Latest on MJJC

Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Status
Not open for further replies.
^^ From Princes testimony:
Q do you know why you moved to Las Vegas?
A there was a house out in Vegas that my dad wanted to buy for us. Because we were traveling all the time, all of us, me and my brother and sister, we said we wanted a home to live in. And he saw this house that the royal family of Brunei had built, but they did not finish, so he was going to buy it from him. And that's primarily why Dr. Tohme was on the workforce, to get that house.

I was curious about the house he was going to buy from LV and did google search of it. Do you know if this one was the house Michael was going to buy or did he have other houses in his mind
http://www.hauteliving.com/2010/10/...yground-on-the-market-for-37-5-million/96912/
This article mentions MJ planning to buy it long before it went on sale.
 
I remember a thread about Michael looking for a house.I think it was pictures of Michael there.
I don´t know if it´s the same house,I just can recall it looked expensiv.
It was posted here at MJJC.
 
As to Ms. Seawright's testimony, I notice Mr. Panish is asking Ms. Seawright about background checks, but he is, thus far omitting the fact that Murray and Michael had a doctor/patient relationship 3 years prior to AEG coming into the picture.

Keeping in mind that Murray not only treated Michael in the past, he also treated Michael's 3 children in the past.

Maybe he'll address that later. If not, I'm guessing Mr. Putnam will bring it up during cross.
 
Found this on another board.

Taj took some documents from the Carlwood home

A note from Michael:
"Words of Blanket, my son, six years young. What's your favorite letters? Daddy. Mine is G for god and D for daddy, age six, Blanket."

Notes from Paris:
"Dear daddy, I love you so much, and I'm so glad I got a goodnight hug. Sleep well, I love you and goodnight. I'll se you tomorrow."

I'd like to remind you, blessing and cream, I'm mainly saying this to get a goodnight hug, I love you, sleep well, I'll see you tomorrow."
Click to expand...
 
MIST;3858787 said:
Michael got propofol to sleep on but still he called Ortega very early in the mornings.I don´t know how often he called but it seemed to be several times.It doesn´t seem like Michael got to bed early to "sleep" for 8 hours.
Sometimes it seems he was busy with things before lunch.

Perhaps it was when Murray wasn´t there otherwise I wonder why Michael didn´t "sleep" at that time when he had a doctor who could give him propofol.
Click to expand...


I read that Travis and Ortega knew MJ was a night owl and they were too. They had these night owl phone conversations which were productive b/c there were no distractions in the wee hours. But obviously they didn't see it as a major issue-- they themselves as night owls weren't at death's door b/c of being night owls or from not getting enough sleep b/c they stayed up too late.
 
While the woman apparently was opposed to the Jackson's lawsuit seeking billions of dollars in damages, AEG Live lawyer Marvin Putnam used the incident to suggest that the judge should crack down on Michael Jackson fans who wear Jackson shirts and carry signs of support for Katherine Jackson in the court hallway.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazuelos rejected Putnam's request, saying Jackson fans have free speech rights that she cannot limit.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous.

Question please: are there details to a denied motion to prevent portions of this current HR expert's testimony? It seems before testimony began, the defendant's lawyer tried to appeal the denied motion. The judge said there was "basis" for the this testimony which of course there is. (Another example of nothing being presented to support this trial's claim being incorrect.)

I am curious as to what the defendants wanted to exclude from this testimony.
 
jamba;3859321 said:
I read that Travis and Ortega knew MJ was a night owl and they were too. They had these night owl phone conversations which were productive b/c there were no distractions in the wee hours. But obviously they didn't see it as a major issue-- they themselves as night owls weren't at death's door b/c of being night owls or from not getting enough sleep b/c they stayed up too late.
Click to expand...

I don´t find it strange that they all were night owls But if Michael came home late around midnight and then talked to Ortega 3- 4 am, when did Murray give Michael propofol?Didn´t Michael say he wanted to sleep 8 hours?
 
Yes it's actually the plaintiffs who want a document struck from the record.

