Janet Jackson’s statement, she has ‘best interests of the children’ in mind

Janet Jackson
Janet Jackson has issued a statement on her website from lawyers for the faction of Michael Jackson’s siblings who are still working to have his will declared invalid. For those of you keeping score at home, that’s Janet, Randy and Rebbie. Jermaine and Tito used to be on their side, but both have since joined the “this is crazy” camp for whatever reasons. Their lawyers claim that Michael’s siblings are just concerned about the current executors and want to make sure that the guardianship and will are settled “in a manner that is in the best interests of the children.” This is what Randy tried to claim a couple of weeks ago, but he’s of course half a million in debt and tried to get the estate to pay his child support. Here’s part of the statement:

Since the loss of Michael, Janet, Randy, and Rebbie’s principal concern has been and continues to be for the safety and well-being of Michael’s children, their mother Katherine Jackson, and the entire family. Unfortunately, those people have been harmed by the actions of the executors of Michael’s estate…

The negative media campaign generated by the executors and their agents has been relentless. In recent weeks, the media has received preposterous reports – all now proven to be false – of a purported kidnapping of Katherine Jackson and of physical and verbal abuse of a child. The executors and their agents also recently issued a notice barring Janet, Randy, and Rebbie from visiting their 82 year old mother and Michael’s children. The effect of that notice not only is to damage fundamental family relationships, it is also to isolate Katherine Jackson from anyone questioning the validity of Michael’s will.

It is important to stress that Janet, Randy and Rebbie have questioned the validity of the will with no financial motive whatsoever – they stand to gain nothing financially by a finding that the will is invalid… Michael’s children will be the beneficiaries of Michael’s estate. What will be gained by a finding of invalidity is that the executors will be replaced and the estate and the guardianship will be managed in a manner that is in the best interests of the children, which is what Michael wanted. The individuals who have the most to lose by a finding that the will is invalid are, of course, the executors and those on the executors’ payroll.

Janet, Randy and Rebbie will continue to press forward in their search for the truth in order to carry out the wishes of their brother Michael.

[From JanetJackson.com via Starpulse]

I have a feeling these three are going to be wholly unsuccessful. And if they just have the best interests of the children at heart, why did they try to ambush them at home, and why has Janet only seen them a handful of times since their father died? Janet may not have slapped or “verbally abused” Paris, but there’s video of her trying to swipe Paris’ cell phone. That’s not “best interests,” that’s damage control for Paris’ tweets. Also, it might be true that Katherine wasn’t “kidnapped” per se, but she admitted in court that her cell phone and iPad were taken away and that the phone and television in her hotel room were both disabled.

Meanwhile TMZ reports that Katherine isn’t going to press charges against her children for the little vacation they forced her on without allowing her to contact the grandchildren she was supposed to be caring for. Her lawyer issued a statement suggesting that Katherine wasn’t too pleased about it, though. He told TMZ “This chapter of chaos is closed and we are supportive of family unity in spite of recent events and arguably poor decisions.” Decisions that Janet, Randy and Rebbie are sticking with come hell or high water.

Paris recently posted a photo on Istagram of a mural of Michael Jackson pictures behind her bed. She tweeted that it took her three hours. That’s sweet.

Rebbie Jackson:

Janet is shown at the Amfar Gala on 5-24-12. Rebbie is shown on 11-12-11.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

98 Responses to “Janet Jackson’s statement, she has ‘best interests of the children’ in mind”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Jackie O says:

    janet needs to stfu and put her energy into getting her botched boob job fixed.

    rebbie looks great in that pic. the most normal looking of the bunch.

  2. Anne de Vries says:

    I absolutely believe they tried to take the kids’ cellphones away. Their direct connection to the world, where a lot of eyes are on them, is probably doing a lot to keep them safe. Without it, these vultures would have free rein.

