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
226.

MJ LIVES ON    

MJULS

Thank you very much for answering our Conrad Murray questions. I look forward to your next post over the weekend.

Have you seen the C&D the Estate issued to Howard Mann? What are your thoughts?

Thanks again MJULS

1391 days ago
227.

Cheryl    

Can you even sign a contract for children that are not yours?

1391 days ago
228.

scudrunner4    

First of all TMZ!? What is #239 doing advertising cloths?! Back to Katherine. Mike is Dead & Gone! ITs time to move on. The problem here is, well, remember the Trekkies? Get a Life!
What Katherine does is her business! If she feel's that $26,000 isn't enough to get by on a month thats her business not yours! The only good thing about all the comments is that at least your Proctologists know where your heads are at. Hmmm!
great prices meijin71....I'll be in touch....

1391 days ago
229.

Janar    

When she saw how talented young Michael was, she told Joe "We need a contract. He's not going to be cute and little forever".
And anyone who thinks Janet is any better is mistaken...

Posted at 2:36 AM on Nov 12, 2010 by Nessie

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

As I was reading your comment, this part had already flashed back in my mind before I got the end of your comment to see that you had written it. It's like you took the words right out of my mind, what I was thinking. lol to everything you said, because I read the exact same thing (word for word) in an article before which I still have. And I was thinking the exact same thing about Janet too.

None of them were ever really there for Michael like he needed them to be. If so, he'd probably still be here. In my research, I have found Katherine to be a liar and a hypocrite. And just because she was on the seen during most of his tragedies, it's not the same thing as really being in your corner and having your back. Being a mother she should have been the first one to know about his addiction and the things that he was going through. And should have been non-stop at trying to get him some help. When Liz Taylor went public about refering Michael to treatment, Katherine should have jumped right in and saw to it that Michael got the best treatment. She said in a bogus interview that she was not familiar with drugs and drug abuse. But that's when she should have gotten herself familiar.

1391 days ago
230.

Janar    

First of all TMZ!? What is #239 doing advertising cloths?!

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

That was funny.

1391 days ago
231.

Janar    

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.

Posted at 7:35 PM on Dec 8, 2010

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

To all of you, thanks for your comments. They have been so enlightening for me. I have learned some things from each of you. Again, thanks and keep on with your good info. Have a nice Holiday Season.

1391 days ago
232.

Janar    

If i was in her place,grief would have killed me because nothing would compensate his loss.

Posted at 9:23 AM on Nov 14, 2010 by sofi

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

You got that right, because ain't no way I'd have time to do or think about anything else other than my son. And btw, what is "binding the children"? Thanks and sorry for my ignorance.

1391 days ago
233.

Janar    

My apologies for not posting this reply sooner. I finally had the opportunity to review the contract between Vintage Pop Media Music, LLC (Howard Mann) and Katherine Jackson. Herein are my impressions and interpretations of the “Performance Agreement” signed and dated by each party on February 3, 2010.


Let me tell you upfront there are a multitude of problems with this contract. Some areas are in point of fact contradictory. We could literally go line-for-line highlighting issues. For those of you not wanting to weigh into a long post, the bottom line is the estate will challenge Howard Mann and Henry Vaccaro over their claim to rights of the memorabilia in their possession (my guess is in the new year) and the estate will win as the law does not support the Mann/Vaccaro assertions. The courts will then rule by entering into the aforementioned contract Howard Mann and Katherine Jackson contravened the estate’s position. This obviously hurried agreement is about greed and a way for the parties involved to make a quick buck before the estate comes and shuts them down.


