Latest on MJJC

Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Status
Not open for further replies.
CherubimII said:
From today's testimony from:

This is great news, because I believe Kai Chase really loves and cares for Michael Jacksons children. :clapping:
Click to expand...

I agree with you. She seems very sincere.

Sometimes I wonder how the kids feel though when everybody who takes care of them gets money to do it( including grandma and their cousin) Sorry to go off topic
 
ivy said:
A lay person cannot supervise a specialist. you can only supervise what you know about.

and I thought the judge already ruled that supervision could not happen in the case of Murray?
Click to expand...

The first statement is incorrect. Supervision is only the act of overseeing another. This can include commands/requests. In your example it does not include a command/request. However, if one decided to go out and ask for another tree limb to be cut and the independent contractor complied; that is oversight. A president can supervise a country's military without having been a military person themselves.

Personally, I thought the claim was hiring, supervision, or training but, in some reports it is not "or" but, "and" meaning all three would have to be proven so, I am truly unsure.

gerryevans said:
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.
Click to expand...

I will take the compliment if you do not mind Gerryevans. laughs The few instructions given may have contributed to the lost of Michael's life. You are correct that the doctor was already administering propofol incorrectly mostly likely in April and continued through May and June. When AEG decided to allegedly hire this doctor dating back to May, they should have done a check to make sure he was qualified for what he was being hired for.

crillon said:
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?
Click to expand...

I am unsure of what you mean. It was already decided that if the doctor was hired by AEG, he would have an independent contractor status not an employee status as per the judge. The jury has to decide if AEG hired the doctor negligently; not if the doctor was an independent contractor or employee.

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...

Is the $205k being linked to the plaintiffs' legal team or the $35K? In either case it is an assumption and even if it is payments for the legal team, it does not violate the will. Michael wanted his beneficiaries provided for.

I do not know if the Panish made a rude gesture to Boyle or not but, I do not think it has much to do with the case. Seems ABC7 is gossiping a bit. I would like to know who complained to the fire marshall.

ilmjj said:
Sometimes I wonder how the kids feel though when everybody who takes care of them gets money to do it( including grandma and their cousin) Sorry to go off topic
Click to expand...

When did Michael's mother receive payment for being a guardian to his children?
 
Last edited:
well honestly Ivy I still think I'm supervising them because for example if one of them gets into an unfriendly tone with their voice in front of one of our patients or even to eachother, or if one of them is not dressed in their working clothes as I ordered it, it's me telling them to change... well sometimes I only have to look at them. I am certainly supervising them! although yes of cuz I'm also of cuz involved in all hiring processes also!
 
Question please: is it true the defense leaked a small portion of Michael's daughter's videotaped deposition?
 
Big Apple2 said:
Dr. Finklestein's deposition is going to be played? Well at least portions thereof.

How in the heck do you get to exam and/or cross-exam a video tape!

What's the 411 on Dr. Finklestein, what role does he play in all of this. I'm familar with the name, just can't remember the connection.
Click to expand...

re bolded : what does that mean ? i couldn't find it on google.

ivy said:
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?
Click to expand...

Ivy, I think we had not finnished with the talk about supervision when we talked about the legal definitions of the claim, 2 weeks ago.

I'm quoting one of your post back then :

ivy said:
^^

I don't think (but as I said I haven't checked) supervision is possible in the case of Murray. Not only he's an independent contractor but he's a doctor and AEG has nothing to do with medical care. I don't think they were in a position to supervise Murray.

also let me copy judge's order from summary judgment

Claim 5 Respondeat Superior

Judge states that AEG's evidence established that Murray was an independent contractor and not an employee and AEG had no control over "means and manner" of Murray's work. Judge cites case law that doctors are considered independent contractors.

Katherine claims that AEG hired Murray in part to ensure that Michael attended rehearsals. Judge says even this claim might be true, there's no evidence that AEG had any control over how Murray did that.

Judge also mentions secondary factors that AEG Live had nothing to do with medical care, medical work performed by a specialist without supervision, medicines were provided by Murray and the contract and the parties clearly understood that the agreement was for an independent contractor.

Therefore judge states there's no triable issue whether Murray was an employee and determines that Murray was an independent contractor.

To me the above one demonstrates supervision probably is not going to be a part of the trial.
Click to expand...

To me it says, AEG can not be responsible for Murray's actions, as a medical doctor (ie choice of medication, how he gave them). But I think supervision in this case can be AEG's improper supervision of a doctor, even if the doctor shouldn't have obeyed AEG. It would be AEG's actions, not the doctor's.

Actually, I think Mechi gave a very good example, as a head of a nursing home, he/she supervises nurses. Mechi is not a nurse, so he/she can not tell a nurse how to set up an IV, how to give this or that medication, or Mechi can't even check how the nurse does that.
But he/she supervises nurses in the sense that he/she has to make sure their working condidtions are OK (for ex if a nurse's schedule has no day off, one nurse for 250 patients instead of 50, that wil be Mechi's responsability & that would be supervision) .
Mechi would be making a big supervision mistake if he asked a nurse to leave an Alzheimer resident unsupervised near the nursing home's opened gates. An even bigger mistake if Mechi keeps promising a contract to that particular nurse, and won't pay him/her until the contract is signed..
Of course if the nurse does that and leaves the Alzheimer patient next to the open gates, it will be the nurse's mistake and responsability, but what would you think of Mechi's actions then ?
If the nurse actually left the resident by the gates, the resident leaves, gets lost, gets hit by a a car and dies. The nurse will go to jail, but what about Mechi's actions ? Will he/she be liable ?

gerryevans said:
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.
Click to expand...

The claim is "negligent hiring and supervision", the Jacksons are saying AEG was a factor in Michael's death, not the direct cause. (in their verdict forms)
This + the judge saying AEG can not be held responsible for Murray's actions (medical negligence) tell me propofol is irrelevant in this case.
In fact, it is AEG who are using this argument : their verdict forms say "who is responsible for Michael's death" (which is different from being a factor) and cite everyone except Murray. It's AEG who is bringing up the propofol argument in their questionning and opening statements.

The Jacksons theory so far is : AEG hired Murray, negligently because they ignored red flags (PG knowing about previous problems with medication, knowing about bad doctors, Michael's health deteriorating under his care, didn't do background checks ), and incorrectly supervised him by giving him orders (getting Michael on stage in spite of health issues, promising contract to Murray & refusing to pay him as long as the contract was not signed so making him dependent on AEG).

I think that's all, the Jacksons are not taking it further, they are not exactly saying AEG caused Murray's behavior, IMO. They're saying AEG was a factor in that.
It's AEG who seems to be doing that (using the propofol argument, that no one knew about, so how could they guess..). IMO, they are the ones who are not sticking to the claim.

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...

yes, I agree, BUT he was not paid, and money was an issue for him (as per his financial situation + his e mails to Timm Wooley asking for payment). AEG was "promising" a contract that took almost 2 months to make, and said they would not pay him until the contract was signed... Difficult for him to storm out at that point.
 
Last edited:
bouee said:
Actually, I think Mechi gave a very good example, as a head of a nursing home, he/she supervises nurses. Mechi is not a nurse, so he/she can not tell a nurse how to set up an IV, how to give this or that medication, or Mechi can't even check how the nurse does that.
But he/she supervises nurses in the sense that he/she has to make sure their working condidtions are OK (for ex if a nurse's schedule has no day off, one nurse for 250 patients instead of 50, that wil be Mechi's responsability & that would be supervision) .
Mechi would be making a big supervision mistake if he asked a nurse to leave an Alzheimer resident unsupervised near the nursing home's opened gates. An even bigger mistake if Mechi keeps promising a contract to that particular nurse, and won't pay him/her until the contract is signed..
Of course if the nurse does that and leaves the Alzheimer patient next to the open gates, it will be the nurse's mistake and responsability, but what would you think of Mechi's actions then ?
If the nurse actually left the resident by the gates, the resident leaves, gets lost, gets hit by a a car and dies. The nurse will go to jail, but what about Mechi's actions ? Will he/she be liable ?
Click to expand...
I can answer that because according to German law I would be liable at least to a certain part always!
And btw not only when a contract is signed... already when someone is working for our homes. Actually I do make sure they all do sign their contracts before they start working here BECAUSE our insurance covers them only then. If they do not sign their contract but I do let already work someone for me... or better our company... it's all my fault what happens or could happen and I even would have to pay all costs, damages whatever could might happen caused by that person I allowed already to work but didn't let sign an official contract.
Because it's pretty clear in German law when both parties have a spoken agreement and act already accordingly and it's just the written contract wasn't in place cuz of details not negotiated or whatever the reason... it's a valid even if only spoken agreement. Well but that's again German law I know.

Oh and btw to make it easier next time for you bouee and everybody else, I'm a she or better female lol at least no doubt about that! ;)
 
Last edited:
Mechi said:
I can answer that because according to German law I would be reliable at least to a certain part always!
And btw not only when a contract is signed... already when someone is working for our homes. Actually I do make sure they all do sign their contracts before they start working here BECAUSE our insurance covers them only then. If they do not sign their contract but I do let already work someone for me... or better our company... it's all my fault what happens or could happen and I even would have to pay all costs, damages whatever could might happen caused by that person I allowed already to work but didn't let sign an official contract.
Because it's pretty clear in German law when both parties have a spoken agreement and act already accordingly and it's just the written contract wasn't in place cuz of details not negotiated or whatever the reason... it's a valid even if only spoken agreement. Well but that's again German law I know.

Oh and btw to make it easier next time for you bouee and everybody else, I'm a she or better female lol at least no doubt about that! ;)
Click to expand...

Well, i'm not a specialist, but I think in France, there would be no trial : AEG would be certain to lose the case, they would have tried to settle (which does not technically exist here, so they would have offered a compensation to avoid trial), the trial would last maximum 2 or 3 days , 4 to 5 months here is very rare.
We have laws for everything, making things over complicated sometimes, symplifying justice decisions at other times.

First, here, if you don't do a written work contract, the employee is automatically considered permanently hired after 2 days of work. So making a contract actually protects the employer,and you want it signed before the employee starts working.

With indep contractors : you are co responsible for supervision.

AEG's actions, especially RP's, would be considered harrassment, to the point some of those actions could be a criminal case. (press conference e mail, especially the "I slapped him" part', interfering with the doctor, form signing a contract with the doctor to including him in meetings and pressuring him more or less kindly-, not paying the doctor in spite of him already "working", ignoring or even interfering with someone's health ...)

As I said before, that could be why I have this opinion about the trial. A lot of what we're hearing at the trial would be a big no no here. I'm not saying we're perfect and it never happens, it does, but the justice system wouldn't spend months to find out if it's right or wrong. It's very clearly wrong.
 
Last edited:
qbee said:
This was part of Paris deposition played in court yesterday 6/18/2013
which I guess makes it public access now. creeps me out they sent it to Pearl Jr though.

http://youtu.be/xZOqS4ji8WE
Click to expand...

The more I see her, the more I like Paris.
It doesn't look easy for her in this video.

Can't that be sealed, ie played for the jurors only , ie inside the cortromm and not outside??
During the Casey Anthony trial, the judge orederd that kind of "seal" on some of the pictures showing little Caylee. They were shown inside the courtroom, not outside.
 
bouee said:
Well, i'm not a specialist, but I think in France, there would be no trial : AEG would be certain to lose the case, they would have tried to settle (which does not technically exist here, so they would have offered a compensation to avoid trial), the trial would last maximum 2 or 3 days , 4 to 5 months here is very rare.
We have laws for everything, making things over complicated sometimes, symplifying justice decisions at other times.

First, here, if you don't do a written work contract, the employee is automatically considered permanently hired after 2 days of work. So making a contract actually protects the employer,and you want it signed before the employee starts working.

With indep contractors : you are co responsible for supervision.

AEG's actions, especially RP's, would be considered harrassment, to the point some of those actions could be a criminal case. (press conference e mail, especially the "I slapped him" part', interfering with the doctor, form signing a contract with the doctor to including him in meetings and pressuring him more or less kindly-, not paying the doctor in spite of him already "working", ignoring or even interfering with someone's health ...)

As I said before, that could be why I have this opinion about the trial. A lot of what we're hearing at the trial would be a big no no here. I'm not saying we're perfect and it never happens, it does, but the justice system wouldn't spend months to find out if it's right or wrong. It's very clearly wrong.
Click to expand...

Seems to be pretty much the same here! Aggree also about the big no no cuz let me add, not paying an independent contractor here would be clearly interpreted as putting unfair pressure on him unless the company could prove it's bankrupt and simply didn't have the money really.
That's sooooo strict here cuz law does see the independent contractor under pressure and a huge company would do that to keep him in dependency or out of laziness which would both result in a pretty good fine. It's seen as a fact here that a huge company having a huge budget is the stronger part and a independent contractor mostly a smaller company if not only a single person is the weaker part in such a relationship... and it's not ok then to be that lazy or whatever and let ppl work already but not pay them.
 
Last edited:
This is what Pearl Jr. wrote on YouTube:

Pearl Jr Documentary Filmmaker 3 hours ago
I didn't FIND this video,? AEGlive's Putnam said he'd send it to me and he did!
Keep Michaeling!
Click to expand...

I wonder why does AEG's lawyer give videos to fans? What's the purpose? Will Grace testify? Would she be more inclined to testify in favor of AEG is she got pissed off by seeing Paris say those things?
 
respect77 said:
This is what Pearl Jr. wrote on YouTube:



I wonder why does AEG's lawyer give videos to fans? What's the purpose? Will Grace testify? Would she be more inclined to testify in favor of AEG is she got pissed off by seeing Paris say those things?
Click to expand...
The only thing that was said about her is that AEG fired her. That would confirm that Michael was behind her firing.
The argument that AEG could fire people was used twice : with Grace (personal staff) and with Karen (indep contractor tour employee).

Jacksons lawyers did say they were looking for her to testify. She re appeared after Paris' suicide attempt.

Was she at the London press conference (and would have witnessed the argument between Michael/Tohme/Phillips) ? I read somewhere in the testimony that the nanny and the hair and make up person was the same person.
 
Last edited:
Let me start by saying that I love the picture Ms. Chase painted regarding Michael's home life with his children. Very sweet and not suprising at all, his children are certainly a product of all of the love they received from their father.

Oh and the bird who would whistle for pretty women. Now that HAD to be Michael's idea. LOL!

But Lord Almighty, putting Ms. Paris in a position wherein she will be revealing PRIVATE conversations she had with her father is just awful, in my opinion. I mean, PRIVATE conversations should remain private. I don't like that one bit and I'm sure Michael would not like it either.

As Big Momma would say: "That's grown folk business, now go play with the other children!"

I wonder how Grace is going to feel about Paris' words. OUCH! I, of course, have no idea what went on within Grace and Michael's relationship, but SNEAKY, LYING ALOT, and OBSESSED, are fighting words. Well maybe not obsessed, I mean, I'd probably be obsessed with him also, had I been in her position for all of those years. LOL!
 
troubleman84 said:
I don't see proof of it yet. Some folks think the estate paid for Taj's wedding. :mellow:
Click to expand...

Well........... strictly speaking they did provide the venue.......... just sayin'

respect77 said:
This is what Pearl Jr. wrote on YouTube:



I wonder why does AEG's lawyer give videos to fans? What's the purpose? Will Grace testify? Would she be more inclined to testify in favor of AEG is she got pissed off by seeing Paris say those things?
Click to expand...

I find this a very poor show on AEG's part, if Pearl Jr is being truthful. I don't really see the benefit of gifting her this piece???

But.... OT, this was only a few short months ago and yet Paris is in trouble and KJ brings back Grace? Someone's hearing but not listening!

I am still at a loss to understand how a non medical doctor could supervise a doctor, and yes, I have read the board. Can someone explain how this would work in this very instance with AEG, Murray and Michael please.
 
Back to Ms. Chase's testimony:

She says she was concerned about all the oxygen tanks. She says she had some concerns regarding Murray, staying over, coming down from Michael's bedroom in the morning. I also noticed that she would prepare TWO meals, one for Michael and one for Murray, which were put away for dinner (I guess it was for dinner). So, in my opinion, Murray was basically part of the everyday household.

So she had her concerns, WHO could she have brought her concerns to?

I'm sure, like others, she didn't want to lose her job by expressing her concerns, but aside from that, who do you tell?

I'm trying to put myself in her shoes, and agree, I too would have been concerned by all of those oxygen tanks, and Murray being around 24/7, coming down from Michael's bedroom every morning, but who should I tell? The family. The Bodyguards. Joe Jackson the next time he came a calling - uninvited. Travis Payne, when he came to rehearse at the crib. Mother. Or would I just approach Murray directly (and surely be fired on the spot - but hey).

That in my opinion, is a tough one.
 
Tygger said:
Question please: is it true the defense leaked a small portion of Michael's daughter's videotaped deposition?
Click to expand...

Let me clarify something: anything that is used during the trial becomes public, so it can't really be "leaked". If I want, I can walk to the court clerk's office and get copies of every video and every exhibit used at trial.

bouee said:
re bolded : what does that mean ? i couldn't find it on google.
Click to expand...

411 is the information hotline in USA. the number you can call and for example give the name and location of a person and get their phone number.

"what's the 411" is an urban slang / idiom meaning "what is the information"

Actually, I think Mechi gave a very good example, as a head of a nursing home, he/she supervises nurses. Mechi is not a nurse, so he/she can not tell a nurse how to set up an IV, how to give this or that medication, or Mechi can't even check how the nurse does that.
But he/she supervises nurses in the sense that he/she has to make sure their working condidtions are OK (for ex if a nurse's schedule has no day off, one nurse for 250 patients instead of 50, that wil be Mechi's responsability & that would be supervision) .
Mechi would be making a big supervision mistake if he asked a nurse to leave an Alzheimer resident unsupervised near the nursing home's opened gates. An even bigger mistake if Mechi keeps promising a contract to that particular nurse, and won't pay him/her until the contract is signed..
Of course if the nurse does that and leaves the Alzheimer patient next to the open gates, it will be the nurse's mistake and responsability, but what would you think of Mechi's actions then ?
If the nurse actually left the resident by the gates, the resident leaves, gets lost, gets hit by a a car and dies. The nurse will go to jail, but what about Mechi's actions ? Will he/she be liable ?
Click to expand...

actually this is not a comparable example. Mechi is the head of a nursing home and supervises the employees of that nursing home. In this case you have a concert promoter and an independent contractor doctor.

bouee said:
Can't that be sealed, ie played for the jurors only , ie inside the cortromm and not outside??
During the Casey Anthony trial, the judge orederd that kind of "seal" on some of the pictures showing little Caylee. They were shown inside the courtroom, not outside.
Click to expand...

99% of the things will be public. Pictures of caylee were probably the crime scene or autopsy pictures. there would be no reason to seal a 15 year olds deposition.

bouee said:
The only thing that was said about her is that AEG fired her. That would confirm that Michael was behind her firing.
The argument that AEG could fire people was used twice : with Grace (personal staff) and with Karen (indep contractor tour employee).
Click to expand...

yep. Jacksons argued that AEg had the control over Michael's staff and hired and fired them. Paris's deposition shows Grace's firing was Michael's choice. Gongaware claimed Michael told him to hire Grace and he was even given a prepared letter.
 
Well imo if she had said something to travis payne or kenny they might have intervened and checked out what was happening . I mean i think they both did notice something wasnt right but they couldnt figure out what it was.
 
respect77 said:
This is what Pearl Jr. wrote on YouTube:



I wonder why does AEG's lawyer give videos to fans? What's the purpose? Will Grace testify? Would she be more inclined to testify in favor of AEG is she got pissed off by seeing Paris say those things?
Click to expand...

Pearl jr aint no fan shes just a nutter!
 
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/19/showbiz/jackson-death-trial/index.html
Prince's testimony
Prince Jackson, 16, also made a brief video appearance in Tuesday's court session. AEG Live lawyers played a short clip from his deposition to counter Chase's testimony that Jackson was so weak at one point in June that his son, then 12, had to help him walk up stairs.
"Was there ever a time that he came home from rehearsals so tired that you had to help him upstairs?" Putnam asked Prince.
"I wouldn't be able to, but no," Prince answered.

Chase testified about Prince's relationship with his father and the devastation his death caused.
"Prince has always been, even at 12, the little man -- daddy's little man," she said. "He wanted his father to be very proud of him, which Michael was."
The teen has "the weight of the world is on his shoulders, the eldest, big brother and father figure to his siblings," Chase testified. "It's a lot for him, growing, liking girls. He wishes his father was here to give him advice. It's devastating to him."
 
