Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

[bouee]

You need to look to stuff in the order they happened

AEG wanted to say Katherine did not sue Murray and / or Murray wasn't a defendant. Judge said no, you can't say that, you can only ask Katherine about her motives for filing a case against AEG but you can also come up with a verdict form which lists Murray among the responsible parties and let jury determine who has how much responsibility in Michael's death.

The rest is strategy. Yes the judge will finalize the verdict forms based on arguments from both sides. Obviously Jacksons would want to argue Murray's fault is AEG's fault as AEG hired Murray (based on peculiar risk and whatever theories). AEG came up with a verdict form that did not list Murray in the percentages section (more about this below). Why? Simple strategy IMO. Not only that's against Jacksons claims , they might also be hoping that the judge finds a middle ground and lists everyone separately.

again for some reason people look to this lawsuit (and others) as lawsuits are based on fairness. No they aren't. It's all about what you can prove, what you can disprove and what is a better strategy.

now a point: I don't think AEG omitted Murray. Now look to this part


10. Did Conrad Murray's unfitness or incompetence harm Michael Jackson?

Yes / No

If you answered no stop, if you answered yes go on to question 11

11. Was any of the defendants negligence in hiring Conrad Murray a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs harm?

AEG Live Yes/No
AEG Live Productions Yes / No
Gongaware Yes/No
Phillips Yes/No

If you answered no stop, if you answered yes go on to question 12

12. Was Katherine Jackson dependent on Michael Jackson for the necessities of her life?

Yes / No

If you answered no, you must not award any damages for losses suffered by Katherine Jackson. you may still award damages to the remaining plaintiffs. If you said yes go on to question 13.

13. What do you find to be the total amount of damages , if any, suffered by plaintiffs?

If you answered $0 stop, otherwise go to question 14.

If you reached to this section you have determined one or more of the defendants is responsible for Michael Jackson's death. In this section you will determine whether any other persons are responsible for Michael Jackson's death and to what extent. Do not reduce the amount of damages you awarded in question 13 to account for any percentage of fault you award to other parties. Any needed reductions will be done by the court

14. Was Michael Jackson's negligence or wrongful conduct a substantial factor in causing his death?

Yes / No

Please go on question 15.

15. Was Katherine Jackson's negligence or wrongful conduct a substantial factor in causing Michael Jackson's death?

Yes / No

Please go on question 16.

16. Please identify the percentage of the total negligence and fault for Michael Jackson's death was due to conduct of Michael Jackson, Katherine Jackson and each defendant you answered yes in question 11. The percentages must add to 100%.

Michael Jackson ____%
Katherine Jackson____%
AEG Live ________%
AEG Live Productions____%
Gongaware _______%
Phillips _________%

I think Mechi explained way better than me what I meant. It's the bolded that I'm talking about, the final allocation of responsability. i said their strategy makes no sense to me, because it's too risky to leave Murray out of the final allocation.

If the jury thinks like Mechi and me, they will divide Murray's resposability on AEG- and even though I have problems attributing responsability to Michael for the same reasons as Mechi- question of dignity and he trusted a doctor, he was a patient - I think a jury probably would allocate something there.

So yes it's a strategy on AEG's part, or their lawyers, but I'm not sure it's that related to the timeline, or the jackson's or judge decision. I think it's related to what happened in june, and Michael's health declining under Murray's care, and AEG (Phillips) reaction to those events.

Imagine if those june events never happened : Michael was fine and suddenly Murray kills him. No warning signs at all. Then AEG would take the easy way, and blame Murray. That's easy , he's already been convicted. That's what I thought would happen at the beginning of the trial.
They can't , so they are stuck in this blame Michael / minimise Murray's role stragegy- at least that what it seems so far- because of the situation , because of the june events and Phillips's bad reaction to those events.

The problem is, for me, it goes against common sense. The jury could wonder about that.

EDIT :
about this :

10. Did Conrad Murray's unfitness or incompetence harm Michael Jackson?

Yes / No

AEG would want the jury to answer "no" to this question, if not, it wouldn't be there. Or at least say that Murray was led to be negligent partly by Michael.

 

[bouee]

I suspect you never had a stressful job or were involved in big project which completion has to meet deadline. I will tell you something: many of my employees are screaming "you are going to kill me". I yell a lot when the deadline is close to make people work harder. They have choice, they can quick any time if they don't like the job. I'm hiring an adult, talented and creative people and I demand full dedication, responsibility and honesty from them. So far no one took me to the court for my behavior at work. We all cry a lot because of exhaustion and stress but in the end we usually cry happy tears. It was the same in relationship between Michael and AEG. In every field it takes "blood, sweat and tears" if you want achieve something great. And we all are "killing" each other because we are ambitious and driven.
However nobody ever is responsible for the action of people during their private time in their private quarters. Blaiming AEG for Murray's and Michael's activities " after hours" in Michael's private quarters is the most stupid thing in this terrible tragedy.

I have a question : where - I mean which country- do you work ?

We might have a cultural difference here, that could possibly explain - in part at least- why we react differently about the facts that are presented in this trial.

For me - French background where employees are rather protected by the law & and a rather extensive public social welfare system- yelling at employees to get them to work happens, but could very very very esaily get you fired, and depending on "what" you yell, land you in court. It's generally not really accepted, especially with the younger generation.

Some people think yelling and pressure work- it does sometimes- but from my personal experience you will get much better results if you know how to manage a group without yelling and too much pressure. Studies have shown that relaxed employees work more and are more efficient than stressed employees, and you have less sick leaves, less turnover.

