Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

[LastTear]

I am still interested to know how AEG were meant to supervise the doctor, on a practical level. I am not being funny, I am honestly not grasping it.

To supervise is to oversee someone's work.

 

[Virre]

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

Yes, Karen said this back in 2009-2010 on her old facebook page. Michael had told her he woke up when Grace crawled into his bed, it had freaked him out and he had been screaming so loud that security came into the room. She freaked him out with her voodoo stuff too. And Paris has said a few things about Grace on her online accounts and on tinychats.

And a few of those that I talk too that either spent a lot of time at Neverland or were around Michael has said that he didn´t fire people himself, very seldom he did this, others did it for him. Maybe that is accurate.

 

[ivy]

I am still interested to know how AEG were meant to supervise the doctor, on a practical level. I am not being funny, I am honestly not grasping it.

To supervise is to oversee someone's work.

don't spend too much time thinking about it

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.

 

[Tygger]

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.

I agree those things happened but, that had nothing to do with Chase. She was hired by Michael and then rehired by AEG.

 

[LastTear]

don't spend too much time thinking about it

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.

Thanks Ivy, I did read that but supervision is still a part of this trial and many people are discussing it here so I'm interested to know in what way could they, on a practical level, supervise Murray?

ETA As it relates to the trial.

 

[ivy]

I agree those things happened but, that had nothing to do with Chase. She was hired by Michael and then rehired by AEG.

and? my point is still the same. she was fired by MAW and there's nothing to suggest "change in management in May" referred to AEG when AEG had been in the picture since late January. so as far as I'm concerned I don't see anything to suggest she was fired by AEG or even rehired by AEG (did she have a contract with them?) . I'm thinking AEG was advancing her salary as well.

Thanks Ivy, I did read that but supervision is still a part of this trial and many people are discussing it here so I'm interested to know in what way could they, on a practical level, supervise Murray?

ETA As it relates to the trial.

My understanding it's the name of the law "negligent hiring, supervision and retaining" and it doesn't mean all of them apply or relevant in a case. I personally think in this instance the only relevant part is negligent hiring. I mean look to the proposed verdict forms, did you see a single question about supervising or retaining?

edited to add: CA jury instructions clearly states an "or"

[Name of plaintiff] claims that [he/she] was harmed by [name of employee] and that [name of employer defendant] is responsible for that harm because [name of employer defendant] negligently [hired/ supervised/ [or] retained] [name of employee].

Give this instruction if the plaintiff alleges that the employer of an employee who caused harm was negligent in the hiring, supervision, or retention of the employee after actual or constructive notice of the employee’s unfitness. For instructions holding the employer vicariously liable (without fault) for the acts of the employee, see the Vicarious Responsibility series, CACI No. 3700 et seq.

edited to add 2: You can also check judge's ruling and see under "negligent hiring, supervision and training" she only addresses negligent hiring.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/128772581/aeg-live-final-order-2-27-2013

 

[PurdyYungThang84]

don't spend too much time thinking about it

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.

Which leaves this whole batch of shinanigans where? So are we back to pointing at Murray??? ::goes cross eyed:: :crazy This is mixed nuts crazy. How can AEG be sued for the actions of their non-employees? The insurance is another story, but this pretty much puts the negligence back on Murray and makes AEG a fly on the wall. Am I missing a puzzle piece?

 

[jamba]

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

Hilarious (but sad) that Panish is such a juvenile--If he wants me to give him the finger I'll be happy to (paraphrased). Is this the way a lawyer talks in court? And here's the judge's namby-pamby answer, which is also hilarious (but sad). Can't she be more forceful and pull this courtroom together?--what a wimp.