I dont know why but i have a feeling the jacksons are making prince lie

Now with paris shes a lil more stronger and outspoken and wont take crap from no one but prince is a lil more into himself which i have this feeling
 
Annita said:
Prince's testimony
Prince Jackson, 16, also made a brief video appearance in Tuesday's court session. AEG Live lawyers played a short clip from his deposition to counter Chase's testimony that Jackson was so weak at one point in June that his son, then 12, had to help him walk up stairs.
"Was there ever a time that he came home from rehearsals so tired that you had to help him upstairs?" Putnam asked Prince.
"I wouldn't be able to, but no," Prince answered.
Click to expand...

Well I certainly hope Ms. Chase is not embellishing her testimony, thinking that she is in someway helping Mother's case, because if this type of thing continues to happen, she will lose ALL credibility.

Also regarding Ms. Chase's testimony, I realize you have to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth," but was it really necessary for the entire world to know that there was NO food in Michael's refrigerator and that sometimes the credit card would be declined and she would have to pay for the food out of her own money. Really Kai!

What really get's my blood boiling is knowing that Michael was most likely taking care of OTHER family members, which left him NOTHING for himself and his children. I bet Mother had food in her refrigerator, in order to feed Randy and Jermaine's off-spring, including their Momma! If I recall correctly, Randy Jackson did say that his children were living in the lap of luxury while they continued to live at Hayvenhurst.
 
Annita said:
"Was there ever a time that he came home from rehearsals so tired that you had to help him upstairs?" Putnam asked Prince.
"I wouldn't be able to, but no," Prince answered.
Click to expand...

OOPS! Looks like Prince is being truthful, which is NOT helping Mother's case.

This leads me back to when Prince sat for his deposition, and Mother's side wanted to stop said deposition, because AEG was being mean to Prince. I said back then that Mother's side wanted to stop Prince's deposition, because he was NOT helping her case.

Let's see what ELSE Prince's deposition reveals. I will also be looking for AEG being too rough with Prince, as was alleged by Mother's side.
 
Ok guys i just read this bit of what paris says in her depo
Asked why her father didn't get rid of her, Paris replied, "He did. He sent her to India. She kept coming back
Click to expand...
and it alarms me cuz u know what the media will say bout that ugh
 
Big Apple2 said:
Well I certainly hope Ms. Chase is not embellishing her testimony, thinking that she is in someway helping Mother's case, because if this type of thing continues to happen, she will lose ALL credibility.

Also regarding Ms. Chase's testimony, I realize you have to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth," but was it really necessary for the entire world to know that there was NO food in Michael's refrigerator and that sometimes the credit card would be declined and she would have to pay for the food out of her own money. Really Kai!

What really get's my blood boiling is knowing that Michael was most likely taking care of OTHER family members, which left him NOTHING for himself and his children. I bet Mother had food in her refrigerator, in order to feed Randy and Jermaine's off-spring, including their Momma! If I recall correctly, Randy Jackson did say that his children were living in the lap of luxury while they continued to live at Hayvenhurst.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go as far as to conclude from Kai's testimony that Michael and his kids didn't have anything to eat. I have never heard stories about them starving. I'd think Michael had more than one credit cards and bank accounts and this was one used by the staff. Just because there wasn't money on that sometimes it doesn't mean Michael didn't have money at all. I mean he and his kids lived in a nice, big villa, surrounded by staff - that doesn't look like a household of poverty where people are starving and don't have money to eat. Maybe they did not have anything in the fridge when Kai came back because they did not have a cook then. Maybe they just ate fast food ordered from KFC or something, during that period.
 
Last edited:
Are the Jacksons trying to discredit the children? They've been trying to show AEG fired Grace, Kai now also claims MJ didn't fire her and he didn't even know about it (even tho it was Michael Amir Williams who let her go) and of course they have Grace herself lined up to testify. Obviously Grace will hardly admit to what Paris is saying, so will she be trying to impeach Paris and make the kids look like liars. I'm certainly getting that feeling by this whole thing.......
 
ivy said:
yep. Jacksons argued that AEg had the control over Michael's staff and hired and fired them. Paris's deposition shows Grace's firing was Michael's choice. Gongaware claimed Michael told him to hire Grace and he was even given a prepared letter.
Click to expand...

I remember that, but 1) they still did fire Grace 2) Why show Paris video now, and not during PG's testimony ? What does it have to do with Kai Chase ?

I thought for a while that the Jacksons wanted to include Grace in their witnesses, can that be related ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top