Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

[Petrarose]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

Are these all his medical records or only the ones relevant to the case?

Like, do we need to hear about plastic surgery and stuff or is it just stuff relevant to the issue of drugs or propofol?

I was about to ask the same question. Did the estate simply hand over the whole record and this is what we will see, or the parts that only relate to the case going to be unsealed? I can see all the media salivating when they hear this latest decision. Sorry Michael.

Another question: The medical information was hidden/private, in that only the dr and Michael knew the information. Therefore, how is the family going to use the medical information to prove that AEG should have known about Michael's abuse or for that matter anything else that is being claimed by the medical record?

EDIT: oh I see Ivy answered the question about the record.

 

[serendipity]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

This is so sad. Michael's most private stuff that he tried to keep away from prying eyes and maintain an ounce of privacy, will now be freely out there for every Tom, Dick and Harry to pick apart and of course the media will have a field day. This trial is such travesty..... poor MJ.

 

[marebear]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

I am sorry Michael you cannot rest in peace. I am sorry nothing about your life can be kept private. I am sorry that in life and death people cannot value or respect you as a human being. I am sorry people cannot just enjoy your work and remember you with a smile and what a great person you were. I am sorry you were taken too soon from this world and from you kids. I am sorry you can never be left alone. I support Michael and Michael alone.

 

[Billie Jean 78]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

To say all this bad stuff about the family, in particular Katherine, is really not sitting well with me. Michael Jackson trusted his mother with his most valuable possession, his three kids. He would have never left them with her if she was such a bad person, greedy or incapable.

I think it is possible that he wasn't mentally able to distrust his own mother, especially since she seemed to be the one who he THOUGHT was the only reliable one. I mean isn't it like a theory that for example children from divorced families, where the divorce didn't happen on a friendly level and where the child stayed with one parent and never really had a relationship with the other parent, forms a very strong relationship with the existing active parent who then becomes this glorified figure in the childs life against whom the child wouldn't ever dare to speak out? Well Michael never had a true relationship with his father, at least not a warm and trusting one. Katherine was the "saint" in the family and maybe he was affraid to see the truth.

I've heard about this theory in reference to either Jordan Chandler's family or the Arvizos, as in why those boys might be affraid to tell the truth about their parents.

 

[MJ*PP]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

Aquarius@ Im not too sure if the Estate can do that. It belongs to the children and they have to protect it until theyre old enough to do anything with it.
Dont they?

Ivy@ i havent read every page but did you just state that everything will become public? Even the medical info? You have any idea why its pushed to August then? Im so confused

I just read the news and Mark Lesters name is everywhere what the hell...

Edit
I can hardly believe its the family who made it all happen.

 

[morinen]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

Will Prince's and Paris' depositions also become public? If so, when, and will they be available for free or for a fee as the trial testimonies?

My question is because I read an article on which it says the Jacksons might want to buy Neverland if they win the case. I know the estate & Colony own Neverland with the estate owing the biggest chunck. Would the estate & Colony sell it to the Jacksons?

The article suggests that they want to buy out "15% that belong to a company", and by that I assume they mean 12.5% that belong to Colony Capital. We don't know if this share is even for sale. This is a tabloid article, I wouldn't pay attention to it.

 

[la_cienega]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

So everytime he's used propofol for a medical procedure from 1984 till 2009 will be made public? So we'll get to hear about every plastic surgery he's had since then, which the media has been dying to know since his first nose job in 1979?

Thanks, Jacksons.

The hate I have for them right now...

 

[ivy]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

Will Prince's and Paris' depositions also become public? If so, when, and will they be available for free or for a fee as the trial testimonies?

yes eventually at least by the end of the trial. there would be a copying cost which won't be as high as a transcript cost.

 

[Petrarose]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

This last bit of news is very depressing to me. So AEG can say that Michael used prof before which show he had knowledge of it. That seems reasonable to me. Are they then going to argue something like, "since he used it before, he would have found a way to use it whether Muarry was involved or not"? How about the family, how will they tie up what is in the record to what was known by AEG in 09?

la_cienega to be honest I had the strongest emotions for Katherine after hearing parts of the opening statement & then coming across the cover of a daily paper the next day, & then now with the judges last decision about the medical.