@mccartneyAP: AEG attorney Jessica Stebbins Bina asked Seawright about whether the EEOC now prohibits credit checks.

@mccartneyAP: Stebbins Bina showed the jury a printout from the EEOC website that she said showed the agency prohibited credit checks.

@mccartneyAP: Plaintiff’s attorney Brian Panish objected, and pointed out the printout doesn’t have a date on it. He said doc shouldn’t have been shown.

@mccartneyAP: Stebbins Bina acknowledged during the sidebar that she wasn't sure if the printout was a federal regulation, so she'll check on it tonight.

@mccartneyAP: Panish was extremely upset during the sidebar, saying Stebbins Bina and the judge erred by showing the printout to jury.

@mccartneyAP: He wanted the printout and comments about it made in front of the jury stricken from the record, but judge refused for now.
 
ivy said:
Actually I thought Karen Faye hurt the "losing weight" argument

Karen Faye : ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 1h
Putnam: Did you ever testify his work weight was 120 pounds?
Faye: Lisa Marie Presley gave me that information

"Lisa Marie Presley and I became friends and she told me MJ liked to be at 120 pounds," Faye said.
Click to expand...

Lisa Marie....
angfw5.gif
 
I googled

Prohibited Employment Policies/Practices - http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/

and under it

Credit Rating Or Economic Status - http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/inquiries_credit.cfm

which says

Pre-Employment Inquiries and Credit Rating or Economic Status
Inquiry into an applicant's current or past assets, liabilities, or credit rating, including bankruptcy or garnishment, refusal or cancellation of bonding, car ownership, rental or ownership of a house, length of residence at an address, charge accounts, furniture ownership, or bank accounts generally should be avoided because they tend to impact more adversely on minorities and females. Exceptions exist if the employer can show that such information is essential to the particular job in question.
 
Ummm... did TJ really say he didnt know about the case (AEG vs Jacksons) until about four months ago?? He answered a question about Kai Chase and said he had to do alot of legalwork to get her back, had no idea about a pending lawsuit in july 2012 and didnt know about the case until recently.

Katherine sued AEG live in september 2010.

So how is that possible what TJ said?
 
passy001 said:
Murder requires intent something the prosecution could not prove. remember the law is about what you can prove. not what is right or wrong. Murray had no motive to kill a man who was supposed to pay him 150k per month for a couple of years. so even if the prosecution went the murder route, the jury would have sided with the defense unanimously.
Click to expand...

No. First degree murder in California is the intent to do the act, not intent to kill.

LastTear said:
@Tygger

According to the contract Murray was to treat Michael for general care. General care can also mean sleep issues, having difficulty after a performance when adrenaline is running high. I don't believe anyone knew he was hired to 'treat' a chronic sleep disorder.

Again for me it comes down to Murray totally ignoring his ethics and being arrogant and negligent in the care of his patient.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Michael wanted someone that specialized in anesthesia and the cardiologist did not.

LastTear said:
Yes it's actually the plaintiffs who want a document struck from the record.
Click to expand...

Thank you but, that is not what I was referring to. It was a pre-trial motion the defense was denied that the defense tried to appeal before the expert's testimony began.

ivy said:
I googled
Click to expand...

Does it state when this went into effect?

Interesting... the doctor had three social security numbers!
 
Tygger;3859467 said:
Does it state when this went into effect?
Click to expand...

As you can see at the links - no.

I would say around 2010 (based on googling) - but cannot be sure . There are also discussions going back to 2007 (http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/meetings/archive/5-16-07/klein.html) and examples dating back 1970s.

The 2007 article quotes credit checks can result in discrimination and in the case of a complaint the employer should provide a reasoning for such credit check.