  3. corny says:

    Yes, but what condition is her mind…I hope better than her botched up body

  4. Aussie girl says:

    Janet does is worth about $100 mil. She does not want to be the main bread winner in the fam. So who ever has custoried of those kids has control of the $$$$. Holidays must be super strained for this family.

  5. lassie says:

    I wonder how weird it must be to have pictures of your ‘dad’ that show him looking so obviously, vastly different. Most people, when they age, look older, but basically like the same person. In the collage that Paris did, it looks like pictures of several different people and Madam Tussand’s wax figures.

    • mln76 says:

      Is it necessary to put dad in quotes? Adopted, test tube baby etc etc really doesn’t matter MJ was her father. He was a weirdo for sure BUT he loved those kids.

      • Samigirl says:

        +1. Family does not have to equal blood.

      • Lithe says:


      • capepopsie says:

        I really don´t think he was a “weirdo”,
        but the world he lived in forced him to do things that look weird from afar. Most of the things have a perfectly natural (logical) explanation, once you´re given the facts. Elizabeth Taylor once said, that Michael was the most sound and normal person she ever met. I think she was dead right about that!

      • bagladey says:


      • bagladey says:

        Janet looks so awful I can’t even concentrate on what she has to say. From her hair to her face to her boobs, everything is just awful. How is that even possible? How can I have a better hair stylist and a better cosmetic surgeon that someone who has ten million times more money than I do?

    • LAK says:

      So in your view, adoptive parents/children can’t love each other based upon the obvious lack of mutual genetics?

      Or for that matter parents/children who look nothing alike due to the ‘surprise’ of genetics eg if the children are a throwback to an earlier generation or look like someone else in the wider family rather than their immediate parents or siblings or descendants????!!!!

      • Cherry says:

        @LAK: I’m pretty sure that that wasn’t what Lassie meant. It’s not the physical difference between the kid and her dad that’s the weird thing here, it’s how different MJ himself looked throughout the years. And yes, I have to agree, I’m sure that must be pretty strange for Paris. I also think it’s rather bizarre for a teenage girl to have a wall full of photos of her dad above her bed, but then, she did lose him when she was very young. I can’t imagine what she must have gone through, so I won’t judge her for that. If it’s her way of coping with her grief, then that’s it.

    • Clarish says:

      It must be nearly impossible for people from biological families to understand what it might be like to be adopted — just as it is totally impossible for those of us who were adopted to have any idea at all what it is like to NOT be adopted, or what it is like to see a face that looks at all like ours so often as to take it for granted, or, harder to imagine still, lots of faces that resemble our own — but we do generally consider our “real parents” to be those who raised us, usually from birth, or close to it.

      As we have never had the biological family experience, perhaps we don’t know what we are missing but we are also very aware that bad family experiences are not limited to the adopted. And so, most of us would never even think in quotation marks around our parent’s titles. I don’t take offense at this myself, but some might.

      • Samigirl says:

        I’m adopted, and didn’t take offense to it at all. I guess people who haven’t or aren’t adopted just don’t see how someone could love their child equally, having not birthed them. Sometimes folks just need a reminder. You’d be hard pressed to find a girl that loves her daddy more than I am, and vice versa. That man sacrificed and has done more for me than any blood relative I have. If you ask him, I’m not his “adoptive” daughter, I’m his daughter. Plain and simple. 🙂

      • Veruca says:

        I’m not adopted, but I learned ages ago that blood doesn’t make family. Love does.

    • autumndaze says:

      I think the collage is a testament to how great Michael must have been as her father. They must miss him terribly.
      He does look very different from decade to decade, but that was their “normal” and the children could see the love beneath.

    • Audrey says:

      What I think is interesting is that all the photos are from magazines or are publicity photos. I’m surprised there are no private photos of Michael (with his kids or alone) above her bed.

      • Kim says:

        There are regular photos with family members throughout house I saw some on both Oprah interviews. OPRAH was pointing them out on 2010 interview.

