Latest on MJJC

Motions to exclude certain topics at Katherine Jackson vs AEG Trial

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Jacksons calculated damages on how much money they would have recieived if MJ was still living. So its not just based on how guilty they are if Kat wins the case. The damages are based on how much Kat and the children supposedly lost because of his death plus probably punitive damages for their loss. AEG wants to contend the damages asked for are exaggerated because Kat want's to support the siblings who are in debt , not just herself and PPB. They will try to show where she has been supporting them. If its allowed in court.
 
Thank you Ivy:clapping:


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

Reference to strip clubs or clubs are excluded. Debt - child support, credit cards and so on- is allowed.

This could work for AEG too. They can use CM money problems for their defense when they question why Katherine didn't sue CM. He didn't have money, and that is the reason why K didn't sue him, or name him as 1 participant in this case.
I wonder if they can point out that if being behind or not paying child support is reason for not hiring people, then noone should hire any of Jackson siblings, and siblings have as much money problems as CM.


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

If this is true, that is the best news of the week. I hope AEG trash them good, thru the mud and all.

motion granted - Motion 5 - Allowing electronic presentations on opening statements (I omitted this one)

I wonder what is this? When there was a request during CM trial for electronic presentation, they showed MJ in gurney:-(, or if they are going to show snipped from TII?


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

Thanks judge for allowing this, very important one for this trial.


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

AEG cannot refer to Katherine's "kidnapping" but they can reference her trip to Arizona in the context that Katherine's health was/is deteriorating and that's why she traveled to Arizona. Judge allows this as this is relevant to Katherine's longevity and damages.

Cannot get funnier than this. Everything Randy and Jermaine are doing, will come back to them and bite them in their
asses sooner or later:) Little did Jermaine knew when he went on media telling K had a stroke, that it would be used to determine how long K would live and how much $ she can claim. It would be interesting what K is going to say about this.
 
Bubs said:
Cannot get funnier than this. Everything Randy and Jermaine are doing, will come back to them and bite them in their
asses sooner or later:) Little did Jermaine knew when he went on media telling K had a stroke, that it would be used to determine how long K would live and how much $ she can claim. It would be interesting what K is going to say about this.
Click to expand...

And these folks want people to believe that Michael would have left them to manage his estate.

Petrarose said:
So Michael being drunk the night before the announcement is in, & AEG has to pretend that Katherine went to Arizona for a rest when her TV written statement, her children various statements, her lawyer's statement do not all say the same thing. Somehow part of the trial will be a comedy show.
Click to expand...

KJ's lawyers are all over the place with this thing. If they show MJ wasn't in the best of shape in just announcing the tour, how was he ever going to make the outrageous future earnings they're requesting.
 
Last edited:
^^ Thats true.
K & Co cannot go and claim MJ was alcoholic druggie, and then claim he could have made billions in his life time.
 
What the hell has mj supposedly getting drunk (was that ever confirmed. i remem philips saying he couldnt get into mjs room and
thought he was drunk) got to do with murray being hired. even if he was so what hes a fifty year old. if AEG shouldnt work with rock stars that get drunk one night aint nobdy doing shows at any AEG venue.


So guess the press were wrong about the motion re the families finances.thats the only decent motion ruling

so these are the actual court docs ivy?
man.
 
Last edited:
allowed (motion denied)- Motion 8 - KJ did not file a suit against Murray

When this comes up in trial, AEG had better bring up the fact that Katherine refused any restitution from CM.
It show jury why Katherine sued AEG, and not CM.
 
elusive moonwalker said:
What the hell has mj supposedly getting drunk (was that ever confirmed. i remem philips saying he couldnt get into mjs room and
thought he was drunk) got to do with murray being hired. even if he was so what hes a fifty year old. if AEG shouldnt work with rock stars that get drunk one night aint nobdy doing shows at any AEG venue.
Click to expand...

Maybe it plays into that physic thing AEG is suppose to have about foreseeing the future. If he was drunk, then of course, he'd soon need a dangerous drug to get through the actual tour and AEG knew Murray would provide it. smh. this is one crazy butt lawsuit. I don't know what these judges are on letting it proceed. Now we have to anticipate despicable life threatening behavior from someone because they're in debt.
 
gerryevans said:
Now we have to anticipate despicable life threatening behavior from someone because they're in debt.
Click to expand...

It is funny and not funny at the same time.
I'm going to have to watch myself, in case I go bonkers over my debt and do something stupid :bugeyed
According to Jacksonese, I am posing a risk because of debt.
Next time I see doctor, am I supposed to ask him if he is in debt, in case someone is paying to him to drug me?


