Motions to exclude certain topics at Katherine Jackson vs AEG Trial

[passy001]

I would hope the estate would ask for the korean money etc back. but considering how imo theypander to kj i doubt they will bother. heck they will no doubt pay lawyers to crap on mj memory ie kjs lawyers

You never know. they could.

 

[passy001]

It would be interesting to see how the jacksons split the money in case they settle. and if the jury awards them money how are they going to specify which share each party is entitle?

of course nothing guarantees there will be a settlement. AEG could go all the way to trial if they feel very confident about their case, which could break or get even stronger next week when Murray gets deposed on Monday.

 

[Pimboli]

if the jacksons win, can they judge decide who recieves the money? Can he say the money is for the kids only?

 

[Petrarose]

if the jacksons win, can they judge decide who recieves the money? Can he say the money is for the kids only?

No he can't. If people sue, because they can legally, the winnings go to them. The only thing is that the kids money is placed in a trust or some such thing until they become of age. Katherine will get her money right away. She can then give it to whomever she wants. Most likely Jermain would get some, Randy will get some, & the rest of her sons. Daughter Rebbi will get some too, but I don't know about Latoya & Janet. I don't think Janet will take the money, but Latoya would.

 

[LastTear]

I would hope the estate would ask for the korean money etc back. but considering how imo theypander to kj i doubt they will bother. heck they will no doubt pay lawyers to crap on mj memory ie kjs lawyers

Agreed, but what I meant was if KJ gets paid anything and its calculated for lost earnings, would the last 4 yrs income be deducted?

 

[turthlili]

^^

Do you think Michael could have made $500 Million every year until his death?

They don't oppose to any possible income from TII and that could alone will be hundreds of millions. For example U2 earned $293 Million from 360 world tour, Bon Jovi earned $192 Million from their tour in 2010. But you will also see that these high numbers only happen when the such artists tour, they don't earn anywhere near these numbers if they don't tour.

So a $500 Million a year and every year number would have required Michael to tour non-stop. One minute he's not fit to perform 50 shows and the other minute you are given a scenario that he will be touring non-stop until he's 130 years old. (to earn $40 billion with $500 Million a year he needs to be alive for 80 more years).

it's funny~

 

[Petrarose]

Agreed, but what I meant was if KJ gets paid anything and its calculated for lost earnings, would the last 4 yrs income be deducted?

Do you mean the last 4 years income from Katherine be deducted, i.e., the money she got from the estate as an heir?

 

[LastTear]

Do you mean the last 4 years income from Katherine be deducted, i.e., the money she got from the estate as an heir?

Yes, but also the whole net income the Michael's estate has earns and paid out to not only KJ but also all the debts that have been paid during probate. It's all income amassed after Michael's passing after all. I know it's a silly question really, I was just wondering.

 

[ivy]

@lasttear

it's not a silly question , it just requires a more legal or financial expert to answer that question in a certain fashion.

I would think that it would be a factor given that Katherine wants to exclude the money they get from the Estate as the topics that can be discussed.

I can assume that if judge excludes it they won't be relevant, if the judge doesn't exclude it, AEG definitely would argue that the income they get from the Estate and/or the money Estate makes should be a deduction while determining the losses.

 

[jamba]

Then AEG claims : AEG also mentions that these numbers aren’t realistically possible as Michael’s popularity was down due to child molestation allegations and he hasn’t performed for years. Yet they have Randy testify in the muarry trial how the sell out of the show was record breaking, so doesn't that show in the future if Michael wanted to he could make money?

TII shows being sell-outs doesn't have anything to do with yearly income estimates IMO. TII shows sold b/c MJ hadn't performed for so long. It was a rarity to see him on stage, as he hadn't really done that since MSQ 30th anniversary in 01. Also he made it clear that these were the last shows he would do. If he had been performing every year, etc., not the same thing.

 

[jamba]

I wonder if Katherine reads any papers? Does she fully understand how this trial is going to effect on herself, her family, Michael and most importantly PPB?

I know that after the trial, the estate will be facing an enormous task to trying to recover Michael's profile from the mud that it has been buried under.

@I agree Elusive.
They were the ones selling interviews left and right to UK rags after MJ died, and before they had to hide from MJ so they sold those stories as from "source".
They are more than vile, I'm running out descriptions.

I agree so much with this. Have they forgotten that the estate in over $200M IN DEBT!!!--Speaking of which, what about MJ's $500 million debt when he died--have they forgotten about that?

