complaining she wants more.  Looks like she found it.

Howard Mann tells TMZ, "This is one of several agreements with Mrs. Jackson. This was a starting point in our relationship."


288 COMMENTS

No Avatar
211.

bunny    

My goodness danger baby, lawyers are much too busy with their clients and company commitments to worry about Michael Jackson, surely?

1329 days ago
212.

sofi    

Mjuls

I can't thank you enough for answering my questions,i really appreciate it.Please allow me to ask you the following:

1)Regarding my last question you wrote that there was alot of animosity between Michael and Debbie which made it impossible for him to reach any agreements with her concerning the custody of their chidren but if there was so much bad blood between them,how come she testified FOR HIM while was called by the prosecution and could have easily DESTROYED HIM by testifying against him.

In 2001 while Michael was in London he told his British fans that he left Sony,was a free agent owning half the company and all that he owed them was a box,meaning a compilation of songs,my question is what made him change his mind in 2006 and he agreed to a Sonybacked refinancing deal?

And finally is it true that Michael and Sony bought Famous music LLC from Viacom in 2007?

1329 days ago
213.

FlowerPower    

Sofi
Here you can get the answer to your last question:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN3040712720070530

1329 days ago
214.

Roseilicious     

Good morning, Mjuls. :o)

I will use >>>> and <<<<, to differentiate quotes of your post, in lieu of quotation marks, with my response/questions below them - and, separate each by blocking each 'set' between lines in the hopes it makes for easier reading. (I am not only an avid reader, analytical, opinionated and yes sometimes stubborn - my eyes are old and paying for it as I compulsively abuse them by reading via monitor - I own it, and admit I need to work on self discipline in this respect. lol - hence, arrow bracketing is more for MY ease as I do not know how to 'code' for bolding/italicizing on this board, and have not taken the time to learn which coding would work to do so on this particular site, YET.)


>>>>First, I would be remiss if I did not point out to you that (as far as the law is concerned) Mr. Jackson was not murdered. Mr. Jackson’s death was ruled a homicide. All murders are homicides, however, all homicides are not murders. (I realize the legal parlance can be confusing. Think of it this way: all poodles are dogs, but not all dogs are poodles.) This is a very important distinction. Conrad Murray is charged with Involuntary Manslaughter, not murder.<<<<


WHY it is CM is charged with Involuntary Manslaughter, and not Murder (of any degree). What in or personal opinion, and/or by legal reasoning, is the reasoning behind charging with Involuntary Manslaughter opposed to Murder (of any degree). Thank you for your analogy of the difference between homicide and murder in relation to charges(ing).

Now, why NOT charge with Manslaughter, period - as opposed to
INvoluntary Manslaugher? I'm asking if IYO there truly is not enough evidence to support winning a conviction of Murder, and/or Manslaughter, so prosecution is 'playing it safe'? what...?

________________________________________________________


>>>> “If the judge at the preliminary hearing in January decides that killer murray should stand trial his decision will be based on the events leading to poor Michael's murder, Michael's medical records and both autopsy reports or is the LA Coroner's autopsy report more official and accurate?”

In a preliminary hearing the judge’s calling is to determine if the prosecution has enough evidence of wrongdoing by Conrad Murray to support the charges and warrant a trial. The main issue to be argued at the preliminary hearing will be negligence on the part of Conrad Murray. To my mind and experience there is ONE irrefutable element in this case that guarantees the judge will be compelled to order Conrad Murray to stand trial.<<<<


.... and, "that ONE irrefutable element" might be??

Also, again: WHICH autopsy report is considered "official" - they differ greatly from each other, and am wondering with all due respect if it's merely an oversight or you intentionally do not wish to respond to the direct question of "Which?", and if so ... why?


___________________________________________________

>>>>As for Conrad Murray being found guilty at trial, I am much less confident.<<<<


Simply: Why?

Not enough evidence? Evidence, but wrong charges? Matters not the charges, nor evidence, this trial is a sham?

Are you personally aware that there is compelling evidence that heavily brings into question and could possibly go far in disproving the validity of C.M.'s qualifications -- that his medical licensing is fraudulent -- let alone a "Cardiologist" - regardless of his purported claim of "valid"? If you are aware of this information, what is your opinion of said information, and it's viability AT ALL. Which case - civil, or criminal - would this information be best used for conviction? I ask because it pretty much MAKES the case in EVERY way including charges of MURDER let alone medical malpractice. (I really needed to say that? lol)

_______________________________________________________


(I'm just typing out my rhetorical question -- WHY it would take Oxman A MONTH to re-file - lol. Then again, I am one that has a propensity to quickly run short on patience on some issues in general, and don't react well to intentionally DRAGGING or obtuseness - unless I understand there is a beneficial strategy to do so, in which in this case, I do not. Am I missing something? lol **sigh** Forever a work in progress in actively attempting to discipline this propensity.)


