Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

[bouee]

I don't even see why they need her for? Other than telling drug stories what else, relevant to the case can she bring?

How would her drug stories be relevant, if she has any ? Unless she was on history tour and can confirm that PG knew, but Debbie and Ratner are probably going to testify to that, or in part.

I was thinking London, and the argument between Michael/Tohme/Phillips, but I'm not sure she was there.

 

[serendipity]

Well Grace can put things into context if she is going to testify to make herself less nutty. I think it's well known that Grace had sneaked in Michael's bed. I heard this 'rumour' long time ago.

I think Karen Faye told this story at some point...... can't remember when though

 

[bouee]

This got nothing to do with discrediting Michael. they used it to show that Grace was fired on Michael's orders.

There's a huge difference between AEG / Gongaware fired Grace because Michael didn't want her and AEG / Gongaware firing Grace while Michael wanted her.

Jacksons tried to claim AEG was hiring and firing whomever they wanted as they are the ones who were advancing Michael the money and got "control" over him. Paris's deposition showed that it was Michael who did not want Grace. So now AEG is establishing ground work that Grace was fired because Michael did not want her, Karen was hired because Michael wanted her and murray was hired because michael wanted him.


It's also text book impeachment - Kai saying Grace was like a mother and Paris saying she was obsessed with Michael, Kai saying Prince helped Michael and Prince saying no, is questioning credibility of Kai.

Bolded part : that's what some of them said in the media, or maybe in the original filing (I don't remember) , but I didn't hear that or understood it that way during the trial. To me, they were just trying to say that AEG could fire anyone, with or without Michael's agreement, so they could have fired Murray.

 

[serendipity]

How would her drug stories be relevant, if she has any ? Unless she was on history tour and can confirm that PG knew, but Debbie and Ratner are probably going to testify to that, or in part.

I was thinking London, and the argument between Michael/Tohme/Phillips, but I'm not sure she was there.

I don't think she was in London. And yes, I don't think her drug stories would be relevant (if she has any), but the Jacksons may want to show one more time how everybody and their mama knew about his addictions or something like that. I just don't see why they need her to testify at all frankly.

 

[bouee]

Well Grace can put things into context if she is going to testify to make herself less nutty. I think it's well known that Grace had sneaked in Michael's bed. I heard this 'rumour' long time ago.

yes, me too, from fans who were at Neverland.

 

[bouee]

I don't think she was in London. And yes, I don't think her drug stories would be relevant (if she has any), but the Jacksons may want to show one more time how everybody and their mama knew about his addictions or something like that. I just don't see why they need her to testify at all frankly.

Yeah, maybe it's AEG who want her on the stand, and the Jacksons couldn't locate her.... who knows.

 

[ivy]

To me, they were just trying to say that AEG could fire anyone, with or without Michael's agreement, so they could have fired Murray.

and who they fired without Michael's agreement? No one.

 

[Big Apple2]

and who they fired without Michael's agreement? No one.

True dat!

I don't know why it's necessary for Michael Jackson to appear as if he's some little boy, unable to handle his business. Seriously!

I like this little tidbit from Kai Chase's testimony:

Chase said: "there was an unspoken RULE in the house that anyone who complained TO Jackson about missed paychecks would be fired."

Looks like THE MAN had rules in his home, not just for his children, but for his staff as well, i.e. "don't be coming to me about no missed paychecks!"

 

[marebear]

The only credible people I see here are Prince and Paris.

 

[bouee]

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.

Back to the supervsion thing :

- It was AEg who included Murray in the tour staff, instead of paying an advance to Michael.

- Sometimes in nursing homes people hire dog handlers (for handicapped or elderly people, so they can play with the dog). What if Mechi suddenly instructs the dog handler to use the dog for security and the dog bites a resident ? Or instruct the dog handler to let an elderly person hold the leash and walk with the dog, and the dog starts running after something, the old person falls ? Still keeping in mind that Mechi is a bad boss and won't sign the dog handler's contract or pay him/her until the contract is signed.