      • mewmow says:

        Maybe Lassie put the quotes to mean how much he changed, therefore stopped looking like the ‘Dad’ some people remember. I didn’t take it the way you guys did, in fact I didn’t even think of that until you all pointed it out. 🙁 Seriously, don’t take everything so personally. Sheesh, people can’t say anything without offending someone. 🙁

      • UniqJaz says:

        @ Mewmow I agree with you 100 percent ! People take things way out of proportion.
        I dont think Lassie meant it in that way. She is just stating the difference in how he looks throughout all his pics.

    • Marie Antoinette Jr. says:

      I think however a person grows up— that’s their “normal”. It doesn’t really matter to a kid what their parents do that is different from everyone else, because it’s all the kid knows. So no matter what Micheal looked like as the years went by–he was still their Dad.

      • mewmow says:

        @uniqjaz, yes. Thank you! 🙂

        @Marie, Really don’t think it was offensive to him as a Dad. I grew up in the 70s and 80s and was sooo in love with Michal Jackson and I saw how much HE CHANGED himself. I do not think for one second that changed what a great Father he was, but the fact is his looks totally and completely changed. If my Dad changed that much I would still love him, but I would notice. 🙂 Thinking that was the point.

  6. mln76 says:

    Horrible horrible people and this is coming from someone who USED TO BE a fan. One would think the authorities could prosecute the sibs with/or without Katherine’s cooperation under Elder Abuse laws.

  7. marie says:

    I don’t understand this, if it was what Michael wanted then wouldn’t they leave well enough alone since it was in his will? It seems to me (JMO) that money is the only reason they are doing this, they want a piece of something that’s not theirs and should never be theirs..

    • Clarish says:

      Money is whack, and will inspire behavior just as insidious as the outrageous behavior of addicts to get what they need. I have seen first-hand the countless crazy things that even devoutly religious people will do to get their hands on it, and the outrageous justifications they will fabricate.

      Most any estate attorney could likely fill a book with stories of families nearly crucifying each other for far less money, and even bits of furniture. Sad, but true.

      • Marie Antoinette Jr. says:

        yes. After my parents died my sister went absolutely batshit crazy trying to get her hands on EVERYTHING my parents owned… from china figurines to real estate.
        Since then I have talked to so many people who went through similar things, and found out that her type of behavior is pretty common.
        She had always been a competitive, yet sadly needy person,–and no one who knew her would have predicted that she could become a criminal over a few thousand $$$.
        Sometimes I think it’s about having control as well as the monetary gain. Some people, when it comes to family, just can’t stand being told what to do. I think Janet might fall into that category as well.

    • Tiffany says:

      The thing is, though…the “executors” of the estate could be just as greedy as the rest of the Jackson clan, but since they are essentially anonymous in this, their actions don’t need to be judged or evaluated?

      Michael trusted a ton of people that he NEVER should have trusted (cough*DrMurray*cough). Isn’t it possible that the people he appointed as executors are crooks too?

      • Marie Antoinette Jr. says:

        It doesn’t matter because he is dead. Whether or not Mike made *good* (cough) decisions is a moot point. His last will and testament is what matters, because it was his money to do with what he saw fit at the time.
        The whole purpose of a will is to make sure your decedents respect your wishes regardless of their personal opinions.

  8. Ainsley says:

    I don’t think Janet and her siblings have any legal standing to challenge the will. I wonder if they’re trying to be as loud and obnoxious as possible so that the estate gives them some money just to shut them up? I don’t think it will work because they’re only embarrassing themselves, not the estate. This can’t be about anything other than money.

    • serena says:

      You’re right, they’re totally embarassing themself. And no damage control can delete what already happened. The whole world know what greedy creepy people they are.


    • Tiffany says:

      Isn’t it possible the executors of the estate are not trust worthy? Since they aren’t famous, they aren’t under the microscope…people don’t even know the terms of the will, but they say that Janet and family are cons for trying to break it. To me, that is a lot of judgement without information.

      Michael trusted so many people that he never should have trusted. His doctors, his managers, so many people took advandage of him. IMO, it isn’t hard to imagine that his exectors had the will set up so that they would make a FORTUNE as executors at the kid’s expense.

      • Jag says:

        I thought that his mother and now a nephew are over the will. Or is that just custody of the children?

      • polk8dot says:

        @ ‘Isn’t it possible the executors of the estate are not trust worthy?’
        Of course it is, entirely. But there are different ways of going about things. The way Janet and co. chose is clearly the wrong one, as it involves pretty much illegal acts. Kidnapping their own mother, trying to cut the kids off from the world, etc. Those actions put them and their motives in a very suspicious light.
        If you have a problem with a will or its executors, you go to court, which they seem to have done. Then you gather evidence to support your claim, and wait for a chance to let it all come out and hopefully support your position. That’s the way any SANE, NORMAL and CARING for the kids person would do it.
        But they clearly went sooooo much further than that. It makes no difference who Michael chose as executors. It was HIS right to chose a homeless person if he wanted to. It was his right to provide huge salary for them, in hopes of ensuring their total devotion to the kids wellfare. It was his right to leave out every single family member he wanted to. It was HIS EFFING MONEY!
        No matter what his family say now, they have clearly overstepped the boundaries of ‘for the good of the kids’. They chose to disregard any legal, law abiding ways of proving their claims, instead focusing on getting their hands on the estate any way possible, then worrying about the public perception.
        Money is a source of a lot of evil, and this crazy family has been destroyed by the decades old chase after money and fame. Too bad that the only thing they learned over time is to live off each other and plot against those who might cut their access to the money that was never theirs to begin with.
        They are sick, twisted assholes, and the executors should take them to court for forceful attempts to overthrow the will and imprison the kids until they agree to become their pawns. Sick, sick, sick and disgusting.

  9. YT says:

    They will be happy to shut up and go away for a few million dollars each.

  10. phoenix says:

    It’s nice one of the pictures of Michael is with Janet. Obviously, they’re not her kids, and I think taking the cell phone is wrong. I’m still a fan of Janet. She’s most likely speaking her truth and their family is very dysfunctional. I’m just still having a hard time understanding how all three children can be Michael’s.

    • Dalstongirl says:

      Does it matter? I think we can safely say that Michael Jackson was not the biological father of his children but they are his children all the same and he loved them dearly. And that’s all that should count.

      • Liz says:

        I don’t think we can safely say that at all. People don’t seem to understand how genetics work, most features are influenced by multiple genes. That means you can inherit traits from generations back and end up looking more like your grandmother then your mother. I’m half latin (I have dark skin) with brown eyes and brown hair, my husband is white with brown hair and brown eyes, his father has blue eyes and blonde hair, as does my father. Our son is very fair skinned, has white blonde hair and blue eyes. When I go out in public with him people don’t even think he’s my son, but he most definitely is.

        It’s the same with Michael Jackson, he was from African american decent but his father had blue eyes. Debbie Rowe, the mother of his first two children was very white with blonde hair and blue eyes, She also had a straight nose and Paris looks allot like her. It totally makes sense that his kids are lighter skinned. Michael said himself that the kids were biologically his (As did Debbie) and we know from his autopsy that he was still producing sperm. There is no reason the kids would even be from someone else as he was perfectly capable of having his own. His oldest son Prince has vitiligo (which is when your skin loses all pigment and basically turns very white) That is why Michael was white, and the skin disorder is only manifested through genetics, that means it has to run in the family in order to get it. No one can donate sperm if they have that skin disorder in their genetics, so there’s no way Prince could of been the result of a sperm donor. I’m just trying to present some of the facts here so you understand that just because a colored person has a lighter color of skin then his or her father does not mean they are not genetically his. I firmly believe Michael’s kids were biologically his, If people could get past their ignorance of the situation and genetics I think they would see the obvious.

