Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

[twinklEE]

why did Michael have two social security numbers?

 

[ivy]

why did Michael have two social security numbers?

no one knows. mistakes in names, his first social security number being leaked / subject of identity theft and so on might be reasons to have multiple social security numbers. Michael had at least two so did Elvis Presley. There are legitimate reasons to have more than one social security number.

ps : Vaccaro had access to Michael's social security number through the storage place for example.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

Frankly, I'm surprised he hasn't been asked yet, since he does make the rounds on talk shows on behalf of Randy & the family apparently. If all he did was provide a "referral" for Brian Panish, that's a different story and he's been very open about that. But, Soundmind seemed to be suggesting he would benefit financially from the outcome of the trial should the plaintiffs win. So, unless we have proof of that, we shouldn't imply that's the case. imo

We don't have proof. I've no idea where soundmind got the idea from, but i noticed bubs putting forward this claim upthread ages ago and asked for the evidence. There is none - it's a remark made in a tv interview which has been inflated into meaning something for which there is no basis for. As i understand it referral fees are a result of a formal legal agreement between 2 law firms which can lead to a split in the damages from a trial/settlement and can even lead to joint legal liability. All we have is tmez saying in an interview that he was asked as a family friend to recommend a good wrongful death law firm. That's it. I'm baffled why mj fans would want to jump to conclusions and suggest that tmez is only giving opinions based on financial self-interest. Seeing he is the only person out there regularly defending mj from the molestation allegations, i have no idea why we would want to do that.

 

[ivy]

^^

Panish's website states that they pay referral fees

http://www.psblaw.com/referral-fees.html

 

[Bonnie Blue]

^ So? Most lawfirms pay referral fees don't they? The issue is whether we are going to state as fact on this forum that they have paid tmez a referral fee based on a tv interview where tmez said that he was asked to recommend a lawfirm to a family he is friends with.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

The only suspicion about Murray was coming from Ortega mid june, not AEG, not Phillips, not Gongaware, not Jorrie. Jorrie believed what he told her matched what she found, she believed what he said to her and repeated it to Phillips. Phillips believed what Jorrie told him and repeated it to Ortega.

Did he? Even randy doesn't testify to this. He had to admit in his testimony he had no idea if murray was successful - it was an assumption based on knowing he had some clinics and that he demanded $5m. He also said that murray wouldn't need to be checked out as he was an artist's recommendation.
I know that jorrie testified she told randy this checking out info re murray and was v impressed that in stark contrast to seemingly everyone else in this trial who can't remember dates, writing emails, meetings or phonecalls etc that she has perfect recall of a telephone conversation, exactly what she said in it and the date of this phone call. It's just a shame that randy couldn't remember this v useful transfer of info when he was giving his testimony a few weeks earlier.

 

[ivy]

^ So? Most lawfirms pay referral fees don't they? The issue is whether they have paid tmez a referral fee.

you said "I've no idea where soundmind got the idea from" and I replied he probably got the idea from their web page which says "we pay a referral fee". It's an easy conclusion to make. and wouldn't they pay a fee if they win? so your question of "whether they have paid tmez a referral fee." is no they haven't because the case isn't over. Will they pay him a fee? Who knows.

and as a note : Tmez does stay loyal to causes & people he is involved with. He also promoted Sullivan's book as he was involved with it regardless of what fans thought. It is apparent that TMez is involved in this lawsuit - whether it is just giving advice and he is clearly supporting Jacksons. So he's not really an unbiased party here.

 

[gerryevans]

^ So? Most lawfirms pay referral fees don't they? The issue is whether they have paid tmez a referral fee.

It's not known if he has or not, but why wouldn't they pay him one? He referred them a potentially billion dollar case. I'm assuming the amount of the fee or perhaps even if there is a fee depends on the outcome of the case. But I'd think they'd be remiss if they won this suit, and the general practice is to pay a fee for a referral, and Tmez would not get one, especially for such a high profile suit.

That does not mean he's less loyal to MJ and he's always been steadfastly loyal to Randy.

 

[ivy]

Did he? Even randy doesn't testify to this.

in his deposition or testimony he said either Kathy Jorrie or someone else told him Murray was successful. In his testimony he mentioned someone told him that, remember media testimony reports aren't complete.

"I wrote it in the e-mail that I thought at the time he had been checked out," Phillips testified Tuesday. He wrote that Murray was successful "because that's what I was told," he said.


The problem with the successful comment is that it was just a statement made based on Murray's representation. 4 clinics, grossing $1 Million a month etc.. made them think he was successful. They did not have any independent source of information to confirm it.

 

[Tygger]

they are implying that. can you please cite testimony to show that they argue that such debt or conclusion only applies to Murray? and what makes Murray so special?

