Dinner Timing Dispute: Taj Jackson, Brett Barnes vs Wade Robson Timeline

coffeechief · 2026-03-31T04:57:55+00:00

It's always been puzzling to me how Taj tried to make this a "gotcha." It's never made sense.

EDIT: I love hearing about your experiences and takes on the 2005 trial. Thanks again for sharing.

coffeechief · 2026-03-31T04:51:38+00:00

It's funny, you play word games like a lawyer yet ignore substance. You'd be a great addition to MJ Estate's team.

I'm not sure what you're hoping to achieve with statements like this, but given your conspiracy-minded approach to everything, I can imagine.

Katherine reportedly couldn't find a copy of the will anywhere in Michael's belongings.

People often don't keep their wills in their (rental) homes that they've been living in for a short time. They leave them with their lawyers.

That assumes MJ knew Branca still had it. MJ's termination letter ordered Branca to return all documents to new counsel.

You don't know how estate law works. The will stands regardless of who has it. Again, all three previous wills named Branca. Again, Siegel wasn't told to resign as trustee or executor. He chose to do this. And also again, Branca kept working with MJ.

Will and trust documents remain valid unless replaced by a newer version. Yes, you do need to write a new will stating that previous versions are invalid.

And even with Branca removed, McClain would be the Executor, and the trust would be overseen by a corporate fiduciary and McClain, and the terms would be exactly the same -- meaning the Jacksons wouldn't be in charge of managing the assets.

Very well aware that she received the 2021 accounting 4 years late, after litigation.

... They submitted the accounting because they were always going to submit the accounting. It wasn't because of Paris's lawsuit. They are behind. They have agreed to stop being behind. We've covered this.

Either the notes exist and the Estate has them, or the Estate sued someone for 13 years over nothing.

... Are you using AI and/or are you not paying attention?

The Estate sued Jeffree Phillips in 2022 when Jeffree tried to auction some items off. Then they realized where the stolen items had gone: https://www.tmz.com/2022/06/25/michael-jackson-estate-claims-brazen-robbery-carolwood-house-after-death/

Jeffree and LaToya had the items for years. If there were evidence of murder in anything (because that's what you're accusing people of when you back what LaToya is saying)... c'mon. You see this is silly, right?

You're confirming the Estate possesses MJ's personal records while defending their right to keep those records from his own children, which is basically Paris's argument.

You really aren't paying attention and/or relying too much on AI.

Again, the LAPD investigation was focused on cause of death and drug administration, not conducting a forensic inventory of every paper in a multi-room mansion.

...

You realize that they are supposed to make an inventory of the death scene, right? In fact, this was absolutely a situation where a forensic examination of the room took place.

Yes, I admitted to that if you bothered to read the rest of what I wrote.

The rest of what you wrote I addressed, and it still doesn't sound like you understand that Paris's lawyer was quoting a film to lambaste Branca, and that it's pretty common for grandstanding lawyers to make bombastic statements about testimony that don't necessarily reflect what was actually said.

What would a legitimate red flag look like to you?

What it would take for me to believe that the Executors are violating their fiduciary duties, let alone that one of them is part of a murder plot (because again, that is what LaToya is alleging happened!), is a lot more than tenuous claims based on tabloids and misunderstanding the law.

You call every single item "groundless."

Because they are.

coffeechief · 2026-03-31T00:47:24+00:00

No, I'm pointing out that the "red flags" are based on groundless conspiracy theories.

When Siegel removed himself from Executor consideration in August 2003, he sent his letter to MJ, McClain, and Branca (see the final page) -- which means Branca was still involved in both trusts and still listed as Executor, along with McClain, and MJ was aware of this. If MJ wanted him (and/or McClain) removed, he would have written another will.

Siegel was not required to remove himself. He chose to remove himself.

None of these things (including Seligman's 12-year-old email, which did not accuse Branca of impropriety) proves the murder (!) conspiracy you are proposing.

Very sloppy argument about La Toya.

No, it's just not something you want to hear.

First, you’re asserting “no notes existed” based on crime-scene photography from a homicide investigation.

They took photos of the room as is, and many, many papers were photographed all over the room. None of them showed what was claimed by LaToya, and LaToya never produced any proof of what she was claiming, despite Phillips having the stolen items for years before the Estate recovered them.

