Latest on MJJC

Motions to exclude certain topics at Katherine Jackson vs AEG Trial

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bubs, Shelley Webster, if you know for a fact the "real and only" reason for the trial is money for the plaintiffs and they are extorting AEG through a legal civil trial after the lost of their son/father, please post the information so I can see it for myself.
 
Tygger said:
Bubs, Shelley Webster, if you know for a fact the "real and only" reason for the trial is money for the plaintiffs and they are extorting AEG through a legal civil trial after the lost of their son/father, please post the information so I can see it for myself.
Click to expand...

I don't know that for a fact, I am saying it's AEG point of view.

I don't believe KJ was concerned about her son either. If she was, then why did she join Joe and his Allgood project.
 
Kerry Hennigan said:
Relevant to everything they do, in my opinion. Like everyone else on here I suspect, I worry about the culture Michael's children are surrounded with now. I pray the qualities instilled in them by their Dad sustain them not just through these unsettling times, but for all time. Do they know, I wonder, what some of the 'ammunition' in their grandmother's case has the potential to do to their Dad's image/legacy? Not to his fans, of course, but to the headline hungry media? Do they wonder why members of his own family would expose him to this - especially on top of the criminal trial?

It gives me so much pain just thinking about this. :boohoo
Click to expand...

Great post & welcome to the group!!!
 
Detailed explanation of what is allowed and what is not allowed. The below is the almost exact wording from the court document for easy reference and discussion. (note :plaintiffs, defendants and decedent is changed to Katherine Jackson, AEG and Michael Jackson)

AEG

excluded in part - allowed in part - Motion 1 - AEG's financial position


- Evidence of AEG's financial condition/ wealth is excluded.
- AEG's expected ticket sales, tour profits are admissible as to damages.
- To the extent AEG seek to preclude Katherine Jackson's arguments regarding financial motive, the motion is denied.

excluded (motion granted) - Motion 2 - Gongaware & Segal's personal relationship

- AEG represented that they will not call Segal to testify in their case.
- However if she testifies, existence of her romantic / personal relationship with Gongaware is admissible on cross examination/impeachment as a potential bias.
- However acts of sexual conduct is are inadmissible even under cross-examination.

excluded in part - allowed in part - Motion 3 - Irrelevant interactions between AEG and Michael

- Katherine Jackson's argument that AEG "controlled" Michael Jackson or had "superior bargaining power" over him are inadmissible.
- 11/24/2008 email admissible. As to a) AEG's involvement in retention and investigation of professionals hired for and by Michael Jackson and b) how that compares to AEG's handling of Murray investigation and retention.
- 01/23/2009 email admissible. As to AEG's strong interest in Michael Jackson's performing as it was vital to tour financial success.
- Phillips deposition re: Tohme Tohme admissible. As to a) AEG's involvement in retention and investigation of professionals hired for and by Michael Jackson and b) how that compares to AEG's handling of Murray investigation and retention.
- 2/27/2009 email admissible. As to a) AEG's strong interest in Michael Jackson's performing as it was vital to tour financial success and b) the pressure exerted on Michael Jackson and the effect this pressure had on Michael Jackson and (ultimately) Murray.
- Production management agreement between AEG and Tohme Tohme admissible to compare Murray's pay and and the importance of Murray relative to Michael Jackson's other tour professionals.
- Cash advances in paper bags inadmissible, irrelevant, prejudice
- 3/15/2009 email : inadmissible hearsay
- 3/25/2009 email admissible as to AEG's knowledge of the physical and emotional toll of 50 shows on Michael Jackson and ultimately how that affected Michael Jackson's condition and Murray's treatment of Michael Jackson
- Gongaware deposition nanny termination inadmissible However likely admissible on cross as Gongaware's ability to fire professionals hired by Michael Jackson.
- 4/19/2009 email inadmissible. However likely admissible on cross as ability to fire professionals hired by Michael Jackson.

excluded (motion granted) - Motion 4 - Hypothetical evidence of TII cancellation or postponement

- inadmissible as undue consumption of time and may call for a legal conclusion - ie contract interpretation as to when or under what conditions the tour or any particular show could be cancelled.
- However the court may reconsider this ruling depending on the presentation of evidence

excluded in part - allowed in part - Motion 5 - Murray's character as it pertains to his personal life