EDIT : Sorry Mechi ! I know you wouldn't do that !

 

[bouee]

True dat!

I don't know why it's necessary for Michael Jackson to appear as if he's some little boy, unable to handle his business. Seriously!

err that's not how I understand it... or that part (firing people). Their point is (I think) AEG could do it , they actually did it with Grace, as a personal service to Michael, and thought about it with Karen . I don't think it says anything about Michael, it just means they had the possibility, according to the jacksons, IMO, nothing else.

 

[Big Apple2]

err that's not how I understand it... or that part (firing people). Their point is (I think) AEG could do it , they actually did it with Grace, as a personal service to Michael, and thought about it with Karen . I don't think it says anything about Michael, it just means they had the possibility, according to the jacksons, IMO, nothing else.

I'm not talking about any ONE incident. I'm talking about the ENTIRE package.

Making Michael out to be some little weakling, unable to count up to 3, needing folks to hold his hand for fear that he may fall and hurt himself, seems to be Mother's theme, thus far. I just ain't with it.

I'll tell you one thing, there is not a person on earth, or not very many, that could have withstood what Michael had to go through, with the media constantly on his back and that horrible, HORRIBLE trial he had to face. If anything, the man had SUPER HUMAN strength and was determined that NOBODY was going to break him. NOBODY!

 

[bouee]

I'll tell you one thing, there is not a person on earth, or not very many, that could have withstood what Michael had to go through, with the media constantly on his back and that horrible, HORRIBLE trial he had to face. If anything, the man had SUPER HUMAN strength and was determined that NOBODY was going to break him. NOBODY!

I definitely agree with you about that. He was always where he wanted to be in his life.

 

[LastTear]

But you can't supervise someone's work if you don't know what they are doing. Would it be right for AEG to insist on knowing exactly what Murray was treating Michael with, creams, meds etc? And then stand over him in Michaels bedroom to supervise that he does what is known about and nothing else.

 

[ivy]

Back to the supervsion thing

honestly bouee sometimes these never ending hypothetical scenarios gets tiring. it's apparent that we disagree. As far as my understanding goes there's a difference between someone supervising people that work for them in the same business and supervising people who are independent contractors and have special skills & training.

the judge have already ruled there's nothing illegal with AEG wanting Michael to come to rehearsals and even if they told Murray "get him to rehearsals" they had no means or control over how Murray achieved this.

That was my example with the tree specialist, sure I call them and say "come and cut down this tree" but I have no way or knowing or supervising or telling them which saw to use, which branch to cut first and so on. I never told them how to do their jobs and I never even watched them while they are doing their jobs. They are experts with knowledge to do the job, they don't require me overlooking what they do. and even if I watched them the whole time, I couldn't give them directions or correct them because I have no idea what is the correct way to do the job as I have absolutely no knowledge about cutting trees. Could there be some mistakes or negligence in what they do? Well yeah and the reason to hire someone "licensed and insured" is to make sure that if these independent contractors do something wrong - such as drop a branch on a roof and damage the roof - their insurance will pay for their negligence and we won't have any responsibility. I also feel like as long as we show due diligence on the hiring - checking references etc.- we are covered.

 

[bouee]

But you can't supervise someone's work if you don't know what they are doing. Would it be right for AEG to insist on knowing exactly what Murray was treating Michael with, creams, meds etc? And then stand over him in Michaels bedroom to supervise that he does what is known about and nothing else.