From my personnal experience- I've had stressful jobs with deadlines, pressure, etc-- if the pressure is too strong the result is not good, it's more efficient to relax things a bit.

I would think that it's especially true for artists, because their jobs is competitive by nature : if they're not good, they don't work at all.

The thing is that AEG's option was to pull the plug. MJ already had a doctor of his choice that was working with him and he was getting worse. If AEG had insisted on him getting a doctor for him, then they still would have been in trouble. Promoters should not be choosing a person's physician. So the plug should have been pulled. Whether MJ wanted it to be or not. That was their option.

If they had been completely insured they could have postponed or cancelled the shows, but they were not completely insured at that point, and production costs had exceeded the agreed limits, they had no signature for that, and Michael had lawsuits against him coming in from everywhere, and Ortega said he could have quit the show.

Another option would have been imposing a second medical opinion, as Ortega suggested or some poeple on this board suggested also. Maybe Michael would have kept Murray, or refused to see another doctor, maybe not, but AEG could not be held responsible for that. They would have done what they could. And I believe at that point, end of june, they were in a position to impose that. Given the circumstances, nobody would have blamed them IMO.

Another option : pull the plug on Murray, refuse to have anything to do with him and let Michael deal with him.


----

re "they're killing me" : I agree with Qbee, I don't think he meant that literally. I think he meant that they overworked him and/or put too much pressure. I think he was just expressing a disagreement.

 

[Bubs]

If you can get all these points from her tiny testimony can you imagine what else you will find after Monday. Hopefully she really stays on the stand this time. Notice first Michael looked OK, but then later he was thin, but he was dressed in Jacket and she did not notice. Notice the contradiction there. If he was dressed in jacket and she did not notice, how she knew he was thin.

If she stays all day, my thoughts of it is going to be mile long
I missed that contradiction, but I think there is more of those coming.

I suspect you never had a stressful job or were involved in big project which completion has to meet deadline. I will tell you something: many of my employees are screaming "you are going to kill me". I yell a lot when the deadline is close to make people work harder. They have choice, they can quick any time if they don't like the job. I'm hiring an adult, talented and creative people and I demand full dedication, responsibility and honesty from them. So far no one took me to the court for my behavior at work. We all cry a lot because of exhaustion and stress but in the end we usually cry happy tears. It was the same in relationship between Michael and AEG. In every field it takes "blood, sweat and tears" if you want achieve something great. And we all are "killing" each other because we are ambitious and driven.
However nobody ever is responsible for the action of people during their private time in their private quarters. Blaiming AEG for Murray's and Michael's activities " after hours" in Michael's private quarters is the most stupid thing in this terrible tragedy.

I agree with you. AEG advanced already $30 million for this project and they needed to see that MJ can deliver his part of the bargain, thus reguest to appear rehearsals and show them that he is seriously committed to do his share. I don't think they needed to see Michael rehearsing songs and dancing as much, but as Kenny said that TII was going to include new things that MJ wanted to put in his shows, they needed Michael there to test those new things. It would require awful lot of faith from AEG to blindly trust the ideas that Michael wanted to his show, would work in real situation and in real show, and I think that was the reason they wanted Mj there. If what happen to MJ happened to Justin B and trial was between AEG vs JB family, I believe some people would be saying "who does he think he is", or something similar. So I do believe when you sign a contract, you need to do your part, no matter if the other party happens to be MJ. There shouldn't be different rules for MJ and different for others.

That is the thing. It is the most ridiculous claim that AEG knew that Muarry was giving Michael prof each night or that they should have known. Who here knows what I did last night in my room, or the night before, or every night for the last 6 weeks? Even if I came here tomorrow and started writing sentences that made you think I was going crazy, you still would not know what I did last night or the other nights in my room. Even if I tell you I see a dr regularly, you still will not know what I did last night. What is happening is that everyone of those who claim AEG should have known what Muarry was doing, is using hindsight. Even Panish in some of his "Red Flag" examples uses hindsight

I agree.

The thing is that AEG's option was to pull the plug. MJ already had a doctor of his choice that was working with him and he was getting worse. If AEG had insisted on him getting a doctor for him, then they still would have been in trouble. Promoters should not be choosing a person's physician. So the plug should have been pulled. Whether MJ wanted it to be or not. That was their option.

I just wanted to comment that pulling a plug whether MJ wanted or not. Wasn't there an contract that required both parties agree pulling the plug on TII, MJ?

 

[passy001]

I think Mechi explained way better than me what I meant. It's the bolded that I'm talking about, the final allocation of responsability. i said their strategy makes no sense to me, because it's too risky to leave Murray out of the final allocation.

I'm also scratching my head. Hopefully we'll know as they present their case next week.

 

[Moonwalker.Fan]

[h=1]AEG Live Planned a Massive Michael Jackson World Tour, Documents Reveal[/h]
Documents displayed for a jury Wednesday showed the promoter of Michael Jackson's ill-fated comeback concerts had contemplated a worldwide tour for the entertainer in the year before his death.


The documents prepared by AEG Live LLC envisioned 186 shows, with Jackson earning $132 million for his performances - far less than the $835 million that an accountant who previously testified for the Jackson family had projected the singer would pocket from 260 shows around the globe.


The company's plans and calculations were presented to jurors hearing a negligent hiring lawsuit filed by Katherine Jackson against AEG Live. Katherine Jackson's lawyers used the tour schedule to show the company had plans to mount an international comeback for the entertainer and that their expert's assertions were supported by AEG's own plans.


