Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

[Tygger]

The plaintiffs' case officially rested with Ortega. Panish addressing the jurors was a formality. I am unsure why he did not want to do it and we do not know if he replied to the judge in jest.

 

[Petrarose]

I feel that Ackerman (even I don't care for him), Debbie & Green have provided significant testimony to help AEG's case. Even Randy helped AEG case and hurt his own case. Now let's see what happens next week.

I don't understand why the Plaintiffs have not provided all their material yet. They have been hounding the window of Michael's ex manager for the emails from the computer, and they themselves did not even provide the household accounting to AEG. Actually I think they operated on a cash basis and have no accounting. I doubt that Katherine did withholding taxes, ect. for the people working in the house. Maybe the defense might get Katherine's tax return, but that is not household accounting. Since Katherine had that issue with the moonies, it could be that someone else's account was used to write checks.

 

[ivy]

Why : keep the possibility to adapt to what AEG is saying - unfair, but , wouldn't put it past him, or past either of them.

well that is highly unfair and should not be done.

The judge will rule about the motion anyway, and the more AEG develop their arguments, the more she might rule in their favor, so that wouldn't be super smart either, if that's what he was trying to do .

she's not going to consider AEG's defense arguments. This motion is only about saying that Jacksons did not meet the burden of proof , there's no legal basis and there's no way that they can prove their claims. So it's not a motion that the judge looks to both sides and think for example AEG has a stronger argument in their defense, stronger chance to win and rule in their favor. It's a motion all about Jacksons arguments.

As an example the most recent high profile mid trial dismissal comes to mind is Sam Lufti versus Britney Spears parents. Sam Lufti was Britney's manager and her parents have publicly blamed Sam for Britney's problems. So Sam sued them for defamation , physical harm and breach of contract. After Sam / plaintiffs rested Britney's parents filed a nonsuit and the judge agreed with them and dismissed the lawsuit. For example in that lawsuit Sam claimed he is to get 15% of Britney's income for his services as he worked as her manager but he did not have any contract - hence he failed to demonstrate he was entitled to any payment. Also Britney's mental problems at the time showed that even if there was a contract or agreement, Britney was not in the capacity to make decisions. Lufti himself argued Britney had problems with drugs, so his own argument would have voided any contract or agreement. Even if judge only listened and believed to what Lufti said Britney had problems with drugs , she would be required to rule that any and all contracts are void. So it did not matter how Birtney's parents would defend themselves, it was Lufti who could not show a reason for the trial to continue.

 

[Tygger]

Bouee, Rowe was the first AEG witness to find the doctor blameworthy. The dilemma Green will find himself in is that he blames the doctor but is reluctant to say the doctor was negligent, unethical, or dependent on the promise of $150K/month.

 

[MIST]

They are claiming now MJ wanted to get propofol from Murray , Lee and Metzeger at the same time , which means he was doctor shopping .

I don´t think you can call that doctor shopping.
Michael asked for it until someone said yes to him, two of them said no and the third one agreed to do it.

 

[#MJforever57]

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 3h
"Regardless financial incentive, it does not take away from physician's obligation to the patient," Dr. Green explained.Expand


ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 3h
Bloss: Would you agree large incentives can create conflict of interest?
Dr. Green: Yes, financial incentive can create conflict of interest


Ivy what is Dr Green saying here?


IMO it did take away the physician's obligation to the patient (Michael)
Murray didn't put Michael first and he should have. Patient first.

When ask the question would you agree large incentives can create a conflict of interest he say yes.

So would you say with Murray getting this incentives would this have gotting in the way of Murray obligation to his patient? (Michael)

 

[#MJforever57]

I don´t think you can call that doctor shopping.
Michael asked for it until someone said yes to him, two of them said no and the third one agreed to do it.

I agree with that. Sad part for Michael is that Murray said yes it cost him his life.

 

[Petrarose]

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 3h
"Regardless financial incentive, it does not take away from physician's obligation to the patient," Dr. Green explained.Expand


ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 3h
Bloss: Would you agree large incentives can create conflict of interest?
Dr. Green: Yes, financial incentive can create conflict of interest


Ivy what is Dr Green saying here?


IMO it did take away the physician's obligation to the patient (Michael)
Murray didn't put Michael first and he should have. Patient first.

When ask the question would you agree large incentives can create a conflict of interest he say yes.

So would you say with Murray getting this incentives would this have gotting in the way of Murray obligation to his patient? (Michael)

They are 2 different things. Green is saying the money DOES NOT take away from the OBLIGATION. That is, you have an obligation to do the best for the patient, regardless of getting large sums of money or not. Therefore, the money cannot take away that obligation. The obligation is always there. However, money can cause a conflict of interest.

Muarry made the decision to not monitor his patient, even though he was going to get a lot of money, so the money did not take away his obligation.

 

[ivy]

^^

yep basically he's saying money can be a factor in determining how a physician would act but still he says doctors has a duty towards the patients.

 

[passy001]

yes at last, an AEG witness blames Murray. Good to hear. I wish he would not blame Michael as well.



I'm sure most cardiologists, especially if they are successful and have clinics that make 1 million/month (as per Kathy Jorrie) pay their debts back.

That's the problem, the problem is not debt itself, it's that he was not paying it back. And Phillips was aware of that possibility - a doctor behaving unethically because of money - as per his email to reassure Ortega about Murray : "he's sucessful, doesn't need this gig".

Does it matter what Murray did with his money once he's earned it? whether he was paying back his debt or wasting it on strip clubs is completely irrelevant in my opinion. How does the way he spends his money defines his competence? Is someone competence dependent on his inability to pay back debts? are you good at what you do because you happen to pay back debts? really? in short, does it even matter?

 

[bouee]

Does it matter what Murray did with his money once he's earned it? whether he was paying back his debt or wasting it on strip clubs is completely irrelevant in my opinion. How does the way he spends his money defines his competence? Is someone competence dependent on his inability to pay back debts? are you good at what you do because you happen to pay back debts? really? in short, does it even matter?

If you say your 4 clinics make 12 millions a year (2 of them being imaginary must not have high costs) , it shows you are dishonest. If you prefer to spend money on strip clubs rather than pay child support or your debts, then you are dishonest and irresponsible.

If you struggle to make ends meet , then no , it doesn't say anything IMO.

 

[Petrarose]

Does it matter what Murray did with his money once he's earned it? whether he was paying back his debt or wasting it on strip clubs is completely irrelevant in my opinion. How does the way he spends his money defines his competence? Is someone competence dependent on his inability to pay back debts? are you good at what you do because you happen to pay back debts? really? in short, does it even matter?

Good point. Some will say Michel did not pay his bills too. Does that mean Michael would not perform on stage to the best of his ability? Of course the answer is he would do the best he can.

Does anyone know why Green saying he wants to read made Panish laugh. I am trying to figure out what was comical about that, but I am still puzzled.

 

[ivy]

Does it matter what Murray did with his money once he's earned it? whether he was paying back his debt or wasting it on strip clubs is completely irrelevant in my opinion. How does the way he spends his money defines his competence? Is someone competence dependent on his inability to pay back debts? are you good at what you do because you happen to pay back debts? really? in short, does it even matter?

this debt talk is interesting.

I think a witness and Ortega said - and I agree - debt doesn't determine a person's ability to do a job. If you know how to do it whether you are in debt, have no money or rich have no effect on your ability to do the job that you know to do.

paying the debt can only show if a person is responsible with debt and if they can be trusted with loans . that's why we have credit scores in America. You have a debt and you pay it, they see you as a low risk person who would pay back the loans. If you don't pay, you are the opposite.

Jacksons argue that debts could be used to foresee bad behavior but that's kinda problematic in general sense. That means that you are assuming that people in debt cannot be trusted and they can be easily bought. I keep remember the homeless guy who returned a wedding ring that accidentally fallen down to his collection bin. So apparently even people who are hungry, live on the street and beg for money can return a tens of thousands dollar worth of ring to the rightful owner and do the right thing. So I don't see how can you say it is reasonable to foresee a doctor in debt = drug pusher.

then there's the assumption that Murray was in debt so he needed the $150,000 per month. yes but doesn't it mean that Murray's best interest was in keeping Michael alive and healthy so that Michael would tour for a long long time and Murray would get his $150 K a month? Whatever his treatment was - legitimate or not - his best interest was to keep Michael alive and in a position to be able to perform.

then jacksons argue that the conflict is that Murray could not tell Michael wasn't in a good shape because Murray needed the gig, first of all how long can you fake it? Even if Murray perhaps was able to convince Michael was in good health, if this treatment continued it would be obvious eventually Michael wasn't good. Plus perhaps the reason murray did not or could not tell Michael wasn't in a position to perform wasn't due to Murray wanting to keep his job but it was due to the factor that Murray was doing something he shouldn't be doing.

 

[passy001]

If you say your 4 clinics make 12 millions a year (2 of them being imaginary must not have high costs) , it shows you are dishonest. If you prefer to spend money on strip clubs rather than pay child support or your debts, then you are dishonest and irresponsible.

If you struggle to make ends meet , then no , it doesn't say anything IMO.

Murray gave his price and MJ took it despite the fact that AEG thought he could get better for far less but MJ wanted him at all costs and there is nothing AEG could do.

also, who cares if a doctor pays debts or child support. this line of argument is utter desperation. really. people choose doctors because they are good at what they do and not for the way they run their private lives. it's like saying MJ should not find work because he was twice accused of child molestation and had suffocating debts to the extent that he couldn't even pay utility bills for his own mother. This smacks of absolute prejudice and discrimination. and there is no law in the UNITED STATES that would ever allow anything like this. if an employer refuses to hire a competent worker/contractor due to its inability to pay debts, the employer will face a massive lawsuit.

 

[ivy]

If you say your 4 clinics make 12 millions a year (2 of them being imaginary must not have high costs) , it shows you are dishonest. If you prefer to spend money on strip clubs rather than pay child support or your debts, then you are dishonest and irresponsible.

I hope you realize the hindsight in this comment.

Even if a background and a credit check was done on Murray none of the above would be discovered. Only publicly traded companies financial records are public. Murray's clinics that are private owned LLC's so there would not be any record to show what he earned and did not earn. He could have grossed 12 Million a year but had way to many expenses that he wasn't able to pay them all. Even to this date no one was able to show his actual earnings. Similarly his visits to strip clubs would not pop up on a credit check.

the only think that could be found was he had debts and he wasn't paying some of them. The reason of how and why would not be obvious.

If you prefer to spend money on strip clubs rather than pay child support or your debts, then you are dishonest and irresponsible.

this is a serious sentence. so Michael bought antiques and he bought his mother a RV when he had a $300 M loan that was about to be due in 2010. Does it mean he was irresponsible?

 

[bouee]

Murray gave his price and MJ took it despite the fact that AEG thought he could get better for far less but MJ wanted him at all costs and there is nothing AEG could do.

also, who cares if a doctor pays debts or child support. this line of argument is utter desperation. really. people choose doctors because they are good at what they do and not for the way they run their private lives. it's like saying MJ should not find work because he was twice accused of child molestation and had suffocating debts to the extent that he couldn't even pay utility bills for his own mother. This smacks of absolute prejudice and discrimination. and there is no law in the UNITED STATES that would ever allow anything like this. if an employer refuses to hire a competent worker/contractor due to its inability to pay debts, the employer will face a massive lawsuit.

It has nothing to do with discrimination or "desperation" as you say : it shows Murray lied from the beginning to AEG & they could have found out.

I hope you realize the hindsight in this comment.

Even if a background and a credit check was done on Murray none of the above would be discovered. Only publicly traded companies financial records are public. Murray's clinics that are private owned LLC's so there would not be any record to show what he earned and did not earn. He could have grossed 12 Million a year but had way to many expenses that he wasn't able to pay them all. Even to this date no one was able to show his actual earnings. Similarly his visits to strip clubs would not pop up on a credit check.

the only think that could be found was he had debts and he wasn't paying some of them. The reason of how and why would not be obvious.





this is a serious sentence. so Michael bought antiques and he bought his mother a RV when he had a $300 M loan that was about to be due in 2010. Does it mean he was irresponsible?

You are, again, taking things out of context... I suppose you saw that I was answering Passy's post about strip clubs ? Thanks for the information that strip clubs would not have shown up on a credit check, I didn't know that. :smilerolleyes:

Has Michael ever stopped supporting his kids ? Or his brothers' kids ? Or even his mother ? He has always taken steps to take care of his finances, and his finances were far more complicated than those of a doctor. Didn't he go back to work in 2009 to take care of the money issue ? i can't believe people are making comparisons between Michael and Murray here.

Who said "the doctor is not biased, he's successful, doesn't need this gig" when there were suspicions about Murray ? Who said money can influence a doctor (but should not) ?

The point is Murray lied , from the beginning, he was unthetical from the beginning.

Also you keep entertaining the confusion between someone who has debts, and someone who is not paying them back, which is NOT the same. Murray said he was succesful and made a lot of money. Without going as far as checking every single word he said, a background check would have shown that it was either not true, or that in spite of making money, he was not paying his debts back. He was asking for a lot of money, needed a lot of money, so was susceptible to influence : both Michael's and AEg's. Orlando Martinez testified to the public records that were available to AEG. They could have seen it.

Now that's the theory, because honestly, saying that they didn't check because Murray was Michael's doctor is a far better argument than trying to justify Murray's lies. Especially here.

 

[sfosteredi]

this debt talk is interesting.

I think a witness and Ortega said - and I agree - debt doesn't determine a person's ability to do a job. If you know how to do it whether you are in debt, have no money or rich have no effect on your ability to do the job that you know to do.

paying the debt can only show if a person is responsible with debt and if they can be trusted with loans . that's why we have credit scores in America. You have a debt and you pay it, they see you as a low risk person who would pay back the loans. If you don't pay, you are the opposite.

Jacksons argue that debts could be used to foresee bad behavior but that's kinda problematic in general sense. That means that you are assuming that people in debt cannot be trusted and they can be easily bought. I keep remember the homeless guy who returned a wedding ring that accidentally fallen down to his collection bin. So apparently even people who are hungry, live on the street and beg for money can return a tens of thousands dollar worth of ring to the rightful owner and do the right thing. So I don't see how can you say it is reasonable to foresee a doctor in debt = drug pusher.

then there's the assumption that Murray was in debt so he needed the $150,000 per month. yes but doesn't it mean that Murray's best interest was in keeping Michael alive and healthy so that Michael would tour for a long long time and Murray would get his $150 K a month? Whatever his treatment was - legitimate or not - his best interest was to keep Michael alive and in a position to be able to perform.

then jacksons argue that the conflict is that Murray could not tell Michael wasn't in a good shape because Murray needed the gig, first of all how long can you fake it? Even if Murray perhaps was able to convince Michael was in good health, if this treatment continued it would be obvious eventually Michael wasn't good. Plus perhaps the reason murray did not or could not tell Michael wasn't in a position to perform wasn't due to Murray wanting to keep his job but it was due to the factor that Murray was doing something he shouldn't be doing.

I always thought the Jacksons whole "big debt = not trustworthy" was a dangerous line of reasoning. Most Americans have some sort of debt. Which means some people on the jury could have some serious debts, they don't excuse you from jury duty for being in debt and you can't look at someone and tell. So that could be kind of insulting to some on the jury.

 

[passy001]

It has nothing to do with discrimination or "desperation" as you say : it shows Murray lied from the beginning to AEG & they could have found out.

Murray did not make any disclosure about his debts or unpaid child support. so how could this be a lie? and Even if AEG found out about debts and unpaid child support. that alone would not have constituted a red flag.

 

[bouee]

Murray did not make any disclosure about his debts or unpaid child support. so how could this be a lie? and Even if AEG found out about debts and unpaid child support. that alone would not have constituted a red flag.

It would have shown he was not telling the truth. But just that fact alone, I agree, might not have been a red flag at the beginning. But after mid june, it would have become a huge one, among others, IMO.

 

[ivy]

I always thought the Jacksons whole "big debt = not trustworthy" was a dangerous line of reasoning. Most Americans have some sort of debt. Which means some people on the jury could have some serious debts, they don't excuse you from jury duty for being in debt and you can't look at someone and tell. So that could be kind of insulting to some on the jury.