I was asked in my job to supervise dog handlers, and my job had nothing tod with it. It was my resposability to check if the dog handlers were insured and properly trained their dogs. If the dogs had hurt someone, then that was not my responsabilty. If I had asked the dog handler to deal with a situation he shouldn't have (for example an argument between staff) , then it becomes my responsability, partially.
Murray's job was to keep Michael healthy, not bring him to rehearsals. that's a thin line, but that's where the difference is , IMO. IF we think Murray was asked to bring Michael to rehearsals.

honestly bouee sometimes these never ending hypothetical scenarios gets tiring. it's apparent that we disagree. As far as my understanding goes there's a difference between someone supervising people that work for them in the same business and supervising people who are independent contractors and have special skills & training.

the judge have already ruled there's nothing illegal with AEG wanting Michael to come to rehearsals and even if they told Murray "get him to rehearsals" they had no means or control over how Murray achieved this.

That was my example with the tree specialist, sure I call them and say "come and cut down this tree" but I have no way or knowing or supervising or telling them which saw to use, which branch to cut first and so on. I never told them how to do their jobs and I never even watched them while they are doing their jobs. They are experts with knowledge to do the job, they don't require me overlooking what they do. and even if I watched them the whole time, I couldn't give them directions or correct them because I have no idea what is the correct way to do the job as I have absolutely no knowledge about cutting trees. Could there be some mistakes or negligence in what they do? Well yeah and the reason to hire someone "licensed and insured" is to make sure that if these independent contractors do something wrong - such as drop a branch on a roof and damage the roof - their insurance will pay for their negligence and we won't have any responsibility. I also feel like as long as we show due diligence on the hiring - checking references etc.- we are covered.

yes, it is tiring, we agree on that. My problem is , I'm trying to understand you point , but feel the examples / answers you give don't necessarily reflect the situation, except this last one (omotting the unsigned contract/no payment part).

And yes, we disagree...

 

[LastTear]

I was asked in my job to supervise dog handlers, and my job had nothing tod with it. It was my resposability to check if the dog handlers were insured and properly trained their dogs. If the dogs had hurt someone, then that was not my responsabilty. If I had asked the dog handler to deal with a situation he shouldn't have (for example an argument between staff) , then it becomes my responsability, partially.
Murray's job was to keep Michael healthy, not bring him to rehearsals. that's a thin line, but that's where the difference is , IMO. IF we think Murray was asked to bring Michael to rehearsals.




yes, it is tiring, we agree on that. My problem is , I'm trying to understand you point , but feel the examples / answers you give don't necessarily reflect the situation, except this last one (omotting the unsigned contract/no payment part).

And yes, we disagree...

Ok so if you were AEG how would you supervise Murray? What in your mind would clear them of the responsibility, as per your example of you not being responsible if the dog handlers dog bite someone?

 

[bouee]

Ok so if you were AEG how would you supervise Murray? What in your mind would clear them of the responsibility, as per your example of you not being responsible if the dog handlers dog bite someone?

first big mistake, and the biggest one IMO : indep contractor contract instead of cash advance. Murray was a personal doctor, not a tour doctor, he should not have been included in the tour : there would have been no supervsion issue. We still don't know if there was a reason for doing that, or if it's a simple mistake.

second thing, don't ask anything from Murray, other than when Michael will be available. That's IF you believe Murray was asked to get michael to rehearsals , and I belive he was asked that.

third, I understand that this is common in the US, but the unsigned contract for over a month and a half , ie promising a contract, is a problem too , considering it made Murray "dependent" in a way to AEG.

4th, there is is still the unsolved mytsery of the equipment/help Murray requested, if it was for London's (AEG's version) or for LA.

That doesn't make AEG responsible for what Murray did, so that doesn't make them responsible for HOW Murray did those things, as they had no way of knowing or understanding that, the judge cleared that up, and it's common sense.
That's IMO "only" improper supervision of a doctor on AEG's part, overstepping their boundaries.

EDIT : if it was that simple, they would have no problem admitting health & sleep issues were discussed in those meetings. There's a reason why they don't want to admit that.