It's so obvious Michael means nothing to them. I wish he had completely broken with them when he was alive. And people can see what they are up to and they just get sick of all the Jacksons, including Michael.

 

[Billie Jean 78]

I still can't get over the 40B $ they're asking. This is so overly exagerated it's ridiculous!

How much money (in %) of the sum would exactly go to Katherine if she wins? All of it? Or 40% (because of the will).

One side of me wants AEG to pay up, but only if the money went directly to PPS. I hate the fact that Mother's cubs would again be receiving money out of Michael's name (well, his death really!). And they would be receiving a lot of money!

 

[MIST]

I think Michael had many reasons for doing This is it concerts but after that he wanted to do films .
I don´t know much about it but sometimes it seems to take time before you get the right scripts etc and it´s expensivë,it´s not always you get back the money you spend on doing film.

 

[willbe]

Hmm, am thinking the ET gig was for Prince to testify.

 

[Tygger]

minimum? and not opposed to paying $102 Million? There's nothing to suggest that.

It's just if Katherine's damages numbers stand, AEG is looking to a maximum of $40.2 Billion verdict (in the event they lose), however if the speculative damages aren't allowed they are looking to anywhere between $100 million to $300 Million. That significantly changes the lawsuit.

However this reduction doesn't mean they are willing to pay it. Any settlement would generally only be the half of the maximum amount (such as $50 Million if the maximum damages are $100 Million) or they can still argue that they don't share any responsibility or at least share partial responsibility to reduce the amount the jury might award.

AEG has no objection to any lost income from TII to be considered in determining damages.

The quote from the summary I put in my post does suggest that. How often has a plaintiff, in a non small claims trial, been awarded the maximum in damages? The defendants are saying that if they have to pay out, they would be willing to pay $100 Million (or what was found in the criminal trial to be $102 Million).

 

[ivy]

The quote from the summary I put in my post does suggest that. How often has a plaintiff, in a non small claims trial, been awarded the maximum in damages? The defendants are saying that if they have to pay out, they would be willing to pay $100 Million (or what was found in the criminal trial to be $102 Million).

As I read the document and you are relying on my summary there's a little bit missing info. If we have to be a little more exact AEG states that TII was "reasonably certain" - meaning a contract was signed, dates were determined, it was in process. They deny the rest of the possible future incomes because California Law doesn't consider "possible or probable" stuff.

So by their argument they want to bring the maximum down to the TII income which was $100 million. But it doesn't mean that they are willing to pay that one out. As I said for example if the judge limits the damages to TII income $100 Million, you wouldn't see a settlement offer more than $50 Million.

 

[LastTear]

^^^^That makes more sense. I was confused when mention of the possible purchase of Marvel was brought up, when there is no guarantee that he would have been successful. And of course they can't include the catalogue plus existing album sales because that income is still present.

 

[marebear]

I am sorry but this whole thing makes me sick. I want Michael to rest in peace and to be celebrated and loved. Not this.

 

[ivy]

It seem the damages issue are creating a lot of interest so let me give you a little more detail - now some parts of the document is redacted so this is a little bit tricky.

Jacksons argue that after Michael have done TII the interest in him would have increased, people would buy his albums - therefore his royalties would increase and he would go on to do other projects that included other tours, albums, movies, merchandise deals, appearances, something that Tom Barrack said (probably something about Neverland) and he would have bought Marvel and so on. Based on all of these Jacksons experts claim that Michael would have earned $500 Million a year for every year he lived. That's the basis for Billions of lost income.

Obviously AEG doesn't agree with this future income expectations. Michael in 2009 hadn't performed for years, had experienced 2 molestation accusations. They don't deny the This is it tour. Contracts were signed, dates were determined, production was in full force. That concerts would have probably happened if Michael hadn't died. But the rest of the future income sources are hypothetical for them. Sure even they had brief talks with Michael about the possibility of a world tour but there were no negotiations in place, we heard from multiple people about Michael's album plans , how he wanted to do movies and even his desire to buy Marvel. But AEG argues that there's nothing to show at a reasonable certainty that these stuff will happen and "possibility and probability" isn't enough in CA Law.