It is going to be interesting when AEG questions her health, if she is going say that she was used by her own useless cubs, or will she tells to AEG that her health is fine, and by saying that, she publicity states her cubs kidnapped her.
 
Last edited:
I remember seeing the footage of michael in that go cart type thing as he was heading off to do the this is it conference in march 2009 and let me tell ya he so did not look like a drunk person there. Michael was sitting in it very calmly and if he was that drunk has they say he was he would been fidgety and just out of place. He was just nervous thats all it was
 
^^ I don't care one way or the other if he was drunk or not, I wouldn't be surprised if he was. Considering that he didn't have idea how his announcement would be received by public, whether it was going to be booed, or cheered, and it after 2005 trial, and his long break away from public eye. I can understand if he had panic attack and took drink to calm his nerves.
There are tons on people who does that every day, but when it is MJ, its a worldwide news, or Jackson's are trying to use it as indication that MJ wasn't in no shape to do this concert (then again, that didn't stop them badgering him to do concert with family), and I hope that is brought up in this trial.
 
If im right they are saying he was drunk the night before at the hotel. not at the event
 
^^ I fail to see connection between MJ being drunk night before and AEG hiring, training and supervising CM?
 
the intoxication / drunk part: it looks it will be used by Katherine's lawyers that AEG / Phillips knew or should have known "Murray was making Michael ill or worse". AEG would argue that alcohol and Propofol are different things, Murray wasn't around during announcement time and they didn't know about him then.

As for damages, both sides not only will argue on what Michael could have earned in his lifetime but they would also argue on how much he would have given to his mother and kids when alive and how long his mother and kids would live too.
 
If MJ was upset or out of sorts before the press conference, someone needs to bring up the fact he had just received the upsetting news about the death of David Williams. However, I agree with the fact that he merely looked nervous, fidgety, excited and finally, upbeat, riding in the buggy to the press conference and then bouncing up onto the podium and putting on a bit of a show for the fans and the media. I go with what Kenny said about him being nervous, but when he heard the crowd chanting his name, he got excited. Finally, he got the spring back in his step - he was Michael Jackson again.

Not that this really has anything to do with what this case is all about... I am just disgusted that the Jacksons would want to use it considering that, true or not, the media will naturally jump all over it, blow it out of proportion and for those who believe their garbage, it will become 'gospel'.
 
ivy said:
the intoxication / drunk part: it looks it will be used by Katherine's lawyers that AEG / Phillips knew or should have known "Murray was making Michael ill or worse". AEG would argue that alcohol and Propofol are different things, Murray wasn't around during announcement time and they didn't know about him then.

As for damages, both sides not only will argue on what Michael could have earned in his lifetime but they would also argue on how much he would have given to his mother and kids when alive and how long his mother and kids would live too.
Click to expand...

I still don't get it :blink:
If AEG didn't know about CM in March, when MJ made his announcement, how Jackson's can claim CM was making MJ sick and AEG should have seen it? Is this sort of back to the future thingy that no normal people understand it? CM placed his first order in for propofol in April 6, so AEG should have foreseen it in March (a month earlier)? Wouldn't that require a crystal ball in order to be able to see to the future?
I'm trying to put myself in RP shoes. OK, he finds MJ was locked in to his hotel room drunk, according to Jacksonese, he should have seen that there is someone around MJ making him ill?
They had no idea of CM at that time, so AEG should have gone around investigating who was making MJ sick. If that is what Jackson's are after, I can understand why AEG say that they weren't MJ's babysitters.


I wonder if that MJ being drunk in hotel is the reason why Frank Cascio was named as one AEG's witness. He witnessed 2001 incident and he can explain what happened.

About how long K and PPB lives. The future doesn't look very bright to K to be honest. The way her useless cubs behaves, I'm surprised she is still around, but I suppose that doesn't come up in trial.
 
Last edited:
Bubs said:
I still don't get it :blink:
If AEG didn't know about CM in March, when MJ made his announcement, how Jackson's can claim CM was making MJ sick and AEG should have seen it? Is this sort of back to the future thingy that no normal people understand it?
I'm trying to put myself in RP shoes. OK, he finds MJ was locked in to his hotel room drunk, according to Jacksonese, he should have seen that there is someone around MJ making him ill? Wouldn't that require a crystal ball in order to be able to see to the future?

I wonder if that MJ being drunk in hotel is the reason why Frank Cascio was named as one AEG's witness. He witnessed 2001 incident and he can explain what happened.

