Motions to exclude certain topics at Katherine Jackson vs AEG Trial

[Bubs]

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.[/COLOR][/I]

Family has no problem with bringing up what ever helps them to get their dirty hands on $$$$$
If they win, they don't have to care about MJ's reputation or legacy, if they lose ,they'll be riding on MJ reputation and legacy.

 

[Bubs]

^^^ 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?

I would assume he is talking fam member.
The family say ( throuigh one person) Micheal was a drug addict. ity's all happeing because of one member that Michael did not like

 

[LastTear]

I would assume he is talking fam member.
The family say ( throuigh one person) Micheal was a drug addict. ity's all happeing because of one member that Michael did not like

Sure reads like that doesn't it. I wish he was clearer on the 'deal' post, he could be talking about something else entirely.

 

[Bubs]

I guess having ppl testify that were actually around mj wouldnt suit the families druggie/alcoholic image they are trying to push.so they arent intrested. also these same ppl might have things to say about the harrassment of mj by the family in their quest for reunions and money

I had another look at the witness list and both sides have Bill Whitfield in their list. This is the same bg who said that Randy crashed the gate and he had to pull his gun.

"Whitfield said Jackson was "not happy" and refused to see Randy.

Taunya Zilkie, Randy Jackson's public relations representative, says she was with him that day. She told ABC News that she and Jackson were at the Las Vegas house that day but never made it on to the property. And Zilkie denied that a gun was pulled.
Zilkie said ABC News Randy Jackson went to Jackson's home that day for an "intervention" but was refused entry into the house."

Tanye said during her deposition said that it wasn't intervention but business reasons.

Sure reads like that doesn't it. I wish he was clearer on the 'deal' post, he could be talking about something else entirely.

I'll wait if he clarifies his post and meaning.

 

[LastTear]

Yes, best to, I probably shouldn't have brought it up, I don't think he is on the witness list anyway, I only had a quick re-scan.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

patrick aint telling us something we dont know. its well thought that randy has been selling druggie stories about mj to the press ever since randys "involvement" with mjs finances during and after 05.


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.
======================
the judge is an adiot and totally biast. talk about reaching. i guess no rockstar should go on tour etc if getting drunk in a hotel room means they have emotional and dependency issues. she obviously thinks mj was an alcoholoic aswell. good going jacksons you make me sick.

glad kj can be questioned about her motives for not sueing murray and once again the judge protescts the cubs with the financial rulings. its basicalyl all about their gifts .they family will say anything. who knows what mj gave them. i guess paying for child support and ex wives is a gift???

 

[LastTear]

^^^^ I was thinking just yesterday how if AEG are found guilty how it's going to change the face of touring and contracts.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

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?

impeaching someone is if for eg if the jacksons said something diff in their deposition inregards to a certain question and then gave a diff answer on the stand. AEG would impeach them by saying u said two different things. so i guess the ruling is that AEG can talk about the gifts if they want to use it to impeach them. dunno if its really an issue though. ihope AEG will try to turn it so those gifts are giftsfor child support etc.but in its essence imo the media were right as the ruling only helps the jacksons interms of wanting more damages cuase mj gave us all these "gifts"

 

[LastTear]

A gift is something that is just given and not expected to be returned, so housing, feeding, and care of ex-wives and offspring are gifts if there is no paperwork stating otherwise.

 

[shelly_webster]

what??

I was talking about that

During arguments, the question arose of why Katherine Jackson did not sue Murray. Attorneys disclosed that Jackson's son Prince and his daughter, Paris, testified in depositions that they believed Murray was "a good person" and didn't want him sued. But Katherine Jackson, who had the decision, testified it was financial, they said.

http://www.lethbridgeherald.com/ent...sons-mother-over-doctors-hiring-20130322.html

 

[Bubs]

Yes, best to, I probably shouldn't have brought it up, I don't think he is on the witness list anyway, I only had a quick re-scan.

Not your fault, I posted it first.
No he is not named as witness, which made wonder the whole post?