- Email is admissible but the reference to "strip club" must be redacted from the email because the prejudice outweighs its probative value. Relevant is that Murray was unavailable to Michael Jackson at certain times.
- Evidence of Murray's debt whether child support or credit cards etc is relevant and admissible.

deferred - Motion 6 - Speculative Damages

Defer

allowed (motion denied)- Motion 7 - Michael being drunk before 02 Press conference

- Admissible to show AEG's knowledge of Michael Jackson's emotional and dependency issues directly related to the tour.
- Coupled with AEG's executives knowledge of Michael Jackson's drug dependency problems and use of "tour doctors" in the past , this evidence is relevant to foreseeability.

Katherine Jackson

allowed (motion denied) - Motion 1 - Molestation charges

- Molestation charges are admissible as to the damages calculation and (secondarily) as to the issues of Michael Jackson's despondency and drug abuse.
- Court will give a cautionary jury instruction proposed by the parties.

excluded(motion granted) - Motion 2 - Benefits received by KJ after MJ's death

- The purpose of the exclusion of collateral source is to prevent one party from a double recovery (ie collateral source in addition to damages)
- Michael Jackson's estate benefited from his death (it's value increased).
- So if AEG were held responsible for Michael Jackson's death , AEG would receive a windfall if Katherine Jackson+ kids damages were decreased (or offset) by that increase in value to the estate.
- Perhaps this computation (if it can be done at all) is best calculated after trial.

excluded(motion granted) - Motion 3 - Marital discord between Katherine and Joe - non opposed

non opposition.

allowed(motion denied)- Motion 4 - Michael's siblings have or had financial problems

- Gifts from Michael Jackson to his siblings are relevant to the issue of Jackson's damages and for the purposes of cross examination/impeachment of siblings.
- However presentation of the siblings entire finances is irrelevant and presents undue consumption of time.

motion granted - Motion 5 - Allowing electronic presentations on opening statements

- Parties to exchange electronic presentation to be used on opening statements on the morning of the first day of trial.

(ivy's note: as this is merely about using powerpoint during opening statements I'm omitting the rest)

allowed (motion denied) - Motion 6 - David Fournier Testimony

- Michael Jackson's history of hiding drug abuse is relevant to the issue of the likelihood that AEG knew Michael Jackson's drug use and if so the extent of the knowledge.

excluded (motion granted)- Motion 7 - MJ Estate did not sue AEG or anyone else in Michael's death

- Jury is not to speculate whether certain parties are or are not part of the lawsuit.
- Jury is only asked to decide whether AEG before them is liable to the Jacksons.

allowed (motion denied)- Motion 8 - KJ did not file a suit against Murray

- AEG is precluded from pointing out that Murray is not a defendant in the lawsuit (see reason cited at motion 7 above)
- However AEG is allowed to present a comparative fault defense and verdict form.
- AEG is permitted to question Katherine Jackson as to her motive (financial) for filing the lawsuit.
- AEG are not permitted to question minor kids (Prince, Paris and Blanket) as to their "motive" for filing the lawsuit because their motive is irrelevant in that Katherine Jackson, their legal guardian and their guardian ad litem in this lawsuit, made that decision for them and they can only appear / file through her.

excluded (motion granted) - Motion 9 - Biological parents of minor children - non opposed

non opposition

excluded in part - allowed in part -Motion 10 - Katherine being kidnapped to Arizona

- AEG shall not refer to Katherine Jackson's alleged kidnapping.
- However testimony that Katherine Jackson's health was / is deteriorating (and that is why she traveled to Arizona) is relevant to her longevity and damages. To that extent only AEG may introduce testimony concerning her trip to Arizona.

------------------------------------

Document here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/132897760/Detailed-order-on-Motions-in-Limine

[scribd]132897760[/scribd]
 
^^ I still don't see the cause and effect of this: allowed (motion denied)- Motion 7 - Michael being drunk before 02 Press conference

- Admissible to show AEG's knowledge of Michael Jackson's emotional and dependency issues directly related to the tour.