"THE COURT: WELL, I HAVEN'T SEEN IT, BUT IF
THAT'S GOING ON, IT'S GOT TO STOP. IT REALLY DOES.
I MEAN, I JUST -- YOU KNOW, THIS TRIAL IS
DIFFICULT ENOUGH FOR BOTH OF YOU, AND IT JUST -- IT
REALLY, AS I'VE SAID TO OTHER PEOPLE, IT DOESN'T HELP TO
ENFLAME PROBLEMS WITH GESTURES OR ATTITUDE OR RAISING
VOICES OR ANY OF THAT. IT REALLY DOESN'T. IT MAKES ALL
OF OUR JOBS A LOT HARDER. SO PLEASE DON'T DO THAT.
I HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING UNCIVIL ON THEIR PART,
MR. PANISH. I KNOW YOU KEEP ARGUING THAT SOMEHOW
THEY'RE DOING SOMETHING TO YOU, BUT I HAVEN'T SEEN
ANYTHING LIKE THAT. SO I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU FEEL
THEY'RE DOING THAT."

She is not being strong and controlling the courtroom. She let's Panish get away everything he wants. She needs to sanction his behind!

About her experience--no, I meant her background. As a lawyer she was involved with the DEA and the state DA's office tracking the money-laundering of cartels. She got an award for that work. She was then appointed to be a Superior Ct. Judge by Gov. Gray. That's what I meant about her background. That work was how she got on the map to be a judge. I posted that info earlier.

 

[troubleman84]

:doh:

My head hurts... :mellow:

 

[EmmaJay]

I remember years back how there was a lot of shady info surfacing about Grace . Now finally the truth is out and all who think this nanny was all sweet and innocent will get with the real here and realize this whacko woman was anything but a good lady! There is the ABC7 tweet with the link to the depo snippet as well as the news and snippet today on HLN

Excerpt:

Paris Jackson Trashes Nanny Grace Rwaramba in Deposition
by EURpublisher02

June 19, 2013

*Paris Jackson spoke out at Michael Jackson’s wrongful-death trial Tuesday in Los Angeles—via a video testimony shot months before the 15-year-old was hospitalized for a suicide attempt.

In a deposition recorded on March 21, the late King of Pop’s daughter—who is currently recovering at a Los Angeles hospital—testified about former nanny Grace Rwaramba. Per CNN, the deposition was an attempt by AEG’s lawyers to counter testimony by former Jackson personal chef Kai Chase, who depicted Rwaramba as a nurturing figure to the children and claimed she “was the mother they knew.”

Paris, however, appeared to have a different take.

Source :http://www.eurweb.com/2013/06/paris-jackson-trashes-nanny-grace-rwaramba-in-deposition-watch/

 

[WhoIsIt89]

Don't really know what the Grace story has to do with the trial, I've always had my thoughts regarding Grace ever since she did that interview.


NVM, I see it's from October. The case man, boy I tell ya. This family, I just can't stop shaking my head at them. Why are they so bent on making Michael seem like some little boy, who couldn't handle his own business? Sure he was a kid at heart, but he's been in this business for so long, when it came to his business dealings, he wasn't to be messed with. This family are trying to paint him out as some individual who was so naive, and controllable and couldn't handle his own things, and it's making me sick.

 

[crillon]

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!

Paris appears to be very open and honest, but sadly she's being used as a pawn in a high stakes game imo. She should not have been put in this position--no one should hear testimony about private conversations Paris had with her father. I cannot imagine this is what Michael had in mind for his young daughter when he named his mother primary guardian. And, again, we have to ask--what does this even have to do with the central question of the trial--who hired Murray.

 

[Petrarose]

Now you know why Latoya was saying that Paris told her a lot of things. They were questioning these children to see if they could learn something to help their case.

Serves Chase right. She was the chef and should stick to things she knows about from her daily observations and experiences. In trying to help Katherine, her new employer, she made conclusions and relayed those conclusions in court as facts. That is why the defense whipped out the video to show her she was wrong. Interesting she only began working with them in 2012. I wonder why?

Jamba you had me laughing with that reprimand from the court. Gee she is not forceful, lacks authority, and her language makes her seem far from eloquent. Now I am beginning to understand that chaos in court and why all this stray information and witnesses entered this case.

I have to give her some credit though for throwing out all the other allegations. This shows that she could be efficient if she wants to. I wonder if the men are misbehaving because they see her as a weak female.