 

[LastTear]

It's a very fine line bouee, if AEG had not shown any interest in Murray or Michaels health then that would be wrong as well. Not sure about over stepping the boundaries, if reports were coming to them that Michael was unwell, couldn't rehearse and that the doctor told him not to go to the rehearsals, shouldn't they ask questions? I mean lets be honest, without the tour everyone was screwed, to some extent everybody was dependant on each other.

 

[bouee]

It's a very fine line bouee, if AEG had not shown any interest in Murray or Michaels health then that would be wrong as well. Not sure about over stepping the boundaries, if reports were coming to them that Michael was unwell, couldn't rehearse and that the doctor told him not to go to the rehearsals, shouldn't they ask questions? I mean lets be honest, without the tour everyone was screwed, to some extent everybody was dependant on each other.

Yes it's a thin line. The tour should have been insured , so illness should not have been a problem, these things happen. If the situation was that tense, AEG holds a part of the responsability.

 

[ivy]

ABC7 also has the video of Prince from deposition

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/video?id=9144445

 

[Big Apple2]

Thanks for posting that clip ivy.

Although it's just a small clip, Paris APPEARS to be into it. She's a natural, seems relaxed, animated and probably just likes to talk. Prince on the other hand, looks like he'd rather be somewhere else, ANYWHERE but there. Just my personal observation on two small clips.

More to follow, I'm sure.

 

[Big Apple2]

Another interesting tidbit from Ms. Chase's testimony:

"In April, Chase said she saw Dr. Murray 2-3 times a week."

I wonder what that was all about?

 

[marebear]

I don't blame Prince if it looked like he would rather be somewhere else.

 

[Big Apple2]

I don't blame Prince if it looked like he would rather be somewhere else.

Neither do I.

I'm a grown woman and would feel very uncomfortable sitting in a chair while TOTAL STRANGERS question me about my life and the life of my parent. So I can only imagine how a teenager "might" feel.

And when I say TOTAL STRANGERS, I'm talking about BOTH sides of the table.

 

[PurdyYungThang84]

Yes it's a thin line. The tour should have been insured, so illness should not have been a problem, these things happen. If the situation was that tense, AEG holds a part of the responsability.

Wasn't this being left to MJ and his suits to handle (which I don't agree with)? I thought this was why the pressure cooker on this situation was maxed out. Because there was so much money by way of investments and services being rendered that was just hanging in mid-air with no safety net, and if the project didn't come full circle, someone was gonna have to cut all those severance checks or face a lawsuit-palooza. Why would management even leave that up to the artist to secure? That seems like more of a back office detail than something that the artist needs to have on his plate as a main dish. Was AEG hoping that the shows would bottom out, intentionally leaving the project uninsured, bringing down MJ's financial death stroke? Or did Michael himself request to be in charge of this detail? Either way, it was left uninsured on purpose, AEG is way to big to be conducting such sloppy, risky business; this sort of major business detail isn't just "overlooked" or "put on the back burner"....

 

[Tygger]

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!"

See that, it's just ONE of the glaring reasons as to why Michael's children should NOT be involved with this madness.

The name of the game, for BOTH sides, will be to discredit, thereby impeaching a person's testimony.

Man, I realize that Paris was "most likely" just repeating the words she heard from her father, but those words made Grace sound like one of those CRAZY Michael Jackson Stalkers, who either own Neverland and/or gave birth to Michael's children. I can't even imagine how Grace is going to be able to digest those words.

I'm not sure if Grace was interested in testifying before, but NOW she might very well be interested in testifying, so that she can clear up any misconceptions about herself. Personally speaking, this line of questioning will only add a TABLOID element to the proceedings.

Very much agreed! Fans cannot explain the relationship (professional/personal) between Michael and Grace so, I do not see how a minor can explain it regardless of what her father told her. We do not know the dynamics between Michael and Grace and we do not know the dynamics between Grace and each individual child. The relationship seemed complex to say the least and I do not know how Michael chose to explain this to his children.

