Evidently,  Jermaine Jackson planned a tribute to Michael Jackson in Vienna, Austria on September 26, without consulting the rest of the family or including them in any of the planning.   He said that both Mary J. Blige and Chris Brown would be two of the headliners to perform in the show but reps for both Blige and Brown have said neither will be taking part.  Others supposedly on the list are Natalie Cole, Akron and Sister Sledge.  Who knows who will and won’t be there.  In fact, if the rest of the family have their way there won’t be an event in Austria in September. 
The family, with matriarch Katherine in the lead, are against it because, in part, it doesn’t make sense for the first tribute to be held in a country that Michael Jackson had no real connection to.  However, Katherine eventually caved because of pressure from Jermaine and announced, in a written statement on August 21, that she is solidly behind the idea.  The rest of the family is still adamantly against it.  One Jackson family member says that it is a case of Jermaine disregarding what the rest of the family wants and doing what is best for himself.  The same person belittled the Vienna tribute calling it “The Jermaine Jackson show”.

Add To:

Hide Sites

The hat that stunned the world

No who watched the January 20th inauguration of President Obama will ever be able to erase from their minds the image of Aretha Franklin’s hat.  She is the undisputed Queen of Soul so we should be remembering the song she sang and her “soulful” presentation of it.  I don’t.  Do you?
The hat may make a return appearance (although she should have learned after she wore it the first time) when she sings at Michael Jackson’s (finally) (maybe?) funeral on Thursday, September 3rd.  However, unless the Jackson’s have the funeral service taped, which I wouldn’t for a minute doubt, (think millions) we wouldn’t be able to see it if Franklin does wear it. 
That’s because the funeral is to be a “private sunset service for family and friends at Forest Lawn Memorial Park in Glendale, California”.   That’s a lot of information to be giving out for something that is supposed to be “private”.  Can you imagine the crowds of die-hard Jackson fans who will attempt to get as close to Forest Lawn as possible?  Not to mention the news media with all their vans, lights, cameras, satellite dishes, cameramen/women, and reporters?  I think if they wanted a private, quiet affair the Jackson family would have notified the friends they wanted in attendance and held the interment of Michael Jackson’s body with no advanced announcement, whatsoever.  It would also save them a bundle of money, at least the $150,000 they are going to have to pay to use the Glendale Police for crowd control and enforcement.
After all, Jackson’s body is already somewhere within the confines of Forest Lawn so the ceremony could be held with no hullabaloo.  Good news, though.  Katherine Jackson has persuaded the court to allow Jackson’s estate to pay for his funeral.  Guess they couldn’t really expect any city government in the state of California to pay for it after the City of Los Angeles shelled out $1.4 million bucks in costs for the Stapely Center show.  That, at a time when the city was $530 million in debt.  I remember reading  that the city of Los Angeles was asking Jackson fans for donations to help defray some of the cost and had set up a special website for for that purpose.    I couldn’t locate the website but Idid find one (mayor.lacity.org) that said “We are no longer accepting donations. Thank you to those who donated”.  Didn’t say how much, or if, money was received.
And, just to stir up your envy at not being invited to the “private” ceremony in the Grand Mausoleum, TMZ has obtained information that the Jackson family, who seems to have an obsession with a particular kind of doughnut from the Market Restaurant in Stamford, CT, is having boxes of them shipped in for the service.  The doughnuts are called “Ricotta Doughnuts” and they are described as “Cinnamon-sugared doughnuts made with fresh ricotta, crushed amaretti cookies and a creme angalaise. 
Me?  I’m happy going to my neighborhood grocery store bakery department and grabbing a custard filled, chocolate frosted doughnut for about .50.

Add To:

Hide Sites

It seems Katherine Jackson and Debbie Rowe have come to an agreement regarding the custody of the two oldest Jackson children, Prince Michael Jackson I and Paris Jackson.  They are the two children that, according to Rowe, she gave birth to so Michael Jackson could become a father.   The agreement will give permanent custody to Katherine Jackson and Rowe will retain her parental rights and receive visitation rights. A child psychologist will attend the initial visits to “supervise the process”.  With all these kids have been through in their young lives it seems reasonable that it will be difficult for them to accept Rowe as their biological mother and to try to understand why she has not been part of their lives all these years.
It has been reported that Paris and Prince have now been told that Rowe is their biological mother.  That raises all sorts of questions.  How is it possible that they never knew this before?  What were they told about who their biological mother was before now?  What effect will this new information have on these children?
Reportedly, Rowe will not be receiving any addition money as part of this custody agreement.  She hasn’t seemed too interested in being a mother to these kids in the past.  So, why she is now? Could there be an ulterior motive that will surface somewhere down the line?  It will be interesting to see how often and for how long Rowe will continue to want to be involved in their lives.
You have wonder if a judge, after considering Rowe’s track record at being part the these children’s lives, would have gone against Michael Jackson’s wishes and granted her custody, anyway.

