Jackson family members have spoken out against what they believe is a negative media campaign aimed at family members, one that is being waged by the men who control the estate of Michael Jackson.
Janet Jackson and two of her siblings decried what they believed is a “media campaign” against the family, the Los Angeles Times reported. Along with her brother Randy and sister Rebbie, Janet Jackson issued a statement that accused the executors of Michael’s will of trying to split the family apart in an attempt to distract them from questions about the legitimacy of the will.
“The negative media campaign generated by the executors and their agents has been relentless,” wrote Blair G. Brown, attorney for Janet Jackson.
The Jackson family has been the subject of many bizarre media accounts over the past few weeks. There were allegations that the siblings were holding their 82-year-old mother against her will in Arizona, which resulted in a new custody arrangement in which the family matriarch shares guardianship of Michael Jackson’s three children.
Brown said the questions about the will need to be heard, and that the Jackson family siblings aren’t motivated by money in bringing the questions to light.
“They stand to gain nothing financially by a finding that the will is invalid,” Brown wrote. “What will be gained…is that the executors will be replaced and the estate and the guardianship will be managed in a manner that is in the best interest of the children, which is what Michael wanted.”
The Jackson family siblings claim the will is a fake, and that Michael Jackson was actually out of town on the day it appears he signed the will.
The executors, John Branca and John McClain, did not comment on the Jackson family’s allegations, the Associated Press reported. But they had already released a statement several weeks ago saying that questions about the will’s validity “were thoroughly and completely debunked two years ago when a challenge was rejected by the Los Angeles County Superior Court, the California Court of Appeals and, finally, the California Supreme Court.”