I have to say i have lost all respect for Janet and Randy jackson.
Originally Posted by marybrewster
Randy and Jermaine and Rebbie and Janet are obviously crying over the loss of potenital money!
These are lost souls.
Kudos to TJ for being the first Jackson to get a college education; the man obviously convinced a Judge and Diana Ross and the Children and Katherine.
They must be crushed! How will they ever be able to go on?
Originally Posted by Roberta75
Same here. Rebbie, also. Not suprised at all by Jermaine.
Originally Posted by Roberta75
Are you sure? Remember, the Jackson's are the only family those kids have.
Originally Posted by Roberta75
Yes indeed marybrewster. Paris is probably very aware of the physical and mental abuse her father suffered from Joe Jackson.
Originally Posted by marybrewster
Best to you.
Sad news for those who endorse using violence when dealing with kids: TMZ has reported that Janet Jackson did not slap or cuss out Paris Jackson last week.
Jermaine calls for an end to Jackson family feud
"After much soul-searching, it is clearly time for us to live by Michael's words about love not war," wrote Jermaine, in a statement.
Jermaine also withdrew his support for a leaked letter which calls on executors of the estate to resign.
Last week saw his mother, Katherine, lose guardianship of Michael's children amid reports she was missing.
Michael's siblings, Jermaine, Randy and Janet, are understood to have driven to the Jackson home and insisted they leave with Michael's three children.
Police were called following a "minor scuffle".
"Mistakes have been made and irrational things have been said on both sides in a highly charged emotional environment," Jermaine Jackson wrote in his statement.
"It is time for us all to draw a line in the sand and move towards peace, co-operation, love and healing."
Katherine Jackson was on a 10-day spa trip to Arizona, when speculation arose about her whereabouts and her health.
Prince Michael, 15, Paris, 14, and 10-year-old Prince Michael II (also called Blanket) have lived with the singer's mother since his death in 2009.
Lawyers for the estate this week confirmed a number of unnamed relatives have been barred from visiting the Jackson family home.
Writing in his statement about the confrontation at the Jackson family home on 23 July, Jermaine said "it was clear that mutual suspicions had allowed events to spiral out of control".
"I regret that events were ever allowed to reach such a stage," he wrote. "I regret any distress caused to Prince, Paris and Blanket. That was never, ever the intention of myself, Janet, Rebbie or Randy."
Katherine Jackson was temporarily replaced as guardian while away on a trip to Arizona Last week a US judge transferred temporary guardianship to the late singer's nephew TJ, son of Tito Jackson.
On Thursday, Ms Jackson's lawyer is returning to court to present an agreement to restore his client as guardian.
The new agreement would also call for TJ Jackson to remain a co-guardian, with control over the staff and day-to-day operations of the family home.
Perry Sanders Jr., Katherine Jackson's lawyer, has said the arrangement will allow his client to focus on the children's upbringing and not on financial or logistics issues.
The co-guardianship arrangement would also allow either Katherine Jackson, 82, or TJ Jackson, 34, to serve as sole guardian if the other were no longer able to serve.
Michael Jackson's will left nothing to his siblings when he died aged 50 of an overdose of the anaesthetic propofol in June 2009.
Janet, Randy, Jermaine and Rebbie are all understood to have signed a letter, which was leaked to the press, alleging the will was a fake and calling on executors of the estate to resign.
The letter states the family was too overwhelmed at the time of the singer's death to meaningfully challenge the will that gave only Katherine Jackson and Michael's three children a stake in the estate.
The estate has denied the accusations, saying they are "saddened" by "false and defamatory accusations".
Any legal challenge to the will should have been filed within four months of the will's acceptance in November 2009.
I'm happy to read this.
Originally Posted by smark21
Me too marybrewster.
Originally Posted by marybrewster
Originally Posted by juicefree20
Please look at the article!!!! I would never lead YOU astray!!!!
But perhaps the Sun Times can lead one astray.
Originally Posted by dvus7
They said she didn't call her a "Bitch". They said nothing about Janet not cursing her out.
Originally Posted by smark21
They said she didn't call her a "Bitch". They said nothing about Janet not cursing her out. Posts like that, ladies and gentlemen, is how things get twisted and distorted. We all saw the video and the body language of both Paris and Janet, we saw with our own eyes Janet try to snatch her cellphone. What did you think Janet was saying to her? "How are you today, sweeteums??? Here, I'll take your cellphone into AT&T and have it professionally tuned up. Your hair looks so good today, honey!! I've lost 5 pounds this week, those colonics that Mama got me hooked on years ago really make a difference!"