Understand this contract was not drafted by an attorney. The choice of language and wording and construction are a dead giveaway. (That fact does not make the agreement between the parties any less valid, for now, however it is telling.) In Section WAIVERS, Part 36, Katherine Jackson attests “I have sought the advice of council in this matter or herein waive my rights thereto.” If the latter portion of her declaration is true and Katherine Jackson chose to “waive my rights [to council] thereto” she is gravely misguided. If Katherine Jackson “sought the advice of council” it certainly was not legal council. I PROMISE you there is NO WAY that Adam Streisand (Katherine Jackson’s council of record) would have allowed her to enter into such an agreement. Mr. Streisand is a highly competent attorney and Katherine Jackson would be wise to avail herself of his council. Frankly, due to her actions I will not be the least bit surprised if Mr. Streisand files to remove himself as Katherine Jackson’s council of record come the new year.


One chief reason the courts will nullify this agreement when the estate takes legal action against Vintage Pop Media Music, LLC and Howard Mann (and they absolutely will - bet on it) is because Katherine Jackson entered into said agreement asserting authority she does not legally have. Under Section GRANT OF RIGHTS, Parts 9 and 10, Katherine Jackson grants Vintage Pop Media Music, LLC the exclusive right to “(9) use, commercialize and exploit for the purposes of profiting, the name, likeness, images, materials, and any intangible assets not governed herein in conjunction and in combination with the programming and related assets contemplated herein. (10) KJ hereby waives any inherent rights to privacy and grants VPM the exclusive right to produce, promote, market, sell, trade and generally commercialize the content it records, without limitation thereto, providing payments are made as laid out herein.” This is a problem and the courts will jump on it. Whomever drafted this agreement attempted to be clever in their wording but they missed their mark in a BIG way. (If you have more questions about this aspect of the contract just ask and I will expound further.) In sum, Katherine Jackson does NOT legally have the authority to commercialize and exploit Michael Jackson’s name or likeness, et cetera for profit.


EQUITY TERMS / ADVANCES / MEDIA and PROMOTIONAL ENGAGEMENTS


Vintage Pop Media Music, LLC, agrees to pay Katherine Jackson 25% of the net profits derived from the “exploitation efforts” (their words) of VPM and guarantees Katherine Jackson a minimum payment of $10,000.00 each month. In addition to her monthly share of the profits Katherine Jackson will be compensated at the rate of $5,000.00 per day for making any media or promotional appearances to promote the VPM endeavor (plus travel, security and other expenses at their [VPM’s] discretion.) For example in June 2010 Katherine Jackson returned to Gary, IN to commemorate the one year anniversary of Mr. Jackson’s death. For this appearance she was paid $5,000.00 for each day she was there, plus travel expenses and 25% of the profits generated by the Gary, IN event or $10,000.00 whichever amount was greater; For her Oprah interview about her book, Katherine Jackson was paid an additional $5,000.00 by VPM. You get the idea.


In the agreement Katherine Jackson and Mr. Jackson’s minor children are collectively referred to as “The KJ Party.” Not only does Katherine Jackson agree that she will make herself available to promote the VPM projects, she commits the children as well. Under SPECIFIC TERMS, Parts 13 and 14, Katherine agrees “The KJ Party will appear in person to promote the program as required” and upon the mutual consent of VPM and Katherine Jackson, “The KJ Party will conduct further interviews, promotional materials and marketing related efforts, including but not limited to television appearances, radio interviews, magazine interviews and any news media association or affiliation as required.” I know many of you will read this and be understandably appalled at the idea of the children in the media spotlight given Mr. Jackson’s longstanding distain for the media and his well-do***ented desire that his children be afforded their privacy. It is a valid concern. However, what is more disturbing is NOWHERE in this contract are the children financially compensated for their time, efforts, or participation in the VPM project(s). Katherine Jackson is compensated and receives 25% of the profits, but the children, either collectively or individually, do not receive a dime.


Regardless of any personal feelings you may have on the subject of Mr. Jackson’s children (I know from reading your posts opinions are wide and varied) this contract irrefutably shows Katherine Jackson is not above using Mr. Jackson’s children for the purposes of promoting and generating profits for “her” business ventures.