      • Kate says:

        Yeah, I always assumed the kids weren’t his until those shots of his eldest son’s skin came up. It does seem odd that a genetic condition that’s actually quite rare manifested itself in a child who wasn’t a bio relative. And as the above commenter says, genes are funny things. There are twins where one is black and the other a Scandinavian looking blonde. With parents of different races, it can happen.

        The only counter to that is that it would be rather odd for it to happen three times over – for all three kids to look Caucasian.

      • the original bellaluna says:

        I agree. I just don’t care if they are genetically his children. He was their dad, and he loved them dearly, as they loved him.

        That’s all that matters.

      • Kate says:

        Oh, I agree there as well. There is far, far more to parenthood than who biologically impregnated the mother. He loved and wanted and cared for those kids, and they adored him back. He’s their father whatever DNA might have to say. I just meant that there isn’t, IMO, absolute certainty that he isn’t also their bio parent. I agree it’s an irrelevance anyway, though.

  11. L says:

    aka. the children’s best interests are to line my wallet and the wallet of my brothers.

    So transparent.

  12. Cathy says:

    This whole mess is pathetic. They are nothing but golddiggers trying to get themselves some cash. Idiots.

  13. Talie says:

    I can’t figure out why Janet is involved at all…this totally didn’t seem like her scene. I can’t even remember her ever being super close with her family, ever.

  14. Shuffle says:

    LOL…Can you say damage control! I used to think Janet was not like most of the rest of the Jackson clan with their hand out, but looks like it isn’t so.

    Janet and her team have been on damage control mode since Paris released the text message where Paris demanded to speak to her grandmother and Janet texted back” Don’t let them pls”.

    Then when TMZ stated that Janet called Paris something not so nice and smacked her, Janet’s team threatened to sue and TMZ put up and apology and took the story down.

    As for the kids best intrest at heart Janet and the rest are only concerned with $$$$ not the childrens best intrest.

    Is Janet going to say that keeping these kids who have a strong emotional bond to Katherine and keeping them away from her as well as severing their communication to her in their best intrest??? Dont think so!

    That screams of emotional abuse of Katherine and the kids. That act is something you see in custody cases where parent will work to alienate their kids against the other parent.

    Janet should go crawl under her rock and stay there, she just went from being one of the sane Jacksons to and insane one and this lil action of her is going to cause people to look at her like her brother are percieved.

    Her campaign to save her tattered reputation is a major fail , she isn;t going to win any new fans with what has went on. She needs to go away and stay the hell away from those kids.

    Thank god Micheal warned Paris what and who to look out for!

  15. Hubbahun says:

    Aaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnddddddddddddd ‘side-eye’

  16. Eleonor says:

    “in order to carry out the wishes of their brother Michael.”
    Forgetting what they have done was one of Michael worst nightmare, and that he was tired of supporting his disfunctional crazy and greedy family.
    Janet should look for a job, instead of contesting the will of his dead brother.

  17. oxa says:

    Jack$on Family Creed

    “Speak Softly and use any means necessary to fill up your wallet”

  18. flan says:

    Her fake smile has annoyed me for more than a decade.

    Am glad her true self is exposed.

  19. serena says:

    “What will be gained by a finding of invalidity is that the executors will be replaced and the estate and the guardianship will be managed in a manner that is in the best interests of the children, which is what Michael wanted.”

    Can I say it? F-k you Janet (and Rebbie and Randy)! I want to slap her in the face. Nobody would ever believe them now. And seriously? Who are they trying to fool? Michel wanted them the hell out of his life, money, children and everything.
    That’s right they want to manage the money, sure they’ll give the kids their money, but they’ll take the rest and blow it in a few years (or less).
    Just get your ass to work, then you can do whatever you want with YOURS money, not your dead brother’s.