Originally Posted by smark21
If a Jackson screams on Twitter, and nobody reads it, did the Jackson really scream? (Or will there be a press conference next?)
I don't know how to do the quote thing, so I'll cut & paste from that article. Are you referring to this quote from the article...
"Her declaration was attached to papers filed in a request to be reinstated as guardian of Michael’s children, Prince, 15, Paris, 14 and Blanket, 10. A judge granted the request and temporarily named her nephew, TJ Jackson, as co-guardian"...
If so, then the Sun-Times is definitely in error & I don't know how they made a mistake as glaring as this, especially considering that everyone from every other legitimate news source, to the lawyers & the kids themselves have identified T.J. as Michael's nephew who is the son of Tito.
Contrary to what the Sun Times stated, as Tito & Michael are brothers & Katherine is their mother, that would make Tito's son T.J. Katherine's grandson.
How the Sun Times couldn't properly negotiate this simple lineage & familial relationship is somewhat puzzling as even my little grandson likely would understand that as my mother's great-grandson, he couldn't possible be her nephew as well.
What likely confused them is that they got their facts twisted. They probably confused Katherine's nephew TRENT, the one who first reported her missing with grandson T.J., who is now shares guardianship with Katherine. Trent begins with T, as does Tito Jr.
It appears as though they either got their T's mixed up or have a lousy proof reader.
I would look for their retraction because they definitely got this one wrong.
Last edited by juicefree20; 08-03-2012 at 07:29 PM.
Well if it gives you pleasure that Janet cussed out Paris, then by all means go ahead and believe. It’s a rather odd thing to desire, but if it provides meaning and purpose to your life, then who am I to judge?
Originally Posted by jillfoster
As for the Janet/Paris dust-up, I never referred to that simply because at that point speculation was flying left & right & my thinking was that the media was going for sensationalism, as though the nonsense that we could actually verify with our own eyes weren't enough.
More importantly, with things the way they are these days, I'd have fully expected a child advocate agency to have immediately spoken out had they believed that Janet had slapped a minor child. Unlike our childhood, these days that would be called abuse & somehow, I didn't believe that Janet would've placed herself into that position. And as we've learned, Paris & Prince are well-versed on the use of Twitter & Facebook & I don't recall either of them ever making such an accusation.
Because of that, I wasn't ready to jump on that particular TMZ bandwagon without having a little more proof than the usual "sources say", whose info often proves to be defective if not completely fabricated. No one needed to latch onto that because the things that we could actually read with our own yes about all of this was more than sufficient for purposes of evaluation.
In this instance, once again words sang 44 years ago still ring true...
"Say believe half of what you see...some or none of what you hear..."
As I was tinking about that link that you posted, did you notice a few other rather glaring things written in that article?
For example, in the televised interview that she gave with a few of her children surrounding her, she said on national tv that no one kept her from speaking with the children & that she was simply relaxing & didn't want to deal with the phone & all of that. You remember that interview right?
HOWEVER...the article that you linked to states that Katherine said that while on that vacation the telephone in her room didn't work & she couldn't dial out. This article compounds that by saying that not even her television was working, she couldn't even get a picture. But one day, she woke up hearing the sound of a tv which had no picture & it was then that she realized that she was "missing".
Now this is the polar opposite of what was said in the televised interview. I'll leave it to you & others to decide what to make of the conflicting statements, that's if anything in this article can be believed at all. But I'll tell you what, if she actually said anything that was written in this article, then it only serves to strengthen the arguments made by Paris, Prince & T.J. & makes it look VERY bad for the other side.
Which is why everyone now wants to make peace because she probably ripped a few of them a brand new behind.
Which is yet another example of why I hate any article which begins with the words "Our sources say..."
If the source is so sure about the truth that they're speaking, then they should have the balls to sign their names to it. Dealing with more than a few entertainers, a few other words come to mind when situations such as this occur...
"Those who know don't tell & those who tell, don't know".
Which means that while people (celebrities) may discuss sensitive issues with people behind closed doors, rarely will they ever comment about it publicly. Especially something as sensitive as this situation. Doing so is one of the quickest ways to be cut off & will quickly have one on the outside looking in.
Which is exactly why you're now reading how some folks who were all up in the media instigating this are suddenly sounding like a cross between Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Ghandi & Mother Teresa.
Why the sudden change of heart?
Think about it.