(a) The Legal Standard

Once the plaintiff “demonstrates that a respondent uses a particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact on the basis of race,” it is the defendant’s burden of proof to “demonstrate that the challenged practice is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.” This standard was codified into Title VII but originated from Griggs v. Duke Power Co., which rejected two job requirements because “neither . . . is shown to bear a demonstrable relationship to successful performance of the jobs for which it was used. Both were adopted . . . without meaningful study of their relationship to job-performance ability.” The Court later fleshed out this requirement in Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody: “Job relatedness cannot be proved through vague and unsubstantiated hearsay,” but instead must be shown by a study “validating” the use of the job requirement as a criterion for the specific job in question.In Albemarle, the employer’s study purported to validate the test for only three of the eight jobs for which it was used, which was insufficient because “[a] test may be used in jobs other than those for which it has been professionally validated only if there are 'no significant differences' between the studied and unstudied jobs.” Thus, to defend a practice of employee credit checks, an employer would have to prove that it undertook a “meaningful study” that “validates” that credit record “bear a demonstrable relationship to successful performance” – a standard courts have been applying strictly in post1991 cases.

so even though it might not be prohibited in 2009, after 1991 it would require - in this instance - AEG to be able to show that a good credit / bad credit would be a sign of a good doctor / bad doctor.

and it goes back to 1970s

In the 1970s, the EEOC issued two decisions finding that the use of credit checks violates Title VII disparate impact provisions, if the credit checks are not justified by a legitimate business necessity.42 In the first case, EEOC Decision No. 72-427, an African-American applicant was not hired as a computer operator by a bank, at least partially because of his marginally poor credit record. 43 Although the Commission observed that the record was silent concerning the proportion of relatively poor credit records among African-American and White individuals residing within the area from which the bank drew its workforce, it noted that according to the 1967 Census Bureau figures 35.4 percent of the total number of ... non-White persons in the United States were below the poverty level, as compared with 10.3 percent of the total number ... of White persons. Inferring that the bank's credit record policy would have a foreseeably disproportionate impact upon African-Americans as a class, the Commission held that such a practice discriminated on the basis of race within the meaning of Title VII and, thus, was unlawful absent a showing by the bank that such a policy was required by business necessity.

Similarly, in EEOC Decision No. 74-2, the Commission held that an employer's inquiry into a job applicant's financial status, including disclosure of past-due loans, would have a foreseeable disproportionate adverse impact upon the employment opportunities of minorities as a class and, thus, violated Title VII absent a showing of business justification. The EEOC again inferred from the relevant Census Bureau statistics that minorities are significantly over-represented among low-income groups and that they are more likely to suffer financial difficulties than Caucasians.

another 2007 document - http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/factemployment_procedures.html

Does the employer use a particular employment practice that has a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin? For example, if an employer requires that all applicants pass a physical agility test, does the test disproportionately screen out women? Determining whether a test or other selection procedure has a disparate impact on a particular group ordinarily requires a statistical analysis.
If the selection procedure has a disparate impact based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, can the employer show that the selection procedure is job-related and consistent with business necessity? An employer can meet this standard by showing that it is necessary to the safe and efficient performance of the job. The challenged policy or practice should therefore be associated with the skills needed to perform the job successfully. In contrast to a general measurement of applicants’ or employees’ skills, the challenged policy or practice must evaluate an individual’s skills as related to the particular job in question.
If the employer shows that the selection procedure is job-related and consistent with business necessity, can the person challenging the selection procedure demonstrate that there is a less discriminatory alternative available? For example, is another test available that would be equally effective in predicting job performance but would not disproportionately exclude the protected group?

State based laws also needs to be examined..

Seven states have passed legislation limiting employers’ capacity to check credit reports of interviewees unless the information is directly related to the job’s duties. Those states are California, Connecticut, Maryland, Hawaii, Illinois, Oregon, and Washington.

There's even an attempt in Congress

Congress is also attempting to curtail the practice of employment credit checks. In July 2009, the Equal Employment for All Act (H.R. 3149) was introduced in Congress. This proposed legislation would amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to prohibit a current or prospective employer from using a consumer report or an investigative consumer report, or causing a report to be procured, for either employment purposes or for taking an adverse employment action if the report contains information that bears upon the person’s creditworthiness, credit standing, or credit capacity. The proposed legislation provides exceptions to this prohibition where: (1) national security or Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation clearance is required; (2) a state or local government agency otherwise requires use of a consumer report; or (3) the applicant or employee serves or would serve in a supervisory, managerial, professional or executive position with a financial institution. The legislation, however, has met substantial opposition from business and is currently stalled in committee.
 
ivy said:
As you can see at the links - no.