It is. Almost all Americans have some sort debt, student loans and home mortgage being the most common and biggest ones. They pay them back for 15 to 30 years. Also the recent economic crisis resulted in people losing jobs, losing income, being unemployed for significant periods of times and raking debts & being unable to pay. So saying big debt means not trustworthy and should be a red flag to not hire somebody is quite problematic. I shivered when Jackson HR expert said she stopped the background check on Murray when she found his debts. She basically said if you have debts nothing else matters you are automatically considered to be not suitable for hire. I would at least expect a question of "why do you have this debt and why can't you pay". Even Donald Trump had filed for bankruptcy 4 times. debt happens..

also the AEG expected Michael to show up to rehearsals might backfire when presented to regular people. Most of them would have 9 to 5 jobs which expect them to show up to work and most people will be fired after a few unexplained absences. I don't think such people would see anything wrong with AEG advancing Michael millions and then expecting him to show up.

 

[passy001]

It has nothing to do with discrimination or "desperation" as you say : it shows Murray lied from the beginning to AEG & they could have found out.



You are, again, taking things out of context... I suppose you saw that I was answering Passy's post about strip clubs ? Thanks for the information that strip clubs would not have shown up on a credit check, I didn't know that. :smilerolleyes:

Has Michael ever stopped supporting his kids ? Or his brothers' kids ? Or even his mother ? He has always taken steps to take care of his finances, and his finances were far more complicated than those of a doctor. Didn't he go back to work in 2009 to take care of the money issue ? i can't believe people are making comparisons between Michael and Murray here.

Who said "the doctor is not biased, he's successful, doesn't need this gig" when there were suspicions about Murray ? Who said money can influence a doctor (but should not) ?

The point is Murray lied , from the beginning, he was unthetical from the beginning.

Also you keep entertaining the confusion between someone who has debts, and someone who is not paying them back, which is NOT the same. Murray said he was succesful and made a lot of money. Without going as far as checking every single word he said, a background check would have shown that it was either not true, or that in spite of making money, he was not paying his debts back. He was asking for a lot of money, needed a lot of money, so was susceptible to influence : both Michael's and AEg's. Orlando Martinez testified to the public records that were available to AEG. They could have seen it.

Now that's the theory, because honestly, saying that they didn't check because Murray was Michael's doctor is a far better argument than trying to justify Murray's lies. Especially here.

MJ was on the verge of bankruptcy. his financial empire was tethering towards absolute collapse. neverland was facing foreclosure. so was havendust where his mother was living without electricity. at some point he was even auctioning his personal belongings. the man was about to lose everything. i mean everything. hence he had to tour almost urgently. else it was just a matter of time.

The comparison between MJ and Murray is to show the double standard in your logic. if you claim Murray was irresponsible because he had debt and unpaid child support. then what does that make MJ with suffocating debts and endless lawsuits?

 

[bouee]

MJ was on the verge of bankruptcy. his financial empire was tethering towards absolute collapse. neverland was facing foreclosure. so was havendust where his mother was living without electricity. at some point he was even auctioning his personal belongings. the man was about to lose everything. i mean everything. hence he had to tour almost urgently. else it was just a matter of time.

The comparison between MJ and Murray is to show the double standard in your logic. if you claim Murray was irresponsible because he had debt and unpaid child support. then what does that make MJ with suffocating debts and endless lawsuits?

I undertsand the purpose of the comparison - to some extent. Murray had an income, or at least that's what he said, 7 or 8 kids- who knows how many he would have if he was not in jail now ? Being deceitful was a way of life for him, while Michael did not work, because he didn't want to, and went back to work when he needed it / wanted to. In between, he took care of his fianances the best he could - which were way more complicated to deal with than a doctor's finances. Michael needed people to take care of that, he could not do it on his own, and was dependent on people, some honest others not so honest. While a doctor usually can take care of his finances on his own.

 

[passy001]

It would have shown he was not telling the truth. But just that fact alone, I agree, might not have been a red flag at the beginning. But after mid june, it would have become a huge one, among others, IMO.

That kind of disclosure was not necessary. so saying he was not telling the truth is an overstretch. AEG was still trying to figure out what was going on. you can't expect them at that point to just say "oh this guy is in debt therefore he's the problem". they guys were still trying to figure things out.

 

[bouee]

also the AEG expected Michael to show up to rehearsals might backfire when presented to regular people. Most of them would have 9 to 5 jobs which expect them to show up to work and most people will be fired after a few unexplained absences. I don't think such people would see anything wrong with AEG advancing Michael millions and then expecting him to show up.