An entirely unrelated question to this matter of C.M. (I certainly hope...) an aside question: Do you know, and if you do can you name (if not, I understand) whom this 'claimant' is that Susan C. Yu, Esq. of Mesereau & Yu, LLP, is representing - in, or against? - the Estate?


I look forward, as usual, to your response(s), Mjuls and it's my hope that your week is going well.


Sincerely, thank you.

1328 days ago
215.

Roseilicious     

** sigh ** Please forgive my lapse of including the following link in my reference to investigative work into the validity to C.M.'s validity of medical licensing for your perusal:

Michael Jackson Justice

LAST question (for now): IS KJ in serious jeopardy of losing custody of PPB over this issue of attempting to inflict abuse of exploitation outlined within this contract, upon PPB?

1328 days ago
216.

sofi    

Mjuls

I can't thank you enough for answering my questions,i really appreciate it.Please allow me to ask you the following:

1)Regarding my last question you wrote that there was alot of animosity between Michael and Debbie which made it impossible for him to reach any agreements with her concerning the custody of their chidren but if there was so much bad blood between them,how come she testified FOR HIM while was called by the prosecution and could have easily DESTROYED HIM by testifying against him.

In 2001 while Michael was in London he told his British fans that he left Sony,was a free agent owning half the company and all that he owed them was a box,meaning a compilation of songs,my question is what made him change his mind in 2006 and he agreed to a Sonybacked refinancing deal?

And finally is it true that Michael and Sony bought Famous music LLC from Viacom in 2007?

Posted at 1:05 AM on Dec 3, 2010 by sofi

I am sorry i forgot to ask you Mjuls why did Michael need those huge loans,was it because of bad business deals?

1328 days ago
217.

MJ LIVES ON    

@MJULS

Wow, I just saw your last few posts on this thread from the last couple of days. Thanks for all the GREAT information! + Thanks for answering my questions. If you don't mind I have a few other ?'s for you...

1 - I echo all of the Conrad Murray ?'s Roseilicious asked in her last post.

2 - in one of the other threads you remarked: "Katherine Jackson is between a rock and a hard place (forgive the cliché) in this [Alejandra] cir***stance. However, given the history, Alejandra DOES have a plausible case should Katherine Jackson insist she and her children vacate the residence permanently. If Alejandra sues in court things may get very messy quickly for the entire Jackson family."

Can you please explain how Alejandra could have any kind of "case" in this situation???

3 - Someone in one of the other threads made the statement that the Jackson's KNOW who Blanket's real mother is but are keeping it quiet because she asked for privacy. Is this even possible??? Wouldn't that be a violation of the law??? Tell me if I'm wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure I remember seeing Nancy Grace on her TV show right after MJ died saying that the estate would be required to show proof to the Judge showing Blanket does not have a legal mother before giving guardianship of him to anyone. Is this true??? Did that happen???


Really appreciate you "dropping in" here when you can to give us the legal breakdown. Thank you in advance for your time. Happy Holidays, MJULS!

1328 days ago
218.

Roseilicious     

JUST popped into my mind to ask, as I had intended to ask quite a while ago - many times, and had forgotten as many times lol - something that I had not been able to find the answer to, and had just been curious about... if you don't mind, Mjuls.


Or, perhaps someone other then yourself may read this and would be kind enough to drop a quick yea or nay post as to their knowledge of the outcome - if so, thank you in advance for sharing, and in that case I respectfully request that you site your source that you found the estates response plz, thank you!


As The Estate paid for MJ's burial in it's entirety, KJ had at that time put in a request to the Estate to also foot the bill for an additional 11 plots for herself, and JJ et al of the J Clan, at Forest Lawn. Has, or had, the Estate agreed to do so?

Reference: CBS - Michael Jackson's Tomb (specifically, statement beginning at :50)


Thank you, and best wishes for a great weekend. :o)

1328 days ago
219.

sofi    

MJ LIVES ON hi and please allow me to remind you that Roseillicious is asking questions based on the answers Mjuls gave me when i asked her about murray on post#191.

1327 days ago
220.

get it right    

MJ LIVES ON hi and please allow me to remind you that Roseillicious is asking questions based on the answers Mjuls gave me when i asked her about murray on post#191.

Posted at 6:53 AM on Dec 4, 2010 by sofi


.... seriously?

1325 days ago
221.

sofi    

Yes,seriously by get it right.

CHECK IT OUT !