MISCELLANY

The PDF posted by TMZ contains two copies of the “Performance Agreement” one witnessed, the other not. One of you noted in your post the contract is dated February 2009. You are correct, and the copyright on the bottom of each page also says 2009. I believe this is in fact a typo and NOT a “renewal” of an agreement originally drawn 2009. I really cannot emphasize enough how poorly this do***ent is put together. For all the problems in this do***ent THIS is actually the least of them. What I did notice was the seal. Magnify your version of the PDF and look closely at the sworn affirmation on the last page (page 12 of the TMZ PDF.) The contract unquestionably states it was executed under seal on the 3rd day of February. Now look at the seal which is clearly dated 25th day of February.


I will check back tomorrow if there are any follow up questions.

Be well all,

Mjuls, Esq.

**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.

Posted at 12:55 PM on Nov 15, 2010 by mjuls

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

@Mjuls, Esq.

You are so awesome. Thank you for helping me to understand these things.

1391 days ago
234.

Heather    

Mrs. jackson has always been willing to sacrifice her soul when it comes to money. She was willing to look the other way when Joe beat his kids into performing. She wheedled money out of MJ to keep Joe happy when MJ wanted to cut him off. Now, after decades of houses and cars and clothes and trips and gifts, she cries poverty at over $250,000 a year (plus what the kids get). Meanwhile, the estate is stuck with tens of millions of debt,mounting lawsuits, and the problem of attempting provide for MJ's children while his greedy kinfolk flood the market with stuff that should belong to the MJ's kids.

1390 days ago
235.

Michael'sTruth    

Don't forget Katherine was the one who was standing by watching and doing nothing when Joe was abusing Michael. That alone doesn't say much for her. She had no problem confronting Joe when he was cheating on her, but didn't do it in defense of her children. But bottom line is Michael loved and trusted his mother with his cherished children. So if we love Michael we have to trust that he knows her better than we do. Love you Michael, forever.

1390 days ago
236.

Janar    

I have to say that I am sick and tired of the "they're spending MJ's kids money". Because 1)all of Michael Jackson's money should not go to his kids which are not biologically his (for all who don't know or just don't want to except it). And 2)all of his money is not going to go to them anyway because Michael set up a Trust for them stating what percentage of his estates money would be alloted to them, which was a smart thing he did. Why should they get all of his money so that when they get grown, can go and share it with their parents if they happen to feel sympathetic for them one day. Because that is the reality of it. Those kids are not stupid like some people. They are very bright and smart. Especially the 2 oldest. Please, they are not blind and can look in the mirror and see that Michael is not their blood father but that he is their legal father which I know they love. And will always respect him. Because if it were'nt for Michael choosing to make them his, where would they be? This is not something that just happened. Michael chose to make this happen. And with all being said, Joe and Katherine are the ones responsible for Michael being on this planet in the first place. And yes, they put Michael so that he could become who he was to all of us. Bottom line, without them there would be no Michael Jackson or MJ's kids point blank.

1390 days ago
237.

mjuls    

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

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


Good morning/afternoon/evening to all.

Herein I have addressed your remaining queries (in no particular order.) I hope they help clarify your concerns.

Q - Do you know, whom the 'claimant' is that Susan C. Yu, Esq. of Mesereau & Yu, LLP, is representing in the claim against? (Roseilicious)


A - I do not. (It is most likely related to third-party work done on behalf of Mr. Jackson during the 2005 trial.)

Q - Regarding my last question you wrote that there was a lot of animosity between Michael and Debbie which made it impossible for him to reach any agreements with her concerning the custody of their children 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. (Sofi)


A - It’s important to point out that in order to take the position that Debbie Rowe could have “destroyed” Mr. Jackson with her testimony in The People v. Michael Jackson you would first need to believe and put forth a credible argument that Ms. Rowe knowingly lied and willfully committed perjury. There is nothing to suggest Ms. Rowe was less than truthful in her testimony. She did not do Mr. Jackson a favor, she simply told the truth as required. (NOTE: If Ms. Rowe had been less than truthful in any part of her testimony, Mr. Mesereau would have had the grounds to easily impeach her on cross.)