 

[ivy]

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 12m
Chase understood she was hired by Michael Jackson but was going to be paid by AEG Live.

 

[Ashtanga]

This whole thing about Grace will spin like crazy now. :doh: Obviously I only believe in the words of Paris and no one else. -_- I have no doubt that Grace loves and cared for as a mother of PPB. But after June 25 I created a bad feeling about Grace in relation to Michael :fear: .... I see that I'm right.

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.

If I were in the place of Kai I would talk directly with Michael when there was a timely opportunity -_- :fear: .... BUT she was only concerned to keep her job at the time. :fear:

 

[Petrarose]

^^Ok so we have Michael hiring another one of them. Let's see how long Chase remains the cook in that house.

She claims she did not tell about the vase because the police did not ask, so did Katherine ask her about a vase then. I mean how did the family know about a vase or that Chase had good information for them. Funny about her comment about the pre-birthday gift and then claiming that it was not a birthday gift and Katherine is a JW. I have seen old magazines with interviews in which Katherine received birthday gifts from Michael and also Janet, so Katherine takes gifts for her birthday.

I notice they used on cross some information I sent them, I wonder if they had it all the time? Anyway the end results is what I wanted.

 

[Petrarose]

I see she is claiming now that Michael had fear in his eyes. She never said that before when he died, so where did this come from? How about she saw him with the mask once, what was the importance of her saying that? Is she implying that he was so fearful that he wore a mask in the house?

 

[serendipity]

Why do some fans keep saying that the kids called Grace mother? This was in the tabloids, but never confirmed by any credible source. (And i have a very strong reason to suspect that she was behind those stories about marriage and kids calling her mom.)

Yes, Karen said this back in 2009-2010 on her old facebook page. Michael had told her he woke up when Grace crawled into his bed, it had freaked him out and he had been screaming so loud that security came into the room. She freaked him out with her voodoo stuff too. And Paris has said a few things about Grace on her online accounts and on tinychats.

And a few of those that I talk too that either spent a lot of time at Neverland or were around Michael has said that he didn´t fire people himself, very seldom he did this, others did it for him. Maybe that is accurate.

Thanks for confirming this. I definitely believe Paris/Michael's story about Grace. Creepy indeed.

 

[marebear]

I wish this whole thing would be over with.

 

[Petrarose]

I wish this whole thing would be over with.

Hopefully it will end soon. Didn't they question an addict expert today again, so it seems they have nothing much to offer and this charade is winding down. Unless they have some more addiction experts to put on again......

 

[Mechi]

The 'supervising' aspect to me is still interesting also... so forgive me to come back to this...
Could be the meeting they had with Murray and Michael... the supervising you usually do with an independent contractor is, that you oversee if the person is really doing the work you want the way you want it.
I mean it's difficult as there's only AEG ppl who can tell what went on. Michael can't say a word about it anymore. The Murray guy is a proven liar... and the rest of the possible witnesses do tell 'hearsay' or tell things others either do not remember cuz of memory loss and/or being drama queens.

I'll use the example of the dog handlers in the Oldies nursering home again (thanks bouee!) if you bear with me again:
If I'd see after some time it just doesn't work, like the oldies are not responding to the dogs or even more respond anxious and the dog handlers do not respond accordingly, or the dog handlers would acting disrespectfull with some ppl suffering dementia or any other reason I'd call them into a meeting and they would have to adapt to my wishes or I'd probably fire no matter who had the idea or insisted to me before to hire them.
That's to me are also the possibilities AEG had. As they were encouraging eachother in the aspect like: Let's tell him where his salery is coming from!
On the other hand if they just advanced the money to Michael (well you wouldn't say the salery thing then and honestly why including Murray in that meeting at all then? but that's maybe only my thinking) and Michael was satisfied with the Murray guys action their possibilies would have been close to nothing?!

To me that would be 'my supervision' aspect of an independent contractor in this?! but I might be wrong also And I'd assume that's why the 'infamous' meeting in Michaels home 5 days before his death was arranged for example.