1325 days ago
222.

sofi    

TYPO: MEANT YES SERIOUSLY! get it right

1325 days ago
223.

Roseilicious     

Yes,seriously by get it right.

CHECK IT OUT !

Posted at 1:10 AM on Dec 7, 2010 by sofi


TYPO: MEANT YES SERIOUSLY! get it right

Posted at 1:24 AM on Dec 7, 2010 by sofi


___________________________________________________


lol... priceless.

1324 days ago
224.

Carolina     

I really love Prince, he could be the boy of 13 years the world's poorest, but I'll always love him, and he read it, my name is Carolina and I am 12 years old, I'm from Brazil, live in the state Sao Paulo in the city of Limeira. I told my mother that I will marry him when I grow up :D
I love you so much Prince ♥

1323 days ago
225.

mjuls    

In reply to: Roseilicious, Sofi, and MJ Lives On, et al.

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


Good morning/afternoon/evening to all.

Herein I have addressed your queries about Conrad Murray. I will make it a point to come back this weekend and address your other questions. I apologize (again!) for the delayed response.

CONRAD MURRAY, M.D.


Q - Why is Conrad Murray charged with Involuntary Manslaughter, and not Murder? Why not charge him with Manslaughter as opposed to Involuntary Manslaughter?


A - In order for the D.A. to charge Conrad Murray with murder they would need to prove malice aforethought. There is no evidence of premeditation and the supporting facts of the case do not meet the threshold for murder. When you pool the evidence, the charge of Involuntary Manslaughter is appropriate. The distinction between Manslaughter (sometimes referred to as Voluntary Manslaughter) and Involuntary Manslaughter is one of intent. Manslaughter means you intended to kill or cause serious bodily harm. (NOTE: This is NOT the same as premeditation or deliberation.) Whereas Involuntary Manslaughter is the act of unlawfully killing another unintentionally.

Q - In your previous post you said:

“In a preliminary hearing the Judge’s calling is to determine if the prosecution has enough evidence of wrongdoing by Conrad Murray to support the charges and warrant a trial. The main issue to be argued at the preliminary hearing will be negligence on the part of Conrad Murray. To my mind and experience there is ONE irrefutable element in this case that guarantees the judge will be compelled to order Conrad Murray to stand trial.”

.... and, "that ONE irrefutable element" might be?


A - First, it is important you understand that a preliminary hearing is not a trial. It is about determining if the the D.A. has gathered the evidence necessary to support the charge(s) they have brought forth. The D.A. needs to show the court they have the evidence to show Conrad Murray’s negligence. (NOTE: “Negligence”, “gross negligence” and “contributory negligence” are terms you will start to hear a lot depending upon which side is crafting the argument.)

The Defense will make every effort to mitigate the evidence presented by the D.A. While the Defense may be successful in explaining away certain elements of the D.A.‘s case, the “one irrefutable element” that cannot be explained away (and substantiates Conrad Murray’s negligence) is the fact that he knowingly administered Propofol to Mr. Jackson outside of a hospital (non-medical) setting without the necessary medical equipment and mechanisms in place to monitor, sustain and resuscitate Mr. Jackson. That fact alone compels Conrad Murray to trial.

Q - WHICH autopsy report is considered "official" - they differ greatly from each other, and am wondering with all due respect if it's merely an oversight or you intentionally do not wish to respond to the direct question of "Which?", and if so ... why?


A - Are you referring to the private Autopsy or the medical testing done on the fluid and tissue samples by the Defense? I have no knowledge of the private Autopsy conducted on Mr. Jackson. It is my understanding (from media reports) that a private Autopsy was conducted, however, I have not seen or read the secondary report. (What are the great differences you refer to?)

As far as the State is concerned the “official” Autopsy - the one they will use to support their case against Conrad Murray - was conducted by the Los Angeles County Coroner’s Office. (Their case is largely based on the Medical Examiner’s conclusions.) If the Defense wants to introduce contradictory evidence substantiated by the second Autopsy Report or their independent testing of tissue samples at trial, it will come down to a battle of the medical experts.

Q - In your previous post you said: “As for Conrad Murray being found guilty at trial, I am much less confident.” Why?

A - Jury nullification.

Hope you find this helpful. See you over the weekend.

Be well all,

Mjuls, Esq.


Portions of this post have been previously published by me. If you choose to copy all or parts of this post into another forum you must credit “Mjuls” and include the appropriate disclaimer.

**DISCLAIMER: The information expressed is not intended to substitute for professional legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should accept legal advice only from a licensed legal professional with whom you have an attorney-client relationship.

As a matter of record I state I am in no way affiliated with the Estate of Michael Jackson.

1323 days ago
Previous 15 Comments | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

Around The Web