Paris Jackson Exposes New Red Flags In Estate Battle

Paris Jackson has taken her fight to protect her father’s legacy to an explosive new level, and her latest legal filing suggests the battle inside Michael Jackson’s estate is far from over.

After suffering a setback in court, the 27-year-old has returned with fresh claims that paint a chilling picture of mismanagement, missing information, and risks she believes could hurt the beneficiaries.

Now, her new objection is raising deeper questions about where the estate’s money has gone and who is truly benefiting.

Paris’s newest filing centers on a major frustration that she and her brothers, Prince and Bigi, only received accounting documents from 2021 in September of this year.

In her objection filed on Tuesday in Los Angeles and obtained by the Daily Mail, she argued that the four-year delay makes it impossible to know what has really happened to the estate’s money.

The actress also expressed concern over what she called “enormous sums of cash” that executors John Branca and John McClain allegedly failed to invest.

Paris also criticized what she described as “highly speculative and risky entertainment projects” that they pursued despite what she claims was a lack of experience.

According to her, this raised doubts about whether decisions were being made for the beneficiaries or for the executors themselves.

Paris wrote that she is “increasingly concerned the Estate has become the vehicle for John Branca to enrich and aggrandize himself.”

Her objection also questioned payments made to both executors, which she said far exceeded what she and her siblings received, furthering her belief that the estate’s priorities were out of balance.

Paris Jackson also pointed to the upcoming biopic, “Michael,” as an example of what she believes is poor judgment.

She noted that tens of millions of dollars were spent on reshoots and questioned whether Branca’s involvement as an executive producer, his first time in such a role for a dramatic feature, was appropriate.

Her filing stated, “It appears that Mr. Branca used his position as an Executive Producer to cast the sole A-list actor in the production, Miles Teller, to play himself,” adding that it was unclear how this costly decision would help the film succeed.

She also questioned why the estate was funding the film instead of licensing Michael’s life rights to a studio.

Paris argued this choice created a financial risk, especially because the executors would receive a 15 percent cut from entertainment-related projects but nothing extra from careful investments.

Although other major talents, including Colman Domingo, are part of the cast, Paris insisted these decisions show a pattern that puts the executors’ interests above the estate’s stability.

A large part of Paris’s filing focuses on what she says were excessive and poorly documented payments.

She claimed the executors and Branca’s law firm were paid more than $10 million in 2021, double what any beneficiary received through the family allowance.

The “Sex Appeal” star also said the executors had been paid more than $148 million from 2009 to 2021.

In addition, her objection stated that estate attorneys were paid $4.5 million in 2021, along with another $750,000 in unapproved bonus payments.

Paris highlighted her frustration with the estate’s alleged failure to invest $464 million in cash, which she said earned only 0.1 percent interest instead of the roughly $41 million she believes it could have produced.

She repeated her concern that the executors were almost five years behind on mandatory disclosures, leaving her and her brothers unsure of where the funds had gone since 2021.

According to her, similar issues were raised earlier this year, when she flagged what she called questionable bonuses and “premium payments” given to law firms for “uncaptured time.”

Paris Jackson filed her November 18 objection shortly after suffering a setback.

Former judge Mitchell L. Beckloff ruled in favor of the estate on November 10, striking down several parts of her earlier petition under California’s anti-SLAPP statute.

Her claims targeted court filings by the executors, but such filings are protected by law.

Speaking to the Daily Mail, a spokesperson for the star said, “This order is limited to minor procedural issues and does not change the facts.”

The statement added that Paris will continue working to ensure fairness and will be submitting another updated filing.

Still, the ruling means she may have to pay the estate’s attorneys’ fees, but only for work related to the anti-SLAPP defense.

Despite this, the judge left several of her concerns in place, including questions about oversight of attorney payments and the need for clearer accounting moving forward.