Ms. Rowe’s testimony at Mr. Jackson’s criminal trial was unrelated to the ongoing civil litigation that existed between them from 2003 until 2006. We now know that there was no formal written agreement between the two pertaining to custody of their children in the event of Mr. Jackson’s death. However, because Ms. Rowe was successful in having her parental rights restored, her wishes as the surviving legal parent, by-and-large, supersede the wishes laid out by Mr. Jackson in his will.

Q - 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? (Roseilicious)


A - It is unlikely she will lose custody. I do, however, expect the court will reconfirm ANY business or financial transactions which involve or may pertain to the children must be reviewed prior to implementation. (This task will almost certainly fall to Ms. Lodise for the foreseeable future.)

Q - Why did Michael need those huge loans,was it because of bad business deals? (Sofi)


A - I’m sorry, Sofi, at this time I do not have the enough verifiable information to answer your question with any degree of certainty.

Q - 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??? (MJ Lives On)


A - I am not familiar with the Nancy Grace piece you reference. You are correct, the court will not award custody (guardianship) of any minor to a non-parent unless it is satisfied there is no standing parental relationship.

Surrogacy - gestational surrogacy in particular - is big business in California. We are possibly the most surrogacy-friendly state in the nation. Our courts have consistently recognized the rights and claims of the “intended parents” over those of the surrogate. The records detailing the surrogacy agreement Mr. Jackson entered into were sealed at his behest. (NOTE: Sealing information is common in cases of surrogacy. This information is considered a private matter for the intended parent(s).)

Due to the cir***stances of his birth Mr. Jackson’s youngest child, known as ‘Blanket’, has no legal mother. The only publicly known facts surrounding his birth (as recognized by the court) are that Prince Michael Jackson II was born to a gestational surrogate on February 21, 2002, at Grossmont Hospital in La Mesa, San Diego County, CA. A court order was issued and, upon birth, the newborn child was surrendered into the custody of Mr. Jackson’s legal representative. (Mr. Jackson, through his legal representatives, entered into an anonymous surrogacy agreement in the summer of 2001.)

I do realize this information contradicts public statements made by Mr. Jackson in his lifetime. (As well as tabloid reports published after Mr. Jackson’s death.) It would seem Mr. Jackson’s motivation for those statements were an (understandable) attempt to not publicly belabor the cir***stances of his son’s birth and maintain his (and his child’s) privacy.

As there is no genetic link between Blanket Jackson and the gestational surrogate whom delivered him, it is unlikely her identity (if revealed) would shed any light on young Blanket’s maternal biological origins. Mr. Jackson employed EVERY LEGAL APPLICATION AVAILABLE to him to assure the information surrounding his son’s conception and birth would remain private and guaranteed the anonymity between the parties involved be maintained. The only way anyone could know anything is if Mr. Jackson shared information with them and that information was truthful. (Though I will tell you because the extreme measures in place to protect the anonymity of egg donors it is HIGHLY unlikely Mr. Jackson ever knew the actual identity of the Donor.) I have no doubt Mr. Jackson thoroughly investigated the ethnic background, physical attributes, and physical, intellectual and mental health and well-being of the Donor. He may have even viewed photographs of the Donor, however, he would not know her identity. Had Mr. Jackson used what’s called a “Willing-to-Be-Known Donor” the appropriate Identity Releases would have been signed between the parties and Mr. Jackson’s identity would have become known to the Donor. This is clearly not an avenue Mr. Jackson was interested in pursuing nor is it one his legal counsel would have advised. Mr. Jackson, like many, opted for anonymous surrogacy to avoid the possibility of someone coming forward to lay claim to his child. While the Donor would have no legal claim to his son, the idea that she could potentially embarrass Mr. Jackson (or his child) publicly or attempt to extort monies from him would have been a valid concern for someone of Mr. Jackson’s stature.

