Branca’s little “Mini-me” is at it again, trying unconvincingly to convince people that both Sony and Branca were oh-so-good to Michael. It has gotten to the point now where this blogger is doing a better job at convincing us She works for Sony, then She is at convincing anyone that Branca worked for Michael between 2003 and 2006. Branca may have been working AGAINST Michael, but certainly not for him.
First issue up for bid is the statement the blogger made in paragraph 2:
“There are numerous examples of clear media bias against Michael Jackson.”
Now the blogger may claim not to be Taraborrelli and that may be true . . . but who else do we know who first came to light in front of Michael Jackson fans, writing an article in the Huffington Post about media bias? Hmmmm . . . It wasn’t Terrible-ellie. think about this one. Its hard, I know. :o)
Further down the blogger states that the media did not report on several of Michael’s complaints outside of the promotion of Invincible. The blogger lists these as:
- Michael was upset that Tommy Mottola would not return Michael’s phone calls, according to his attorney, Mark Singer. The blogger lists this link in reference http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,322144,00.html
Michael’s family, friends and fans know that John Branca was not fired until 2003, so my question is, why was John Branca, Michael’s entertainment attorney, not handling or speaking on these matters? Did he need that much time to complete his paper shredding?
- Michael Claimed that Mottola called Irv Gotti a “fat, black nigger”. The media did in fact cover this as this you tube video of those news items here:
and here on MTV and many other links to news items showing that Michael calling Mottola a racist was probably the most covered of the battle with Sony.
- Third, the blogger claims the news did not cover the fact that Michael believed the rights to his masters were shortly due to transfer to him, that Michael found his lawyer John Branca was also representing Sony (in some capacity, like the contract) and Michael suspected that Branca and Sony were working together to defraud him of his share of the Sony/ATV catalog. In another paragraph he mentions also the issue of “What More Can I Give” and Sony’s refusal to let Michael release it.
In explanation of all of the above, the blogger concedes that Sony did indeed under promote “Invincible”. That was nice of her him. She then goes on to explain that the “What More Can I Give” charity project was refused by Sony because the producer, Marc Schaffel was a porn producer and Sony didn’t want him associated with anything they did.
The FACT is, Michael was the one who was sued for FIRING Marc Schaffel for that very reason. Sony couldn’t give a rat’s behind about Marc Schaffel’s background. Look at some of the other artists they promote! A deposition of Michael explaining why he fired Marc Schaffle when he found out during the taping of ANOTHER PROJECT in 2004 is
The blogger will try to claim that Michael was told by Sony, but during this interview, it is made clear who informed Michael. Sony had no information on Marc Schaffel in 2001 when “What More Can I Give” video was produced. Schaffel was hired by Michael, not Sony as evident in the lawsuit filed by Schaffel against Michael. Sony really had nothing to do with Schaffel. It was Schaffel who backed Michael against Sony during Michael’s protests against Sony. Source
The blogger states: “Clearly, if Sony had released the single and video, and there had been a public outrage and backlash, Sony would have been accused of sabotaging Jackson’s career by releasing it.” This is balderdash. If the backlash from Michael’s speech about Sony and the sabotaging of the “Invincible” album didn’t bother Sony, why would they care what people thought about letting a charity single out on the market? Most of the rumors put out about Michael were orchestrated by Sony anyway and were much worse than Schaffel’ previous job.
In another paragraph the blogger states that Sony has a history of giving less than profitable royalty rates. This wasn’t Michael’s problem. Michael was making the industry record of 31%. It was the lack of accounting and under reporting of sales that prompted many artists of means to do so, to have their labels audited almost yearly, to make sure they weren’t being cheated out of what they were contractually supposed to be paid. The bribing of radio stations was just a slight embarrassment to Sony.
The next paragraph the blogger claims that in 2006 Sony had plenty of opportunity to take control of the ATV catalog. The fact is, they tried. They had been trying since 1991. They failed with Chandler, they failed with shelving Michael’s album, they failed with the mass media rumors and they failed with the 2005 accusations and trial. As Dick Gregory said in one interview, the only thing left to do was to kill him.
The blogger further states that Michael enlisted the help of Sony in 2006 with his loans. This is misrepresented according to the documents the blogger herself posts as reference. The help Michael got with his loans was from Fortress for both the $30 million Neverland refinance and the ATV backed $270+ million loan in 2006.
Now the next exhibit had me laughing. The blogger uses a fraud complaint against John Branca and McClain by Brian Oxman, as proof that Branca was working for Michael between 2003 and 2006 AND AS PROOF that Michael asked Sony for financial help. Their exhibit . In this same exhibit, Oxman’s filed complaint highlights the embezzlement activities of Branca and Mottola in regard to the funneling of Michael’s money to offshore accounts, and deferred to “exhibit C” in the complaint, which is further down in this pdf file.