 

[max000]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

And do you really think that Michael did not know what KJ was doing with his money? That she was giving it to Joe and the kids when they needed some? And yet he still gave it to her and yet he still trusted her with his children! What does that tell you? So you mention that Michael warned Prince about certain family members, but yet he is now ignoring his father and trusting them?

I never said that the Jacksons are saints, but neither is AEG.[/

never mind

 

[Petrarose]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

MSNBC Dan Abrams played video from the '2005 trial of MJ saying" he trust only Katherine, and sometimes he is not sure."

The Jacksons '93 press conference to defend MJ, is cyrstal clear why the Chandlers, Arvizos entered his life. MJ was out there searclhing for a real family. And shockingly at that press conference some Jacksons were promoting up coming projects.

Thanks and there are several more examples that will fill pages.

 

[jamba]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

@jamba

The issue is not only whether AEG hired Murray or not but also whether they knew and should have known there could be any problems.

For example if a company hires a guy with history of violence for a delivery job, you can say that the company "should have known" this new employee had a history of anger management and posed a danger for the customers - such as one moment he can lose it and attack the customers.

In this instance "should have known" could only be argued if Michael had a known history with drugs and Murray's previous actions and debts and so on would shown that he posed a risk - in simplied terms as an "addict" Michael would ask for drugs and as a person in debt and thinking about the payday Murray would provide it to Michael. Jacksons have stated this as " a drug pusher to an addicted man".

Now Michael's medical history becomes relevant for both plaintiffs and defense to demonstrate : Michael's "addiction" as well as how known or hidden this addiction was.

"court records are presumed public" is a general statement. In USA there are a lot of rights which includes access to the court documents as well as freedom of information act. So "court records are presumed public" , in other words 99% of the time the documents will be public. For sealing there must be a really good reason. In this case the judge says there are several other reasons - that I listed in the summary- that triumphs Estate's right of privacy in regards to Michael's medical records.

In other words the judge acknowledges that Michael's medical records are confidential and privileged but public's right to information, parties right to a fair trial and so on triumphs the privacy.

Thanks, Ivy, but it seems to me 'the new employee' in this case is NOT MICHAEL. It's CM, which is why he is in jail for manslaughter (involuntary). So in effect it would seem that AEG is being charged with TWO cases of negligent hiring--MJ and CM. However, this is NOT THE CHARGE in this suit. I think the judge is wrong here to put MJ's medical records as the MAIN issue. It is not. It is only relevant in the sense that AEG MIGHT have been aware, but that gets into a very 'sticky wicket' of what is in someone's head at any time. For ex., info re MJ's drug use may be unearthed now, but did anyone in this case know about it except for MJ and the docs involved? Did his family know? Did AEG know? Anyone can say, oh, yes, I knew that when they did not.

How will you PROVE who knew what when? The judge should put more burden of proof of knowledge of the individual records on both plaintiff and defendant and not just willynilly let private medical records in. I hope she will not make it open season on introducing medical records.

The individual's right to privacy is being drastically eroded in USA at the present time and this is just one more ex. of the judge making a decision that violates an individual's right to privacy (which is in fact an amendment to the Bill of Rights). It's not the medical records in themselves that are important to the case, it's who knew about them that is involved in this case. And the 'public' does NOT have a right to an individual's PRIVATE medical records. This is not a criminal case. This is not a case involving 'national security' where the 'public' is threatened. The court system has dropped the ball big time IMO.

 

[jamba]

I think it is possible that he wasn't mentally able to distrust his own mother, especially since she seemed to be the one who he THOUGHT was the only reliable one. I mean isn't it like a theory that for example children from divorced families, where the divorce didn't happen on a friendly level and where the child stayed with one parent and never really had a relationship with the other parent, forms a very strong relationship with the existing active parent who then becomes this glorified figure in the childs life against whom the child wouldn't ever dare to speak out? Well Michael never had a true relationship with his father, at least not a warm and trusting one. Katherine was the "saint" in the family and maybe he was affraid to see the truth.

I've heard about this theory in reference to either Jordan Chandler's family or the Arvizos, as in why those boys might be affraid to tell the truth about their parents.

Yes, this is a good point. I have read that in abusive environments it is too overwhelming to the child to believe he/she has no protector at all. So if there are 2 parents, one parent is seen as a protector in the child's mind, even if that is not really true. Child abuse does terrible things to a person's mind--it is like putting an egg-beater in there and scrambling up all your thinking processes--you don't know who to trust, or even how to feel--you can go numb--and tend to become compliant so as to escape more abuse (if possible) as a strategy.

But Marlon insisted: “My father beat us a lot of times. I felt resentful. That sort of discipline wasn’t abnormal in our neighborhood but it doesn’t mean it was right.”
And Marlon believes the beatings may have fatally damaged Jackson’s self-esteem and ability to fend for himself.
“It does a couple of things to you – it forms you into this person who is not able to confront people when they’re not satisfied with things. It also makes people able to take advantage of you. I found a lot of my siblings were that way.”

I read this is a comment on another forum but sorry I do not have the source as it wasn't given. But it shows some effects of the abuse.

 

[shelly_webster]

It's here

"Michael loathed their dad Joe, accusing him of beating him as a child, which Joe, who lives apart from Katherine, has always denied.

But Marlon insisted: “My father beat us a lot of times. I felt resentful.

“That sort of discipline wasn’t abnormal in our neighbourhood but it doesn’t mean it was right.”

And Marlon believes the beatings may have fatally damaged *****’s self-esteem and ability to fend for himself.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/michael-jackson-to-be-buried-in-a-gold-casket-415559

 

[Petrarose]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

Jamba you have raised a point I have been asking: how does the medial records show that AEG knew about anything uncovered in the record, since these were supposed to be private between dr and Michael. How does something hidden prove what someone else know? I do not understand the judge either. As I said before I can see the point that if the record shows use of prof, then AEG can say Michael knew about the drug & used it, but I cannot understand why the record would be a key document in the case to prove AEG's knowledge.

Is AEG supposed to know what is in the record, so that when Muarry came on board they should have been suspicious? How can that be when stars travel with their dr.

Even its use for the family, I do not understand. What are they using it to prove--that Michael used drugs? Again, they did not know what was in the record prior to 09.

To me, the record only shows Michael's exposure or use of certain drugs/procedures & cannot be used to hold anyone accountable for any negligent hiring. So, why is it a central piece of document here?

 

[Victory22]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

It's clear Michael never completely healed from the abuse. He suffered from it all of his life and was very vulnerable because he was searching for the love of family. In my opinion both his parents are a real piece of work in terms of what they mentally put him through as a child and an adult. I'm scared for PP&B.

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

Will Michael ever win for once!? Even though many of us wouldn't change our minds about him despite the crap said in court or in the media, this trial doesn't represent any justice to Michael whatsoever. I don't get why his whole medical history will be available if Murray was the one who f*cked things up.

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

It's true Michael truly loved his mother and trusted her, despite all that she and all the family members who support this nasty lawsuit are betraying him, disrespecting him as a human being and not letting him rest in peace once more acting in the name of greed. The saddest thing is I don't get why, Katherine doesn't need any money, Michael left her plently enough while she's still here in this world. This lawsuit was the last straw that broke the camel's back to have any respect left for her.

 

[8701girl]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

i heard today that the judge denied for mjs medical records to be sealed, i cant belive it ! its like no one thinks mj was a human :rant:
its disgusting

 

[Tygger]

Ivy, I stand corrected on the reason for the trial not being televised; the judge did not give a reason.

Televised or not, minors normally do not testify in front of juries and others; usually the judge, lawyers and other necessary legal professionals only.

This is wrong because children do not have their own lawyer. Margaret Lodise is their guardian ad litem in regards to Estate probate matters (which also includes custody) only. She's not a general lawyer protecting kids general interest.