However after this meeting Michaels performance improved and health seemed to have been better... the question is was everything possible for Michaels health really been done with the knowledge and possibilities AEG had... or was whatever missed or wrongly done or too lazy handled... that's up for the jury to decide I guess.

It's not really I'm on any side about this trial, it's just a poor try to understand what's really going on what was really going on causing Michaels death and why this trial was possible at all.

 

[crillon]

Hopefully it will end soon. Didn't they question an addict expert today again, so it seems they have nothing much to offer and this charade is winding down. Unless they have some more addiction experts to put on again......

So, this is where they're going...Putting on "experts" who never met Michael and are diagnosing an opioid addiction, despite the conclusion of the coroner. Hope the jury doesn't buy it. And, I suppose they're making the point that everyone "enabled" Michael?

 

[bluetopez]

Was Paris saying Grace would go into MJs bed or some doctor? What she said was confusing! But, I do find it interesting that a few yrs back Pearl Jr. who knows Grace said that Grace would go into MJs bed not sure if she said this on her twitter or her MJ is alive book? lol But, how weird that this has come up again. Pearl wanted MJ to be with Grace and said that they had something...SMH

I don't like Grace I do think she was obsessed with MJ and her place in his life! Especially if she went around telling Pearl JR. that kind of info. Which means Paris (if she meant MJ) is telling the truth about Grace! Which I don't doubt anyway and can't understand why the hell is she allowed back as the kids Nanny. Cause clearly Paris don't like her much and sure don't see her as a mother figure. I mean would anyone here call a person they see as a mother creepy?!

 

[jamba]

The 'supervising' aspect to me is still interesting also... so forgive me to come back to this...
Could be the meeting they had with Murray and Michael... the supervising you usually do with an independent contractor is, that you oversee if the person is really doing the work you want the way you want it.
I mean it's difficult as there's only AEG ppl who can tell what went on. Michael can't say a word about it anymore. The Murray guy is a proven liar... and the rest of the possible witnesses do tell 'hearsay' or tell things others either do not remember cuz of memory loss and/or being drama queens.

I'll use the example of the dog handlers in the Oldies nursering home again (thanks bouee!) if you bear with me again:
If I'd see after some time it just doesn't work, like the oldies are not responding to the dogs or even more respond anxious and the dog handlers do not respond accordingly, or the dog handlers would acting disrespectfull with some ppl suffering dementia or any other reason I'd call them into a meeting and they would have to adapt to my wishes or I'd probably fire no matter who had the idea or insisted to me before to hire them.
That's to me are also the possibilities AEG had. As they were encouraging eachother in the aspect like: Let's tell him where his salery is coming from!
On the other hand if they just advanced the money to Michael (well you wouldn't say the salery thing then and honestly why including Murray in that meeting at all then? but that's maybe only my thinking) and Michael was satisfied with the Murray guys action their possibilies would have been close to nothing?!

To me that would be 'my supervision' aspect of an independent contractor in this?! but I might be wrong also And I'd assume that's why the 'infamous' meeting in Michaels home 5 days before his death was arranged for example.

However after this meeting Michaels performance improved and health seemed to have been better... the question is was everything possible for Michaels health really been done with the knowledge and possibilities AEG had... or was whatever missed or wrongly done or too lazy handled... that's up for the jury to decide I guess.

It's not really I'm on any side about this trial, it's just a poor try to understand what's really going on what was really going on causing Michaels death and why this trial was possible at all.

About the dog scenario. Any dog that is introduced into a hospital, school, nursing home type setting has to be trained to be a 'support' dog, 'therapy' dog or 'guide' dog--specially trained to be docile, obedient, nonviolent, etc. These dogs go through training and are certified. So if the dog would injure anyone, it would probably be the company that brought the dog to the facility or the company that trained and certified the dog (IMO).