For example it might be possible that AEG- MJ continued to tour the world but that was probably dependent on many factors including how successful TII concerts were and if both parties wanted to continue or not. It's not certain. Similarly AEG mention that Michael's film plans in the 80s and 90s when he wanted to play Peter Pan at a movie done by Sony / Columbia pictures and how it didn't happen. That means just because Michael wanted to do movies in 2009, it doesn't mean it would have happened either. They also talk about Marvel comics. It could have been a dream of Michael but apparently he made any move about it and Jackson's claims aren't clear how Michael could have bought it in the first place for $4.2 billion.

AEG's goal is simple. They want to reduce the maximum $40.2 Billion to anywhere between $100 and $300 Million.

This reduction on the maximum doesn't mean that they are willing to pay it. There's still the issues if and how much responsibility they share and hence how much of the damages are their burden - if they lose of course.

 

[ilmjj]

Paris said that statements about her father being a drug addict were lies. I wonder how she feels when her fathers family are allowing him to be called an alcoholic and a drug addict?
Maybe you guys are right and the kids have been "Jacksonized". I had such high hopes that Prince, Paris and Blanket would be Michael's greatest advocate. That they would fight for Michael to maintain his dignity.

I am finding new levels of despair. I am just glad our precious Michael isn't here to see this but I have no doubt he always knew what his "family" was capable of. My heart breaks again for him....

 

[Tygger]

I appreciate you taking the time to explain Ivy and I understand it better now.

A range is being set and the plaintiffs' minimum is $200 Million for general damages and special damages is at a maximum and does not have an explicit minimum, just a maximum.

The defendants are trying to get the special damages down to the TII number of $100 Million figure so their range is $100 Million (special damages maximum with no general damages?) to $300 Million (general damages and special damages if $100 Million is approved). They would be comfortable with this as maximum total damages considering they lose or settle.

 

[Billie Jean 78]

I still don't understand how all that money (if AEG looses that is) could even go to Katherine. I mean aren't PPB the first beneficiaries of Michael's will and the first ones with the right to sue AEG? It p*?!* me off that the Siblings could eventually get millions of dollars only because of Michael.

 

[ivy]

If Katherine wins, first the lawyers will get their share. Later it would be divided to 4 parts for each plaintiff - Katherine, Prince, Paris , Blanket. As the kids minor their shares will be put into trusts/ bank accounts until they are 18. It's probable that their guardians (Katherine and/or TJ) can be the person that's managing the trusts until they are 18.

 

[Billie Jean 78]

If Katherine wins, first the lawyers will get their share. Later it would be divided to 4 parts for each plaintiff - Katherine, Prince, Paris , Blanket. As the kids minor their shares will be put into trusts/ bank accounts until they are 18. It's probable that their guardians (Katherine and/or TJ) can be the person that's managing the trusts until they are 18.

Can Katherine give a substantial part of the money to whom ever she wants to?

 

[ivy]

Can Katherine give a substantial part of the money to whom ever she wants to?

her share? she can do whatever she wants with it

 

[Billie Jean 78]

her share? she can do whatever she wants with it

And what exactly is her share? 40% like it's stated in the will?

 

[Victory22]

All of this mess just makes me sad.

 

[ivy]

And what exactly is her share? 40% like it's stated in the will?

Like I said in this instance her share is 1/4 of the any money awarded (minus lawyers contingency fee)

 

[Petrarose]

TII shows being sell-outs doesn't have anything to do with yearly income estimates IMO. TII shows sold b/c MJ hadn't performed for so long. It was a rarity to see him on stage, as he hadn't really done that since MSQ 30th anniversary in 01. Also he made it clear that these were the last shows he would do. If he had been performing every year, etc., not the same thing.

I don't think he sold out because it was a rarity to see him on stage, but I will leave it as your idea. If we look into the history of Michael Jackson the artist & those who were trying to get him to make deals, we will see that he sold out because he was a phenomenal artist on stage & a great entertainer. It is true that the less you see of someone the more hightened an interest is in that person, but this is not the major reason TII sold out. If that was the case The Jackson 4 would have sold out at every venue and we wouldn't see all those cancellations and empty seats. There are even other artists who have not performed in 10 years and cannot sell out the O2.

This is going to be my last defense for Michael in relation to those who want to see him as an artist that could not make a deal to tour and make substantial money after 09.

 

[Ashtanga]

It's so sick all that is happening and see the desperation of the family in make extra money using the name of Michael... it's so disgusting. None of this has to do with justice for Michael. It's all about money. uke: When this family will stop and leave Michael alone? errin:

her share? she can do whatever she wants with it

She will share with her ??cubs. :fear: uke: