Latest on MJJC

Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tygger said:
AEG was supervising the doctor.
Click to expand...

www.MessenTools.com-34%20pensativo.gif
:scratch:





tumblr_min1azEQq71r116s7o1_400.gif
:fear:
 
When AEG made the doctor responsible for Michael’s rehearsal schedule, when Michael did not show up for rehearsal and it became the doctor’s responsibility to get Michael there, when they requested the doctor’s help directly for medical documents for insurance, AEG was supervising the doctor.
Click to expand...

Ashtanga, Justhefacts, I reposted the list of what AEG requested the doctor do as per the testimonies above. (Apologies if I missed some of the requests.) Michael did not make those request. Again, supervision does not have to include telling someone HOW to do a task; it only needs the request/demand/instruct (whatever word you prefer here) to do a task.

Who is giving instructions to the doctor above? If the doctor did not expect payment from AEG, why would he entertain their requests? Why did he feel he had to make sure Michael showed up to rehearsal? Who gave him that responsibility? Why was Michael not involved with the employment negotiations for the doctor if he was to hire him? Berman identified no less than three lawyers for Michael and none were contacted regarding the doctor's employment contract.
 
Last edited:
Tygger said:
Elapentela, Big Apple2, Crillon, in a working environment, a supervisor gives a task to be performed by another. Depending on the task, the supervisor may instruct how the task needs to be performed. Telling an employee/independent contractor what to do is not the same as telling them how to do an activity but, it is still supervision.
Click to expand...

Actually, I know something about this because I'm a consultant who typically has an independent contractor agreement with clients. The Fair Labor Standards Act defines the differences between an "employee" and an "independent contractor." The following applies to an independent contractor:


  • If the worker supplies his or her own equipment, materials and tools
  • If all necessary materials are not supplied by the employer
  • If the worker can be discharged at anytime and can choose whether or not to come to work without fear of losing employment
  • If the worker control the hours of employment thus indicating they are acting as an independent contractor
  • Whether the work is temporary or permanent

Outside of the Fair Labor Standards Act, courts ask the following questions to determine work relationship in addition to the above:

  • What is the degree of control over work and who exercises that control?
  • What is each party's level of loss in the relationship?
  • Who has paid for materials, supplies and/or equipment?
  • What type of skill is required for work?
  • Is there a degree of permanence?
  • Is the worker an integral part of the business?

Source: http://www.legalzoom.com/everyday-law/workplace/employee-vs-independent-contractor-differences

If you look at each of the qualifiers, based on the evidence thus far, it seems that Murray was an "independent contractor" without a signed agreement, which assumes no one is supervising his work and he has independent control over his hours, materials used, etc.
 
Last edited:
ivy said:
this made me chuckle , of course an expert hired and paid and put on the stand by Jacksons wont help AEG.

remember dr.white? expert witness for murray who made up drinking propofol theory which was not even possible?
Click to expand...

Yeap, and he had the nerve to look perplexed when confronted with questions that referenced Shaffer's testimony. The way he prevaricated, tried to answer the question as though he was asked something entirely different, and best of all trying to insist that there really is not a protocol for anesthesiologist was simple too unbelievable. He spent days in the court way before he had to testify.

About today, Chase did not have anything to say about the issues in this case though. She painted a nice picture of Michael, but how about the allegations of this case. When will we look at that? I guess Panish is showing that this lovely dad was taken away by AEG's employee, so we need a lot of money for that.

Chase works for the same family who is filing the case, so that is an awkward position to be in. It is a pity she was not able to help Paris during her times of need. Oftentimes the female family help, who have been on board for a long time, becomes the children's confidant. I guess that did not happen between Paris and Chase.

I don't like the idea of the video either since you can't cross examine a video. I guess Panish wants to show that Michael took drugs but hasn't this been talked about endlessly so far. It seems the plaintiffs could have rested today, since nothing happened that shed any light on their "Red Flag" theory. They need to stop stalling and put on Michael's siblings.
 
Last edited:
Crillon, thank you for the clarification between employer and independent contractor. The judge ruled if the doctor was hired, he would have been an independent contractor. However, he did not have an executed (signed) contract. It is up to the jury to decide if he was working under an implied, oral contract which would included supervision.
 
When I look at what the plaintiffs have presented so far, all we have is Michael on trial, exposed in this sorry and demeaning way to help a case with little substance, so that some attorneys, experts, & Michael's siblings could make a lot of money. Technically AEG is on trial here, but in the public view it is Michael, his way of life, and problems that are scrutinized. If AEG wins, Michel loses, and if Katherine wins, Michael loses.
 
I disagree with the supervision of independent contractors. we hire a lot of independent contractors, the rule is to get someone "licensed and insured" - meaning they have met the legal requirements of a job, have the necessary licenses and if anything goes wrong they have insurance to cover the damages. then there's no supervision.

For example recently I hired a "licensed and insured" tree specialist as an independent contractor for a tree broken in storm. Other than hiring them to cut down the tree - and saying that to them - there was absolutely no supervision. I'm in no position or have no knowledge to tell an arborist - a tree specialist - how to cut a tree without damaging power lines or hurting people. They have the expertise to do it on their own. (and they did, arranging with power company to temporarily shuting down the power, blocking access to the area by pedestrians and so on)

A lay person cannot supervise a specialist. you can only supervise what you know about. In other words the owner of the tree specialist company can supervise his workers, not the people that hire them to cut down trees. For example I supervise assistants whose job to do what I tell them to do and everything they do requires my final examination & signature but I in no way supervise independent contractors we hire for anything.

and I thought the judge already ruled that supervision could not happen in the case of Murray?
 
So, Paris celebrated her birthdays or not?

Didn't know Kai was working at the kids house. She seems to be a nice person, too bad she didn't elaborate on the broken vase.

I think her testimony, especially about the no birthdays, was to create the path for the money due to emotional distress. I'm not saying the kids don't miss their father, it's a great loss for them. I just hope she's honest and doesn't take sides just to keep her job.
 
*big sigh*






What others are saying about what was happening to Michael... for me is a lot of bla bla bla. -_- What is truth in what they count? I do not know. I do not believe anything these people are counting. :nono: I just believe in Michael ... nobody else. -_- Unfortunately he's not here to clarify everything and say what was really happening and the doubt will remain. :(
 
Tygger said:
Ashtanga, Justhefacts, I reposted the list of what AEG requested the doctor do as per the testimonies above. (Apologies if I missed some of the requests.) Michael did not make those request. Again, supervision does not have to include telling someone HOW to do a task; it only needs the request/demand/instruct (whatever word you prefer here) to do a task.

Who is giving instructions to the doctor above? If the doctor did not expect payment from AEG, why would he entertain their requests? Why did he feel he had to make sure Michael showed up to rehearsal? Who gave him that responsibility? Why was Michael not involved with the employment negotiations for the doctor if he was to hire him? Berman identified no less than three lawyers for Michael and none were contacted regarding the doctor's employment contract.
Click to expand...


Except the RELEVANT "request/demand/instruct" was not given by AEG. Conrad Murray began having propofol shipments delivered to his girlfriend the first week of April. The $150K payment was agreed to a month later in May, meaning he had already determined the treatment he was going to administer before any agreement was reached with AEG. So, I'm not seeing any big relevance in the few instructions AEG was giving him when he had already determined what he was going to do, and he haphazardly did do it.

Tygger, I think you present rational arguments. But there hasn't been anything presented yet in this case to show AEG precipitated Murray's irresponsible, unethical behavior IMO. He set himself on that course before they told him anything.
 
Last edited:
Aquarius said:
So, Paris celebrated her birthdays or not?

Didn't know Kai was working at the kids house. She seems to be a nice person, too bad she didn't elaborate on the broken vase.

I think her testimony, especially about the no birthdays, was to create the path for the money due to emotional distress. I'm not saying the kids don't miss their father, it's a great loss for them. I just hope she's honest and doesn't take sides just to keep her job.
Click to expand...

Interesting point: Why would she make reference to birthday parties and then say the child had none after 09, knowing that the child had celebrations for her birthday? I think you have something there with the connection to money and emotional distress. I thought people here said Chase heard a vase break, but I have not seen that in her evidence. Maybe we did not get all her testimony yet?
 
Tygger said:
Crillon, thank you for the clarification between employer and independent contractor. The judge ruled if the doctor was hired, he would have been an independent contractor. However, he did not have an executed (signed) contract. It is up to the jury to decide if he was working under an implied, oral contract which would included supervision.
Click to expand...

Well, that's exactly the point. The whole argument in this lawsuit is about whether AEG Live effectively "hired" Murray, and therefore has responsibility for Michael's death. If AEG intended to engage him as an "independent contractor" (as evidenced by the contract already drafted) why would then then treat him as an employee, just because the contract isn't signed? The fact that he is a doctor prevents non-medical staff from doing so anyway--that, to me, is a rational, logical position to take.

The definition of "hire" I'm assuming--even if it's oral and assumed--is that of an employee and not an independent contractor. How will the jury determine what "hire" means? Has the judge provided any instructions?
 
Last edited:
According to Kai Chase, Murray (and MJ) stormed out of a meeting. Now I don't know about you, but Murray doesn't seem like he'd be taking instructions from AEG. LOL I can totally see him being like "Mind your own business, I'm the doctor. Everything is fine. Goodbye. " and storming out.
 
serendipity said:
According to Kai Chase, Murray (and MJ) stormed out of a meeting. Now I don't know about you, but Murray doesn't seem like he'd be taking instructions from AEG. LOL I can totally see him being like "Mind your own business, I'm the doctor. Everything is fine. Goodbye. " and storming out.
Click to expand...

I definitely see that--he is an egotistical/narcissist. I don't think anyone else called the shots re/MJ's medical care but the felon.

Petrarose said:
Technically AEG is on trial here, but in the public view it is Michael, his way of life, and problems that are scrutinized. If AEG wins, Michel loses, and if Katherine wins, Michael loses.
Click to expand...

Sad, but true. And, the plaintiffs knew this before they even started.
 
Just saw the last updates with Chase saying a vase was broken but she does not know by whom. She claims the kids did not use computers. I thought the kids knew computers and Prince especially was very good at it. In fact, didn't she say before that Prince hooked up hers for her or fixed it? Anyway someone mentioned about Prince working on their computer. I think some of this information from Chase is not true.

Then she claims: Anthony McCartney ‏@mccartneyAP 16m
“He appeared very weak,” Chase said about Jackson. “He looked much thinner.” She said he looked under-nourished.
Expand

Does anyone remember Chase saying this ^^after his death, about him looking thinner? I can't remember that part. Then, if you are the cook and the person is looking under-nourished, what are you doing about it? If I remember correctly she kept stressing that she made the meals and left him his dinner in the fridge, and that when she came in the morning it was gone. She claimed back then that he ate with the children. She stressed she fed him healthy meals and that when he started practicing for the tour he changed his breakfast to a health bar or something like that. Now we hear about a sickly Michael. These female witnesses--Karen, Sankey, Chase have something in common.
 
Petrarose said:
Interesting point: Why would she make reference to birthday parties and then say the child had none after 09, knowing that the child had celebrations for her birthday? I think you have something there with the connection to money and emotional distress. I thought people here said Chase heard a vase break, but I have not seen that in her evidence. Maybe we did not get all her testimony yet?
Click to expand...

Yeah, the broken vase testimony is on one of Ivy's postings. The problem is that she doesn't know who broke it or how it was broken.
I wonder if she heard any of the conversation. Another thing that I think she is probably giving too much importance is to the "they're killing me" I think that some might take it out of context instead of taking it as a kind of a normal expression. I'd like the AEG lawyers to clear that for the jurors instead or removing it.
 
Petrarose;3848224 said:
Then she claims: Anthony McCartney ‏@mccartneyAP 16m
“He appeared very weak,” Chase said about Jackson. “He looked much thinner.” She said he looked under-nourished.
Expand

Does anyone remember Chase saying this ^^after his death, about him looking thinner? I can't remember that part. Then, if you are the cook and the person is looking under-nourished, what are you doing about it? If I remember correctly she kept stressing that she made the meals and left him his dinner in the fridge, and that when she came in the morning it was gone. She claimed back then that he ate with the children. She stressed she fed him healthy meals and that when he started practicing for the tour he changed his breakfast to a health bar or something like that. Now we hear about a sickly Michael. These female witnesses--Karen, Sankey, Chase have something in common.
Click to expand...

It's ironic, isn't it? His chef is talking about how thin he is and she is the one whose job it is to prepare nourishing meals for him. But, do you remember what she fed him? Juice blends and granola with almond milk for breakfast, something a non-chef could easily do. I was expecting to hear her testify about making him something more substantive that pouring cereal into a bowl with milk. I got the impression Michael skipped a lot of meals.
 
Last edited:
^^It seems he had a healthy breakfast so he could dance and keep in shape, but I don't know what happened for lunch. She had comfort food on weekends but reverted to this light breakfast when he started to practice, according to her when she spoke before. She never claimed before that she gave him lunch and he did not eat it. If he skipped meals, then she should be the first to know. If he ate lunch at staples, then Ortega would know. Since he had a food man, we know they thought his problem was that he was not eating. I don't know if he was skipping meals, not eating enough, or both.

She claimed he told her to write a book, so she must have been making some great & healthy lunches and dinners. She had notes from him showing how much he loved the food.

Aquarious yes that statement sounds like the usual comments we make. I agree that AEG should try to put that in context and relate it to comments like "I am going crazy," "Get outa here." If AEG takes the easy way out it is not going to be good for them.
 
bouee said:
Please tell me who ? I have not seen anyone claiming to "know", I have seen various opinions, but no one claiming to "know".
And for once, all the opinions I have seen so far about this were based on professional opinions (Shafer & Lee).

Edit : Saying these persons "claim to know" when they just offered an opinion, or sometimes just a possibility, based on facts, is somewhat disrespectful & exagerating what has been said IMO.



Do you have a law degree ???
do you read the juror's mind ?
How can you see people on this board "claiming to know" what was wrong with Michael, and now you fault the judge when you say you don't follow the trial ?
If you did, you would know that AEG issued a contract to Murray instaed of a cash advance to Michael, and that's what started this, regardless of who you think hired Murray.
So blame the Jacksons for bringing this up if you want, everyone can inderstand that, blame AEG for their mistakes if you want, but why the judge ?
Why instead of blaming the judge , don't you try to be a little objective and try to understand what she does ?
And she is not the one who brought up Brenda Ritchie.
Click to expand...

1) The judge is IMO incompetent and is running a very sloppy courtroom.
2) I have been following the trial but am very tired of it and losing interest rapidly to the point I am trying to ignore it (and spend less time focused on it, which is something I recommend to others).
3) I have seen a lot of people claiming to 'know'--if you haven't, so be it.
4) The alternate juror made his appeal to the judge and said what I paraphrased--and of course, I don't read minds--It could be seen as somewhat disrespectful and exaggerated of you to ask that question.
5) No, I don't have a law degree but I do have an advanced graduate degree and know a smoking gun when I see one and when I do not.
 
jamba said:
1) The judge is IMO incompetent and is running a very sloppy courtroom.
2) I have been following the trial but am very tired of it and losing interest rapidly to the point I am trying to ignore it (and spend less time focused on it, which is something I recommend to others).
3) I have seen a lot of people claiming to 'know'--if you haven't, so be it.
4) The alternate juror made his appeal to the judge and said what I paraphrased--and of course, I don't read minds--It could be seen as somewhat disrespectful and exaggerated of you to ask that question.
5) No, I don't have a law degree but I do have an advanced graduate degree and know a smoking gun when I see one and when I do not.
Click to expand...

Well said. I think we've been spoiled with Judge Pastor--he was extraordinary, but that's criminal court and they get the experienced ones. Someone looked up this judge's background (maybe it was you?) and she doesn't have much experience. This has got to be pretty stressful for her I would imagine with all the media and fans dissecting her every move. But, it comes with the territory of a high profile trial and she may be in over her head. Her career will be impacted one way or the other once this is over.
 
You can supervise all kind of ppl I think depends of the structure of the project?!

I am head of three different nursery homes! I am a psychologist, not a therapist, not a nurse, not a technician, not a chef, not a physical therapist... still I'm supervising all those ppl working at our homes. I'm a team player so it often feels to all of us as if we're a team and everybody is boss in their field... however when something goes wrong, it's me as their boss being responsible... I am their boss and so also their supervisor.
If the nurse doing a wrong treatment cuz she didn't get the chance to learn better or she didn't get the right equipment, it's me being responsible. If she doesn't have all her licenses for all the work she's doing at our homes, it's me being responsible if I let her work even though.
If the office manager at our homes is taking money out of patient accounts and I didn't check that he was in a lot of debts before I hired him, it's me being responsible, even when I have no chance to check the accountant books all the time.
If the technician hires a tree expert and didn't check if that expert had a license and the tree comes down the next storm it's me being responsible.
If my staff have problems they come to me! If there are obvious problems and they do not come on their own I'm ordering them into a meeting! When there are several options to solve a problem it's me finally saying we do this or that. I analyze the problem and sometimes I send staff back to some school for a while or only a day.
I however do have only one supervisor... he's the owner of the company... he's not a psychologist, he has studied management.
 
Last edited:
troubleman84 said:
I don't see proof of it yet. Some folks think the estate paid for Taj's wedding. :mellow:
Click to expand...

From second accounting


"Katherine is asking for onetime payment of $205,401 to cover her professional fees occurred in 2011. Katherine is also asking for additional $34,700 per month to pay for her accountant and lawyers as well as to cover the expenses of family house in Gary Indiana and a residence in Las Vegas. Estate is asking the judge to allow this onetime payment and monthly increase. "

As her probate lawyers are already being paid by the Estate, why do you think she needs these additional money starting in 2011 ? (this lawsuit was filed late 2010).


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

You gotta read this. apparently Jackson lawyer is giving the finger to the AEG lawyer

http://abclocal.go.com/three/kabc/kabc/jackson-trial-sidebar.pdf
 
:bored:



About Kai Chase (and all others) > Each person says something different about Michael. An avalanche of different informations that you get dizzy without knowing what is truth, lie or fantasy of the head of these people. :bugeyed You never have a credible information of any of these people! :nono:
 
Mechi said:
You can supervise all kind of ppl I think depends of the structure of the project?!
Click to expand...

yes and a few points

I am head of three different nursery homes! I am a psychologist, not a therapist, not a nurse, not a technician, not a chef, not a physical therapist... still I'm supervising all those ppl working at our homes.
Click to expand...

In this instance you are supervising people that work in the same business as you - also they are employees. As the head of the nursery homes you are knowledgeable about how to run the business, hence the supervision.


If she doesn't have all her licenses for all the work she's doing at our homes, it's me being responsible if I let her work even though.
If the office manager at our homes is taking money out of patient accounts and I didn't check that he was in a lot of debts before I hired him, it's me being responsible, even when I have no chance to check the accountant books all the time.
If the technician hires a tree expert and didn't check if that expert had a license and the tree comes down the next storm it's me being responsible.
Click to expand...

all of these are examples of hiring and not supervision.

for example tree expert, checking their license, insurance, references is hiring process. supervision would be more like standing there and saying "okay cut this branch now, do it slowly" etc. that was my point.
 
Why is it when it comes to Michael Jackson, the Jackson family and the people surrounding them, confusion has gotta be the theme for some of the episodes? :blink:

Ashtanga said:
:bored:



About Kai Chase (and all others) > Each person says something different about Michael. An avalanche of different informations that you get dizzy without knowing what is truth, lie or fantasy of the head of these people. :bugeyed You never have a credible information of any of these people! :nono:
Click to expand...

I know right? :mellow:

ivy said:
From second accounting


"Katherine is asking for onetime payment of $205,401 to cover her professional fees occurred in 2011. Katherine is also asking for additional $34,700 per month to pay for her accountant and lawyers as well as to cover the expenses of family house in Gary Indiana and a residence in Las Vegas. Estate is asking the judge to allow this onetime payment and monthly increase. "

As her probate lawyers are already being paid by the Estate, why do you think she needs these additional money starting in 2011 ? (this lawsuit was filed late 2010).


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

You gotta read this. apparently Jackson lawyer is giving the finger to the AEG lawyer

http://abclocal.go.com/three/kabc/kabc/jackson-trial-sidebar.pdf
Click to expand...

Now see I forgot that... lol
 
Didn't Michael Beardon say when they were trying to decide on the set list that Michael brought him these computer printouts of the order of MJ's most popular songs or something like that? Didn't Michael Beardon say he suspected that Prince did them? I just am having trouble believing the kids didn't use the computer. Monitored yes but didn't use...No

I truly believe the Jacksons better buckle up because AEG is going to get personal and the world will hear things about them that they would rather we didn't!

I know AEG treated Michael like crap but his own family is just as guilty in my eyes. Oh Michael, I can't believe what you had to put up with your whole life and now your family is making it possible for your children to be next... I am heart sick
 
From today's testimony from:
Kai Chase's say she now has daily interactions with Jackson's children since being hired to serve as their chef in July 2012.
Click to expand...
This is great news, because I believe Kai Chase really loves and cares for Michael Jacksons children. :clapping:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top