re what was going on with AEG and MJ I am wondering if AEG could have made it a condition for going forward with the tour that MJ would go to an independent doctor for an evaluation (medical and/or psychological--but probably a medical doctor would be most logical). Not that this hypothetical doctor would treat MJ but simply evaluate his physical condition. The only problem with this is that, as Ivy said, they were running out of time. The concerts were supposed to start in July. Also, would MJ have agreed and/or cooperated? And would the doctor have said, as the coroner did, this guy is basically healthy?? I think hindsight is affecting us all--this was a confusing time and there was pressure coming from various sides. MJ, if Kai is accurate, deteriorated dramatically in May. Was this the result of CM's 'treatment"--seems to be. She would notice it more than people who saw it evolving over time, as you get used to small, gradual changes more than sudden ones. But she was feeding him for 3 weeks--so did she notice any improvement?

very cute and poignant stories today about mj as dad, how well he loved and cared for them. i loved the story of the snail home with cocktail umbrellas--so cute. and all the animals in the house, such a far cry from the sterile no-pets world of calabasas.

Biq question--who canned the cook??

 

[AliCat]

"It came to a head in the chambers of Judge Yvette Palazuelos. She questioned the battling attorneys about alleged acts of rudeness on Monday. "Inappropriate gesturing" is what the judge called it, according to a transcript obtained by Eyewitness News.

The judge addressed Jackson attorney Brian Panish, "It's been brought to my attention that you have been gesturing something to Mr. Putnam."

AEG attorney, Marvin Putnam, said to Panish, "You've given me the finger twice."

Panish denied it, and redirected attention to an AEG lawyer, calling her uncivil, disruptive and attacking.

Putnam told the judge that the finger gesture happened twice and that there had been a practice of uncivil behavior for two months. Palazuelos ended the sidebar saying, "No gesturing please."

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/entertainment&id=9143880

Panish must be getting desperate to have to stoop so low to pull these shenanigans in the Court Room.

 

[jamba]

Now you know why Latoya was saying that Paris told her a lot of things. They were questioning these children to see if they could learn something to help their case.

Serves Chase right. She was the chef and should stick to things she knows about from her daily observations and experiences. In trying to help Katherine, her new employer, she made conclusions and relayed those conclusions in court as facts. That is why the defense whipped out the video to show her she was wrong. Interesting she only began working with them in 2012. I wonder why?

Jamba you had me laughing with that reprimand from the court. Gee she is not forceful, lacks authority, and her language makes her seem far from eloquent. Now I am beginning to understand that chaos in court and why all this stray information and witnesses entered this case.

I have to give her some credit though for throwing out all the other allegations. This shows that she could be efficient if she wants to. I wonder if the men are misbehaving because they see her as a weak female.

Precisely! That's it. I hope she starts to get it together asap, or this trial will run into next year and the jury will give HER the finger!

 

[Mechi]

About the dog scenario. Any dog that is introduced into a hospital, school, nursing home type setting has to be trained to be a 'support' dog, 'therapy' dog or 'guide' dog--specially trained to be docile, obedient, nonviolent, etc. These dogs go through training and are certified. So if the dog would injure anyone, it would probably be the company that brought the dog to the facility or the company that trained and certified the dog (IMO).

It's very sweet you say that and I certainly didn't want to critizise doggy handlers or the doggies but sorry wasn't really my point... I just constructed that example wildly theoretically in the try to show there could be supervising. And contrary to your opinion it is in Germany a fact that you have a partly responsibility if you hire independent contractors and let them work in your project. But thankfully there's always also insurances who do pay if you can prove you've done supervision (in this case for example it could be some kind of preparing-supervision in giving full information about the Oldies involved their health and also behavior probs to the dog handlers... just one example) as good as you could!

 

[jamba]

It's very sweet you say that and I certainly didn't want to critizise doggy handlers or the doggies but sorry wasn't really my point... I just constructed that example wildly theoretically in the try to show there could be supervising. And contrary to your opinion it is in Germany a fact that you have a partly responsibility if you hire independent contractors and let them work in your project. But thankfully there's always also insurances who do pay if you can prove you've done supervision (in this case for example it could be preparing supervision in giving full information about the Oldies involved their health and also behavior probs to the dog handlers... just one example) as good as you could!

Thanks, Mechi. If I am ever in Germany and hire an independent contractor (with or without a dog), I will keep that in mind.

