I find the debt conversation confusing.
The plaintiffs have always maintained that the doctor was compromised because he was in debt, needed monies desperately, and was willing to do an unethical act - negligently administering an anesthetic in a home setting that he was unqualified to do – to receive monies.
Without the background check, it was an ignored red flag for the doctor to ask for $5M for less than a year’s work and eventually settle for $150K/month; there is no logical sense there. A doctor making $1M/month with two genuine offices and two faux offices would most likely not request $5M. Phillips testified the $5M request was not as alarming to him as the $150K/month. Jorrie could not locate the two faux offices via Google and continued to draft the contract.
A background check would have revealed the TYPE of debt the doctor had. One type was non-payment of rent on the two genuine offices that were supposedly generating $1M/month (I believe the rental fee on the two faux offices was complimentary). This unknown fact could have saved Michael’s life if AEG did not allegedly hire the doctor that was unqualified to do what he was doing without a background check (negligent hiring). If AEG actually completed one, non-payment of rent on the two genuine offices would have deemed the doctor suspicious. The fact that doctor had three social security numbers was ENOUGH to stall any and all negotiations as that is illegal and can result in a federal offense.
The defense has spun the plaintiffs’ theory to mean everyone in debt is under suspicion which is utterly ridiculous and was not what the plaintiffs stated. The plaintiffs’ have described the doctor, specifically and individually this way and they are correct. The defense broadened the theory for their benefit and some subscribe to it even though the plaintiffs have never said that as a general statement.
There is no comparison between Michael’s debt and the doctor’s debt. Michael could simply sell his half of the catalog where the doctor had no asset that would cover his total debt. It seems credible that there is a comparison only because the defense made this ridiculous generalization..
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.
Passy001, only adults are employed by AEG and those adults could have paid the doctor through an advance as they paid Klein instead of an employment contract which exposed them to this type of liability.
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.
Passy001, you summarized AEG’s defense against damages! The highest paid witness, Briggs, testified that because Michael was in debt, was accused of heinous crimes, and was a secretive addict; his future income would be zero because he would be seen as unattractive to work with.
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.
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.
Ivy, no, it was the type of debt that was an issue and she did not basically say anyone with debt is not suitable for hire. She specifically spoke only about the doctor; there were no generalizations.
Also, no, Michael did not have to show up to one rehearsal if he did not want to; it was not a contractual obligation. Your example of a '9 to 5' has a contractual obligation where the employee appears at the designated workplace, unless of course, the job is virtual. AEG wanted Michael at rehearsal and because he did appear at rehearsal (however, not as often as AEG wanted), we have the TII film.