About P Treacy, he says MJ wasn't in any drugs during his stay in Ireland, so what kind of druggie can stay off them for over 6 months with no problems, not to mention when he stayed with Cascio's for 4 months, they saw no druggie?
Then again, family who rarely saw MJ for few hours, knows for sure he is stark raving druggie!
That made me wonder about his post about that family member.

impeaching someone is if for eg if the jacksons said something diff in their deposition inregards to a certain question and then gave a diff answer on the stand. AEG would impeach them by saying u said two different things. so i guess the ruling is that AEG can talk about the gifts if they want to use it to impeach them. dunno if its really an issue though. ihope AEG will try to turn it so those gifts are giftsfor child support etc.but in its essence imo the media were right as the ruling only helps the jacksons interms of wanting more damages cuase mj gave us all these "gifts"

They don't have good track record in keeping their stories straight :doh:

They say MJ gave then child support payment as gifts, that is going to be priceless if it brought up in trial

 

[8701girl]

They say MJ gave then child support payment as gifts, that is going to be priceless if it brought up in trial

The jacksons are saying that?? HAH! rightttt in their dreams he did that

 

[Petrarose]

Bubs can you post what Patrick is saying for those of us who cannot get on to facebook?

Oh that Katherine--I hope she takes the stand. I really need to hear this mother's words when she is not coached by her attorneys.

 

[ivy]

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.

the deal for TII movie / DVD was done pretty quickly after Michael's death and it was released within 4 months - October 2009. Katherine filed this lawsuit by September 2010 - almost one more year later than the DVD release. BTW wnen sony bought the movie rights, the business deal had became Estate & Sony.

There was nothing stopping the Estate. The Movie / DVD deal was already over and the main profits were already achieved. Estate could have entered into a deal with AEG in 2009 but later realize their culpability and sued them in 2010.

They did not and their statement say that they don't think AEG is culpable. It's also important to remember that Branca was hired mid June and the email list shows that he was included in the latest emails - surrounding the June 20 meeting. He could have known that AEG had no idea about Propofol.

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).

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.

The wrongful death of Michael and whether the contract with AEG was good or bad is apples and oranges. Those are two different lawsuits.

Furthermore I don't think "contract wasn't properly signed and was void" would help Katherine when they want to keep AEG responsible for Michael. I don't see how they could be responsible for anything if you argue that there's no valid contract between them?

And yes I too believe that contract part is on Tohme. There's no law that says that a business needs to offer equal or good deals, they can offer one sided deals that looks after their own interests. It's the duty of Michael's side to make sure that the deal he's signing is favorable. AEG claimed Michaael had a lot of representatives. Any fault is mainly on them.

Also don't forget that Estate is suing Tohme. As far as the AEG contract goes it might be too late as Michael's death voided the contract and they did a new contract for the TII movie but they are challenging the Neverland deal Tohme was involved with.

Ivy, what is that impeachment thingy?

question the credibility of a witness. To demonstrate that a witness has not told the truth, has been inconsistent, show bias and question their knowledge.

consistency / credibility / truthfulness is achieved by mentioning their older statements (in this case : interviews with media, tweets and deposition) and show the inconsistencies
demonstration of wrong statements can question the knowledge of a party
and bias is generally when a party testifies in a certain way for someone (generally a blood relative, such as a mother giving an alibi for her son) and testify in a certain way for their financial stake at the end of the case (such as testifying in a certain manner to get a win and get money)

^^^^ I was thinking just yesterday how if AEG are found guilty how it's going to change the face of touring and contracts.

no promoter will want to work with known past addicts, or people that likes to drink. And if you know the entertainment industry it's almost impossible thing to do.

 

[Aquarius]

^^^^^ 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 . 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.

Thunder, thank you for your explicit & truthfull opinion. That's the same way I feel. I'm not a parent but I have a mother, she will never pull the skin of her own children.

In your own words,"she as a MOTHER didn't give a shit about Michael...and that he can be replaced by money" that is what I always thought about Katherine & Joe.

 

[Aquarius]

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).

Did I get it correct? The contract was unfarovable to Michael & the contract "was not properly signed thus was legally void".Then if Michael didn't like the contract, he could have changed it, right?

I believe the schedule was brought up in CM trial, I think that they work it out in a way that suit Michael. Also, I remember clearly that Katherine told Pierce Morgan that she herself call AEG to have the schedule re-arreange and they did. Seems AEG was helpful, if it's true what Katherine said. But you know, you never know with the Jacksons, they don't separate facts from fiction.

Their lives are disorganized & their lies too.

 

[Ashtanga]

:no:

This is all a nightmare. errin: This family is completely crazy. :crazy: When will they stop? :wtf: I think about Michael when I look at all this shit happening. I wonder what Michael would say about all this.... Poor man. *big sigh*

 

[bluetopez]

I think Patrick Treacy was talkin about Randy too. But, I blame all the Jacksons (except MJ kids) I mean why give Randy so much power in that family? Who bills was he payin? NO BODIES. That's why it's so ridiculous! MJ took care of all of em, yet their loyalty lie elsewhere, WTF? Greedy fools!

 

[Bubs]

Bubs can you post what Patrick is saying for those of us who cannot get on to facebook?

Oh that Katherine--I hope she takes the stand. I really need to hear this mother's words when she is not coached by her attorneys.

I don't know what is going on? He must have deleted that post from his face book as I cannot see it anymore?

Yeah, K's testimony is going to be something. This time she cannot have her testimony written on the paper, so she most likely gets herself and the whole lawsuit into troubles.

question the credibility of a witness. To demonstrate that a witness has not told the truth, has been inconsistent, show bias and question their knowledge.

consistency / credibility / truthfulness is achieved by mentioning their older statements (in this case : interviews with media, tweets and deposition) and show the inconsistencies
demonstration of wrong statements can question the knowledge of a party
and bias is generally when a party testifies in a certain way for someone (generally a blood relative, such as a mother giving an alibi for her son) and testify in a certain way for their financial stake at the end of the case (such as testifying in a certain manner to get a win and get money)

no promoter will want to work with known past addicts, or people that likes to drink. And if you know the entertainment industry it's almost impossible thing to do.

Thats Ivy. That's the thing with Jacksons, they don't know when to shut up and when to talk. What they say, usually end up biting their own asses. I hope AEG grills them in the stand, and cook them good
What would be even more funnier if AEG bring up their interviews with UK media in which they declare that MJ was going to do 100 dates in 02 and world tour with brothers after UK.
Who really was pushing Mike, AEG for 50 dates, or brothers for 50 extra dates + world tour?
Shouldn't brother be named as defendants too? If Mike was supposed to go with brothers, why they didn't check CM credentials? So easy to blame someone else, especially someone who has money.

So long concerts. The whole industry have to create a new way to bring artist to the public, hologram maybe

Thunder, thank you for your explicit & truthfull opinion. That's the same way I feel. I'm not a parent but I have a mother, she will never pull the skin of her own children.

In your own words,"she as a MOTHER didn't give a shit about Michael...and that he can be replaced by money" that is what I always thought about Katherine & Joe.

I got a feeling that to them, MJ is not part of the family, there is certain distance the way they carry on and talk about MJ.
I have often though, when MJ's family stopped seeing Michael, as son, brother, sibling, and replaced him as Michael Jackson, the international star and ATM?

 

[Bubs]

Did I get it correct? The contract was unfarovable to Michael & the contract "was not properly signed thus was legally void".Then if Michael didn't like the contract, he could have changed it, right?

I believe the schedule was brought up in CM trial, I think that they work it out in a way that suit Michael. Also, I remember clearly that Katherine told Pierce Morgan that she herself call AEG to have the schedule re-arreange and they did. Seems AEG was helpful, if it's true what Katherine said. But you know, you never know with the Jacksons, they don't separate facts from fiction.

Their lives are disorganized & their lies too.