Later on in that article they also went on to say:
Beckloff noted that the children also have a close relationship with their 34-year-old cousin TJ Jackson, who was named temporary guardian last week after working closely with Katherine Jackson since Michael Jackson died.
That is their cousin.
Watch this very closely!!!! He(Terry Jackson) was hired by the estate!!! He is the one dividing the family!!! He is name is also on the lease for the "current estate!!! Yes, it's about to get UGLY!!!
Originally Posted by juicefree20
Dvus... I also noticed Katherine's attorney stated that their agreement was such that she could concentrate on the children and not worry about the day to day financial and logistical stuff. How CONVENIENT for the lawyer to tell an 82 year old woman "Don't worry your pretty little head... we'll take care of everything". You just wait, I bet one of those lawyers is embezzling money from the estate.
Dvus & Jill,
Given the massive amount of attention that all of this is receiving, you can bet that just about every future financial transaction will be gone through with a fine-toothed comb.
Most likely, they have lawyers watching the lawyers whom are watching the accountants.
I also believe that sometimes, the most obvious is the most obvious. I also believe that sometimes the most damage is done by folks, who tend to point their fingers at everyone else.
Personally, when you're talking about THIS kind of money, there are very few people whom are working solely with altruism in mind.
Last edited by juicefree20; 08-04-2012 at 03:05 AM.
He was hired by the estate?
Are you saying that he's the one who told Randy that someone's trying to murder his mother & the rest of the nonsense that's been going on?
Dvus, it also occurs to me that it's rather hard to divide something that's already been divided.
Remember the report was that this was in the works since the day that Michael died. I don't know all of what's gone on behind closed doors, nor do I have any favorite in this. However, I do know when something smells rotten & when all is said & done, aside from Katherine, I don't believe that any other adult is owed a penny of what Michael earned through his own blood, sweat & tears.
The fact that they once shared the same stage & share the same bloodline doesn't necessarily mean that they are owed a thing. Obviously Michael made provisions for those whom he wanted to have his money & possessions & I suspect that if he didn't leave anything to anyone, then he must've had some pretty good reasons not to have done so.
I have some family members who don't deserve the sweat off of a brow & that's free.
Last edited by juicefree20; 08-04-2012 at 03:07 AM.
@jillfoster....From my understanding, Mrs. Jackson attempted to fire TJ Jackson but could not, because he is not an employee of hers!!! HE is employed by the "Estate of Michael Jackson"!!!
Originally Posted by jillfoster
@Juicefree...Yes, TJ Jackson was hired by the "Estate of Michael Jackson" Therefore Mrs. Jackson has NO input as far as his empoyment status!!!
Originally Posted by juicefree20
Sometimes it appears as though everything about this is operating in parallel universes because it appears as though somehow people aren't quite reading the same things that I've been reading.
For example, here's a link to comments which have been attributed directly to Katherine & they don't quite jibe with the information that you have.
Read very carefully how she's quoted & tell me whether it makes any sense to you. As just one example, here's one quote which is somewhat curious...
"...she said she was kept virtually incommunicado without access to a phone or her iPad. She said her stay at the Tucson resort was unplanned, and she went there after she was told her doctor had ordered her to rest".
That in of itself is a rather puzzling statement. Now Katherine is a very sharp woman, yet this "need" for her to rest immediately WAS NOT relayed to her directly by her doctor. The rest trip was UNPLANNED until someone TOLD her that her doctor had ordered her to rest.
Seriously Dvus, does that remotely begin to make sense to you?
You go to see your doctor & although your doctor determines that you need rest, he or she doesn't tell you this. Instead you're told this second-hand...
Immediately AFTER folks begin leaking charges to the media.
Is that what you actually believe that her doctor wouldn't have told her this directly? And don't you find it somewhat interesting that despite the millions of words which have been written about this, not ONCE have you seen even one statement made by the doctor, whose statement could easily confirm what's being said by one side.
And considering the big mess & all of what's involved here, especially with the minor heirs to millions being involved, wouldn't you think that the folks who came up with this idea would've trotted out that doctor...ANY doctor...Dr. Marcus Welby, Dr. Kildare, Dr. Ben Casey, damn, even Dr. Scholl, in front of a press conference to verify that this action was taken out of concern for her immediate well-being?
They call press conferences for everything else, so why not call a press conference to confirm this, thereby shutting up everyone once & for all?
I'll leave that for you to consider, but I can only go by what she testified to in court documents. And at no point did she say that her doctor told her anything. She makes it very clear that she received that info completely & totally in a second-hand fashion, which most would define as "hearsay" at best, or a lie at worst.
