Have the family actually shown any evidence in relation to what the case is actually about ie contract law and who hired murray. have to say im not following the case. only came here after i was told jr was on the stand
Nice to see you here Elusive
...pfff .... looong story .
-they have shown Murray's contract was an AEG-Murray contract (Michael was not a party to it, but had to sign it to make it valid), Michael or his lawyers were never informed of the contract, that Murray had an independant contractor contract like other tour employees, was budgeted on the tour cost (which would have been paid back by Michael on 95% basis if the shows happened, so AEG would have paid 5% of his salary, 100% on Michael if the shows did not happen-But Murray's contract said it would be 100% on Michae)l. They showed that AEG should and could have made a cash advance to Michael instead of entering into a contract with the doctor. For example, like all other personnal employees, like Kai Chase, housekeepers, security, who did not have a contract with AEG and were paid by Michael, out of a cash advance.
-there a e mail form may 6 I think, from gongaware to MAW, were Pg confirms the deal with Murray is done, another mail where Pg says Murray would be full time on tour by may 15th, and the first draft of the Murray contract was sent on june 15th to Murray, the last draft of the contract was sent to Murray on june 23rd, so Michael did not have the time to sign it/see it, AEG claims that since it was unexecuted (ie not signed by AEG & Michael), it was not valid, therefore Murray was not hired.
-they showed that AEG was treating Murray as a tour employee (he was involved in at least 3 meetings) and that AEG directly or indirectly pressured Murray. (by having a contract with him, delaying signature and payment, and making it clear to Murray that Michael would be in trouble if he didn't show up for rehearsals, & murray's contract would have been terminated if the shows didn't happen)
-they showed that Michael's health was declining under Murray's care, and that AEG knew it.
-they showed that a background check would have shown that Murray had financial problems, and they showed that Murray had been suspended from 1 or 2 hospitals before (I don't think this last info was accessible to AEG)
-AEG have not started their case yet, but a few arguments in their favor : Murray started to work at Carolwood in april, though not full time, the contract started on may 1st. Michael was paying Murray through the kids because AEG was not (because the contract was not executed) & Murray did not accept money from Michael. Murray was in contact with AEG, asking for payments since he started to work on 1st may, at least officially, but AEG's accountant refused because the contract was not signed.
Other tour employees were in the same situation (not paid), but their contracts did not require Michael's signature, they were paid after Michael died.
-AEg says they did not do background checks on Murray, because that's not their policy, and Murray was recommened by Michael, he was his family doctor.
-Jacksons show that the tour costs went well over the agreed limit, and AEG had no signature for that, they had no signature for the 19 extra shows (they say they had an oral agreement from Tohme & Michael), that the shows were not insured for sickness on june 25th. (AEG said Tohme was supposed to do it, but he was fired)
Other posters may think of other things, that's all i can think of for now.
------
Other interesting e mails :
Timm Wooley to Murray, about his "work conditions" and equipment, dated may 28th.
http://www.psblaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Exhibit-177-WOOLLEY-5646.pdf
Karen's contract , quite differnt from Murray's IMO. from other e mails, it looks like kathy jorrie is not AEG, it looks like she's from another lawfirm.
http://www.psblaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Exhibit-8651.pdf
Emails from Branca saying michael should not sign anything that either him or Joel katz have not seen first. It's a response to Phillips account from the june 20th meeting, where he mentions stuff related to the jacksons and allgood : (Branca answers twice : 1st answer on page 1- second answer, about Allgood and jacksons, on page 4).
http://www.psblaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Exhibit-304-JB-16-21.pdf