I would say around 2010 (based on googling) - but cannot be sure . There are also discussions going back to 2007 (http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/meetings/archive/5-16-07/klein.html) and examples dating back 1970s.
Click to expand...

The defense lawyer said she would research this and she will come back with the results tomorrow.

Adding:

Ivy, from the ABC7 tweets, it looks as if the defense lawyer pulled the same information as you. I agree with Panish; this should not be allowed as evidence. Regardless of date, it is only a guideline, not a rule, policy, or regulation.
 
Last edited:

Tomorrow Jackson with have their addiction specialist Dr. Sidney Schnoll testifying his opinion of MJ being a drug addict :(

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 1h
Judge adjourned court for the day. Jurors ordered back tomorrow at 10:00 am PT. Seawright to be on the stand again.

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 1h
Dr. Sidney Schnoll, addiction specialist, is also scheduled for tomorrow. He will talk about MJ's prescription drug dependency


Just passing on some tid bits to add to KF Testimony that MJ being cold and wearing a blanket caused her huge concerns acting like it was odd behaviour on his part. Seems according to those who worked with him .. MJ was ALWAYS cold and ALWAYS required quartz heaters even in the recording studios


Brad Sundberg's 'In the Studio with MJ' Tour was June 29th. Brad was with MJ for the recording of Bad, Dangerous, HIStory albums. While relating stories about about his time with Michael, Brad said MJ was ALWAYS COLD and needed quartz heaters -... He said they always had to have the quartz heaters on in the studio for Michael. He also liked to have hot water, which they would heat in the microwave.

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...ackson/page3?p=3859291&viewfull=1#post3859291
Click to expand...

We could check his FB to see if he ever related that story on there also so we have a direct quote


Brad Sunbergs Facebook.
 
qbee said:

Tomorrow Jackson with have their addiction specialist Dr. Sidney Schnoll testifying his opinion of MJ being a drug addict :(

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 1h
Judge adjourned court for the day. Jurors ordered back tomorrow at 10:00 am PT. Seawright to be on the stand again.

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 1h
Dr. Sidney Schnoll, addiction specialist, is also scheduled for tomorrow. He will talk about MJ's prescription drug dependency
Expand
Click to expand...

:(




Oh God ... give us strength! :pray: Here we go again..... :cry: *big sigh*
 
Why the jackson family allowing ppl to say mj was a drug addict?!!!!! damn they just dont give a ish seriously
 
qbee said:

Tomorrow Jackson with have their addiction specialist Dr. Sidney Schnoll testifying his opinion of MJ being a drug addict :(

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 1h
Judge adjourned court for the day. Jurors ordered back tomorrow at 10:00 am PT. Seawright to be on the stand again.

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 1h
Dr. Sidney Schnoll, addiction specialist, is also scheduled for tomorrow. He will talk about MJ's prescription drug dependency


Just passing on some tid bits to add to KF Testimony that MJ being cold and wearing a blanket caused her huge concerns acting like it was odd behaviour on his part. Seems according to those who worked with him .. MJ was ALWAYS cold and ALWAYS required quartz heaters even in the recording studios




We could check his FB to see if he ever related that story on there also so we have a direct quote


Brad Sunbergs Facebook.
Click to expand...

I have Brad's email if you need it. Yes, he said in the Seminar that MJ was always cold and had to have the quartz heaters.
 
Vici said:
Found this on another board.
Taj took some documents from the Carlwood home
Click to expand...

He wasn't the only Jackson who run to house to search "things" after Michael passed
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 27 Jun
Bina: You didn't go to Carolwood house?
TJ: Not before MJ died

I can imagine the scenary at house, all Jacksons running like headless chickes around the house looking for "things".

