Janet, Randy and Rebbie criticize the Michael Jackson Estate executors for harming 'fundamental family relationships' and isolating Katherine from anyone challenging them.
- August 4, 2012
AceShowbiz -
While Tito and Jermaine Jackson have both called off public complaint against Michael Jackson's Estate executors, Janet Jackson and her two other siblings Randy and Rebbie refuse to back down. In their latest statement, they accuse the Estate of running smear campaign to make them look bad.
"The negative media campaign generated by the executors and their agents has been relentless," says attorney Blair G. Brown on behalf of the trio. "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."
The siblings also deny negative rumors suggesting that they have ulterior motives in their effort to challenge the Estate. "That point is worth repeating -- They stand to gain nothing financially by a finding that the will is invalid," Blair defends Janet and co. "Michael's children will be the beneficiaries of Michael's Estate."
"The Executors have never explained how Michael could have signed his will in California on a date that irrefutable evidence establishes he was in New York," the lawyer continues. "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 the best interests of the children, which is what Michael wanted."
Tito and Jermaine initially joined the trio, but later backed off. The former repudiated "all the claims made against" the Estate, while the latter rescinded his signature because he didn't want to prolong the public consumption of the family feud. He said he would address the matter "more properly through a private discussion instead of going public."