The AEG Live figures were intended to counter the previous estimate of Jackson's earning power prepared by certified public accountant Arthur Erk.
Erk had said Jackson could have earned more than $1 billion if merchandise sales, endorsement deals and the creation of a Las Vegas show were included in his take.
However, a lawyer for AEG Live got Erk to concede Tuesday that his projections were not based on historical figures of Jackson's earnings or spending.


The touring schedule drafted by AEG Live in September 2008 included shows in Europe, India, Australia and the United States. It was prepared by a top AEG Live executive trying to coax Jackson back on stage for the first time in more than a decade.


Jackson eventually agreed to do a series of concerts in London's O2 Arena. He died in June 2009 while rehearsals were underway for the "This Is It" shows.


His last tour had been in 1997, but the singer was scheduled to perform 50 shows in London beginning in July 2009. Jackson had not agreed to perform shows in any other countries.


Jackson died of an overdose of the anesthetic propofol administered by a doctor in June 2009.
His mother claims AEG Live failed to properly investigate the doctor who was later convicted of involuntary manslaughter.
A jury of six men and six women is hearing the lawsuit and would consider possible damages if AEG is found liable.
The company denies it hired the doctor or bears any responsibility for the superstar's death.


AEG Live projected that Jackson would earn between $22 million and $30.7 million for the London "This Is It" shows. The singer did not have any sponsorship or endorsement deals for performances.


Jurors also watched a clips from deposition testimony by Jackson's daughter Paris, who said her father told her that he didn't plan to perform after the London shows but did intend to take his children on a worldwide tour.

"He still had a lot of music that he was still working on, but he kind of needed to relax," Paris Jackson said.

http://www.billboard.com/biz/articl...-massive-michael-jackson-world-tour-documents

 

[Petrarose]

^Well, that bullshiit Wade Robson did coincided with that statement AEG made if that lawsuit didn't stop the things would get ugly. Also what a "coincidence" The Mirror, Sunday People which are AEG supporters came up with the fake FBI files.

This part above^^ do you mean those incidents have something to do with AEG saying things will get ugly? I did not understand your point there.

Bubs after Ortega testified, it was shown that he was the one who made the comment about pulling the plug. We need to check back to see if others said this too, since I can't remember if Randy said that as well, but I do remember reading Ortega did.

Moonwalker did you see any other reports that show what parts in Erk's statement caused his figures to be inflated. I guess one of them is the fact that he added more shows, but did Erk add extra merchandising deals or other facts that had nothing to do with AEG, to cause his big figure.

I know the media is so happy to show that Michael would not earn such a huge amount. They like the idea that he is poor, so they will give more credence to AEG figures.

 

[ivy]

as for the verdict forms I just want to remind that what we see is the first drafts from both sides and we have no idea about what the final version will be like

 

[gerryevans]

If they had been completely insured they could have postponed or cancelled the shows, but they were not completely insured at that point, and production costs had exceeded the agreed limits, they had no signature for that, and Michael had lawsuits against him coming in from everywhere, and Ortega said he could have quit the show.

Another option would have been imposing a second medical opinion, as Ortega suggested or some poeple on this board suggested also. Maybe Michael would have kept Murray, or refused to see another doctor, maybe not, but AEG could not be held responsible for that. They would have done what they could. And I believe at that point, end of june, they were in a position to impose that. Given the circumstances, nobody would have blamed them IMO.

Another option : pull the plug on Murray, refuse to have anything to do with him and let Michael deal with him.

True, they weren't completely insured. They hadn't had the chance to get completely insured. MJ was killed before anything could be completed, including determining whether or not Murray was the CAUSE of MJ's decline. So it would have been premature for them to postpone the show, cancel the show, and even stop the process with Murray by this time.

But if they were going to take the PREMATURE route, they would have pulled the plug which was my response to the poster who was saying AEG saw MJ was not well, suggesting IMO that the June 20th meeting was not sufficient on AEG's part, that something more should have been done. Well, the something as even you said, was to postpone or cancel the shows, which is the same thing as pulling the plug to me. Those were the options. I personally do NOT feel either should have been done by the 20th. I believe MJ DESERVED the chance to proceed as did happen, and it's logical to me that they would have given Murray that chance as well, because they did not know what he was doing, or what MJ's actual problem was.

I just wanted to comment that pulling a plug whether MJ wanted or not. Wasn't there an contract that required both parties agree pulling the plug on TII, MJ?

True, they could not just cancel TII without MJ's okay, but MJ is apparently taken out of the equation when it comes to this concert. What he said and who he wanted should have become irrelevant at some point from what I'm gathering. So it was all on AEG by the 20th apparently to do something more proactive, so cancelling it is what they could have at least said they were going to do. Wonder how MJ would have slept after that?

 

[ivy]

But if they were going to take the PREMATURE route, they would have pulled the plug which was my response to the poster who was saying AEG saw MJ was not well, suggesting IMO that the June 20th meeting was not sufficient on AEG's part, that something more should have been done. Well, the something as even you said, was to postpone or cancel the shows, which is the same thing as pulling the plug to me. Those were the options. I personally do NOT feel either should have been done by the 20th. I believe MJ DESERVED the chance to proceed as did happen, and it's logical to me that they would have given Murray that chance as well, because they did not know what he was doing, or what MJ's actual problem was.