  20. Kim says:

    @Cherry My mom died when I was 22 and
    I made a collage from pics of her in a large frame that I hung in my bedroom. I Didn’t realize that was weird. Thanks for letting me know.

    • Stormy says:

      My Dad died in my 20s and I do things similar to this.Its not weird.Not to someone who understands grief.When I read her tweet and saw her pictures I immediately knew she’s deeply missing her daddy.

    • Lady D says:

      Trust Kim, you are not weird.

    • Kate says:

      A friend of mine was recommended to do this with her kids when her husband died, by a grief counsellor. So it must be therapeutic, and sounds normal.

  21. Vivian says:

    Lost so much respect for Janet; I was a fan seriously but it’s so obvious what they are trying to do and it’s not for those kids but themselves. Sad; but there is no way they will succeed.

  22. DEB says:

    Are those cheek implants or has she just had too much buccal fat removed. They’re freakish-looking! Ugh. Never mind the bad boob job.

  23. Sloane Wyatt says:

    Janet has the best interests of the children’s money in mind!

    Word is the greeds are looking for a payout to go away quietly and are trying anything in a transparent attempt at a money grab.

  24. eric says:

    Don’t forget when she ambushed the children she was also asking for their passports, they were planning to take the children out of the country.

  25. tracking says:

    Maybe she should read Jerry Hall’s comments. Seriously, it gives me to chills to think about the Jackson kids’ upbringing given what they’re willing to do to their perfectly attractive faces.

  26. DANDILION says:

    Oh.. don’t let the horrible things happen to Paris that happened to me.. Um.. no my family is perfectly okay and we firmly love each other.. what do you mean I am so sad and depressed and hate my family..?

  27. Masque says:

    “Janet Jackson’s statement, she has ‘best interest RATES of the children’ in mind.”


  28. d says:

    Note to Janet and the gang: GET.A.JOB.

  29. rach says:

    in this photo she looks like a disembodied head 0:0

  30. N-Bear says:

    FIRST DRAFT: Their lawyers claim that Michael’s siblings are just concerned about the current executors and want to make sure that the guardianship and will are settled “in a money that is in the best money of the money.”

  31. Izzy says:

    Bunch of parasites. I hope they get their azzes kicked in court as they try to “prove” that Michael’s will is “not valid.” (*cough*)

  32. Candee says:

    The oldest boy Prince Micheal? Needs to get himself emancipated and get custody of his siblings and run as fast and as far away from these people as he can.

  33. EllaDee says:

    Paris seems to be really nice, sweet and as well adjusted as possible giving the circunstaces. I hope her family backs out and end this craziness for the sake of those kids… as if losing their father was not hurtful enought, now they have to deal with the crazy family…

  34. Carla says:

    A family member trying to take away a 14-year old teenager’s cell phone isn’t a controversy nor would it be one if it were anyone else. Paris is still a minor and like any family member, at the mercy of discipline. The Jacksons value their privacy, it’s entirely possible that Janet wanted to handle this matter discreetly and keep it within the family given all they have been dragged through publicly, probably precisely so rumors don’t continue to proliferate. Of course, we don’t know, but to assume it’s sinister seems a bit much – if you step back and think about the situation, it’s a teenager who still has other people to answer to. I don’t know if the executors are or aren’t doing the right thing, though Michael had a tendency to involve people in his financial affairs who didn’t have his best interests in mind and if several members of the family (who have a tendency to be considered the more ‘normal’ ones) are taking an issue, there must be a reason or something about this story we are unfamiliar with as outsiders. Lastly, we don’t know how often she does or doesn’t see these kids, we aren’t there. The Jacksons do a lot of traveling, touring, and promotion, Janet always said on interviews that the family didn’t get to see each other as much as they wanted growing up, which is normal for a show business family given all their commitments in different places, that shouldn’t be an indication they aren’t close. In any event, Janet has been a public figure for 4 decades and has managed to stay out of trouble for the most part, I have no reason to be suspicious of her motives. I don’t think she stands to make money off this situation and is well off on her own. I can accept that there are a lot of unknowns in this situation, we all have to acknowledge that.