In the Oxman complaint it states the Michael paid Branca $15 million to get back John’s 5% interest in Michael’s catalog. This is NOT proof of retainment or appointment. On page 10, line 3, the complaint states that Michael and John signed an agreement not to have anymore further to do with each other on April of 2006 which was the final turning over of Branca’s 5% interest in Sony/ATV. This is not proof Branca was working for Michael. It is exactly what it says in the complaint, an agreement to sell for $15 million the 5% share Branca had of the Sony/ATV and have nothing further to do with Michael or his business. Charlie needs to learn how to read legal documents.
Page 16 should be of particular interest to fans following this case. The Interfer report against John Branca and Tommy Mottola. This is the same “Interfer” that the same blogger poster mentioned in his blog update , where she posted a falsified court transcript praising Branca and implicating Weitzner.
Page 16 also describes intelligence sent to Justice Department by Branca stating the business relationship she had with Michael and that his services had been terminated. This is during the investigations for the 2005 trial. So if this blogger insists that Branca was rehired in 2003 and resigned in 2006, maybe this blogger should start actually reading the resources she uses. Better yet, maybe she should remind Branca of what Branca himself sent to the Justice Department before sending him off on a blogging campaign for Sony P.R.?
Page 17 of complaint is a letter from Branca’s firm to Michael asking Michael to sign an agreement for a J.C. Penny commercial. It is dated July of 2002 with that scratched out and handwritten beneath “February 5, 2003”, which is two days after the dated letter in which Michael fired Branca. Why would someone redate and resend a letter to Michael seven months later? Surely the production crew didn’t want THAT LONG to get permission to use a song for a commercial! Looks like a sad attempt to try to convince someone that Branca was still working for Michael, LOL!
Pg. 19 is another letter in regard to the use of an agreement for the use of “You are my Life”. Again it has a “resent” date handwritten in for February 5 of 2003 (Why didn’t they just bump it up a month to make it look more convincing?). There are more on the following pages of similar request. This is not proof that Branca is working for Michael. As a matter of fact these are agreements for use of Songs in which Sony still has control of at this point in time. Branca conflict of interest was that he was working for Sony at the same time he was working for Michael. After February 3, of 2003, this was no longer the case. Letters hand dated two days after being fired by a letter than may not have reached him yet is not proof of employment. This did not stop Branca from representing Sony in the use of Michael’s songs for commercials or other entertainment uses.
Page 21. This one is interesting. It is an agreement to receive 5% fees for all Michael Jackson Company owned businesses that they bring in revenue for. The problem is the date “October 19, 2003” and Michael’s signature at the bottom, which is not Michael’s signature:
This is Michael´s signature
And THIS is Michael´s signature
The one on the page 21 document looks like the same forgery that appears on the 2002 will. On closer look Michael’s signature bears a striking resemblance to Branca’s signature loops, spacing and directional change on this document. Document page 24 is the proposed letter in which the Sony blogger refers to in regard to Sony refinancing the Fortress Loan of $300 million. Let’s read through this and forget the screen shot, since you can’t scroll through the document on the screen shot.
In the first paragraph Sony refers to “facilitating the contemplated new loan agreement with Fortress and SME (Sony Music Entertainment) . . .” and they mention “New Horizon Trust” (owners of that trust are MJPT, MJATV Publishing trust and the bank which is Fortress). They reiterate the terms in paragraph two. Among them are the agreement by Branca’s firm to waive any 5% fee that would have been due him because Michael is buying Branca out of that 5% Sony ATV.
Page 25, the agreement goes through Sony’s right to first refusal and the right to purchase 50% of Michael’s share of the ATV catalog should Michael default on his loan (pay attention to this). Paragraph four reiterates that “The Firm” (Branca and co.) will not receive any funds from the exercise of of any transactions on the Sony/ATV and states Michael’s payment to John Branca for the 5% that Branca used to own of the ATV as stated further up in this blog.
What this looks like as you read through it, is an agreement between Sony and Michael that in any further dealings, Branca and firm are to have no part in any further profiting from any business conducted with musical compositions in regard to Michael’s businesses.
During 2005 (the trial) several things happened with two of Michael’s loans. In order of occurrence, Prescient through Transitional sought and chose Fortress Investments to provide the capital for Michael’s loans in early 2005 (during the time that Randy and Don were supposedly forcing Michael to sign papers he didn’t want to sign). Then even though stories that Michael refused to sign are in the news, there is a signed document for January of 2005. In February Stabler and Dash confirm deal, but Bank of America sells both loans to Fortress in May of 2005. In March of 2006, Fortress refinances the loans (the April 2005 document in which Sony helps negotiate on the condition that Branca and firm stays out of it) by creating a new “New Horizon Trust”, which according to the exhibit in the Oxman complaint is OWNED by MJPT, MJ ATV Publishing Trust and the Bank which is FORTRESS. This is getting interesting.