Beyond the information outlined above, which is now public record, this really is a private matter. One I hope will be left alone by the media and fans. Once Blanket reaches adulthood (if he chooses) he may file a petition to unseal the records for his inspection.

Q - Has 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? (Sofi)


A - The Estate agreed to cover the costs. Judge Beckloff approved the expenditure.

Q - Have you seen the C&D the Estate issued to Howard Mann? What are your thoughts? (MJ Lives On)


A - Everything you need to know about the estate’s position can be found in the last paragraph.

“This letter is not meant to be an exhaustive recitation of all unlawful or wrongful activities engaged in by you, either directly or indirectly, and is written without a waiver of any or all of the Estate’s rights at law or at equity. All such rights are hereby expressly reserved.”

This is merely the opening salvo, a perfunctory nod to the procedural process. I promise you Mr. Weitzman has long been preparing his brief for the upcoming lawsuit.


Please excuse any typos.


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.

1388 days ago
238.

Roseilicious     

Mr. Jackson employed EVERY LEGAL APPLICATION AVAILABLE to him to assure the information surrounding his son’s conception and birth would remain private and guaranteed the anonymity between the parties involved be maintained. The only way anyone could know anything is if Mr. Jackson shared information with them and that information was truthful. (Though I will tell you because the extreme measures in place to protect the anonymity of egg donors it is HIGHLY unlikely Mr. Jackson ever knew the actual identity of the Donor.) I have no doubt Mr. Jackson thoroughly investigated the ethnic background, physical attributes, and physical, intellectual and mental health and well-being of the Donor. He may have even viewed photographs of the Donor, however, he would not know her identity. Had Mr. Jackson used what’s called a “Willing-to-Be-Known Donor” the appropriate Identity Releases would have been signed between the parties and Mr. Jackson’s identity would have become known to the Donor. This is clearly not an avenue Mr. Jackson was interested in pursuing nor is it one his legal counsel would have advised. Mr. Jackson, like many, opted for anonymous surrogacy to avoid the possibility of someone coming forward to lay claim to his child. While the Donor would have no legal claim to his son, the idea that she could potentially embarrass Mr. Jackson (or his child) publicly or attempt to extort monies from him would have been a valid concern for someone of Mr. Jackson’s stature.

____________________________________________________________


Season's Greetings, Mjuls ~

I had wondered (and, stated such somewhere on one of these articles if not on this particular thread) which of the two statements he made on camera were of truth. He knew Blanket's mother, or he did not.


... so it's anyone's guess as to why MJ outright lied (on camera in response to direct questioning) that he not only knew Blanket's mother, but had a relationship with her. Especially since, as per your response, he 'moved mountains' specifically to insure that NO ONE would know whom Blanket's biological mother is/was, INCLUDING himself.


I so appreciate clarity. :o)


Namaste

1387 days ago
239.

Janar    

... so it's anyone's guess as to why MJ outright lied (on camera in response to direct questioning) that he not only knew Blanket's mother, but had a relationship with her. Especially since, as per your response, he 'moved mountains' specifically to insure that NO ONE would know whom Blanket's biological mother is/was, INCLUDING himself.

I so appreciate clarity. :o)


Namaste


Posted at 6:25 AM on Dec 14, 2010 by Roseilicious

--------------------------------
... so it's anyone's guess as to why MJ outright lied

Yep, and he did it alot. (outright lied). And why? Who knows?
When some things did not even have to be that deep, but on the other hand some things were that deep especially when it concerned his privacy.

1387 days ago
240.

sofi    

Roseilicious,Michael also told bashir that he used a surrogate and that he didn't know her and she didn't know him.

1387 days ago
Previous 15 Comments | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

Around The Web