I agree with this. June 20th was the first time that warning emails were serious and everyone was worried. They did try to understand what was going on and were faced with "I'm fine". I think if the problems continued - whether Michael had bad days or the rehearsals did not happen - they would consider to postpone or cancel the shows. But June 20 was a little early for that. Now we know what was going on but assume you know nothing back then and thought Michael had the flu. Should he get fired because he was sick one day? Or should he get fired because he's 50 and is not as sharp and as quick as he used to be?

Another option would have been imposing a second medical opinion, as Ortega suggested or some poeple on this board suggested also. Maybe Michael would have kept Murray, or refused to see another doctor, maybe not, but AEG could not be held responsible for that. They would have done what they could. And I believe at that point, end of june, they were in a position to impose that. Given the circumstances, nobody would have blamed them IMO.

well there was a second medical set for July 6th which will determine if they got the insurance or not. I think they might have been waiting for that as a second medical opinion.

If Michael passed it then it would show them that he's healthy and they would be covered for any illness.

What do you think if he wasn't able to pass the second medical and they didn't have any insurance because of it? Wouldn't you expect them to cancel or postpone the shows in such scenario?

Another option : pull the plug on Murray, refuse to have anything to do with him and let Michael deal with him.

which would only remove this lawsuit and perhaps not what happened.

True, they could not just cancel TII without MJ's okay, but MJ is apparently taken out of the equation when it comes to this concert. What he said and who he wanted should have become irrelevant at some point from what I'm gathering. So it was all on AEG by the 20th apparently to do something more proactive, so cancelling it is what they could have at least said they were going to do. Wonder how MJ would have slept after that?

Technically they can cancel it one sided and be in breach of contract. How realistic that is another question.

 

[passy001]

True, they could not just cancel TII without MJ's okay, but MJ is apparently taken out of the equation when it comes to this concert. What he said and who he wanted should have become irrelevant at some point from what I'm gathering. So it was all on AEG by the 20th apparently to do something more proactive, so cancelling it is what they could have at least said they were going to do. Wonder how MJ would have slept after that?

That would have been utter hell. Massive lawsuits following up (that's usually how it goes in the world of MJ), coupled with horrendously horrible PR nightmare. I also wonder how MJ would have slept after that had the concert series nixed.

 

[loveforever]

When my mother took 6 mg of lorazepam she thought everyone was going to kill her including myself ! After being injected with 20 mg of lorazepam his accusations should have been taken with a grain of salt . Paranoia is very common with excessive use of lorazeam .the jury will get to hear all that from experts .

I don't think Michael really meant 'killing', what he meant is AEG asked too much and didn't treat him as human. Like Katherine said AEG initially asked Michael to perform every other night. That's what Michael meant they are killing me. Prince put it into context. after the heated conversations, Michael was always upset after randy Philips or AEG's phone call. Don't tell me you never said things like this. I hate when people in here blindly defend AEG to even suggest Michael was delusional. The day Kenny described of Michael that's from the side effect.

 

[MJJsBADEraLady87]

re "they're killing me" : I agree with Qbee, I don't think he meant that literally. I think he meant that they overworked him and/or put too much pressure. I think he was just expressing a disagreement.

That was intially my first thought as well

 

[AliCat]

Prince testified the following in relation to: "they are trying to kill me"
Q now, did you ever see your father on the phone become upset?
A a lot of times.
Q do you know who he was speaking with?
A it changed. Most of the time it was randy Phillips or Dr. Tohme, from what I know. Or he had just gotten off the phone, and someone must have told him something about them.
Q so when your father got off the phone, did his demeanor -- how was his demeanor?
A he would get off the phone. He would cry sometimes. And after he got off the phone with them, he would cry.
Q was he upset?
A yes. He would say, "they're going to kill me.They're going to kill me."
Q when your father was getting off the phone and crying, did he say something immediately while he was crying?
A yes, he would.
Q did he say who he was referring to?
A when I asked him who, he said AEG. live, Randy Phillips, mostly, and then he said Dr. Tohme.

He is talking about 2 people here. We are not going to know why MJ said "they are going to kill me" after those phone calls, but I would like to point out this bit of Prince's testimony:

Q did you consider your father to be a fighter?
A no. My dad didn't fight. He was like my grandma. He was too kind to fight anybody. That's why he called my grandpa.

Prince talks when they were living in Bel Air hotel Michael got in a fight with Tohme on the phone and he tried to fire Tohme. Prince says Michael yelled and cursed at Tohme. Prince says, he and Paris applauded Michael because they did not like being around Tohme because he gave a bad energy and he made Michael upset. Prince says to his knowledge Bel Air was the last time Michael talked to Tohme.

Thome Thome made Michael Jackson upset because he spent $2 million of Michael Jackson's money on paying Julienne's Auction's.

When Michael Jackson got Paul Gongaware involved with helping him to sort through his financial difficulties, during the last month's of Michael's life, it was because Michael was working towards becoming debt free. To give an Auction house $2 million to pack up your stuff to auction off is ridiculous, is why I think Michael got upset on the phone with Thome Thome. Thome Thome was going in the opposite direction of Michael's goal of becoming solvent towards becoming debt free.
Thome Thome must've given Michael an impression, through his connections with Thomas Barrack and Thomas Barrack's connection to Philip Anschutz's, that becoming debt free and wisely investing whether in distress properties and making a profit or just investing wisely, because of carefully doing your homework, this sounded like sound decision maker's to Michael Jackson. So when Thome Thome now makes a faux pas (false step) like this, handing over $2 million dollars to Julienne's Auction house, I can see why Michael came unglued and let Thome Thome have it. Michael Jackson was going to become debt free and not let his debt grow any larger. That's why he went back to work and decided to put on the 'greatest show on earth,' with AEG Live's help!