I would think if contract wasn't properly signed and if it is was legally void, then Katherine wouldn't have a case.
-------------------------------
MORGAN: How did you think he was in the buildup to his death physically?
JACKSON: You know, we have a trial going on and I'd rather not say. I talked a lot already about it.
MORGAN: Were you concerned about him?
JACKSON: Oh, yes. Oh, yes. Because when they told me that he had 50 shows going on, I was concerned about those shows. I thought it was a little bit too much because Michael hadn't been on stage for about 10 years. You know? And I called him. And I told him because the way they had it structured, they said every other night that he would be working. On a night, off a night, on a night, off a night. And he was -- he was used to working at least once or twice a week.
And I just kept calling him telling him they had to change that schedule because that was -- I didn't like the way it was going. I thought it was a little bit too much for him.
MORGAN: Did he listen to you, Michael or --
JACKSON: Oh, yes.
MORGAN: Do you feel that there were bad people around him?
JACKSON: Yes, I do.
MORGAN: Enabling, I guess is the word you would use. People that were just allowing him to --
JACKSON: It was -- I just don't want to answer those questions right now. But I do feel that it was. They didn't care about him. All they cared about was money. (My note, pot-kettle)
---------------------------------------
Katherine actually doesn't say in the interview that she called to AEG, she called to MJ.
I think MJ told to DiLeo and Frank called to AEG to space out the dates, not Katherine.

 

[8701girl]

If Mike was supposed to go with brothers, why they didn't check CM credentials?

They didnt check cuz all they cared bout was their time in the spotlight more than their own brother!

 

[Aquarius]

Katherine actually doesn't say in the interview that she called to AEG, she called to MJ.
I think MJ told to DiLeo and Frank called to AEG to space out the dates, not Katherine.

Thanks for the clarification. I was completly sure she was referring to AEG. Thanks & apologies.

 

[la_cienega]

I think Patrick Treacy was talkin about Randy too. But, I blame all the Jacksons (except MJ kids) I mean why give Randy so much power in that family? Who bills was he payin? NO BODIES. That's why it's so ridiculous! MJ took care of all of em, yet their loyalty lie elsewhere, WTF? Greedy fools!

They know if this lawsuit works out they will all get a piece, so they're fine with it.

Just like the estate letter. The only thing that shut them up about that was the huge public backlash they received, when they'd known they could not legally fight the estate, but I believe they hoped they could turn the fans against them and force the execs to want to get out.

But now the potential money they'll get is far too huge for them to care about that.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

Speculative Damages

The possible future income sources are
- Possible future tours after TII
- Possible future albums
- Possible future increased on royalties from already released albums
- Possible future film career
- Possible future clothing line
- Possible future appearances
- Possible future purchase of Marvel comics
- Redacted but based on something Tom Barrack said

Jacksons claim Michael would have earned $500 Million a year for the rest of his life and would give 40% of his earnings to Katherine and his kids.

That redacted tom barrack source is probably barrack's interview with the la times in may 09 where he discusses mj as 'an undervalued asset'.

In Jackson, Barrack saw the sort of undervalued asset his private equity firm, Colony Capital, had succeeded with in the past. He wrote a check to save the ranch and placed a call to a friend, conservative business magnate Philip Anschutz, whose holdings include the concert production firm AEG Live.

Fifteen months later, Jackson is living in a Bel-Air mansion and rehearsing for a series of 50 sold-out shows in London's O2 Arena. The intervention of two billionaires with more experience in the boardroom than the recording studio seems on course to accomplish what a parade of others over the last dozen years could not: getting Jackson back onstage.

His backers envision the London shows as an audition for a career rebirth that could ultimately encompass a three-year world tour, a new album, movies, a Graceland-like museum, musical revues in Las Vegas and Macau, even a "Thriller" casino.