There was a lawyer representing the children when restitution was rejected. If this civil trial was harmful to the children, or if the children expressed opposition to the trial to their guardian ad litem, the guardian or a lawyer representing the children would have gotten involved to protect their interest, correct?

This will depend on the final verdict form. AEG is actually asking for jury to determine possible damages - if any - for each of the plaintiffs separately. Jacksons are opposing this and saying it's none of AEG's business how the damages are divided.

So Jacksons version allows for a non equal or at best a 4 way equal divide, where as AEG's version can mean no damages awarded to Katherine while damages awarded to kids.

Yes, the forms are not final yet.

The defendants’ have insisted that Michael’s mother is blameworthy in her own son’s death. This and her age may be their reasoning for separate awards. We shall see if they pursue this reasoning.

Regardless, if the plaintiffs win, it may be in the defendants’ best interest to give equal shares. It may have the reverse effect. They may believe they will benefit with a discounted award for Katherine compared to the children and that may not happen.

MSNBC Dan Abrams played video from the '2005 trial of MJ saying" he trust only Katherine, and sometimes he is not sure."

Is there a link to this?

 

[ivy]

Televised or not, minors normally do not testify in front of juries and others; usually the judge, lawyers and other necessary legal professionals only.

not necessarily. michael's accusers who happen to be minors and alleged victim(s) have testified in front of an open court & media. Normally in the case of minors their names and faces will be kept private from the media, if they can they'll testify in an open court. I would think 16 and 15 will be able to testify in an open court.

There was a lawyer representing the children when restitution was rejected, not a guardian. If this civil trial was harmful to the children, the guardian or the lawyer representing the children would have gotten involved to protect their interest, correct?

That was Brian Panish - one of the lawyers that represent Katherine and the kids in AEG lawsuit. Not an independent lawyer.

As I said Margared Lodise cannot get involved. She's only and only assigned for probate matters.

Katherine is the plaintiff and the guardian here. There might be a conflict of interest.

As far as I'm concerned, the kids don't have an independent counsel who might have looked after their best interests. so I don't see who do you think would get involved?

The defendants’ have insisted that Michael’s mother is blameworthy in her own son’s death. This and her age may be their reasoning for separate awards. We shall see if they pursue this reasoning.

they aren't.

Regardless, if the plaintiffs win, it may be in the defendants’ best interest to give equal shares.

that decision now lies with the court, not AEG.

 

[Tygger]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

Ivy, I believe the two oldest children are old enough to testify in open court; more importantly, they seem to be fine with it. Again, they may feel they can help their father now when they could not the day he passed.

The youngest would most likely be harmed by the trial activities. The plaintiffs' lawyers did protect him with the doctor's note regarding the deposition. I would not say there is no one looking out for the children's interest. All three seem very well adjusted to me.

Ivy, are you confident the defendants will not pursue the reasoning that Michael's mother is blameworthy in her son's death? From the opening statements, I believe they may very well have given up on this strategy but, I am unsure. Strange things happen during trials.

The defendants should hope for the best as far as damages. I personally do not see a successful verdict in their future. When will there be a ruling regarding the verdict forms?

 

[AliCat]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

In June of 2003, Dr. Allan Metzger, prescribed Michael Jackson Xanax.

In June of 2008, Dr. Allan Metzger, stated that Michael Jackson took Tylenol PM for sleep. By the way, people died from taking acetaminophen as found in Tylenol products because it caused liver damage. Again, take a look at the autopsy report, Michael's organs were strong, no liver damage.

As for Michael Jackson's chronic back issues, Michael saw Dr. Randy Rosen, at the Spaulding Pain Medical Clinic in Los Angeles. It's also the place that Paris Jackson was born.

Michael did have a profound sleep disorder from performing, he could not come down. Dr. Allan Metzger treated Michael Jackson during the HIStory tour. Dr. Allan Metzger never gave Michael Jackson intravenous medication.

 

[bouee]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

I was trying to think how the medical files could be used / relevant.

1993 : addiction to opiates, that Gongaware supposedly witnessed/knew about. What were the symptoms back then, compare them to what happened in 2009 (O2 press conf- last week with chills and strange symptoms) -. Could/should Gongaware have suspected anything in 2009 ? I'm not sure the medical file would be needed since Michael openly admitted being addicted at the time, all that would be needed would be the visible symptoms.

1993 might bring back all that's pain related , so back to the Pepsi burn, Munich accident in 1999, home accident in 2005, Klein in 2009 = use of painkillers / pain management.

Add insomnia , propofol could be the link between pain and insomnia, if it is confirmed that propofol was used for minor procedures.

Propofol : Propofol was first used sometime in the 90s, it did not exist before that, so that would be surgical procedures from that time on, + History tour. I see Ratner, Tadrissi and David Adams on the witness list, so I guess they will talk about "excessive" / "off label" use of propofol. They wouldn't need to go into details, they would just need to say that propofol was used, for X or Y reason, and describe the circumstances, and say if it is usual/ unusual, and explain why they used it. The explaination, coming from the drs who used it, could be very interesting.

That brings us back to the main reason of Murray's conviction : negligence. It's not propofol in itself, it's how it was given. AEG should /could have guessed that weird medication was involved AND that the Dr would be super negligent when giving it.

Another thing is that I would love to hear Adams version of what happened in 2009, was he supposed to go to London or not. I don't think it will happen though.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

This will depend on the final verdict form. AEG is actually asking for jury to determine possible damages - if any - for each of the plaintiffs separately. Jacksons are opposing this and saying it's none of AEG's business how the damages are divided.*

--------------------------
and that sums it all up.

so the judge is allowing all medical records to be released even if they arent going to be used in the trial? nothing surprises me with this judge.shes stated her opinion and bias many times.

whats the deal with the individual contractor ruling. how does that effect the case/potential damages.

also i see a ruling re speculative damages. wasnt there a motion inregards to that and the 40 bill?


how is the "right" for a random person to read someones medical records
more important than a persons right to privacy. yeah i forgot its michael and hes treated like scum by the justus system.

the media will be joyous. its so worth it isnt it katherine. nothing like revenge is there steven

 

[Bubs]

"Judge’s reasons for denying the motion to seal medical records include: court records being presumed public, public’s right of access to information, both Katherine and AEG stating they will be relying on medical records"

What a f....d up world we are living:no:
Public's right to access information! How about public persona's right to privacy?

This will depend on the final verdict form. AEG is actually asking for jury to determine possible damages - if any - for each of the plaintiffs separately. Jacksons are opposing this and saying it's none of AEG's business how the damages are divided.*

--------------------------
and that sums it all up.

I agree.
I hope AEG gets their verdic form and their are individually listed there.
Katherine (=Randy) = $0
PPB = what ever is awarded if AEG loses.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

Like others say how can the j.sons use medical records to their advantage. those records were sealed until now. aeg did not have access to them so what they say is irrelevent as no one knew what was in them.it cant be argued that aeg should have known based on the records as obviously they didnt have access to them.

also seeing as the claim that aeg hired murray and came up with the idea for diprivan and made murray give it was thrown out then to me whys it relevent to show mj had a supposed history of using diprivan to sleep.

 

[Bubs]

Court is also allowing the 14 additional names on Katherine’s witness list. :doh:

January 2013 Katherine's lawyers filed a request from MJ Estate asked Estate to give them documents from AllGood and Lloyds lawsuits. Judge states that AEG has no standing to oppose to late requests from MJ Estate. Judge states both parties can request documents from MJ Estate.
--------------------------------------------
If both sides can request documents from the estate, does it mean that the estate cannot deny, or is it up to them to decide whether they allow both sides to see them?

 

[Bubs]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

Do you have any documented proof that there are others behind the lawsuit? Otherwise it is just speculation and isn't really productive.

This statement is utterly ludicrous!
Most of the talk on this thread is based on speculation, and to go even further, this lawsuit is based on speculation too.
Heck, Katherine lawer didn't even have shred of evidence against AEG when this lawsuit was filed, but they got some due the their discovery and from AEG themselves.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)

Why bother having deadlines for witness lists if the judge then says the deadlines dont matter and u can add ppl after.