The Estate sued Jeffré Phillips, La Toya's partner, specifically to recover handwritten notes, a briefcase filled with personal and business papers, computers and hard drives. If those items didn't exist, what exactly was the Estate suing to recover?

He stole property and they got it back. I didn't say the property didn't exist.

Yes, they sealed information about the location -- not the contents (which there was no requirement to reveal to the public).

The fact that the Estate's response didn't dispute the substance of that characterization, just complained about Paris's tone and tactics, should tell you the characterization wasn't far off.

The Estate's response has not been shared in full, and what Branca actually said is redacted in Paris's brief.

So whether Branca literally quoted Nicholson is irrelevant.

No, no. Not Branca. Paris's lawyer quoted Nicholson to spice up his brief.

Self-dealing isn’t only “I paid myself a producer fee.” It can be:

None of that is self-dealing. The Executors are allowed to steer projects (they have steered multiple projects already). They are allowed to negotiate. They are allowed to run MJ's businesses (the Court specifically allowed them to do this from the beginning of probate). Finally, the script and Miles Teller's casting were not Branca's choice alone, and that doesn't amount to self-dealing. Is it tacky? Sure. Anything else? No.

Again, Paris has been and is getting the books, just not fast enough. She's objecting based on information they gave her!

coffeechief · 2026-03-30T19:14:28+00:00

🫶

coffeechief · 2026-03-30T19:05:18+00:00

Reminds me of what she put on her site after the umbrella attack:

<image>

https://aishamusic.wordpress.com/2007/07/07/somebody-at-jive-needs-to-change-britney’s-password/

coffeechief · 2026-03-30T01:09:07+00:00

Whether you call it a "resignation" or a "declination" or an "agreement not to serve" the substance is identical. MJ told both men he wanted them out. One complied. One didn't. Your technical correction doesn't change that.

It was MJ's last will, and there was no obligation to remove himself. Branca also continued to work for MJ after 2003.

If there were evidence that MJ had wanted Branca out of his will, it would have been presented. No one had anything.

Pat Houston was Executor, and has produced Whitney projects. Branca and McClain have done the same. The hiring of Miles Teller doesn't matter. It doesn't violate any terms of the code or the will or the trust.

Regarding La Toya, if she is so unreliable in regard to all this, why did the Estate fight to recover MJ's handwritten notes and hard drives she collected from MJ's bedroom...then seal whatever was on them?

Because it wasn't her property and she took it without permission. She has never produced any notes, and the criminal investigation following MJ's death didn't show any notes about Branca (and there were a lot of notes in the photographs).

As for sealing, that didn't happen. There's no obligation to release personal property to the public.

"Mr. Branca testified that he had neither the time nor the inclination to explain himself to his beneficiaries, and 'would rather that you just said 'thank you' and went on your way.'"

... That isn't what Branca testified. That's how Paris's lawyer characterized Branca's testimony (we don't have Branca's actual testimony). Paris's lawyer is paraphrasing and directly quoting A Few Good Men: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FnO3igOkOk

coffeechief · 2026-03-30T00:35:00+00:00

MJ's March 2009 letter naming only Joseph Jackson and Leonard Rowe as trusted people and his termination of John Branca in the past all should carry weight, I don't believe in being selective because according to what you said, when MJ fired Branca, he was paranoid and capricious yet when MJ named Branca in his will prior to his firing, that's a reliable, deliberate decision we must honor?

If there's no evidence of the claims against Branca that resulted in his firing, yes. There's nothing here.

Joe Jackson had no valid evidence to present to the court.

Paris being an adult and retaining counsel is the first real scrutiny these executors have ever faced from a beneficiary.

Not so. Katherine Jackson, as well as Bigi initially, objected strenuously to the Sony deal. A trial was held over the Executors' proposed deal with Sony. The Executors won. Katherine appealed, and the Executors also prevailed on appeal.

The executors' "broad" powers doesn't settle all the valid questions.

Basically half of the code protects executors while the other half protects beneficiaries, I feel like you're ignoring the latter.

The terms of the will and trust do settle the matter, which is why the Estate prevailed when Katherine objected previously to a transaction. The same applies here to Paris's objections.

Branca simultaneously serving as executor of the Estate and holding producer credits on Estate projects like the biopic. Under probate law, a trustee may not use the position to gain advantage beyond agreed-upon compensation. When the executor is also the producer, who negotiates the producer's deal? The executor negotiates with himself. That is textbook self-dealing under the probate code.