    • Kate says:

      The judge removed custody and urged TJ to go for permanent custody (he wasn’t, and hasn’t). He also ordered that the kids could not be removed from California. Judges don’t do that kind of thing lightly. And there have been leaked court documents plus documented text conversations which ARE sinister. Those kids are walking meal tickets. They’re worth millions and millions of dollars to whoever is in charge of their estate. I’m afraid not all families are good ones. Normal, healthy family members don’t tailgate a car into a secured estate and as a first move demand cell phones and passports because a private jet is waiting. That is not an act of discipline, in response to a kid acting out. That’s a pre-prepared kidnap attempt. Which is borne out by what Katherine Jackson’s statement on events has shown – she wasn’t allowed to communicate with the outside world, nor told the kids wanted to speak to her.

      The family members you’re defending have no formal role in raising these kids at all. They’re simply aunts and uncles. They want the money – they’ve been petitioning the estate for it for years and been turned down. If the executors are removed in favour of the aunts and uncles, then the 10% the executors receive (a normal amount, what is abnormal is what MJ is now earning once more) will go to them instead.

      Not sure how that makes them people with nothing to gain, really.

      Also worth pointing out that the executors who are being so attacked here managed to turn an estate with 500 million debts into a profit-turning entity inside 3 years, give or take. That’s staggeringly good management by most objective standards. The kids are lucky to have them. The only thing the Jacksons could be objecting to is the estate refusing to allow them to treat it like their own personal ATM machine.

      • the original bellaluna says:

        Word, Kate. Additionally, the only person who should be “disciplining” the children is their legal guardian. (Whom they Nana-napped and refused to allow the children contact with, etc, etc…)

      • sandcastles says:

        thank you for saying this. You are the only person I have read that has mentioned that the aunts and uncles HAVE NO RIGHT to discipline these kids. They are not legal guardians. i don’t know about any other families, but my mom and dad would have a fit if my aunts and uncles would’ve tried to tell me what I could and couldn’t do. Actually, they did. Also, I am adopted, and I am offended when anyone puts quotations around “dad”. I am just the same as my brothers and sister that weren’t adopted, and I have a birth certificate that says I am as born to my parents as my siblings were.

    • jwoolman says:

      Carla- actually read Paris’s tweets. The media already knew Katherine was missing from the missing person police report. Someone asked Paris if it was true, and she confirmed it very simply. Then she later asked people to report any grandma sightings to police or their security. Hardly washing the family dirty laundry in public. The adults available didn’t know where grandma was either. She did get frustrated when Uncle Randy made a public statement about Katherine that Paris believed was a deliberate lie, but that’s understandable and still quite restrained compared to most kids’ tweets. Her brother didn’t say anything until another round of public lies and he still was amazingly restrained for a teenage boy. Those kids were not out of line at all. They were in a very strange situation and so was grandma. The aunts and uncles might still have grandma holed up somewhere incommunicado without the publicity generated by those rather mild tweets. And who knows where the kids might be now if they had meekly handed over their cell phones and gone off with the Home Invaders, passports in hand. That’s why the judge is so concerned, it is all too weird. The executors are acting as agents for the estate (that’s why Michael chose them, as entertainment agents) and are getting a very normal commission for their efforts. The Home Invaders are just ticked that the estate executors tell them “no” when they try to siphon off money that just isn’t theirs. They have to try to bleed Katherine in other ways and wanted to speed up the process, since Randy’s and Jermaine’s ex-wife (yes, that’s singular, she was recycled) is threatening to put both of them in jail if they don’t pay her big bucks in owed child support. That’s all this is about. The boys need money and Janet doesn’t want them to start draining her instead of their mom. Michael’s kids are just a nuisance to them and quite expendable. The Home Invaders are quite aware that as things stand, their personal piggy bank dies with Katherine since money she can use now will be redirected back into the portion of the estate belonging to Paris and her brothers. Hence another reason to speed up the process of trying to get their hands on the money.