Then, there's this...
"While I was away, I had no reason to question whether the people with whom I placed trust would inform me that Prince, Paris and Blanket were trying to reach me..."
That statement would seem to make it more than clear that she's not referring to T.J., nor his lawyers. They're not the ones who sent her away, didn't know where she was & therefore couldn't keep her in the dark.
She was also quoted as follows: "the telephone was not functioning and I could not dial out," she said in the documents. "In addition, there was no picture on the television in my room." And accoring to the documents, she said she asked REPEATEDLY to have the TV fixed.
So considering the type of money involved here, how could it be that people used to luxury would have their mother anywhere where the televison didn't work? Seriously, exactly how does something like that happen in a "luxury" spa which obviously caters to people who have money?
How about this...While at the resort, Jackson said, she was unaware that her lawyer had flown to Tucson to contact her and that her grandchildren were worried about her.
Which leads to the following quote which also raises a few questions...
"The day before I was brought home from Tucson, I was finally permitted to use the phone to speak with Prince, Paris, Blanket and TJ,".
So how can it be that she wasn't made aware by the people who she trusted to make her aware that something was amiss back home, a situation that according to her own words, she didn't learn about until she heard it on a tv that was equipped with sound, but no picture?
None of those statements were issued by Paris, Prince, Blanket, T.J., T.J.'s lawyer, nor the executors of the estate. And when you look at those words for exactly what they mean, the choice of the words "FINALLY ALLOWED" are a pretty interesting choice of words. If the doctor told her not to use the phone due to health concerns then it would seem to me that she'd have stated that, as opposed to saying that she was "FINNALY ALLOWED".
That quote makes it sound as though being kept away from the phone was something that was AGAINST her will. One simply doesn't use that sort of phrasing if it's something that they're in agreement with.
Those words are attributed to Katherine & Katherine alone. SO as we know that T.J., nor his lawyer, nor the executors were the ones who sent her aways, didn't even know where she was, then exactly WHO or WHOM were responsible for the ridiculous breakdown which led to this firestorm?
Can't place any of that on T.J., Trent, the kids, nor the estate, as they had nothing to do with any of that.
When you flip to the second page of the article, you'll see the following words, words which come not from T.J., not his lawyer, not the estate, not the kids, but from the testimony that Katherine gave in court & they are as follows:
"As a result, SHE SAID SHE decided that T.J. JACKSON, who had BEEN an unofficial CO-GUARDIAN of the children, NEEDED LEGAL AUTHORITY in case something happened."
Those were HER words & whether T.J. was hired by the estate or not, she acknowledged him to be not an EXECUTOR of the eastate, but rather the CO-GUARDIAN of the children. Furthermore, in her OWN words, she stated for the record that SHE felt that he needed to have LEGAL AUTHORITY in case something went wrong.
SO even if she had no authority as regards his EMPLOYMENT, if she had ANY qualms about his GUARDIANSHIP, she certainly didn't say so. In fact, from her own words, it appears as though she has no problems with him whatsoever. Notice that she never once pointed the finger at T.J., nor the ESTATE. She directed her displeasure with THE PEOPLE WHOM SHE TRUSTED to keep her informed about what as going on back at home.
WHo just happened to be the SAME people who somehow checked her into a "luxury" spa that had no working phone & somehow in a world full of cable & DirectTV with 1080 channels, a tv seemingly equipped with a rabbit ear antenna wrapped with tin foil & a pair of pliers to turn the channels.
Now what I've posted above is that of her own sworn testimony. With that as fact, who are we to supposed to believe...Katherine whose SWORN testimony can be found in court documents, or people whom without so much as placing their hand on a bible, tossing out a lot of accusations, most of which flies directly in the face of what Katherine herself has sworn to.
So who's playing fast & loose with the truth? For some reason, I simply don't believe that she is. She's the one person besides the children who's in the catbirds seat. As such, she has no great need to trust T.J., much less make the statement that she felt that he NEEDED to have LEGAL AUTHORITY in case something went wrong.
Sorry, but that makes exactly zero sense to me.
Last edited by juicefree20; 08-04-2012 at 09:27 PM.
As regards the statement where you said that it was your understanding that she tried to fire T.J., could you please provide us with a link to that information?
Also, as I haven't seen this info listed anywhere, can you also post a link that explains who hired T.J.?
As you know often what's reported by the media can't be trusted. Certainly you can appreciate the need to be able to fact-check & at least try to find information which can be properly vetted, before we're to accept unconfirmed hearsay as fact.