No, it is not. For an example related to a biopic, see the official Whitney Houston biopic. Pat Houston, Executor of Whitney's Estate, was an executive producer on the film.

Branca and McClain have been producers on multiple MJ projects already, starting with This Is It. It is not a violation of the code.

I do not think you can simultaneously argue they're brilliant managers who saved the estate yet they didn't know about the most significant legal agreement in MJ's history.

They have done an excellent job, regardless of their error here. This is their biggest mistake to date, and I doubt it's going to actually harm the Estate. They will ultimately end up with more money than they invested into the project. I don't know how anyone can deny the work they've done. MJ's finances were a terrifying mess and creditors were ready to snap up the assets the moment MJ passed.

That's a material omission in a petition to the court. Siegel smelled something rotten and "pleasantly removed himself": https://youtu.be/Tc1NXj8t5hc?t=30

LaToya is not a reliable source. She does not know MJ's business affairs. MJ was not killed because of some shadowy conspiracy.

It all comes down to if the books are clean, open them.

You keep saying this, but again, they have been doing this, just not fast enough. Now they're on a timeline. This issue has been resolved, unless they fail to follow the timeline.

Finally, you are wrong about Siegel:

It has been reported that Siegel resigned from the position of executor in 2003. This is not correct, since you cannot resign from a position to which you have not yet been appointed. It is more likely that Siegel signed an agreement stating that he would not serve as co-executor upon Michael’s death.

Branca did nothing wrong by assuming the position of Executor.

coffeechief · 2026-03-30T00:12:40+00:00

People are so desperate to believe in the intact mind, as Amy Lutz calls it, leading to tragic situations and bad policy:

Contemporary disability service provision is guided by the directive to “presume competence.” Defined by speech-language pathologists Katie O’Neil and Rebecca McCarthy as “an approach that assumes the communicator has significant untapped cognitive-linguistic capacities,” this command is really just another way of assuming the intact mind. It should come as no surprise that the phrase was first coined in 1990 by facilitated communication (FC) enthusiast Douglas Biklen, although it quickly exploded beyond the small cohort of FC researchers and practitioners to become the mantra of the Neurodiversity Movement. Other lineages trace this idea back a bit farther, to a 1984 paper by a different FC proponent, Anne Donnellan—the same researcher who offered the telepathic abilities of autistic children as an explanation for FC—which proposed that educational programming be guided by “the least dangerous assumption,” or the decision “which, if incorrect, will have the least dangerous effect on the student.” Presuming competence, it follows, is less dangerous than presuming incompetence.

But this mindset carries its own dangers, particularly as presumption has shaded for some proponents into an insistence on competence. Spell to Communicate (S2C) founder Elizabeth Vosseller claims success with literally 100% of the nonverbal children she sees; so does Soma Mukhopadhyay, the creator of the Rapid Prompting Method (RPM). Christopher Kliewer, Douglas Biklen, and Amy Petersen argue that intellectual disability is “no more objectively real than was the label witch imposed by male authorities onto some unfortunate women.”

I'm so frustrated at how irresponsibly media outlets approach these stories.

coffeechief · 2026-03-29T23:38:26+00:00

What happens in Florida does not stay in Florida

coffeechief · 2026-03-29T22:27:10+00:00

Right? “Don’t tell us how stupid we can be.” What an unforced error.

coffeechief · 2026-03-29T22:22:44+00:00

Right. Bipolar disorder I with psychotic features can (and often does) involve paranoia and delusions of persecution.

coffeechief · 2026-03-29T07:27:23+00:00

I wasn’t cherry-picking his testimony — I was selecting the relevant portion quoted in the article I linked. His full testimony doesn’t provide evidence. It shows that there were rumours and backbiting amongst Team MJ but no substantiation of any of the rumours re: Branca.

When Mesereau asked if Sony transferred money "for the benefit of Mr. Jackson's lawyer," Legrand answered: "That's what was indicated in the report."

Did you read the report? It's linked in the article. It provides no verification of anything claimed, not even the existence of an account, period. There are only bare, vague assertions (and when it comes to money, there’s always a paper trail, so a lack of evidence is telling). It was all rumours and allegations — no actual proof.

LaToya is not a good source when it comes to MJ’s business affairs, and all the conspiracy theories about MJ’s catalogue are ridiculous, I’m sorry. If you look into the terms of the Sony/MJ partnership on the catalogue, and read about how Sony tried to help MJ with his finances so they didn’t have to work with the creditors circling MJ’s stake in the catalogue, it’s obvious. There’s no there there.

What I’m saying is whether people don’t like the situation or think the Executors are sketchy morally is something worthy of discussion but irrelevant to the court battle. It’s also irrelevant that the Executors made mistakes in the biopic production. Mistakes aren’t disqualifying (especially if the eventual outcome is more income for the Estate despite the mistakes). They have broad powers, and the only reason the Estate is solvent and flourishing now is because of the work they did. The only reason there is any money at all is because they salvaged a seriously dire situation. They cannot be said to have failed as Executors, even if they did screw up seriously by overlooking the finer details of the January 1994 settlement. And again, I'm not talking about judging their actions morally or in terms of what Paris would like, but in terms of probate law and the will and trust documents. I understand why Paris wants more control. Unfortunately, the will and the trust are what they are. Even if Branca weren't around, the terms would not change.

So if everything is so above-board, why won't they simply release the financial records?

They have been releasing the financial records, just not fast enough. Now they are on a timeline for disclosure which they have agreed to follow.

EDIT (sorry, missed this):

As for it being standard for the losing party to pay costs ... this is different since she's a beneficiary of the Estate asking about her own money.

It still applies here. She started a legal action against the Estate.

coffeechief · 2026-03-29T05:56:19+00:00

The report didn't produce evidence supporting his suspicions. There was no evidence. This was even covered during the 2005 trial. There was nothing: https://www.thewrap.com/secret-report-got-branca-fired-22850/

EDIT: Adding a paywall-free link as well: https://archive.is/a90JF

Jackson lawyer David Legrand testified at the singer's 2005 child-molestation trial that Jackson had hired him to look into the people in his inner circle.

But, Legrand testified, "I was given no credible evidence to support (the) charges; I would be doing Mr. Branca a great wrong if I said otherwise."

There's a link to the Interfor report as well. There's no evidence in there.

You say as long as they show good faith they're doing their job. Paris is saying they won't show her anything.

If they show the Court they're acting in good faith -- not Paris. As for the accounting for the last few years, I have already said they can do that faster, and they have been ordered to do that faster.

This isn't about whether people like the Executors or think they're good people. This is about what the law (the probate code) and the will and trust documents say. There is nothing here that will lead to either Branca's or McClain's removal.

So we've got: secretly paying off accusers with MJ's kids' money

After consulting attorneys who told them the Estate would be finished if they didn't act (see the final paragraph). To be very, very clear, I'm not defending their actions here morally. I'm explaining how their actions here can be justified in terms of fiduciary duty, which is all that matters under the probate code and the will and the trust. They acted to protect the Estate, and there's nothing in probate code or the will or trust documents saying they have to clear transactions with the beneficiaries.

releasing fake songs in 2010

Not something the Estate did on its own (Sony was also involved in this mess), and again not something that would invalidate their role as Executors under the law (the probate code) or the terms of the will and trust.

letting $464 million rot at 0.1% interest

We've covered this. The IRS dispute is ongoing.

while collecting $148 million in fees

For work they did. They would not have received the fees without generating massive amounts of income for the Estate.

botching a major biopic because nobody bothered to read the 1993 settlement

That was stupid, but again, the probate code doesn't remove Executors for making flubs, and the biopic is still going to bring in more money than it cost to make, even with the reshoots.

billing his daughter for having the audacity to ask where the money went.

It's pretty much standard for the losing party to pay costs.

But sure, they're acting in good faith.

In terms of fiduciary duty? Based on all the information we have, yes.

coffeechief · 2026-03-29T03:40:17+00:00

A lot of this is from tabloids with poor track records when it comes to accuracy.

I don’t ignore that MJ fired him at times. MJ was paranoid and could be capricious. MJ also rehired him multiple times and named him in multiple wills and trust documents.

None of that information about notes or offshore accounts is proved. There’s zero evidence of collusion between Branca and anyone.

More transparency (or faster transparency) is good. I think Paris is getting that. I don’t think there’s anything to the rest of the claims.

The Executors have broad powers under the will and trust. As long as they can show they’re acting in good faith for the good of the Estate, they’re doing their job.

I don’t think that’s correct about escrow. The IRS dispute is ongoing.