 

[Aquarius]

Question. If AEG loses they might want to appeal but what happens if Katherine loses, can she file for an appeal?

 

[passy001]

Question. If AEG loses they might want to appeal but what happens if Katherine loses, can she file for an appeal?

Each side can appeal.

 

[StellaJackson]

Why are people posting articles by Stacy Brown? He's a notorious hater and writes some horrid things about Michael.

 

[Petrarose]

I suspect this case will go on for years, because any side that wins will appeal. I hope Katherine takes care of her health and sleeps well tonight, because if she becomes ill certain people are going to say AEG caused her death.

 

[qbee]

Why are people posting articles by Stacy Brown? He's a notorious hater and writes some horrid things about Michael.

The tabloid article and comments to it have been moved to the tabloid section in this forum for discussion
[Tabloids] designated Thread for tabloid articles/discussions related to the Kat vs AEG Trial
http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...Trial/page11?p=3872696&viewfull=1#post3872696

 

[#MJforever57]

Then why is that AEG did not pay the doctor if AEG was the one who hired the doctor? and why would they even need MJ signature?

Explain to me how a background check would have shown that Murray was incompetent for the job. He had four active clinics. He had no history of misconduct or incompetence. Plus he's been treating MJ kids for a while. and to compound matters, MJ insisted on having Murray as his own physician. how could AEG with these facts alone predict that Murray was going to kill MJ someday?

Because their kept on saying their didn't hire Murray but this is their email saying.
(remind Murray who is paying his salary not MJ.) So why was Murray not paid?

Their didn't need Michael signautre this was a verbal argeement between AEG and Murray.

Tom M said this on Anderson C. you don't need all parties to sign.

For any job you always do a background check if you are going to be hire for a job i am not saying that this background check was going to show Murray was incompetent it is just what you do to see if the person can do the job do their have the skills to do this job.
Murray has never done this before. Do you believe he could have done this job? Oh by the way the word was AEG didn't want Murray their were going to get a doctor of their own and that would have been wrong like the expert said it was not AEG job.


Now Phillips said Murray didn't need this gig as he call it but as you see Murray later on he did need this job. AEG felt their didn't need do a background because their didn't hire him. So their didn't do one.

IMO Murray was wrong for give Michael Propofol in the first place. This a drug that is only use in a hospital setting i don't know what Murray was thinking. All of the experts said it was wrong. It anything Murray should have been help Michael get a doctor to help with his sleep problem. Propofol not the answer.

 

[Ashtanga]

Thome Thome made Michael Jackson upset because he spent $2 million of Michael Jackson's money on paying Julienne's Auction's.

When Michael Jackson got Paul Gongaware involved with helping him to sort through his financial difficulties, during the last month's of Michael's life, it was because Michael was working towards becoming debt free. To give an Auction house $2 million to pack up your stuff to auction off is ridiculous, is why I think Michael got upset on the phone with Thome Thome. Thome Thome was going in the opposite direction of Michael's goal of becoming solvent towards becoming debt free.
Thome Thome must've given Michael an impression, through his connections with Thomas Barrack and Thomas Barrack's connection to Philip Anschutz's, that becoming debt free and wisely investing whether in distress properties and making a profit or just investing wisely, because of carefully doing your homework, this sounded like sound decision maker's to Michael Jackson. So when Thome Thome now makes a faux pas (false step) like this, handing over $2 million dollars to Julienne's Auction house, I can see why Michael came unglued and let Thome Thome have it. Michael Jackson was going to become debt free and not let his debt grow any larger. That's why he went back to work and decided to put on the 'greatest show on earth,' with AEG Live's help!

[youtube]KMmPeb_jWaI[/youtube]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMmPeb_jWaI


Thome is so obscure! I was wondering where he walks... :fear:

 

[passy001]

Because their kept on saying their didn't hire Murray but this is their email saying.
(remind Murray who is paying his salary not MJ.) So why was Murray not paid?

Their didn't need Michael signautre this was a verbal argeement between AEG and Murray.

Tom M said this on Anderson C. you don't need all parties to sign.

Then why the contract was drafted with MJ signature?

For any job you always do a background check if you are going to be hire for a job i am not saying that this background check was going to show Murray was incompetent it is just what you do to see if the person can do the job do their have the skills to do this job.
Murray has never done this before. Do you believe he could have done this job? Oh by the way the word was AEG didn't want Murray their were going to get a doctor of their own and that would have been wrong like the expert said it was not AEG job.

Now Phillips said Murray didn't need this gig as he call it but as you see Murray later on he did need this job. AEG felt their didn't need do a background because their didn't hire him. So their didn't do one.

IMO Murray was wrong for give Michael Propofol in the first place. This a drug that is only use in a hospital setting i don't know what Murray was thinking. All of the experts said it was wrong. It anything Murray should have been help Michael get a doctor to help with his sleep problem. Propofol not the answer.

Assuming AEG did a check, how would a background check make any difference? How would a background check show Murray was not competent based on his track records? How would a background check show that Murray was going to pump MJ with Profopol? How would a background check show that Murray was going to be talking on the phone with his endless girlfriends while treating MJ? How would a background check show that Murray was going to treat MJ without monitoring equipment? How would a background check show that he would even secretly tape MJ while pumping him with drugs?

Murray needed the job the same way I need my current job to pay for my bond, my car and other properties. should my employer then refuse to hire me anymore because of all these debts that I have accrued?

 

[Tygger]

I do not think Katherine is any more defensive than the many AEG employees/independent contractors who testified thus far.

Gerryevans, Passy001, hopefully I can answer both of your questions here:

The expert made a projection based on AEG’s emails and documents. The heart of BOTH projections is two shows a week and both the expert and AEG agree on that. Their projections differ based on the amount of time the tour would last and the monies amount. I do not believe the jurors will say Michael would never do two shows a week based on what he told his children and AEG planning for an extended TII tour. Based on that and the financial security Michael was trying to capture, I agree Michael would most likely continue touring.

The question is how much touring would he do? Well, AEG’s conservative estimate of 186 shows/$132M does not clear Michael’s $400M debt does it? If a reason to tour was financial stability, Michael would waste precious time under this projection. I expect AEG to be too conservative because they are a business and are in business because more monies come in than goes out. With their projection, Michael would have to do more than 186 shows OR he would have to net much more profit with other shows and/or revenue streams.

This is where the expert’s projection comes in. He includes, for example, sponsorships that AEG mentioned positively in their emails but, decided Michael did not warrant sponsorships in court due to his negative reputation and past in their view. The expert’s projection of 260 shows/$835M may seem exaggerated in monies amounts to some however, it is based on Michael NEVER touring again after those shows.

When the Rolling Stones first said they would retire, they were the hottest ticket and act around. I do not see why Michael would not have a BETTER experience (he was above top tier in a class of his own) if TII really was the LAST MJ tour. Rudely speaking, it would be the last trip on the MJ money train and I cannot believe everyone would not want to get on that train if they could. Michael would have to make enough to be financial stable to then go on and pursue film and any other venture he chose.

If 186/$132M is too stingy and 260/$835M shows is too far-fetched, the jury may look for middle ground between these two projections and may go lower or higher than that middle ground; 223 shows at $484M.

Passy001, you mentioned Michael having a past of being an unreliable business partner and cited Avram and the prince of Bahrain. AEG was aware of both of those circumstances and still contracted to partner with Michael for TII. This is why their argument in the cross examination of the expert (which already happened) was a bit lukewarm. They suggested reasons why Michael’s past and reputation would render him unsuccessful somehow AFTER the SOLD OUT 50 shows. They could not explain why they were also projecting an extended TII tour through their own emails and documents. And yes, a competent jury will not ignore these facts either.

I would not take anything seriously coming from someone who was being injected with 20 mg of lorazepam even if it was my beloved MJ. Did anyone tell prince paranonia is a very common symptom of lorazepam ? I bet not .

Soundmind, who would know when Michael received any medication the doctor, gave him? The doctor did not take notes with his treatment of Michael and his treatment should be confidential.

Why would Michael think the doctor was treating him negligently or unethically? Michael thought he was waking up from sleep each time and did not believe anything the doctor was giving him was making him unwell.

Explain to me how a background check would have shown that Murray was incompetent for the job. He had four active clinics. He had no history of misconduct or incompetence. Plus he's been treating MJ kids for a while. and to compound matters, MJ insisted on having Murray as his own physician. how could AEG with these facts alone predict that Murray was going to kill MJ someday?

Passy001, The doctor had three social security numbers. That alone was enough for AEG to see the doctor as questionable, to distance themselves from the doctor, to not insert themselves as a third party in a two-party doctor/patient relationship, and, if they were being really kind, caution Michael that having three social security numbers in the U.S. is most often illegal and considered fraud.

Did Conrad Murray's unfitness or incompetence harm Michael Jackson?

I hope at least this question will not be on the final verdict form.

Why are people posting articles by Stacy Brown? He's a notorious hater and writes some horrid things about Michael.

StellaJackson, some fans support and believe what he and others say in these types of articles.

 

[Bubs]

I suspect this case will go on for years, because any side that wins will appeal. I hope Katherine takes care of her health and sleeps well tonight, because if she becomes ill certain people are going to say AEG caused her death.

Yeah, Randy in doubt would be that certain person. He would say AEG killed my mother and the estate didn't do anything to help her

 

[Bubs]

"Putnam asked if she sued Kenny Ortega as well. She said she doesn't' remember, there was a list of people in the suit."

This bit of her testimony made me think that she is just a front for this lawsuit. When you sue someone, would you know to whom you sue, and if someone is dropped would know who? Either her lawyers don't consult her but someone else in the family, or she don't remember recent things but remembers things that happen 40 years ago.

Their didn't need Michael signautre this was a verbal argeement between AEG and Murray.
Tom M said this on Anderson C. you don't need all parties to sign.

Where did you get that it didn't need MJ signature?
I copied this from CM trial thread:
Prosecution presented contract that Murray sent to KJ on June 24th. The only signature on it was CM.
Above where MJ was supposed to sign reads:
"The undersigned hereby confirms that he has requested Producer to engage Dr. Murray on the terms set forth herein on behalf of and at the expense of the undersigned."

The contract was between Murray, AEG Live, GCA Holdings with the consent of Michael.

Contract was not signed and no payment was made to CM - at least by AEG. CM had to provide liability insurance and medical malpractice insurance.

Contract was terminable at the discretion of MJ. CM was not guarateed the next month of employment.
--------------------
TMezz has said many things recently that I disagree with him. My note, even thought he did excellent job in 2005, it doesn't mean that he is always right, not matter what is the subject.
He supported Cry Babe Sullivans book.
He said Jackson family don't kidnap their elderly mother, when in fact KJ was kidnapped.
The most disturbing thing to me was that he went on public to say that AEG is behing those WR allegations????????
Don't forget that he referred KJ (and family) to Panish and Shea lawyers, and he will get his referral fee.

Something from their web site:
At Panish Shea & Boyle LLP, we believe in our clients and their cases. Because of this, the firm works on a contingency fee basis. This means that our clients owe no attorney’s fees and will not be required to pay any costs until a recovery is obtained for the client in the case.

and this bit:
Our presence on a case benefits clients by maximizing their recovery, and, accordingly, benefits the lawyer who referred us the case. We take pride in our referral and joint-venture relationships and our ability to offer a percentage of our attorney’s fees to those referring lawyers.

So whatever TMezz says, I don't say there definately is, but there can be ulterior motive behind it, and I take it into consideration.

True, they could not just cancel TII without MJ's okay, but MJ is apparently taken out of the equation when it comes to this concert. What he said and who he wanted should have become irrelevant at some point from what I'm gathering. So it was all on AEG by the 20th apparently to do something more proactive, so cancelling it is what they could have at least said they were going to do. Wonder how MJ would have slept after that?

I absolutely agree with the bolded part.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

That would have been utter hell. Massive lawsuits following up (that's usually how it goes in the world of MJ), coupled with horrendously horrible PR nightmare. I also wonder how MJ would have slept after that had the concert series nixed.

Re cancelling tii, I agree. I also agree with one of your earlier posts about mj being forced into tii because of the perilous state of his debt problems. So an extra $34m being added to his debt by aeg wd have pushed mj way over the edge, there wasn't insurance in place. I believe that's why mj said he was 'fine' when asked by phillips at the 20th meeting and phillips was someone who wd know more than anyone the pressures and consequences on mj if he had said he wasn't 'fine'.

Explain to me how a background check would have shown that Murray was incompetent for the job.

Maybe randy phillips could explain it best. He was the one who felt he had to reassure ortega's concern about mj by claiming aeg had carried out a b/g check on murray and had ascertained that murray didn't need the job so could be unbiassed and ethical. So for whatever reason randy must have felt a b/gnd check would turn up info that reflected on murray's competence otherwise why claim he had done one to ortega?

TMezz has said many things recently that I disagree with him. ...
The most disturbing thing to me was that he went on public to say that AEG is behing those WR allegations????????
Don't forget that he referred KJ (and family) to Panish and Shea lawyers, and he will get his referral fee.

No lawyer of the calibre of tmez wd ever say that aeg is behind the robson allegations, he wd be opening himself up to a lawsuit. Where did he say that in public? All i've heard him saying is that the timing of the allegations is curious/suspicious given that the civil trial is going on. And i agreed when wade suddenly did a 180degree turn back in may, i found it eyebrow raising too - aeg's opening statement re mj and his deep dark secrets, diff between the private and public face of mj and mj's fear of exposure and covering things up - cd be lifted and used by wade's lawyer for his opening statement.
Why are you referring to tmez getting a referral fee from panish as a fact, i don't see any proof apart from you connecting tmez saying on tv he recommened panish to mrs j, and the fact panish says on their website that they pay referral fees to other lawyers.

 

[Justthefacts]

He did kind of imply AEG were behind WR but he also said he had no proof

 

[Mechi]

There was no contract completely signed. But the contract was sent to AEG although Murray saw Michael on a daily basis.

Phillips is on video saying they hired him. Phillips said those words in my siggy about why the guy was hired. Phillips et.al. were in meetings with Murray and Michael and talked with Murray alone.

Now they wanna act as if they didn't hire him, although all those actions and words before?
That is... let's put it mild... questionable... well to me.
But hey I'll give them all chances to wind themselves out of that. However throwing dirt at the Jacksons (aren't they dirty enough lol) will not help them too much... it's honestly more dangerous to them in the first place cuz it would mean they have no more facts... just dirt?!

Well if you don't hire, you don't need to do a backgroundcheck, that's logical.
But Phillips said they did one!
While fact is, they didn't do one!
Means first Phillips was lying!
Means second there's a reason why lying... motive?
Is it negligent to pretend you did a check when you in fact didn't? That's up to the jury to decide now.

To me it clearly is... not only towards Michael and his health... because you pretend you do know things which you don't know and you pretend to care while you factual do not care!

It is also a danger to your own company when you pretend you did a check on someone because you might hire a scumbag... well like they sadly did.
Getting to know that Murray had several social numbers etc. would have identified him as a risk, if not for Michael (you can not judge competence by several social numbers) already then at least to AEG to better not get involved with him because he is likely doing fraud. Like boueé said, they could have stayed away from him and tell Michael to do everything alone with him. Then they'd be out of any responsibility here now.
AEG is a big enough company to might compensate any losses. However it's no way responsible towards your own company.
LOL I guess that's why it was even if pretty short in the news Phillips signed a contract ensuring his career goes on at AEGlive, well that was maybe good pr... however to me personally if Anschutz wants to work with these kind of ppl... well well.

Telling someone 'your money is coming from us not Michael' while it was actually not, means you do act like someones boss or at least supervisor. Why should someone do that if they think they are not? It very clearly means they were all acting as if means according to the agreement that Murray indeed was hired by them. Because sadly Murray was working and Phillips and Gongaware acted like 'your money is coming from us not Michael'.
True there wasn't a contract in place. Still that contract was negotiated. And it was negotiated between AEG and Murray.
True Murray didn't get any money from them yet. Still he was in their books for getting payment from May on.
That Michaels signature wasn't already on the contract means only that factually noone can really prove Murray was his wish... as much as noone can prove Murray wasn't his wish. But well that's not even really the point.

The next question is why did they hold on to Murray although Michaels health/weight/rehearsal attendance was a reason for enough worries of other ppl also but let's say they all did result in Ortegas email. Why did they even give the responsibility for Michaels scedule from Ortega to Murray? What was really going on at those meetings? And was that responsible?
The meeting was called in because they were aware of Michaels health issues! The question still is what really was their response, and was it response enough by what they knew. Did they have a chance to know? Were they even interested to know? Did they see Murrays orders for equipment, maybe discussed those orders? Did they deny or promise? Did the equipment promised come in time or not? Those things usually can all be proven by papers in a good organised company.
I didn't see much on the table yet.
Maybe AEG doesn't wanna look too much involved but to stick with the 'We didn't hire him' still is pretty risky... at least looking to me.
Should questions about it have been risen? Did they show enough care by what they knew and can they prove that like...
Well Michaels health issues seemed to have improved on the 23rd and 24th June somehow so yeah maybe they even did something right... but as a matter of fact now we do know that Murray in the following did something very wrong.
Was there influence from AEGs side in one direction or the other before that.
Yet they only said all pretty squabby 'Michaels health was discussed'. That can mean one or the other honestly.
So were there directions from AEGs side at all?
It's not about knowing treatments. We heard from the judge AEG can't be made responsible for that. It's not they would have to know about Propofol or even Lorazepam.
The question is what really was their knowledge and did they show according to that knowledge enough care.
Maybe they ordered, gave stern and strict directions to get Michael to rehearsals no matter what (not enough care!)... but maybe they also told Murray to do whatever is needed to keep Michael healthy for that he can make it to London and do the shows (enough care)... we don't know. The jury will have to judge about that in the end of this trial.

But we do know Prince testified that Michael told him he didn't like how Phillips was treating him.
Also we do know Phillips was even able to get into Carolwood and meet Murray in a not friendly looking manner when Michael wasn't around.

Question is what they can prove and show up with as their side.

AEG really needs to address this now... or better their lawyers should.
Because just saying the 13 year old boy had a daydream or even saying he is lying wouldn't help them... not enough at least.
I do not believe Prince is lying.
I do know Phillips was lying before.

And throwing dirt at the Jacksons wouldn't help them enough also... I mean come on... they're dirty enough already to most of us and the public would only think they are throwing dirt to not having to throw their money over to them.

I'm really wondering if they will address it and how... but in my eyes they better will.

 

[Mechi]

He did kind of imply AEG were behind WR but he also said he had no proof

meaning this?

http://www.tmz.com/2013/05/08/michael-jackson-wade-robson-aeg-tom-mesereau-katherine-jackson/

 

[Bubs]

No lawyer of the calibre of tmez wd ever say that aeg is behind the robson allegations, he wd be opening himself up to a lawsuit. Where did he say that in public? All i've heard him saying is that the timing of the allegations is curious/suspicious given that the civil trial is going on. And i agreed when wade suddenly did a 180degree turn back in may, i found it eyebrow raising too - aeg's opening statement re mj and his deep dark secrets, diff between the private and public face of mj and mj's fear of exposure and covering things up - cd be lifted and used by wade's lawyer for his opening statement.
Why are you referring to tmez getting a referral fee from panish as a fact, i don't see any proof apart from you connecting tmez saying on tv he recommened panish to mrs j, and the fact panish says on their website that they pay referral fees to other lawyers.

You are right, he directly didn't say it but he brought it up in interviews for example with TMZ
http://www.tmz.com/2013/05/08/michael-jackson-wade-robson-aeg-tom-mesereau-katherine-jackson/
Lawyer of his caliber has to be careful what he says, thus careful wording.

I'm not 100% sure TMezz gets referral fee, but I cannot see why wouldn't he get it? It is entirely possible that Jackson family asked him if he knows someone who could take their case and TMezz told them to contact on P&S. If that is the case he is entitled to get referral fee.
I just put 2 +2 =4, but then again, it is speculation in my part.


If we only write about proven facts, this board would be 10 pages it not even that

 

[Bubs]

Putnam asked her about her decision to sue AEG Live in September 2010. She said she didn't discuss with her children or her grandchildren before filing the lawsuit.

"This was your decision alone," Putnam asked.

She said it was.

So not only Katherine denied involvement of some siblings - such as Randy who publicly took credit for this lawsuit- but she also testified that she didn't talk with her grandchildren - which would mean Prince, Paris and Blanket...

I was reading someones twits and found this:
CALIFORNIA WRONGFUL DEATH LAWSUITS MUST JOIN ALL HEIRS

Generally, when California residents die in fatal accident, their heirs must band together to pursue one wrongful death lawsuit.
This is because California adheres to what is known as the "one-action rule." The rule operates just like one would assume from its title - only one action can be brought as a result of a wrongful death; individual heirs cannot bring their own lawsuits.
But what happens when one heir makes a claim for wrongful death without notifying other qualified heirs?
The California Court of Appeal recently addressed this issue. The answer depends on whether the heir actually filed a lawsuit or simply pursued an insurance settlement.
http://www.maryalexanderlaw.com/Art...gful-Death-Lawsuits-Must-Join-All-Heirs.shtml

Do you think this is the reason KJ put kids names on it?

Hypothetical question, lets say, if KJ wasn't guardian to kids, she couldn't have filed this lawsuit without approval kids guardian?

Hypothetical question 2, had she completely lost guardianship after last summers madness, what would have happened to this lawsuit?