Does this mean that because he was drunk the night before the announcement that should tell AEG about Michael's emotional and dependency issues directly related to the tour? How does this drunkeness lead to using prof to sleep & why is everyone avoiding the reason that prof was used to sleep & not because Michael wanted a drug to abuse? I have not seen much arguments about sleep in this case so far. This is more like a druggie looking for a high & he overdosed case.

Then didn't Mary Hart say that when Michael was doing the Bad tour he held her hand as he led her to the stage and he was shaking, but once he got on the stage it was a different Michael. If we use the same line of reasoning, because of his emotional state before going on the stage, Michael would have been drunk the night before and then that would lead to prof. I find they are using this drunkeness to prove something that it cannot prove.
 
I missed the beginning of this trial. Before most of Katherine's claims were dismissed by the judge, had they included the subject of AEG contract, invalid signatures in it, exploitative terms and conflict of interest (re Tohme being on AEG payroll but representing Michael)?
 
excluded(motion granted) - Motion 2 - Benefits received by KJ after MJ's death

- The purpose of the exclusion of collateral source is to prevent one party from a double recovery (ie collateral source in addition to damages)
- Michael Jackson's estate benefited from his death (it's value increased).
- So if AEG were held responsible for Michael Jackson's death , AEG would receive a windfall if Katherine Jackson+ kids damages were decreased (or offset) by that increase in value to the estate.
- Perhaps this computation (if it can be done at all) is best calculated after trial.d
Click to expand...

i don't really understand this. Benefits KJ received are excluded? Doesn't that mean she could gain a double recovery? I'm probably missing something obvious here.
 
morinen said:
I missed the beginning of this trial. Before most of Katherine's claims were dismissed by the judge, had they included the subject of AEG contract, invalid signatures in it, exploitative terms and conflict of interest (re Tohme being on AEG payroll but representing Michael)?
Click to expand...

As far as I remember, no.
 
LastTear said:
i don't really understand this. Benefits KJ received are excluded? Doesn't that mean she could gain a double recovery? I'm probably missing something obvious here.
Click to expand...

It looks like judge will wait till the end of the trial to see the verdict. If there's a guilty verdict and AEG is ordered to pay damages and if the increase at the Estate value can be calculated she could arrange the damages accordingly
 
Thanks Ivy. Oh ok. How does this work in the US, is it the jury that decides the compensation amount or the judge?
 
morinen;3797795 said:
I wonder why they (or Estate) didn't try to sue AEG for that. It seems to have more ground than trying to make AEG responsible for Murray's crime.
Click to expand...

shelly_webster;3797796 said:
I believe the Estate said they believe AEG did nothing wrong.
Click to expand...

10/4/2012 a statement talking about Sullivan's book, here's the relevant portion

The suggestion that John Branca or Howard Weitzman have a conflict of interest when it comes to AEG, and for that reason did not join Katherine Jackson in suing AEG, is not only false but reckless and noticeably unsupported by any facts. The Estate chose not to join in the lawsuit because it saw no evidence that AEG was culpable in Michael's tragic passing. Eventually, should the case proceed to trial any decision on AEG’s liability will be decided by a jury. That said, the Executors are troubled by the unfortunate and distasteful information being brought out in those proceedings which could sully and damage Michael's reputation and our memory of him.

and that's why Katherine wanted Estate not suing AEG to be excluded.
 
ivy;3797798 said:
10/4/2012 a statement talking about Sullivan's book, here's the relevant portion

The suggestion that John Branca or Howard Weitzman have a conflict of interest when it comes to AEG, and for that reason did not join Katherine Jackson in suing AEG, is not only false but reckless and noticeably unsupported by any facts. The Estate chose not to join in the lawsuit because it saw no evidence that AEG was culpable in Michael's tragic passing. Eventually, should the case proceed to trial any decision on AEG’s liability will be decided by a jury. That said, the Executors are troubled by the unfortunate and distasteful information being brought out in those proceedings which could sully and damage Michael's reputation and our memory of him.