Add To:

Hide Sites

ABC News is reporting that Katherine Jackson and Debbie Rowe are working on a deal that would allow them to avoid a custody battle over Michael Jackson’s children.  Evidently Rowe (who has never been part of their lives)  will not fight for the children on two conditions. First, she wants more visitation time which is interesting because she hasn’t been visiting the kids anyway. Her second condition involves Joe Jackson. She wants assurance that he could never be the children’s guardian.
Rumors have been flying as to whether Rowe would seek custody of Prince Michael and Paris.  That would, of course, separate the three children, a very traumatic thing on top of all the rest of the tragedy these kids have endured.
If the information that ABC News has reported is accurate it is the smartest and kindest decision that Rowe could make.  The kids would remain with a family they have known all along.
Guess Joe hasn’t been informed of the “deal” regarding custody.  In an interview on Primetime stated “the kids want to be with (Katherine and I) over here”.  Not sure what “over here” means. Joe and Katherine Jackson have been separated for 10 years and live in different states.  What a horror it would be for Joe Jackson to have any part in bringing up these children.

Add To:

Hide Sites

Perhaps Debbie Rowe could pull petals off a daisy to make this most important decision.
Rowe, in a phone conversation with NBCLA’s Chuck Henry, stated that she definitely wants custody of the two children she bore for Michael Jackson.  Later, there was an on air phone call from Rowe’s attorney, Eric George, saying that contrary to what she said in the conversation with Henry she was, as yet, undecided.
Her attorney won a postponement of the guardianship hearing which was to take place on July 13.  The hearing has been delayed for at least a week, which will, of course, drag out the final decision of who will be given the guardianship of the three young Jackson children.  As if there wasn’t already enough turmoil in their lives.
According to Henry, after Rowe and Jackson were divorced, Rowe surrendered her parental rights but appealed that decision after Jackson was arrested in 2003 on charges of child molestation.  That would seem to indicate that she may have been concerned about the safety of the children, but evidently she didn’t seek permanent custody of them.  Also, according to Henry, Rowe and Jackson settled out of court in 2006.  Part of the agreement allowed Rowe visitation rights.  She admits that she has seen little of the children over the years.
What will be the fate of these children?  Being separated, with the two oldest going to a woman who they don’t really know?  Even though Rowe states she would be “willing” to take Blanket, too, there would be little chance of that happening.
In his will, Jackson requested his mother be given custody of all three children if she was still alive at the time of his death,  In the event she was deceased, he wanted long-time friend Diana Ross, age 65, to be their legal guardian.  While Katherine appears to be a devoted, loving grandmother and someone the children have spent much time with, her age, 79, raises the question as to how long will she be alive and able to care for them and what happens if that changes?

Add To:

Hide Sites

In the latest news regarding the estate of Michael Jackson, attorney John Branca says he is in possession of a will signed by Jackson in 2002 and that he will file it with the court within 30 days of Jackson’s death.  The will allegedly says the estate, worth approximately $1 billion dollars, was left to his children, his mother and at least one charity. It leaves nothing to Joe Jackson. No other specifics have been released. It will be interesting to find out if Jackson named a permanent guardian for his children or if that didn’t occur to him as necessary. 
Yesterday, a California court granted temporary guardianship of Michael Jackson’s children to his mother, Katherine.  She has also petitioned the court to name her as the administrator of his estate.  The court papers say that Joe and Katherine Jackson believe that their son left no valid will.  Katherine Jackson asserts the assets of the estate will be used for the benefit of the children after payment of debts and expenses of the administrator (Katherine).
Joe Jackson was not named in either petition.  In a statement made on CNN news commentary “No Bias No Bull” by Lisa Bloom, former anchor of Court TV,  it was stratigcally important that Katherine’s name be the only one on the request for temporary guardianship of her grandchildren because “her hands are clean”.  Meaning Michael Jackson didn’t accuse her of the childhood abuses he alleges were perpetrated by his father.  While Katherine’s hands may have been clean it would seem that her eyes must have been blind and her ears deaf.  Where was she when this abuse was going on?
If the will in Branca’s possession is found to be valid, all of yesterday’s court filings may be unnecessary. But, Joe Jackson being left out of the petition for temporary custody, control of the estate and the will if quite interesting.

Add To:

Hide Sites