About how long K and PPB lives. The future doesn't look very bright to K to be honest. The way her useless cubs behaves, I'm surprised she is still around, but I suppose that doesn't come up in trial.
Click to expand...
Question? I'm a little late reading all this but Kenny Ortega and all the body guards are witnesses being called right? They were there when closed door meetings were held.(threats) I thought I heard a while ago Ortega was removed by request but that wouldn't make any sense would it?
 
Ortega was removed as a defendent in the case. has albertos name been mentioned? u would think that ppl who were actually around mj would matter.

and how can kj ask for the same amount of speculative damages as the kids. shes in her 80's even if they win her damages should be tiny in comparison to the kids
 
Last edited:
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
 
Sad part is that it is Michael's family that want him shown in that light. Michael drinked too much who has not? Michael got drunk, who has not? Michael had a bad night who has not? Oh yeah I keep forgetting Michael was not human sorry my fault
 
Last edited:
morinen said:
Katherine is not the defendant, so her motive is not relevant to the case.
Click to expand...

I would think it'd be similar to the arvizo case where the financial motive for this family to make false allegations was a main part of tmez's defence.

Kerry Hennigan said:
If MJ was upset or out of sorts before the press conference, someone needs to bring up the fact he had just received the upsetting news about the death of David Williams.
Click to expand...

Best not to seeing david williams died the day after the press conf. i think that was jerms in his book, making that helpful suggestion.

Bubs said:
I'm trying to put myself in RP shoes. OK, he finds MJ was locked in to his hotel room drunk, according to Jacksonese, he should have seen that there is someone around MJ making him ill?
They had no idea of CM at that time, so AEG should have gone around investigating who was making MJ sick. If that is what Jackson's are after, I can understand why AEG say that they weren't MJ's babysitters.
Click to expand...

I don't know, but i imagine they'd be using this episode to demonstrate mj's state of mind, that he was perhaps psychologically unprepared for showtime, that aeg knew this as they were the ones who witnessed it, and yet carried blithely on with the preps for tii and should have been ultra suspicious of mj being 'off colour' during rehearsals, idk. I've got to say i can see what cd be argued, that aeg should have had some idea of the huge difficulties mj was facing in making this comeback and monitored him carefully - he had had that traumatising trial etc and dreadful media for decades- but the fact it's the jacksons making the case just makes it all so queasy, as they should have known more than anyone about the difficulties, yet consistently pleaded with him to mount a tour.
 
Agreed Morinen.

The siblings’ finances have nothing to do with AEG being possibly negligent. This is a civil trial not criminal; motive really has no place here. If it did, it would lie with the defendants. The damages will not be based on siblings’ finances and they are not plaintiffs.
 
^^ I don't see it relevant for the last remaining claim, AEG hiring, training and supervising CM.

I don't know :blink:Maybe you have to be Jackson, and understand Jacksonese in order to understand what they are after.
-------------------------------------------------------

Btw, siblings lack of finances are the very reason this trial.
 
And thats why i hope it is correct re the family finances coming in. because they need to throw that back in the families face about how they harrassed mj for money and the all good concert. if the family said AEG should have known then so should they and not harrassed mj to do a reunion
 
Bubs;3797577 said:
Btw, siblings lack of finances are the very reason this trial.
Click to expand...

No, the defendants are suggesting this is one of the reasons why they are being sued. The defendants will not be able to show that the siblings’ finances are part of the reason they may have been negligent in hiring the doctor.

Negligent hiring is the reason for this trial.
 
Last edited:
^ Ivy's posted the order allowing the sib's finances into the trial - so it is part of the trial. Of course their various bankruptcies haven't anything to do with hiring dr murray, but aeg are going to be allowed to suggest that mrs j's lawsuit is motivated by financial reasons rather than punishing aeg for hiring murray.

And if a defendant in a criminal case (eg mj in arvizo) is allowed to use financial self-interest of the plaintiff as a defence, even more so in a civil case where the rules of what is allowed in or out of a case are so much wider.
 
Bonnie Blue, I know it is part of the trial. I don’t agree with the judge’s decision to allow it. It is the same as others who disagreed with the trial going forward. Motives are used less in civil trial but, we see this is not the average civil trial.
 
Tygger;3797588 said:
No, the defendants are suggesting this is one of the reasons why they are being sued. The defendants will not be able to show that the siblings’ finances are part of the reason they may have been negligent in hiring the doctor.

Negligent hiring is the reason for this trial.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. It's the reason the judge gave but AEG can make the point that the Jacksons, knew you were not negligent or couldn't care less if you were, and are suing only because they want money. Negligent hiring is their official reason for suing but not the real one.
All of that is only speculation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top