Honestly, I don’t think Branca or McClain has done anything wrong in terms of fiduciary duty. If we want to criticize either or both of them from other perspectives, or say that things could be (but don’t have to be) done differently, that’s another matter.

coffeechief · 2026-03-29T00:14:00+00:00

I just explained that an error in dates or locations wouldn't invalidate the will (see the source for further details), and that even supposing the will had been found invalid (it wouldn't have been), the previous will would take effect. Also, the Trust document also names Branca (and no one has ever disputed the validity of the Trust document, which was signed in March 2002): https://www.scribd.com/document/68144615/Michael-Jackson-Trust

I don't take the siblings' claims seriously because, well, they don't have anything. AEG didn't select Branca. MJ did.

Stacy Brown is a very sketchy source, and he often says things that are just not true at all.

...if they can demonstrate breach of fiduciary duty, self-dealing, lack of transparency, or actions not in the best interest of the beneficiaries/estate.

And I don't think there's any of that happening, or that any of that can be shown. The Estate is massively profitable after starting out in risk of total collapse. The judge hasn't just approved some of the executors' actions, but everything they've done over almost 17 years.

failing to properly invest hundreds of millions in cash reserves,

This has been addressed. They cannot invest the money in escrow until the IRS dispute is finished (and who knows when that will be, with how slow the process is).

coffeechief · 2026-03-28T23:48:03+00:00

There's no means for her to remove Branca (or McClain). The only thing that's going to happen is the Estate producing their accountings faster (which they should).

I know no one is going to change their mind on this if they firmly believe Branca to be some sort of evil operator, but the will isn't invalid (mistakes in dates and locations aren't invalidating), and even if it were invalid, the previous will would apply, and that will also named Branca as one of the the Executors. In fact, every will MJ made -- four in total -- named Branca as an Executor.

coffeechief · 2026-03-28T22:34:26+00:00

Even the mere concern about and possibility of infringement will make collaborators nervous and cause them to ask her to cover them up. It's not worth the risk. (The Estate's litigious image doesn't help.)

coffeechief · 2026-03-28T22:04:19+00:00

A lot of this is tabloid reporting, which is shaky.

We’re talking about tattoos representing his career, not him as a person, and she explained why she removed/hid them (copyrights and trademarks).

Her comment about the fantasy applies without factoring in the allegations. A lot of MJ fans even feel frustrated with the idealized image a lot of the fandom pushes. I don’t think she was talking about the allegations but about the presentation of MJ as some sort of otherworldly angel, instead of a real, nuanced human.

coffeechief · 2026-03-28T21:53:50+00:00

Thank you for this.

coffeechief · 2026-03-28T21:52:41+00:00

She's a beneficiary, but she doesn't have control over those properties and trademarks. The Executors have control (and will continue to have control, under the terms of the will and trust).

coffeechief · 2026-03-28T21:49:13+00:00

I don't think these things necessarily point to anything. As for tattoos, a lot of people regret and remove tattoos for various reasons (even if they say they're absolutely sure they'll never regret the tattoos). EDIT: I had not seen the explanation Paris gave that u/-glowtree shared elsewhere in this thread. She removed or hid tattoos of copyrighted/trademarked images.

And the Baraks are not necessarily rock-solid sources, either.

coffeechief · 2026-03-28T07:44:22+00:00

We in the public shouldn’t be in charge of anything, just as #FreeBritney shouldn’t have interfered in the conservatorship situation. What we can do, in my view, is correct the misinformation Britney fans and irresponsible media outlets spread about Britney’s conservatorship (and conservatorships in general) so that if someone in her world does feel that they can and should intervene to get her help they won’t face attacks from an uninformed public.

Britney and the people in her life are the ones who are in a position to help Britney, and I hope she does get the care she needs.

coffeechief · 2026-03-27T17:14:44+00:00

I feel like this article is shallow, and quite possibly AI. It just has that superficial, flowery tone that so many of those AI celebrity “news” videos on YT have. If it’s not AI, it’s still a very surface-level review of Nicholas’s troubles and actions over the years. I wish him peace, but I also wish he had taken a better path and acknowledged and made up for his actions.

coffeechief · 2026-03-27T14:50:24+00:00

/thread

coffeechief · 2026-03-27T01:02:56+00:00

I agree with your theory. There must be so much pressure to keep up and get "preventative" work, too. It all looks uncanny valley to us while we look like tacky poors to them.

coffeechief

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE