Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

[AliCat]

Michael Jackson’s Doctor Stands by Him

Michael Jackson’s Physician and friend A.J. Farshchian MD., is friend and confidant of Michael’s, A.J. Farshchian from The Center for Regenerative Medicine in Miami, was also a business partner and treated Michael Jackson.

" No, Michael Jackson was afraid of medications. He however believed in the physician. He would listen to them and if he trusted them followed their orders. Michael knew physicians knew a lot.

"Michael was very active, he was going into studio's everyday, working with Barry Gibb. Michael was very active. Michael was grossly misunderstood. Michael Jackson is being way over exaggerated, health wise, everything you hear about."

http://tgblogsite.com/kneepains/2011/10/07/michael-jacksons-doctor-stands-by-him/

 

[Soundmind]

[h=1]AEG Live exec: 'Celine Dion's bigger than MJ'[/h] By Alan Duke, CNN
updated 10:15 AM EDT, Thu July 25, 2013



http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/25/showbiz/jackson-death-trial/

AEG deserves to be made fun of for being that desperate . This so called expert has zero credibility if he is willing to lie like that .

 

[LastTear]

LOL It's just his opinion and it's certainly not how Phillips or Gongaware described him. Alan Duke is so transparent.

 

[Soundmind]

Exactly , that's why AEG's lawyers are contradicting themselves the same way Jacksons lawyers contradicted themselves , this is what happens when your case is built on twisting the facts .

 

[Korgnex]

It does not help them as you said, the main enemy is MJ not Katherine . If the jury sympathizes with MJ but feels Katherine does not deserve to get paid , they simply could award his kids , so AEG still loses .

AEG's lawyers are doing what Jacksons' lawyers did , contradict themselves , that what happen when your whole case/defence is built on twisting the facts .

When Celin Dion becomes bigger than Michael Jackson you know AEG is plain desperate , just saying

1) The kids don't need this money AT ALL. MJ isn't an "enemy" for AEG, this case is about (theoretically possible) negligence on AEG's side. Yet there is nothing to support this.
2) This case started with Jackson family lawyers twisting personal opinions and private talk into negligent hiring etc.
3) Célion Dion being called "bigger" by business people is based on economic efficiency and nothing "plain desperate": Michael had no busy tour schedule since 1998: 4 concerts (WMCIG Munich/Seoul, MSN) and 2 performances (April 2002). If you compare that with Céline Dion (or any other major artist since 1998), you'll understand why they called her "bigger". There was still interest in Michael but as a matter of fact he'd been away from stage (for obvious reasons) for many years.

I'm also quite tired from how this trial has caused Jackson family fans to constantly refer to all media reports not being in support of Michael's estranged family to be called "AEG-sponsored" and other non-sense, eg. how any Jackson family member is being referred to as a member of the "Royal family of America's most successful family dynasty" and other blah blah.

 

[jrsfan]

Why is not she afraid of Putnam's direct ?

Perhaps they rehearse since he is the one calling her - she will know his questions & not on cross by Panish.

 

[Justthefacts]

Why is not she afraid of Putnam's direct ?

she is stressed out in general

 

[LastTear]

I just posted a TMZ article on Debbie testifying in the tabloid thread.

 

[Soundmind]

If you compare that with Céline Dion (or any other major artist since 1998), you'll understand why they called her "bigger". There was still interest in Michael but as a matter of fact he'd been away from stage (for obvious reasons) for many years.

How many tours Led Zeppelin did in the last 20 years ? he referred to them as the biggest artists in the world !! just using your logic certainly not as big as MJ who at least had two tours ? why then he said in his opinion they were the biggest ? when Putnm told him what about Dion in Pop he said even she's bigger than him . He was desperately downplaying everything MJ did or could have done . The same way we laughed at Katherine's expert saying MJ would do 4 more tours , this expert should be ridiculed for his ridiculous statements . It does scream desperation on AEG's part

We are not dumb , I can understand what he meant very well

 

[jaydom7]

Basically she is saying that she is not doing it out of choice, she was subpoenaed.

right she is not doing it out of choice she is being subpoenaed and is forced to.. Hopefully she will answer truthfully. I highly doubt she will admit to being an enabler and supplier for Klein

 

[Tygger]

Bouee, for me, Katherine was conflicted regarding Michael’s issues. It is difficult for me to tell what she truly did not remember and what she may have purposefully not remembered because it was unpleasant for her. Maybe the jury will say she fabricated her testimony regarding Michael’s issues and maybe they will say, as the conflicted mother of Michael, they do not expect much regarding her testimony to his issues. Either way, this has nothing to do with AEG’s defense of allegedly hiring the doctor but, has everything to do with their defense of passing their responsibility in the matter to Mikey.

I don't know how you can say that it's not by your choosing, especially when you are dismissive of laws posted and links provided - and yet do not post any yourself, so unless you expect people to just say, if Tygger says so then it must be!

Best to leave it at that.

Last Tear, this is the problem with discussion that are characterized as debates: debate rules are not clarified and posters just do their best with discussion rules. The popular reaction to a post one does not agree with is to be dismissive of the person instead of the correct debate reaction which is to disagree with another’s thought. I did not say another’s thought process there, I said another’s thought. A person is not their thought and I have disagreed with some of laws, examples, and links among many other thoughts posted which is what happens in debate. Unfortunately, disagreement with a thought is incorrectly viewed as being dismissive to a person and we are where we are.

Some have asked about when Michael’s insomnia began. Possibility (of course I don’t really know) it began in the J5’s pre-Motown days when Michael was around 7,8,9,10 years old. Joe would take the boys around the region to play at nightclubs. Sometimes the boys wouldn’t get home until almost sunrise. They got a couple of hours sleep and then got up for school. Anyone who has kids knows how important a regular bedtime is, especially for a child that young. Also, being the lead of the group he had to work harder and that pumps up the adrenaline more.

Sfosteredi, I have heard these stories as well. I thought the boys would fall asleep in class sometimes. I am unsure if that is truly insomnia. If it is, does this not suggest all of the boys had insomnia as children particularly Marlon who was close in age to Michael?

That's true. But, since whatever Murray does will be so high-profile and obvious, don't you think it would be very difficult for him to hide money? When Judith Regan was working a book deal with OJ Simpson, the Goldman family was all over it and the public outcry helped to kill that deal. Had it gone through, you can bet they would have followed that money trail and used the courts and media to do it. Whatever Murray tries to do will have a spotlight on it for as long as he lives, but without a Restitution Order, he is free to benefit from his crime. That's just wrong.

Simpson had the advance for the book and was allowed to keep the advance. He was not a convict at the time so there was no reason to not pay him directly. You are correct the public was against the book and the Goldman arranged to have it published to help satisfy their restitution.

With the doctor, yes, everything is public so we are aware his lawyers received payment for his documentary and his voicemails were left to be sold by Alvarez. The difference here is we do not have the public outcry that minimizes the demand instead the demand is supported and these indirect payments have unfortunately continued.

Yes, you were respectful and Ivy answered my question. Maybe I'm being obtuse, but I'm not seeing what you're seeing re/Wass sitting in a defense seat. Seems to me she's there doing her due diligence just in case her client decides to testify. Do you think they're all colluding? I have to say, though, I find Murray's recent cell phone rant interesting and suspicious.

What would the reaction be if Wass sat in reserved seats for the plaintiffs?

Wass is the appeal lawyer for the man that killed Michael so I do not take her sitting with the defense who allegedly hired the man who killed Michael lightly. This is just my view.

 

[LastTear]

@Tygger

Last Tear, this is the problem with discussion that are characterized as debates: debate rules are not clarified and posters just do their best with discussion rules. The popular reaction to a post one does not agree with is to be dismissive of the person instead of the correct debate reaction which is to disagree with another’s thought. I did not say another’s thought process there, I said another’s thought. A person is not their thought and I have disagreed with some of laws, examples, and links among many other thoughts posted which is what happens in debate. Unfortunately, disagreement with a thought is incorrectly viewed as being dismissive to a person and we are where we are.

Huh? Ok, :dropdead:I'm not going to start arguing with you on the subject of debates, please lets move on, before I finally :gone_nuts:

 

[Bonnie Blue]

3) Célion Dion being called "bigger" by business people is based on economic efficiency and nothing "plain desperate": Michael had no busy tour schedule since 1998: 4 concerts (WMCIG Munich/Seoul, MSN) and 2 performances (April 2002). If you compare that with Céline Dion (or any other major artist since 1998), you'll understand why they called her "bigger". There was still interest in Michael but as a matter of fact he'd been away from stage (for obvious reasons) for many years.

Where are you getting that the context that this aeg exec was talking about was the last 10yrs of tour schedules? From the tweets he was saying celine was a bigger artist than mj period. Why does every single argument and remark aeg make have to be justified and defended? Agree with soundmind, it was just a stupid thing to say and was just some partisan attempt to limit damages for aeg, really didn't think i wd find anyone wasting their time trying to defend it on an mj forum.

I'm also quite tired from how this trial has caused Jackson family fans to constantly refer to all media reports not being in support of Michael's estranged family to be called "AEG-sponsored" and other non-sense, eg. how any Jackson family member is being referred to as a member of the "Royal family of America's most successful family dynasty" and other blah blah.

Sorry you're getting tired, but i'm not seeing any family fans on this thread constantly referring to aeg sponsored stuff and jacksons =royal family, so i'm really not getting why you have to post your complaints here.

 

[Soundmind]

Where are you getting that the context that this aeg exec was talking about was the last 10yrs of tour schedules? From the tweets he was saying celine was a bigger artist than mj period. Why does every single argument and remark aeg make have to be justified and defended? Agree with soundmind, it was just a stupid thing to say and was just some partisan attempt to limit damages for aeg, really didn't think i wd find anyone wasting their time trying to defend it on an mj forum.

weird , isn't it ?

Sorry you're getting tired, but i'm not seeing any family fans on this thread constantly referring to aeg sponsored stuff and jacksons =royal family, so i'm really not getting why you have to post your complaints here.

I can't stand any one from the Jacksons tribe except MJ and his beautiful kids , still I find AEG grossly negligent and liars to say the least .

 

[LastTear]

Lets put this into perspective.

Anthony McCartney ‏@mccartneyAP 25m
He said he doesn’t believe that Phillips’ statement is true, but it was a personal opinion.
“To me, she’s bigger,” Meglen said.
Expand
Anthony McCartney ‏@mccartneyAP 25m
Meglen works directly with Dion and her tours in North America. It took him a few tries before he answered the question.
Expand
Anthony McCartney ‏@mccartneyAP 25m
The lawyer then asked Meglen whether he agreed with AEG Live CEO that Michael Jackson was bigger than Celine Dion.

The CEO - the big boss thinks Michael is bigger.

 

[ivy]

this will be a long post with multiple topics including an explanation of AEG's strategy and answering some questions, please read that portion

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

Last Tear previously posted a link about the Son of Sam law AND Last Tear asked you about indirect profit, not I.

you said "I see there are no source links or examples for preventing indirect profit! No worries, I will remain patient and see what is discovered." . That's what I was referring to as "here's an example for your request".

Ivy, again, you are misreading and being rude.

you are in no position to call me rude given that you have made accusations towards me twice just in the last day. If you ever change your tone with me, I might consider changing my tone with you. Until then if you keep disrespecting me by making baseless accusations, I have no reason to be all nice to you.

Disrespectful accusation 1 : I can almost feel Ivy’s joy when she believes she is correcting my posts! laughs

Disrespectful accusation 2: Feel free to look it up. Just because you cannot find it or you have and will not admit it, does not mean it does not exist.

and why are we having this problem? You claim you refer to a "rare" instance in law. you refuse to post any sources for your legal claim and when anyone replies to your claims you are dismissive and make accusations of people having a joy or lying. All of this can be solved if you just source your "rare" information but no. You are the only reason why this exchange still continues.

@Tygger

I don't know how you can say that it's not by your choosing, especially when you are dismissive of laws posted and links provided - and yet do not post any yourself, so unless you expect people to just say, if Tygger says so then it must be!

Best to leave it at that.

I agree with this. People take you seriously to the point to give you sources, examples and you are dismissive and do not consider that. Even worse than that you are in this mood against other people because they didn't find or don't believe your "rare" case claims. Again it could be all solved very easily by posting your legal claim sources. I said this some time before I'll repeat it again, if I'm wrong and if there's indeed a rare case that makes your point, I'll admit it in bold red letters.

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

I am unsure how Dr. Farshchian testimony supports AEG's defense that they did not allegedly hire the doctor. It is deflection.

Dr Farschian did not really help AEG, I don't know what his testimony had to do with the case.

This guy just said that Katherine Jackson knew of her son's issues, Monday she said she knew nothing. And you don't see how he helped AEG?

impeachment.

yes impeachment of Katherine is one of the reasons however it's not the only one.

If you remember back to the jury instructions of negligent hiring the "known or should have known" part has to be proven. In this case the logic is AEG knew or should have known Michael's addiction problems and therefore Michael asking a private doctor - especially one in debt - should be a red flag that this doctor would provide drugs to Michael. Before trial Jackson lawyer referred to this as "hiring a drug pusher for an addicted man".

AEG's defense lies in denying "known or should have known" part and stating they did not know Michael still had dependency issues and therefore there was no reason for them to be on alert.

TMZ had a sentence in their last report about Debbie Rowe which clearly explains this logic and it is "If the jury believes Michael could hide his hardcore drug use, AEG would have no reason to sound an alarm or take preventative action."

so how does this testimony help

- Michael was secretive. No one (from public) knew his issues with drugs in the later years, no one (from public) knew about his second rehab / narcan implant. Doctors did not have full information as well. Fournier testimony which according to court filings will be about Michael not telling narcan implant will build on this.

- Michael was able to fool people about his addiction - even the people closest to him. 2001 September Michael performs the MSG concerts, Cascio and Faye find Michael under some drug. Cascio (according to his book & probably will testify) tells this to several Jackson family members. Rebbie goes to talk with Karen. an intervention is tried sometime in 2002 soon after Blanket's birthday. They talk to Michael. Michael denies addiction. He looks fine, he convinces them he's fine and Jacksons drop intervention talk. Add to this the new testimony. However he was using Demerol at this time so he convinced his family he was fine & clean when he wasn't. He gets the implant later in the year in November 2002. You can almost expect a closing statement of "Even Michael's family thought he was clean and fine, so did AEG". and if Jacksons cannot prove "AEG knew or should have known", they can't prove a negligent hiring claim.

- it's also a responsibility issue. If AEG can show a drug addiction history and make it seem like an overdose was bound to happen whether or not AEG ever got involved with Michael then the jury might think this as a personal responsibility of Michael.

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

Apologies if this has already been explained!

So Michael DID have a narclan implant? The Sun newspaper reported it, but I thought the fan community said this was a lie.
Did MJ have the implant or not??

That was misunderstanding of the fans, they thought Michael had it in 2009. Michael had an implant between November 2002 and July 2003. He didn't have it at the time of his death & autopsy.

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

When Celin Dion becomes bigger than Michael Jackson you know AEG is plain desperate , just saying

3) Célion Dion being called "bigger" by business people is based on economic efficiency and nothing "plain desperate": Michael had no busy tour schedule since 1998: 4 concerts (WMCIG Munich/Seoul, MSN) and 2 performances (April 2002). If you compare that with Céline Dion (or any other major artist since 1998), you'll understand why they called her "bigger". There was still interest in Michael but as a matter of fact he'd been away from stage (for obvious reasons) for many years.

It might depend on how you define "big". Celine had done 700 shows over 5 years in her residency - but it was in smaller in size venues. She has another 8 year contract for residency. She grossed $400 Million in her first residency. Some might say currently U2 is the biggest act because they top the most earning artists and have the top grossing tour ($700 M) in history. Michael on the other hand for example has the top selling album, a longer career and so on. Depending on how you define "big", different people might be stated as bigger.

So for example if the "big" is defined in terms of residency, Celine is big. If it's defined in gross tour U2 is big. If it's the highest album sales, most well known, top videos, years in business, more number 1 songs, more awards etc. Michael is big.

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

General question for any members from the USA

How does the keeping of medical records work in the States? In the UK and with the NHS everything goes through our GP,of which you can only have one, even if we see someone privately they write to our GP (not sure if that works with cosmetic stuff though), but anyway our individual medical records are very comprehensive. Does it work the same way in the USA or is it more complicated because you have more freedom to see other doctors.

There are some changes happening. they did not have a one record keeping system. So basically when you go to a doctor, they would only have information about what you provide to them and they would not know what you didn't say. This had become problematic especially in regards to prescription. People might go to different doctors and get the same prescriptions. Now there's a prescription database to be able to keep track of those. Currently the medical records are also computerized but I don't think all doctors can see what other doctors can do. For example my GP isn't aware of my surgeon and neither my surgeon is aware of my GP and I need to prove authorization to every specialist to report back to my GP. so from my experience - but I don't know the regulations - I don't think US has a centralized medical records system.

^^^^^ I don't think anybody's medical record should be made public, if needed for a trial it can be done in a closed court. I'm only asking about the US system to understand that if an expert says 'I review the medical records' then they have viewed all the medical records.

In this case, Michael's medical records were subpoenad since 1984. So I would imagine that the doctors were given the medical records that they got during discovery phase.

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

Someone asked her if it was true that she was testifying for AEG ^^ that was her reply. I thought the reference to Panish was interesting, maybe I see too much into it, but it seems odd to use his name or even know his name.

Why wouldnt she know his name. we di. its in articles it gets reported on. if shes been deposed shes gonna know who they are.

she has been deposed - everyone have been deposed. So it's not surprising for her to know the names of the lawyers from both sides that deposed her.

 

[jaydom7]

Meglen is a liar..

 

[Soundmind]

Lets put this into perspective.



The CEO - the big boss thinks Michael is bigger.

the big boss said they never witnessed sales in that rate , the EXPERT said that exaggeration , the boss said This is it was phenomenal , the exeprt said that exaggeration , every positive thing AEG said about MJ and his concerts were exaggerated , that's what their own witness said .

What's your point ? why did AEG put this guy on the stand if he pretty much refuted everything the BOSSES said ? your point please ? he was testifying in front of a jury this is not mentioned in a personal email

 

[LastTear]

My point is (whether it is right or wrong) that Dion being bigger than MJ is this man's personal opinion about someone who he still works with and who he probably wants to keep working with.

 

[jaydom7]

and Gongaware was well aware of MJ's past issues and MJ told the entire world about his medication addiction so it was no secret. How could it be a secret if he told the world in a news conference?

 

[jaydom7]

the big boss said they never witnessed sales in that rate , the EXPERT said that exaggeration , the boss said This is it was phenomenal , the exeprt said that exaggeration , every positive thing AEG said about MJ and his concerts were exaggerated , that's what their own witness said .

What's your point ? why did AEG put this guy on the stand if he pretty much refuted everything the BOSSES said ? your point please ? he was testifying in front of a jury this is not mentioned in a personal email

Exactly.. Phillips and Gongaware said the sales were phenomenal

 

[ivy]

and Gongaware was well aware of MJ's past issues and MJ told the entire world about his medication addiction so it was no secret. How could it be a secret if he told the world in a news conference?

their argument is that they knew Michael went to rehab and they though he was okay and clean in the later years - including history tour and in 2009. just because he had an issue in 1993 doesn't mean he would have an issue in 2009 is their argument.

 

[HIStory]

Céline Dion .... don't get me started...OK i'm not a fan. Is she that famous apart from French speaking countries ? She is huge here , and has been famous since the end of the 80s, with mostly songs in French. But I don't think she is bigger than Michael, no way.

No, she's not bigger than MJ. Even non-fans are making fun of the AEG "expert" for saying such a stupid thing.

 

[jaydom7]

No, she's not bigger than MJ. Even non-fans are making fun of the AEG "expert" for saying such a stupid thing.

Good... he's pathetic

 

[HIStory]

the big boss said they never witnessed sales in that rate , the EXPERT said that exaggeration , the boss said This is it was phenomenal , the exeprt said that exaggeration , every positive thing AEG said about MJ and his concerts were exaggerated , that's what their own witness said .

I wonder if they feel they will lose and now they are working towards reducing the sum that would be awarded by playing down Michael's achievements (thus his possible potential future earnings).

 

[HIStory]

Good... he's pathetic

Let's be glad at least he didn't say Justin Bieber.

 

[Soundmind]

so how does this testimony help

- Michael was secretive. No one (from public) knew his issues with drugs in the later years, no one (from public) knew about his second rehab / narcan implant. Doctors did not have full information as well. Fournier testimony which according to court filings will be about Michael not telling narcan implant will build on this.

Hardly convincing , the doctor said I searched the internet to find info on him and found it was ongoing problem . You missed that ? How come no one knew ? in 2001 one of his ex managers sued him , he talked about Ratner and propofol specifically . It was everywhere on the net . Was he obligated to update the public on his medical issues ? would anyone believe him if he said I'm taking meds for my ankle ? the same public that never believed he suffered from vitiligo even after it was confirmed in his autopsy . If his mother knew , if he was seeking treatment , not only that but the doctor himself said he was indeed suffering when he took it , so how can they say he was a drug addict for the sake of it ?

- Michael was able to fool people about his addiction - even the people closest to him. 2001 September Michael performs the MSG concerts, Cascio and Faye find Michael under some drug. Cascio (according to his book & probably will testify) tells this to several Jackson family members. Rebbie goes to talk with Karen. an intervention is tried sometime in 2002 soon after Blanket's birthday. They talk to Michael. Michael denies addiction. He looks fine, he convinces them he's fine and Jacksons drop intervention talk. Add to this the new testimony. However he was using Demerol at this time so he convinced his family he was fine & clean when he wasn't. He gets the implant later in the year in November 2002. You can almost expect a closing statement of "Even Michael's family thought he was clean and fine, so did AEG". and if Jacksons cannot prove "AEG knew or should have known", they can't prove a negligent hiring claim.

Did he fool Casico ? Did he fool Karen ? did he tell them I did not take meds ? Did not the doctor just testified I gave him meds because he could not stand on his ankle ? Is not taking meds to manage your pain justified medically ? was he some sort of superman to rehears and dance in pain ? what kind of logic are you using ? Either they believe the doctor's testimony as a whole or not .

- it's also a responsibility issue. If AEG can show a drug addiction history and make it seem like an overdose was bound to happen whether or not AEG ever got involved with Michael then the jury might think this as a personal responsibility of Michael.

So far has anyone testified that MJ took anything on his own without a doctor administering it ? so far has anyone testified that MJ was not in some sort of pain of physical energy when a doctor administered meds to him ? I certainly did not hear anything to suggest that . What overdose could happen ? Murray's 17 deviations from standard of care resulted in MJ's death , I doubt any doctor would have committed what Murray did , the guy was insane pure and simple . If MJ hired anyone else he would have been still alive .

why AEG are not very bright to use this testimony ? My opinion :
This testimony enlightened us on what happened in 2001 , the doctor who was there testified why MJ looked the way he did and for what reason he took demerol . The doctor enlightened us that when MJ felt it became a problem he was very adamant to get rid of it , he kept coming back even after another doctor removed it .


What happened in 2002 has nothing to do with what Ortega observed and reported . The insurance company asked for his full medical records specifically drug abuse and listed the media reports about his so called drug and alcohol abuse as big concerns for them . The doctor said pretty much the same , how come AEG claim MJ was one hell of a manipulative drug addict who kept everything a secret ?

Everyone keeps forgeting that one expert who was not paid by any party , who reported the most important facts concerning his death , the coroner testified he was a man in excellent health , better than most people his age . 1+1 = 2

 

[qbee]

I wonder if they feel they will lose and now they are working towards reducing the sum that would be awarded by playing down Michael's achievements (thus his possible potential future earnings).

Yes thats what they are trying to do with this witness ,downplay MJs earning power for their case.
but not sure it is workign becuase its so obvious with him rejecting every thing AEG said about it.
plus the MEGA sale of tickets for TII speaks for its self.

 

[ivy]

@Soundmind

I hope you realize what I wrote is what AEG is trying to achieve with this testimony - which was pretty obvious to me after reading their opening statements as well as their court filings. It's not my opinion and whether it works or not will be seen with the verdict.

It's just that there's a very obvious AEG strategy here :

- paint this as Michael's personal choice & responsibility through past drug history.

- argue they didn't know or could not know because Michael was private and /or secretive

- minimize damages as much as they can - for the worst case scenario if they lose it.

- in the process anything they can use to impeach an opposing witness and their credibility happens to be a bonus for them.

(they are also slowly starting to build up that they don't consider contracts as final unless there are signed, normal for producers to advance money for doctors and they will bring experts against background checks.Also with this testimony they provided rebuttal to emancipated claims as well as an alternative explanation to insomnia)

It was also very clear that Jacksons had a clear strategy which was portraying AEG as a disrespectful, profit seeking, money over MJ ruthless corporation.

 

[Tygger]

Last Tear, you said I was dismissive to a person and I replied I disagreed with a thought and explained the difference.

Ivy, we have been on opposite sides of most threads we have been in because I simply do not agree with some of your thoughts. When I disagree, your responses are dismissive, combative, and rude to me as well as to others who disagree with your thoughts.

THAT is the problem and that can be seen in this thread AND the pre-trial thread.

Where are you getting that the context that this aeg exec was talking about was the last 10yrs of tour schedules? From the tweets he was saying celine was a bigger artist than mj period. Why does every single argument and remark aeg make have to be justified and defended? Agree with soundmind, it was just a stupid thing to say and was just some partisan attempt to limit damages for aeg, really didn't think i wd find anyone wasting their time trying to defend it on an mj forum.

Very much agreed!

AEG has called two witnesses, Meglen and Dr. Farshchian and neither have helped AEG and I will just leave it at that.