Even when they are visibly sick ? Michael was definitely not being lazy.

 

[bouee]

That kind of disclosure was not necessary. so saying he was not telling the truth is an overstretch. AEG was still trying to figure out what was going on. you can't expect them at that point to just say "oh this guy is in debt therefore he's the problem". they guys were still trying to figure things out.

When you consider everything, I don't think it's an overstretch. Phillips considered it, or used that argument to convince Ortega, who had supsicions.

EDIT : some of the records (Murray's unpaid debts) were public at the time.

 

[ivy]

Even when they are visibly sick ? Michael was definitely not being lazy.

I said "after a few unexplained absences.". Didn't Ortega say that Michael did not show up to rehearsals in June? and no reason was given? so I'm not talking about "he is sick , he can't come" situation. I'm talking about "I'm going to be there" and then not showing up.

 

[passy001]

I undertsand the purpose of the comparison - to some extent. Murray had an income, or at least that's what he said, 7 or 8 kids- who knows how many he would have if he was not in jail now ? Being deceitful was a way of life for him, while Michael did not work, because he didn't want to, and went back to work when he needed it / wanted to. In between, he took care of his fianances the best he could - which were way more complicated to deal with than a doctor's finances. Michael needed people to take care of that, he could not do it on his own, and was dependent on people, some honest others not so honest. While a doctor usually can take care of his finances on his own.

This still does not justify your double standard. whether MJ had an entire continent of people working for him is irrelevant. in the end he was the captain of his own ship who had a final say on how to run the ship. Oprha Winfrey has an army of people working for her. how come she is not struggling the way MJ was? doesn't she also rely on people to handle her finances and taxes?

you are bringing Murray's personal life into his professional life, and in doing so you are mixing apple and orange. whether he had an entire continent of children to feed is absolutely irrelevant to his ability to provide medical care.

 

[bouee]

I said "after a few unexplained absences.". Didn't Ortega say that Michael did not show up to rehearsals in June? and no reason was given? so I'm not talking about "he is sick , he can't come" situation. I'm talking about "I'm going to be there" and then not showing up.

How long did that last before they realised there was a real problem ? Did they stop after realising there was a problem ? No, and that's the Jacksons point, and that's what AEG is NOT adressing , or has not been adressing so far.

 

[bouee]

This still does not justify your double standard. whether MJ had an entire continent of people working for him is irrelevant. in the end he was the captain of his own ship who had a final say on how to run the ship. Oprha Winfrey has an army of people working for her. how come she is not struggling the way MJ was? doesn't she also rely on people to handle her finances and taxes?

you are bringing Murray's personal life into his professional life, and in doing so you are mixing apple and orange. whether he had an entire continent of children to feed is absolutely irrelevant to his ability to provide medical care.

What doubles standards ? I think I made my point clear : not paying back the debts is different form having debts, not paying them back is not a hiring issue per se, it could become one when they could have realised Murray was lying and needed the money (and was not doing a favor by giving up 12 millions/year) , it did become one when there were suspicions about Murray.

Who brought in Murray's private life and strip clubs ? It was you. I would need to check that , but I think unpaid child support was public information (not 100% sure) . Then if you want to go on comparing Michael and Murray, go ahead. Totally different lifestyles, one was respectful the other one was constantly deceiving people.

 

[passy001]

What doubles standards ? I think I made my point clear : not paying back the debts is different form having debts, not paying them back is not a hiring issue per se, it could become one when they could have realised Murray was lying and needed the money (and was not doing a favor by giving up 12 millions/year) , it did become one when there were suspicions about Murray.

Who brought in Murray's private life and strip clubs ? It was you. I would need to check that , but I think unpaid child support was public information (not 100% sure) . Then if you want to go on comparing Michael and Murray, go ahead. Totally different lifestyles, one was respectful the other one was constantly deceiving people.

bouee, let's just agree to disagree otherwise we're just spamming the thread. it's counter-productive to be honest.

you brought in the issue of child support and even debts. so those are personal stuff. aren't they?

respectful or not. both MJ and Murray were in debts. you can spin it however you like. the records show very clearly that MJ was $400m in debt at the time of death. it can't get any clearer than that. and just like Murray he needed the money so he could repay them. hence the TII concerts.