 

[Tygger]

and? my point is still the same. she was fired by MAW and there's nothing to suggest "change in management in May" referred to AEG when AEG had been in the picture since late January. so as far as I'm concerned I don't see anything to suggest she was fired by AEG or even rehired by AEG (did she have a contract with them?) . I'm thinking AEG was advancing her salary as well.

ABC7 Court News ‏@ABC7Courts 12m
Chase understood she was hired by Michael Jackson but was going to be paid by AEG Live.

Looks like that was the change in management; she could now receive payment. laughs

Of course, the doctor believes as Chase did that Michael hired him and AEG would pay him (through an advance to Michael). However, in Chase's case, she was correct. She sued the estate and received payment.

She was not listed in the pre-production budget, AEG probably did not include an indemnity clause in her contract to protect themselves against her actions, AEG did not seek to have her salary protected by insurance, among other things AEG did in regards to the doctor.

edited to add: CA jury instructions clearly states an "or"

[Name of plaintiff] claims that [he/she] was harmed by [name of employee] and that [name of employer defendant] is responsible for that harm because [name of employer defendant] negligently [hired/ supervised/ [or] retained] [name of employee].

Give this instruction if the plaintiff alleges that the employer of an employee who caused harm was negligent in the hiring, supervision, or retention of the employee after actual or constructive notice of the employee’s unfitness. For instructions holding the employer vicariously liable (without fault) for the acts of the employee, see the Vicarious Responsibility series, CACI No. 3700 et seq.

edited to add 2: You can also check judge's ruling and see under "negligent hiring, supervision and training" she only addresses negligent hiring.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/128772581/aeg-live-final-order-2-27-2013

I appreciate that you verified that it is "or" and not "and" for all of us. Thank you.

Why do some fans keep saying that the kids called Grace mother? This was in the tabloids, but never confirmed by any credible source. (And i have a very strong reason to suspect that she was behind those stories about marriage and kids calling her mom.)

Serendipity, I realize I do not know where I originally heard this story of Grace being called mother so I appreciate your post. However, it is a bit difficult to understand Michael having a woman he did not trust around his children for so many years.

ABC7 Court News ‏@ABC7Courts
Chang: Do you know MJ created a foundation for her to work?
Chase: I've heard

Chase is referring to Grace. What is this about?

ABC7 Court News ‏@ABC7Courts
The form asked about criminal background, citations, financial information. Chase filled it out and gave it to Michael Amir.
ABC7 Court News ‏@ABC7Courts
Chase's resume was 4 pages long, including her experience, schooling, references.
She filled out AEG paperwork for working permit in the UK

Was the doctor filling out similar paperwork?

 

[bouee]

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"....

I'm not sure it was left uninsured on purpose, but I agree AEG did do a pretty poor job. RP said it was left to Tohme, so indirectly to Michael & Michael was responsible for all the costs if the shows didn't happen. So in theory there was no problem for AEG until the costs went over the limits (without formal approval) , and "myriads of lawsuits" appeared...
PG was still talking to the insurance broker in february, then we have nothing until end of april and end of may. After that AEG starts pressing for insurance again, but the broker couldn't find anything : Murray said Michal didn't allow his medical records to be released, and the broker said Michael would have to take a physical exam in London. So there was a gap, the shows were uninsured at that point (end of june).
On june 25th , PG was still pressing for insurance :

note : i don't know in which order these e mails were written, which one is 1st , which one is 2nd

Email from 6/25/09: Gongaware to Taylor : "If we don't get sickness coverage, we are dropping this policy" (ABC7)
Email from 6/25/09: Taylor to Gongaware : The consultation in London is critical. The doctor is holding the afternoon of the 6th July open at Harley St. But keep in mind the visit could take 2 hours plus (ABC7)

In his testimony, Pg said he was not that involved with insurance.... that's a partial lie, insurance became an issue in the last weeks/days.

--------

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 12m
Chase understood she was hired by Michael Jackson but was going to be paid by AEG Live.