"You are talking about a guy who could make $500 million a year if he puts his mind to it," Barrack said recently. "There are very few individual artists who are multibillion-dollar businesses. And he is one."
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/31/entertainment/et-michael-jackson31

I wonder if barrack feels any guilt in being the one to persuade mj that the only way out of his financial predicament was to go back to performing. Apparently mj had to take some days to come reluctantly to the decision to agree to go back on stage. The article talks about the difficulties of getting mj back to performing, citing his 'flakiness', management infighting etc, but substance abuse is never mentioned or hinted at which i suppose is not surprising as it reads like a puff piece about how fabulous this barrack was in getting mj back on stage.

 

[8701girl]

That redacted tom barrack source is probably barrack's interview with the la times in may 09 where he discusses mj as 'an undervalued asset'.

I wonder if barrack feels any guilt in being the one to persuade mj that the only way out of his financial predicament was to go back to performing. Apparently mj had to take some days to come reluctantly to the decision to agree to go back on stage. The article talks about the difficulties of getting mj back to performing, citing his 'flakiness', management infighting etc, but substance abuse is never mentioned or hinted at which i suppose is not surprising as it reads like a puff piece about how fabulous this barrack was in getting mj back on stage.

I dont think barrack feels any remorse whatsoever

 

[qbee]

I don't know that Tom Barrack should feel remorse for suggesting Michael pull himself out of debt by using his God given talent to do so. There was no wrong or right in bringing that option to the table. At the time they considered it a sound business decision and opportunity for Michael. I don't think they were out to cause him harm. Had Murray not killed Michael, he may very well be reaping the benefits of that decision today. Plus Michael himself agreed and made the decision as well. I don't think there really was any other option for Michael but to come back to the stage and he knew it. Even though he may have been somewhat reluctant to go through with it at that time. Had it not turned into such a tragedy most would be praising that decision today. No one could foresee how this would all unfold.

 

[marebear]

I remember before Michael even decided to do the shows I thought to myself it would be great if he performed again. The he died and I felt bad for hoping he would go back on stage and he would still be here if he was doing something else. But I realize that Michael did love the stage. It was like home to him and he felt safe there. It was Murray that killed Michael and didn't help him like he should have. Michael had so many ideas for the show and I think he wanted to do them and then do the other things he wanted to like movies and so on. He didn't have to travel and all the things he hated about touring. I think had he lived the shows would have been successful and Michael would have been on his way to getting everything back on track. The world was robbed of Michael but I also feel Michael was robbed of the chance to show the world he was and always will be the best.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

I don't know that Tom Barrack should feel remorse for suggesting Michael pull himself out of debt by using his God given talent to do so. There was no wrong or right in bringing that option to the table. At the time they considered it a sound business decision and opportunity for Michael. I don't think they were out to cause him harm. Had Murray not killed Michael, he may very well be reaping the benefits of that decision today. Plus Michael himself agreed and made the decision as well. I don't think there really was any other option for Michael but to come back to the stage and he knew it. Even though he may have been somewhat reluctant to go through with it at that time. Had it not turned into such a tragedy most would be praising that decision today. No one could foresee how this would all unfold.

I guess i have different feelings about mj's death. I see murray using prop on mj for months at a time as a massive problem, not just the fact that on one occasion on 25 june a freak sequence of events led to mj's death - i feel it was something that could have happened at any time - the risks of something going wrong were that great, never mind the medium/long term effects of prop use which are documented nowhere - mj was being used as a medical experiment. If mj felt he cd only prepare/perform using this procedure then in my view it was a mistake to go back to the stage and indeed it was something he had deliberately avoided doing since 01 and even then the msg concerts seemed to have been marred by him being overmedicated.

I think, re barrack, i was assuming there were other ways for mj's finances to be restructured so that mj had more options to make money or to release equity in his assets, than to launch a massive tour comeback.

No one could foresee how this would all unfold.

I guess for the next few months we're going to have every little scrap of info from mj's life pored over in excrutiating detail to discover just how foreseeable or not what transpired on 25 june actually was. Unfortunately.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Unless barack knew of mjs insomnia then i dont see how it has anything to do with him.

 

[Bubs]

^^Thats true. If MJ thought that he couldn't do the concert, he could have said no and search other options to reconstruct his finances.