Vici said:
Ummm... did TJ really say he didnt know about the case (AEG vs Jacksons) until about four months ago?? He answered a question about Kai Chase and said he had to do alot of legalwork to get her back, had no idea about a pending lawsuit in july 2012 and didnt know about the case until recently.
Katherine sued AEG live in september 2010.

So how is that possible what TJ said?
Click to expand...

I read his testimony from ABC7 courts twitter, but I didn't see anything him not knowing about the case?
Although it could be posseble that he said something like that as he testified that he didn't know how he got tickets to the Lakers game, but in his deposition he said that he thanked Randy P for tickets.

What worried me about Taj's testimony was this bit:
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 27 Jun
Taj became the person in charge of MJ's storage and belongings.
:bugeyed


qbee said:
Tomorrow Jackson with have their addiction specialist [/COLOR]Dr. Sidney Schnoll testifying his opinion of MJ being a drug addict :(

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 1h
Dr. Sidney Schnoll, addiction specialist, is also scheduled for tomorrow. He will talk about MJ's prescription drug dependency


Just passing on some tid bits to add to KF Testimony that MJ being cold and wearing a blanket caused her huge concerns acting like it was odd behaviour on his part. Seems according to those who worked with him .. MJ was ALWAYS cold and ALWAYS required quartz heaters even in the recording studios
Click to expand...


"TJ said he didn't believe MJ had a substance abuse problem, never saw him take pills."
Granny has some experts testifying that Michael indeed had substance abuse problem :no:

About Michael being constantly cold. Prince testified that the fireplaces @ Neverland were always on, and fireplaces in Carolwood were on too, so I think Michael just had bad blood circulation and was cold all the time.


8701girl said:
Why the jackson family allowing ppl to say mj was a drug addict?!!!!! damn they just dont give a ish seriously
Click to expand...

For $ 40 billion, they would say anything.
 
Tygger said:
No. First degree murder in California is the intent to do the act, not intent to kill.
Click to expand...

It's a shame there wasn't a higher sentence based on breach of trust, abuse of position. Those charges here in the UK can triple a sentence.

I disagree. Michael wanted someone that specialized in anesthesia and the cardiologist did not.
Click to expand...

Yes, Michael did want that. So why did he chose Murray?

Thank you but, that is not what I was referring to. It was a pre-trial motion the defense was denied that the defense tried to appeal before the expert's testimony began.
Click to expand...

Oh sorry, I had just seen those tweets coming in and read your question, so I thought that was it. :)
 
Bubs said:
I read his testimony from ABC7 courts twitter, but I didn't see anything him not knowing about the case?
Click to expand...

I read it from a summary on another board. It said TJ 'had to do a lot of legalwork to get Kai back, had no information about a pending lawsuit in july 2012 when she was hired and had no idea about the AEG lawsuit until 4 months ago".
 
Vici said:
I read it from a summary on another board. It said TJ 'had to do a lot of legalwork to get Kai back, had no information about a pending lawsuit in july 2012 when she was hired and had no idea about the AEG lawsuit until 4 months ago".
Click to expand...

Ok thanks. As for being member of Jackson family and not being aware of lawsuit is blunt lie:smilerolleyes:
Ha cannot seriously say that he didn't know about this lawsuit, considering he was there during granny-napping, Randy's letter to the executors (which included accusations towards AEG too), and most defenitely he wasn't living in deserted island which would explain his claim that he didn't know about lawsuit:)

I have some serious doubts as who was the person who wrote the summary that you read, I think I know who:)
It is just too unbelievable from TJ to say he didn't know about trial, dispite being called as witness, so I cast my doubt to the person who wrote summary.
 
When reading over the FBI files on Michael Jackson, I read how Michael was 5' 9" and weighed 120 pounds, in the 1980's, his drivers license info.

At time of death, Michael Jackson weighed 136 pounds.

Now I wonder why this became such a focal point during this trial. Was Michael Jackson's bones protruding when he was thinner in his lifetime? This confusion about his weight actually never got cleared up, just became a focal point that no one was looking after Michael Jackson, not even his own mother, who did see Michael before he died, but blames AEG Live for all of Michael's problems. So confusing, unless the true motive is just about money!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top