I look forward to the corroborating link/links to your info.
One futher question...
Don't you find it rather interesting that the sides here are split EXACTLY as they were during the Murray trial when Jackie, Marlon, La Toya, Tito & T.J. & his brothers 3T performed at that tribute concert to Michael in October, while the others decided not to participate?
Some coincidence, wouldn't you say?
Last edited by juicefree20; 08-04-2012 at 09:19 PM.
Juice, I heard that tidbit about Katherine trying to fire TJ as well... I just can't remember from what outlet. But considering how many people are saying that Randy and Co. are conspiring to get their hands on the money... isn't it totally possible the other side is engaged in shady stuff to get the cash as well? I myself, have wondered just why everyone seems to take these attorneys as face value and automatically disbelieve 4 of the Jackson children. Jermaine has withdrawn from his complaint... I bet the lawyers paid him off. And maybe they paid him off because they were afraid of what would suface had he pursued his susipicions? just a thought.
I don't take anything that anyone says at face value. But you have to admit that in situations such as this, the past practices & questionable behavior seems to give less credence to what they say. Except for Rebbie & Janet, you have to admit that the other two haven't exactly been hallmarks of credibility & it's been that way for years.
I don't say that because it pleases me to do so & I don't say this because I dislike them. I simply say this because that is what their track record has shown. And no one is responsible for that but they themselves. Tell me, based upon what we've heard & observed of them over the last decade or so, exactly which of them would you place your faith in or entrust with your family jewels?
Another thought is that considering all of the charges that have been tossed around, isn't it rather curious that in Katherine's sworn statements that she said that she was TOLD that her doctor wanted her to leave to get some rest?
Does your doctor tend to handle you in like manner as regards your health? Mine doesn't.
And given all of the hullabaloo about her vacations & the way that her departure was handled, wouldn't one think that since press conferences are called for just about anything & everything else, that a doctor would've been produced in order to support the need that they said existed?
The easiest thing in the world to have been done was to have that doctor either issue a statement at the request of the family, or to simply have him appear at one of their press conferences & offer a corroborating statement.
A statement that according to Katerine's own sworn testimony he never even made to her, but was relayed to her second-hand.
Don't you find something just a little bit odd about that?
And rather than having been paid off, is it possible that perhaps someone finally concluded that if they continued to push this "under doctors care" angle, that eventually someone was going to get the bright idea to begin digging into this doctor to see if one existed & if so, whether he ever made that statement at all?
Not even Katherine can vouch for any doctor, much less what he did or did not say because according to her, no doctor ever told her this. She was TOLD what the doctor said & there's quite a difference between the two.
So indeed, the pendulum can swing both ways. The primary difference for me is that I'm not basing my opinion on my personal emotions or which side I like or dislike. My opinions are based upon the words, deeds & actions of folks, folks who've had rather dubious behavior patterns which date back to the 90s, as well as the words of the primary people who live in that home, namely the children & the sworn testimony of Katherine herself.
I find it interesting that even though she's been quoted extensively as placing the words & actions of those whom she trusted into doubt, people still choose to overlook HER words & continue to attempt to place this at the feet of T.J., the executors & even HER lawyers.
So as you can see from the links that I placed above which depicts HER sworn statements which are now a part of court record, the only people whose words I'm taking are those of the children whom obviously know what's happening in their own home & those of Katherine herself, who certainly had every opportunity to state any concerns that she had about the executors, T.J. or anyone else.
But as you read in the above testimony, not once did she point so much as one finger at them. She pointed the finger at the people whom she trusted, people whom obviously had everything to do with her being at that spa.
So exactly whom are these people she trusted & exactly why do her words make it appear as though she believes that they somewhat misled her?
The lawyers didn't suggest that, not even the children suggested that. She did. So with her own words as fact, why is it that the attention is still being misdirected, which is quite contrary to what she herself has stated for the record?
Everyone else can choose to settle for the speculation & the "could be's" & "might be's". As for myself I'll have to take her words for what they are because when you thnk about it, it would seem to me that she has nothing to gain for saying what she said.
My mind is open to ALL possibilities but tell you what, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck & waddles like a duck, you can bet for sure that it just ain't a moose. And just because someone tries to tell me otherwise doesn't mean that I have to believe them.
For those who choose to believe it then all that I can say it to watch out for those antlers!
Her words are there for all to read, so exactly why is it that some would presume that their own opinion is supposed to supercede what she said? That is basically tantamount to calling her a liar, or presuming to know more about what happened than she herself does.
