Mann has filed his response to the Estate's motion for partial judgement
- Mann says Jackson's (Joe, Katherine) had formed "Jackson Communications Inc" (Jermaine was president) and was planning on opening restaurants called "Jackson Street" and they granted memorabilia including music and video recordings to be used in those restaurants.
- Mann states therefore the assets and their intellectual property in question are owned by Joe & Katherine and not Michael. They state Joe and Katherine also claimed ownership of the assets.
- Mann furthermore argues that Joe is the owner of Jackson variety show - as he was the producer and Michael and his siblings were under contract to work for Joe and Joe owns the concert photographs as he hired the photographers.
- Mann and Vaccaro in their declarations mention sworn statements they got from Joe and Katherine saying that they owned the assets & intellectual property and those were rightfully transferred to Vaccaro during bankruptcy sale. (see it at the very end)
- They argue that Michael did not make any ownership claims and did not try to buy any assets during bankruptcy sale.
- They continue to claim that as Michael did not make claims during the bankruptcy sale and as he didn't follow through with the 2004 lawsuit, they are protected against this claims.
- Mann state that Estate is over-reaching in regards to the Smooth Criminal in their logo as Estate has not trademarked it or used it for any of their products.
- Mann's lawyers argue that any other copyright infringement (such as putting TII picture, Opis None and Thriller 25) was done by mistake and Estate is only entitled to get a $200 penalty for it.
- Mann is asking for a summary judgement on his behalf in regards to the assets, ownership and use of it.
Some more tidbits
Multiple lawyers that had represented Vaccaro in the older lawsuits (bankruptcy case, 2004 MJ - Vaccaro case) has been deposed in regards to those lawsuits and the assets. The depositions are mostly business related and is focusing on intellectual property rights. There are a few interesting topics mentioned in those depositions.
Edgar Pease - the lawyer that previously represented Henry Vaccaro and represented HTWF- has been deposed. At one part of his deposition he mentions some actions by Brian Oxman.
Ed Pease says " I BELIEVE THAT THE ATTORNEYS AT THE TIME REPRESENTING MICHAEL JACKSON HAD COMMITTED FRAUD ON THE COURT THROUGH BRIAN OXMAN BECAUSE BRIAN OXMAN HAD REPRESENTED TO THE COURT THAT MICHAEL HAD TOLD HIM TO FILE THIS PARTICULAR DECLARATION. AND I SUSPECTED THAT IT WAS FRAUDULENT, THAT MICHAEL HAD NEVER SEEN IT. MICHAEL WAS OUT THE COUNTRY, OUT OF THE STATE. AND BRIAN OXMAN WAS FILING DECLARATIONS AS IF MICHAEL HAD WRITTEN THEM OR HAD -- BUT THEY WEREN'T SIGNED BY MICHAEL. I SUSPECTED THAT THEY HAD NEVER EVEN DISCUSSED WITH MICHAEL."
Don't you find it funny that HTWF's one of main defense evidence was an affidavit from Brian Oxman telling that Michael told him this and that and Ed Pease under deposition portrays history of fraudulent declarations by Oxman?
Pease is asked about HTWF lawsuit but doesn't comment much due to attorney-client privilege and confidentiality & sealing of the documents. He mentions about his replacement and the lawyer got to replace him said "I SAID, "WHAT ARE YOU DOING? YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE FILING THINGS OVER ME." BUT HE SAID SOMETHING THAT I HAD MADE A DEAL WITH THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL JACKSON FOR MONEY OR BEEN BOUGHT AND PAID FOR OR SOME RIDICULOUS, LUDICROUS STATEMENTS. "
This had been mentioned by Melissa Johnson in multiple documents that Pease hadn't looked for her best interest, he's denying such accusations.
Another past lawyer of Henry Vaccaro is also deposed in regards to the previous lawsuits. William Pigg mentions his May 2010 meeting with Howard Mann and his impressions of him. This is quite interesting.
A Two topics that I recall. One was a documentary film project involving Katherine Jackson that he was -- told me he was working on. The other was some book of photographs of Michael Jackson that was being prepared for publication in Japan. He told me he had a deal with the Wolper Brothers to produce a documentary film, the focus of which I understood to be Mrs. Katherine Jackson and her reminiscences about Michael Jackson and the Jackson family, I think, in general. He told me that it was going to be budgeted at $25 million, and that's all that I recall about the film.
Q Do you know why Mr. Mann wanted to meet with you about these two projects?
A Because he knew that I was involved in film production and one of the potential financiers of this documentary is a person I know.
Q Who is that?
A His name is GR Morris.
Q did you discuss meeting again or where did you leave it with him in terms of these two projects?
A I said it was nice to meet you and left. I did not have any anticipation of meeting Howard Mann again after that meeting.
Q Why not?
A Mr. Mann didn't make a favorable impression on me.
Q In what way?
A He was over an hour late for the meeting. He made some representations that upon my vetting him turned out not to be true.
Q Anything else?
A I'm not an expert so I can't answer, I had the feeling he was under the influence of something. What he told me of his background raised warning flags for me. So overall I did not have a favorable impression of Mr. Mann.
Q Okay, let's go back through some of these. You mentioned that he had made some representations to you that on further review by you you found out to be untrue. What were those representations?
A About his association with the Wolpers.
Q What did he tell you and what did you learn of to be untrue?
A He told me that the Wolpers had committed to this film project and that he was late because he was picking up Mark Wolpers' Mercedes Benz to drive from the valley to meet me in Beverly Hills and that he got a ticket and then he got a flat tire and that's why he was late. I don't know the Wolpers, but Mr. Morris does, like, talk to Mr. wolpers, asked him what he knew about Howard Mann. And Mr. Morris said he has nothing to do with the Wolpers -- Wolpers.
Q I understand you're not an expert, but you believed him to be under the influence of something. Can you be any more specific about what you think he might have been under the influence of?
A He looked like a guy who was on coke. He behaved like a guy who was on coke.
Q All right. When you say that you believed he looked like somebody who was on coke, can you be a little more specific?
A He was sweating. He was what I perceived to be overly animated for the context of the meeting, very quick talking, fidgety.
Q his background raised some warning flags for you?
Q Can you be more specific about that?
A He told me he had made and lost a fortune in online -- either online poker or online gaming, I don't recall which. He told me that he had been involved in the adult film industry in Canada. Those were the two things that raised warning flags for me.
Q Okay. And based on the accumulation of all of these things, you formed the view that you did not want to be in any further way involved with Mr. Mann; is that fair?