and that's why Katherine wanted Estate not suing AEG to be excluded.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
^^^^^ because KJ does NOT care HOW MUCH this lawsuit damages Michael's reputation and memory...just as long as her other "cubs" are financially secure...and that angers me to NO end...to me that says that she as a MOTHER didn't give a shit about Michael...and that he can be replaced by money. THIS IS the message that she is sending the rest of the world. I have TRIED to see this from the point of view of "she is suing AEG the corporation"...because big fish like this get away with alot...BUT...this is NOT how she is coming across...she said in her OWN words that this lawsuit was for 'Financial reasons". I as a mother ...just cannot wrap my head around this method of thinking. And I as a fan of MJ cannot wrap my head around this way of thinking. So it is beyond me HOW his OWN mother can do this to her own flesh and blood....she would have to be heartless...literally with NO love for her own child. I will be glad when this whole thing is over and Michael can Rest In Peace...because IMO...up to this point he STILL has not been allowed to.
 
xthunderx2 said:
^^^^^ because KJ does NOT care HOW MUCH this lawsuit damages Michael's reputation and memory...just as long as her other "cubs" are financially secure...and that angers me to NO end...to me that says that she as a MOTHER didn't give a shit about Michael...and that he can be replaced by money. THIS IS the message that she is sending the rest of the world. I have TRIED to see this from the point of view of "she is suing AEG the corporation"...because big fish like this get away with alot...BUT...this is NOT how she is coming across...she said in her OWN words that this lawsuit was for 'Financial reasons". I as a mother ...just cannot wrap my head around this method of thinking. And I as a fan of MJ cannot wrap my head around this way of thinking. So it is beyond me HOW his OWN mother can do this to her own flesh and blood....she would have to be heartless...literally with NO love for her own child. I will be glad when this whole thing is over and Michael can Rest In Peace...because IMO...up to this point he STILL has not been allowed to.
Click to expand...

"Financial reason" was about not suing Murray.
 
I can agree with gifts to siblings coming into trial and not siblings' finances.

I am not sure but, the AEG contract only come up if the breach of contract claim stayed?

Why would the estate sue AEG? The estate and AEG share TII movie profits right?
 
Tygger said:
I can agree with gifts to siblings coming into trial and not siblings' finances.
Click to expand...
why do you think gifts should be included yet the finances should be excluded?

Tygger said:
Why would the estate sue AEG? The estate and AEG share TII movie profits right?
Click to expand...
for the same reasons the jacksons are suing AEG. Remember the Estate represents MJ. so they have more grounds to sue AEG than the Jacksons. It just that the Estate felt this was a waste of time since they never believe AEG was partly or wholy responsible for MJ death.
 
Tygger said:
Why would the estate sue AEG? The estate and AEG share TII movie profits right?
Click to expand...

what's the relationship between TII movie rights and being culpable for Michael's death?

If Estate wanted to sue AEG, TII movie rights wouldn't be an issue, it would have been totally irrelevant.
 
Tygger said:
I am not sure but, the AEG contract only come up if the breach of contract claim stayed?

Why would the estate sue AEG? The estate and AEG share TII movie profits right?
Click to expand...

Well, there is an opinion that MJ-AEG contract was very unfavorable to Michael and basically put him in a deadlock leaving him no choice but to force himself into an impossible schedule. There is even an opinion that the contract was not properly signed and thus was legally void. I nether agree nor disagree with it because I didn't have time to go over every line of small print and decipher the legal language. But some Jackson family supporters such as Leonard Rowe were very vocal about it. So I'm surprised that Katherine's lawyers didn't bring that up in their lawsuit. Or the estate (if there is any merit to those claims).
 
Leonard Rowe? The same crook who along with Joe and KJ was pressurizing MJ to do concerts with his brothers through the AllGoodEntertainment farce, which by the way sued MJ for $300m for sticking with AEG.
 
Passy001, the finances of 8 possible witnesses’ wastes court time. It has nothing to do with the trial. We will have to hear how frequent or routine the gifts were (someone relying on them) for them to have any indent on what the plaintiffs’ would receive in support. I don’t see gifts having much of an effect.

Passy001, Ivy, I cannot understand an Estate that would partner with a company to share profits and later on sue the same company for being blameworthy in the death of the man it represents. I would imagine that would ruin any future sales of TII fairly early on in the DVD release.