  35. ezra says:


  36. Kiyoshigirl says:

    I didn’t see any of them running to Michael’s aid when he was thin on money and having to sell off all of his assets. They didn’t care about his children’s well being then. Now that the executors have turned around the Estate, and are producing income, they’re concerned? It’s obvious what the intent is.

  37. Scout says:

    OMG! Does she REALLY look like this!? That isn’t a statue of her? Scary!

  38. BeccaZ says:

    How long will it take for this estate to be settled and closed?

    18 can not come fast enough for these kids. I hope they take their money and leave the Jacksons behind.

  39. jwoolman says:

    Anybody who believes this – there’s a nice bridge a few blocks from my house that I can sell you for a reasonable price.

    Janet- if you want to see your mom, just invite her out for lunch on your dime. Please make it a plus one invite, though.

  40. LeeLoo says:

    There’s been rumors for some time that there are some in the Jackson family that do not see Prince, Paris, and Blanket as true Jacksons due to fact it is highly unlikely that MJ is the biodad. I really think some in the family are justifying this by claiming they aren’t really MJs kids.

  41. chevyhops says:

    Are you really making us look at this photo AGAIN?

  42. lena80 says:

    why people think Janet Jackson is broke is beyond me. just google it people. CB seems very convinced something is up with JJ but I just don’t buy it, just because the other Jacksons are backing up the estate doesn’t mean they are doing things in best interest of the children, PERHAPS Janet, Rebbie, and Randy know something that we don’t…perhaps.

  43. eric says:

    These poor kids will have direct access to their money at 18, the Jacksons trying to take over as executors and funnel most of their money into their secret bank accounts.

  44. twoblues says:

    I won’t debate MJ’s feelings for his children, I didn’t know him or his heart, but the “baby-dangling” incident forever colored my opinion of him as a father. Once you hold your newborn in your arms, the last thing you would ever do is hang that child over a balcony. I can’t imagine what kind of person would do such a thing under any circumstance. MJ came from a damaged family and he was damaged himself and all of this controversy is to be expected. I wish the best for those kids.

  45. skuddles says:

    Bitch please! We’re doing this ALL for the children…. The same children you freaked out when you disappeared their Grandma – right before you tried to snatch them too?? Of course, Janet must feel she has to take this stance now or everyone will know for certain that their actions are nothing more than a desperate money grab. Get jobs people. Quit trying to steal from children.

  46. erika says:

    you know…i keep thinking this family is NUTs…and they are. I wouldn’t trust ______ Jackson with caretaking a walnut!

    but, the THREE ‘sane’ people in this family are Prince, Paris and Blanket. God help those kids, guide them, protect them from these surgically enhanced freaks!!!

    it’s soooo clear they loved their father and I think they are the ONLY ones on earth who truly understood and loved him. God Bless..

  47. Kim says:

    I dont trust the executors because MJ fired them as attorney and manager years before he died.They need to take
    the contesting will to court.Why wait 3 years?

    • Ravensdaughter says:

      The longer the wait, the harder it will be to prove Michael Jackson’s (the testator’s) intent in having the will drafted as it was. If a court is trying to dismantle and re-craft a will-the endpoint of a will contest-the central evidence must be the intent. At times, competence of the testator at the time the will was drafted can be challenged, but that’s a bigger mess.
      My view-they don’t have a case, except in the court of public opinion.

  48. Ravensdaughter says:

    I call bulls–t…
    See reply to Kim above (nothing personal to you Kim, just an opportunity to comment more extensively once I saw your comment..)
    Re: Paris’ mural-sweet, and GF has talent!