Did she have a contract with AEG ?
How can we know from this if her salary was paid as an advance to Michael, or as a "production cost" on 95%/5% basis ?

--------

She claims she did not tell about the vase because the police did not ask, so did Katherine ask her about a vase then.

The vase info is true, RP confirmed it.
She said she thought at the time it was not relevant to what happened on june 25th.
RP MAY disagree with Kai Chase about the date. I say MAY, becasue of either the way it is reported or the questions were asked, the dates are not always clear. RP said it didn't happen in june 20th. I'm not sure Kai is talking about june 20th, i would need to read her testimony again.

---------

re what was going on with AEG and MJ I am wondering if AEG could have made it a condition for going forward with the tour that MJ would go to an independent doctor for an evaluation (medical and/or psychological--but probably a medical doctor would be most logical). Not that this hypothetical doctor would treat MJ but simply evaluate his physical condition. The only problem with this is that, as Ivy said, they were running out of time. The concerts were supposed to start in July. Also, would MJ have agreed and/or cooperated? And would the doctor have said, as the coroner did, this guy is basically healthy?? I think hindsight is affecting us all--this was a confusing time and there was pressure coming from various sides. MJ, if Kai is accurate, deteriorated dramatically in May. Was this the result of CM's 'treatment"--seems to be. She would notice it more than people who saw it evolving over time, as you get used to small, gradual changes more than sudden ones. But she was feeding him for 3 weeks--so did she notice any improvement?

The bolded would have ben a great idea, and very logical from Phillips given the info he had. The only logical decision IMO.
Would MJ have agreed to it ? Probably not, Phillips could have imposed it, or say it was for for insurance purposes.
Would that doctor have said that MJ was healthy : that week, I don't think so.

----------

Dr. Earley: I don't think there's sufficient evidence from the record reading to ascertain he was addicted to Propofol or benzodiazepine

That was almost funny. I hope he didn't charge too much for reading Murray's records. He must have charged an awful high amount for the time he spent trying to find them.
I don't get the point in bringing such an expert that can be so easily contradicted, & his theory was already contradicted during Murray's trial.

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

I am still interested to know how AEG were meant to supervise the doctor, on a practical level. I am not being funny, I am honestly not grasping it.
To supervise is to oversee someone's work.

You can supervise someone on 2 levels. For example a nurse :

- A head nurse can supervise the technical aspects of a nurse's work : how to set up an IV, how to make an injection, insert a catheter, etc..
- A hopsital manager can not do that, but they supervise the nurse working conditions : how many nurses for a given number of patients, what her duties are (they can different from a hospital to another), her salary .

Actually, Mechi's post explains it very well.
http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...ckson-vs-AEG?p=3849325&viewfull=1#post3849325

And I think it IS relevant to this trial, at least this is what the Jacksons are saying , so IMO, the jury will have to decide on that as well.

Thanks Ivy, I did read that but supervision is still a part of this trial and many people are discussing it here so I'm interested to know in what way could they, on a practical level, supervise Murray?

ETA As it relates to the trial.

I THINk that the jackson's arguments re supervision are

- Contract (indep contractor)
- delaying paying Murray
- meetings and pressuring Murray to get Michael to rehearsals
- possibly, it has not been brought up yet, the request for equipment.

----------

Serves Chase right. She was the chef and should stick to things she knows about from her daily observations and experiences. In trying to help Katherine, her new employer, she made conclusions and relayed those conclusions in court as facts. That is why the defense whipped out the video to show her she was wrong. Interesting she only began working with them in 2012. I wonder why?

I don't think she made conclusions (which obviously don't help Katherine's case), she stated what she saw. Just like RP says Michael and Tohme had an excellent relationship.
But that line of questionning about Grace was irrelevant, at least. It makes her testimony look like a mini Karen testimony in some ways, ie irrelevant .
But she did make several interesting points.
BUT Prince helping Michael to go upstairs ??? That is the most important contradiction/exaggeration, not Grace, IMO.

---------

ABC7 also has the video of Prince from deposition

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

This link doesn't show prince's deposition anypmore. So if any of you come across Prince's video again, please re post.