Morinen, yes, I’ve heard those as well. I think the contract would be important if the first claim remained. I think the judge rejected it because she said something similar to Michael being a high caliber star who could choose the contract he wanted and not be forced to remain with AEG. It is true because he had the All Good offer too. The plaintiffs could not prove Michael was somehow forced to choose AEG and then eventually became controlled by them.
 
morinen said:
Well, there is an opinion that MJ-AEG contract was very unfavorable to Michael and basically put him in a deadlock leaving him no choice but to force himself into an impossible schedule. There is even an opinion that the contract was not properly signed and thus was legally void. I nether agree nor disagree with it because I didn't have time to go over every line of small print and decipher the legal language. But some Jackson family supporters such as Leonard Rowe were very vocal about it. So I'm surprised that Katherine's lawyers didn't bring that up in their lawsuit. Or the estate (if there is any merit to those claims).
Click to expand...

Why people are so keen to accuse AEG for doing this and that to MJ when it was Tohme who negotiated the contract on MJ's behalf and agreed to those terms. Tohme should have been on MJ's side a look in his best interest while contact was drawn, but we now know that he put his own interest before MJ. Why Katherine isn't suing Tohme, MJ's manager at time, the reason that contract and terms MJ was put under?
What I find curious that Jermaine brought Tohme to fold, and even more curious that Tohme is not even listed on Katherine's witness list, why?

Secondly, of course AEG was happy with the terms, MJ was delivered in gold platter and if something was to happen they weren't going to lose. If you are in any sort of business, you would too try to negotiate best possible terms to you.
 
allowed(motion denied)- Motion 4 - Michael's siblings have or had financial problems
- Gifts from Michael Jackson to his siblings are relevant to the issue of Jackson's damages and for the purposes of cross examination/impeachment of siblings.
- However presentation of the siblings entire finances is irrelevant and presents undue consumption of time.
-------------------------------------------
Ivy, what is that impeachment thingy?
 
Petrarose said:
^^ I still don't see the cause and effect of this: allowed (motion denied)- Motion 7 - Michael being drunk before 02 Press conference

- Admissible to show AEG's knowledge of Michael Jackson's emotional and dependency issues directly related to the tour.

Does this mean that because he was drunk the night before the announcement that should tell AEG about Michael's emotional and dependency issues directly related to the tour? How does this drunkeness lead to using prof to sleep & why is everyone avoiding the reason that prof was used to sleep & not because Michael wanted a drug to abuse? I have not seen much arguments about sleep in this case so far. This is more like a druggie looking for a high & he overdosed case.

Then didn't Mary Hart say that when Michael was doing the Bad tour he held her hand as he led her to the stage and he was shaking, but once he got on the stage it was a different Michael. If we use the same line of reasoning, because of his emotional state before going on the stage, Michael would have been drunk the night before and then that would lead to prof. I find they are using this drunkeness to prove something that it cannot prove.
Click to expand...


I agree with you.
Yes, AEG (according to Jacksonese) should have foreseen that when MJ have a drink or is drunk, he will eventually resort using propofol :bugeyed
I wonder what security actions Jackson's took for K & J 60th wedding anniversary celebrations when MJ was there and had drink, and if they didn't take any actions, they should have foreseen something bad is going to happen to MJ.
 
http://www.facebook.com/patrick.treacy

Patrick Treacy Lets look at the AEG trial. Who is right and who is wrong?. The family say ( throuigh one person) Micheal was a drug addict. ity's all happeing because of one member that Michael did not like... Please post!
-----------------------------------------
Marie Paul Need to have more info to be able to repost so people can get a clear message , someone In Michaels family is saying he was a drug addict and you've been asked something that goes against your morals ?
Like · Reply · 1 · 6 hours ago

Patrick Treacy Marie Paul Not a million mile off.
Like · Reply ·


What hell is going on?
Better keep on eye on his fb posts.

This seems to troubling him as according his fb timeline, he's been up all night.
 
Last edited:
^^^ In another post he is talking about being offered a deal but will stand by his morals. It's unclear if he is talking about the trial or something else altogether.

But the post that @Bubs has posted is very clear what he is talking about. 'One member'? One family member?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top