I do understand the children did love Grace at a point where they called her their mother. If Michael fired her and brought her back, I think that has more to do with continuity for his children. To say she “had no money” is strange as being a nanny was her source of employment. If she had “no money” it would be because Michael did not pay her.

I will not discuss the story of Grace in Michael’s bed. I am a bit suspicious of Michael’s version. laughs

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

I partially agree with you. I think the oldest will not contribute to the image of his father being seen as less than strong and I understand that. If the chef says she saw it and he is saying he could not have helped, I am conflicted on what to believe.

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.

Please remember that the majority of Michael’s money went to charity.

my understanding is , so far : AEG used that bit of Paris' deposition to discredit Michael : he "felt bad" and avoided conflict so much he would lie to Kai about why she was fired, and pretended not to know.

even though Michael fired Grace before, that doesn't mean the last time is him, not AEG. There is the possibility AEG fired Grace against Michael will.

This got nothing to do with discrediting Michael. they used it to show that Grace was fired on Michael's orders.

There's a huge difference between AEG / Gongaware fired Grace because Michael didn't want her and AEG / Gongaware firing Grace while Michael wanted her.

Jacksons tried to claim AEG was hiring and firing whomever they wanted as they are the ones who were advancing Michael the money and got "control" over him. Paris's deposition showed that it was Michael who did not want Grace. So now AEG is establishing ground work that Grace was fired because Michael did not want her, Karen was hired because Michael wanted her and murray was hired because michael wanted him.

It's also text book impeachment - Kai saying Grace was like a mother and Paris saying she was obsessed with Michael, Kai saying Prince helped Michael and Prince saying no, is questioning credibility of Kai.

and who they fired without Michael's agreement? No one.

I agree with you Bouee and Loveforever and I disagree with Ivy. Chase was fired by AEG correct? Why would Michael want her fired? When she was rehired, Michael asked her where did she go? If Michael fired Grace several times before signing with AEG, what was stopping him from firing her without AEG’s assistance? AEG did have control over Michael's living expenses and Gongaware said Grace was fired to saved expenses. Chase could have been fired as well for the same reason as they were looking into a nutrionist instead of a chef.

 

[ivy]

I agree with you Bouee and Loveforever and I disagree with Ivy. Chase was fired by AEG correct? Why would Michael want her fired?

she said Michael Amir Williams fired her and rehired her. so on what basis are you saying she was fired by AEG?

 

[Tygger]

^^^

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 1h
"I pleaded with him" Chase said. She didn't get to say goodbye to MJ or his kids, didn't have any discussions with MJ about salary/firing.
Expand
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 1h
Chase said she was told in person 'let me see what I can do' and next day she got call saying don't need to come in, you're fired.
Expand
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 1h
Chase argued her rate is negotiable. "I was feeding Mr. Jackson and his children, my rate is negotiable, you have to let me go to London."
Expand
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 1h
"I was let go in beginning of May by Michael Amir," Chase said. Chase said she was told there had been a change in management.

MAW told her she was fired, it was the management behind him (AEG) who fired her. MAW did not employ Chase, Michael did and then AEG took over.


Bouee, Melchi, I agree and understand your explanations regarding supervision. With supervision, you are overseeing activity and you do not have to know how to do that activity to make suggestions. I think the supervision is being misunderstood and being applied to relationships that are not similar to the doctor/Michael/AEG relationship. When one is hired to do a job, like a tree cutting service, you are not their employer, you are the customer; you are purchasing a service. As a customer, you can say how you want the job done and the person you pay for the service will comply. In that way you are supervising what activity is done, not HOW it is done.

 

[ivy]

^^^


MAW told her she was fired, it was the management behind him (AEG) who fired her. MAW did not employ Chase, Michael did and then AEG took over.

the change in management was Tohme being fired and Dileo coming back in May. Don't forget due to the auction Tohme and Hawk was out, Dileo, Katz, Kane and Branca was coming in. AEG had been in the picture since late January - not May.