Condensed, this is an agreement in which Sony obtains the right to either purchase half of Michael’s 50% share of the Sony/ATV if Michael’s loan should go into default, or to have rights to first refusal if Michael should need to sell, or if his creditor should need to sell the collateral, which is Michael’s half of the Sony/ATV catalog. There is no listed sum or amount in this agreement as to how much Sony would pay Michael’ for half of his share. Also as terms of this agreement is the removal of John Branca from the Sony/ATV board and his 5% share in return for Michael’s payment for such of $15 million.
This is NOT an agreement for Michael to make more music for Sony, this is not a music contract extension and it is NOT proof that John Branca worked for Michael. One interesting note however is that this is a notarized document by notary Susan Cobb. Michael’s signatures and Katherine’s signatures and even Prince Abdullah’s signatures appear, but there are none in the spaces required for John Branca. Why? It’s a notarized document. If all signatures are not present upon notary, is this document even legal?
The blogger stated that Michael enlisted the help of Sony for these loans. Michael did not obtain a loan from Sony, Michael wanted Branca off the Sony/ATV Board to prevent him from profiting off the mess Branca got him into. That is why the agreement with Sony. Sony HAD to agree or face the possibility of a third party, a bank, co-owning the Sony/ATV publishing business. Again, to refresh the memory of the Sony/Branca blogger, is the statements made by Michael on a radio interview with Jesse Jackson.
Michael was well aware of the breadth of the conspiracy around him. When Michael left the country for Bahrain, he stopped giving interviews. We know why. It is still going on. The 2005 trial and it’s investigations has never really ended. To continue . . .
Page 31 on Oxman complaint is page two of a letter that appears further up in the complaint, an agreement for John Branca to be paid for his 5% share of Sony/ATV. It is important to note that John Branca between 2003 and April of 2006 still had that 5% interest in the Sony/ATV catalog. He was not working for Michael, he was working for Sony. Michael had fired Branca from representing him or his music businesses, however Michaeland Sony were still obligated to pay Branca 5% of of the revenue Sony/ATV generated. This is why, when Michael renegotiated the loans and Sony wanted part in the refinancing (to avoid a third party control of the ATV) Michael wanted no part of Branca profiting from any such deal. Page 33 is signatures that do not look like Michael’s. Just My opinion.
Documents after this are of earlier years as exhibits for Oxman.
Nowhere in these documents does it mention Barclay’s or HBSC Bank which according to this article was part of this Sony-assisted financing deal:
“At the time, Mr. Jackson was in danger of defaulting on a $270 million loan held by hedge fund Fortress Investment Group LLC. As part of the agreement under which Barclays ultimately refinanced that debt, Mr. Jackson granted Sony an option to buy half of his stake in the company at any time for a fixed price of $250 million. At the time that was a generous valuation, but Sony/ATV’s value has since soared to around $2 billion.” Source
This article above was posted on June 21, 2010. The Neverland Fortress loan was bought by Colony Capital. In 2006, Fortress refinanced the $300 million loan through the “New Horizon Trust”, which is mentioned in the exhibit included in Oxman’s complaint (The firing of Branca from Sony/ATV contract with Michael mentioned above). “New Horizon Trust” as it stated in that contract was co-owned by MJ Publishing Trust, MJ ATV Publishing Trust, and Fortress. So where is Barclay’s and HBSC in this agreement?
We’ve established that John Branca did not work for Michael between 2003 and 2006 (for the 4th or 5th time) as asserted by Sony-blogger. And according to that agreement in 2006, Michael did not have an agreement with Sony over his music because he trusted them. He had an agreement with Sony for a refinancing deal with Fortress for Michael to be able to use the Music Catalog as collateral. Sony entered into this agreement for fear of a third party further splitting ownership of the catalog and as per this agreement Sony was to fire Branca from his position in Sony/ATV with Michael buying his 5% share for $15 million.
I am sure the actual refinancing agreement would tell us the relationship of HBSC and Barclay’s, but they are not at all mentioned in this agreement.
I want to sincerely THANK Sony-blogger for providing the proof that Interfer DID INDEED investigate Branca during the period of discovery for Michael’s 2005 Trial and that Branca himself did indeed send requested information back to the U.S. Justice Department during investigations for the trial in 2004-2005 admitting that Michael had INDEED terminated him.
Something else of interest which is not completely off topic.
The succession of entities involved in that refinance deal:
Prescient – Transitional – Fortress – New Horizon Trust.
What does that mean?
I don’t know . . . Maybe Branca does. :o)
We do not take credit for this work, By, Bonnie Cox