I believe that to be quite telling & indicates to me that people who would rather hold onto a conspiracy theory have already chosen their side, aren't approaching this with an open-mind & if Jesus himself came down with a surveillance video proving them wrong, they'd still try to find a way to say that it was Photoshopped.
In the end, I guess that it all comes down to what one chooses to believe & for some, all of the evidence in the world won't change what they believe because it just doesn't line up with what they believe to be true.
With that as fact, I'm pretty much finished beating this particular horse. It was what it was, it is what it is & my momma didn't raise no fool. But I have to say that I hate it when someone pees on my leg, then tries to tell me that it's rain, or that that yellow snow cone with the ammonia odor that they're trying to sell me is lemon icee, when they know good & damn well that it's urine.
That's pretty much how I feel about all of this & as it really impacts upon me in no way, shape or fashion, there's really no need for me to try to further explain what Katherine herself explained in her testimony.
Or could it be that the lawyers got to her too?
Last edited by juicefree20; 08-05-2012 at 01:02 AM.
Godmom Diana to rescue!
By STACY BROWN
“There ain’t no mountain high enough” that could have stopped Diana Ross from trying to extract Michael Jackson’s three kids from an ugly family feud.
In fact, the Motown legend reigned supreme last week, comforting godchildren Prince Michael, 15, Paris, 14, and Blanket, 10, who were still shaken by the bizarre attempt by some of the late pop star’s siblings to cut off contact with the kids’ 82-year-old grandma, Katherine.
The matriarch was whisked from the family’s California home to an Arizona spa for 11 days last month and had been unable to call home, triggering a police probe and a flurry of tweets from a terrified Paris.
DIVA INTERVENTION: Diana Ross, here with Michael Jackson in ’84, checked in on his children, Blanket, Prince Michael and Paris.
Ross gave Paris the longest hug during the emotional encounter at the family’s Calabasas home, said a Jackson family member who was present. The teen had recently been recorded on a surveillance camera fending off her aunt Janet Jackson’s attempt to take away her cellphone.
During Wednesday’s visit, Ross, 68, made it clear she would step in if necessary, and made Paris promise to call her “no matter what.”
“Yes, Miss Ross. I will,” Paris replied, according to the source.
The diva left a clear message to the family. “Mess with Michael’s kids, and you’re messing with her,” the source said.
During the powwow, Ross held Katherine Jackson’s hand, looked into her eyes and asked her if the family had made it too difficult for the grandma to handle guardianship, the source said.
Katherine told Ross she could handle it, and the two embraced.
The grandma now shares custody of the kids with TJ Jackson, son of Jackson’s brother Tito.
“For the first time, Ross said she was willing to step in ‘if needed.’ She had never spoken like that before,” the source said.
During his 2005 molestation trial, Jackson called best friend Ross and asked her to make sure his children would be cared for if anything were to happen to him.
Ross agreed, but had no idea she’d be named as the backup guardian in Jackson’s 2002 will.
After Jackson’s death in 2009, Ross would phone the kids to see “if they needed advice or anything else.” But last week, after the dust settled on the feud, “she wanted to meet with the children in person to make sure she heard all the right things. Things you can’t easily detect on the telephone, like body language,” the family member said.
“Whether she wanted to be listed as guardian or not, she’s not going to abdicate any authority.”
Ross was 25 when she met a 10-year-old Jackson in 1968. He, “like everyone else, called her Miss Ross,” ex-Temptations singer Damon Harris told The Post.
Many of the Jacksons are in favor of Ross’ guardianship should TJ and Katherine be unable.
“She’s our first idol,” the family member said. “We lived with her, and it wasn’t just Michael who loved her — we all do. His kids like her a lot. Who wouldn’t? She’s Miss Ross!”
Nice to read this skooldem1. Doesn't sound like a woman who "cussed like a sailor and hit the ceiling when she found out she was named alternate Guardian of Michael's kids" to me.
Originally Posted by skooldem1
Sounds very much to me to be like a woman who really cares for MJ's children and wants what's best for them.
Thank you for posting this skooldem1.
Yours, with every good wish.
It was clear law-wise that there had to be a communication between Katherine, Diana and the kids, and as always DR has handled this very classy indeed. To think what meal other stars would have done out of that, can you imagine?
They would have given press-conferences before, during and after meeting the children. She never gets credit for being so stylish, she always knows what the right way is... that is one of the many things that make her so special and such a CLASSY DIVA.