Ivy, that is an incredulous response. AEG spun the plaintiff’s theory on the doctor to include all people with debt in their motions you summarized pre-trial. I believe Martinez, Dr. Wohlgelernter, Berman, Matheson, and Seawright’s testimonies discussed the doctor’s debt. Please re-read them and tell us where their discussion of the doctor’s debt was applied to all Americans.

I think you realize this particular doctor killed the plaintiffs’ son/father after he was allegedly and negligently hired by AEG and that is why he is singled out from the rest of the debt carrying population.

Jorrie testified she told AEG Live Chief Executive Randy Phillips that Murray was successful, based on a 10-minute Google search and a conversation in which the doctor told her his four clinics were grossing $1 million a month.

"He told me his four medical practice was grossing a million dollars a month," Jorrie testified. Panish said $150,000 per month equates to $5,000 a day for 30 days.

no I'm not. Can you show relationship between not paying debt / rent and malpractice?

Thank you for posting that because it did refresh my memory on Jorrie’s testimony. So, the four offices in which two were actually faux offices were generating $5K a day gross, yet, the doctor was not paying the rental fee on the two genuine offices. Why did he jeopardize his $5K/day gross by not paying the rental fee on them? Could it be he did NOT generate $5K/day and embellished his success to Jorrie?

I understand ignoring it as it is not logical and difficult to defend. This doctor had non-payment of rent debt for his two genuine offices. Had a background check been performed, the non-payment of rent on the two genuine offices was enough for AEG to question the success of the doctor. The Google search that did not discover the two faux offices was enough for AEG to question the success of the doctor. The doctor’s desperation for monies to satisfy this debt as well as others was enough for him to agree to unethically administer anesthesia in a home setting when he was not qualified to do so.

I suggested that you don't know if it wasn't legitimate or reasonable. You made an assumption about multiple social security numbers being fishy without knowing the reasons why he had multiple of them. I told you another possibility. 20 Million Americans have more than one social security numbers, are you calling them all illegitimate and doing something illegal?

You are generalizing as AEG has done to the plaintiffs' theory about the doctor's debt.

Do you know if every one of those 20M Americans have multiple social security numbers for innocuous reasons? I gave you the reason Michael and Elvis had two social security numbers. You will not be able to convince me that the doctor had three social security numbers for innocuous reasons when this is the same doctor who killed the man this board is named after. Comparing Michael to his killer and defending his killer’s actions in an attempt to defend AEG is just utterly baffling to me.

However, many people do have multiple social security numbers and do not get investigated until a red flag alerts authorities. Serving two years for involuntary manslaughter seems a large enough red flag. Let us wait and see if authorities will take action when the doctor is released.

plus "stop negotiations and that could alone save Michael's life" is also baseless IMO. Murray was giving Michael propofol - according to his own testimony- for 2 months without a signed contract and payment. there's nothing to suggest that he would stop doing it if AEG did not sign his contract. As I said before even if AEG said to Michael, "no absolutely not" in regards tp Murray and refused to negotiate and pay Murray, Michael still could have said "F*ck AEG, here's 20,000 K" and Murray still could have been pumping Michael with benzos and Propofol. Murray did not enter into Michael's life by AEG or TII, there's nothing there to suggest that he would leave Michael's life either.

AEG is the defendant in a wrongful death trial. This means if AEG is found liable, they are a factor in Michael’s passing so that is not baseless. That doctor refused monies when Michael had his oldest give it to him in LA as he waited for his $150K/month. Where would Michael get $20K in your example except through an advance from AEG. If that was the situation and AEG gave Michael an advance to pay the doctor, AEG would not be in a lawsuit and we would not be having this discussion and this subforum would have no reason to exist. Alas, AEG did NOT give an advance and the doctor was NOT going to take Michael as a charity case which made AEG defendants.

The problem with the successful comment is that it was just a statement made based on Murray's representation. 4 clinics, grossing $1 Million a month etc.. made them think he was successful. They did not have any independent source of information to confirm it.

Yes they did. Jorrie did a ten minute Google search that did not return any information on the two faux offices and that was enough to continue negotiations with the doctor.

 

[ivy]

I think you realize this particular doctor killed the plaintiffs’ son/father after he was allegedly and negligently hired by AEG and that is why he is singled out from the rest of the debt carrying population.

this shows that you are totally missing the point. you need to remove hindsight

Jacksons argument is that AEG should have done a background check - including a credit check- and what they found there - Murray's debts and him not paying them- should be a red flag before they hired him.

so you cannot combine it with the information - that he killed Michael - after the fact.

so my question is that as of May 1 2009 to June 23 3009 why would Murray's debt and/or not paying them would make him not suitable for the job?

so you need to explain first of all why would you run a background check on Michael's personal doctor for 3 years? why would you run a check on Murray when they did not do any background checks on any of the people working on TII? Why wouldn't just a license check would not be enough? Why would you need to do a credit check - a not so common check ? and how debt / not paying debt - before Michael's death - would allow you reasonably conclude that Murray would harm Michael?

and another questions - have you ever ran any sort of background check on your doctors? can you say that doctors with debt / not paying debt equals malpractice?

Thank you for posting that because it did refresh my memory on Jorrie’s testimony. So, the four offices in which two were actually faux offices were generating $5K a day gross, yet, the doctor was not paying the rental fee on the two genuine offices. Why did he jeopardize his $5K/day gross by not paying the rental fee on them? Could it be he did NOT generate $5K/day and embellished his success to Jorrie?

we all know that Murray is a lying sociopath with no remorse and did not take care of Michael and preferred to talk with his stripper girlfriends now. now everyone knows Murray was lying, thats not the point here. but again limit yourself to May 1 - june 23rd period. they did not do a background check, they did not know he was lying. they believed his statements.

so again the question is Murray says he is earning $1 Million gross per month from his 4 clinics. Jorrie checks and sees he is licensed in 4 states, has no malpractice, google shows 2 clinics, his company checks out. So what would prompt her between may 1 and June 23rd to do a more extensive background check?

This doctor had non-payment of rent debt for his two genuine offices. Had a background check been performed

but it wasn't. before arguing what they would have discovered with a background check, you need to justify the need to perform a background check.

You will not be able to convince me that the doctor had three social security numbers for innocuous reasons when this is the same doctor who killed the man this board is named after. Comparing Michael to his killer and defending his killer’s actions in an attempt to defend AEG is just utterly baffling to me.

LOL I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I don't try to do futile things. My point stands, you have absolutely no idea why Murray had multiple social security numbers and whether it was legit or not. If you want to make a biased assumption,be my guest. And I'm not comparing Michael to Murray per se, it's just showing your double standards. If you don't see you saying "oh Michael can have two number because of joseph and Joe" and then saying "there's no way Murray can have multiple numbers for a legit reason" shows your bias or double standards. why can Michael and 20 million Americans have legit reasons to have multiple social security numbers but not Murray? what is your reasoning? is it because he killed Michael? another hindsight conclusion? so are those 20 Million Americans possibly do criminal acts as well?

ps: if putting conrad murray name in to the system pops up 3 social security numbers - and AEG would have easily seen this too- wouldn't that show that the government is aware that he has multiple numbers? It's not like an investigation uncovered he had multiple fraudulent numbers under different names.

However, many people do have multiple social security numbers and do not get investigated until a red flag alerts authorities. Serving two years for involuntary manslaughter seems a large enough red flag. Let us wait and see if authorities will take action when the doctor is released.

excuse me if I don't hold my breath for it..

Where would Michael get $20K in your example except through an advance from AEG.

Ask that to Katherine. She said Michael gave her $10,000 to $20,000 when she visited Michael in 2009. If Michael was able to give Katherine cash gifts, he could have paid Murray cash under the table too.

yes it would have been from an advance from AEG to Michael or from Michael's profits from the concerts. yes it would remove AEG from any liability. but as you can see it might not have removed Murray from Michael's life.

Alas, AEG did NOT give an advance and the doctor was NOT going to take Michael as a charity case which made AEG defendants.

Can you say for sure if AEG refused to negotiate with Murray directly and Michael told him "forget them I will pay you cash", the debt stricken, will do anything - even negligent stuff- Murray would say no?

 

[jamba]

re the rape of Jermaine's estranged wife:

From Margaret Maldonado:

"That evening Jermaine and I had planned on going out to dinner with my stepfather, Cy. I was excited about seeing him again. After a while though I became nervous because Jermaine was late in getting back home.
Then the telephone rang. It was Hazel.
"Jermaine was here and he tried to rape me." she said, her voice was shaking.
"What?" was all I could say. I was unwilling and unable to grasp what I was hearing.
"I'm not lying, Margaret. People who know me know that I do not lie. And if you don't believe me, look at Jermaine's arm. I bit him," she added.
After a long pause I told Hazel that if what she was saying was true, she should call the police and report it. She did just that. . . . .

A couple of days later, the police did show up at Hayvenhurst and took a statement from Jermaine." (61-63)

Later there was a conversation with the lawyer who was handling Jermaine's divorce settlement with Hazel Gordy, Bill Glucksman:

"Then Bill insisted that all of us listen to what Hazel had declared in her police report. Jermaine tried to dissuade him, and I backed him up, but Bill held firm. . . .

According to Hazel, while Jermaine was driving the kids home that day, he told them he wanted to have another baby with their mother. He told the kids that when they got home, they should go to their rooms so he could speak to Hazel about it. If they heard any shouting, he said, they should just ignore it., it would only be mom and dad playing. When Jermaine found Hazel,he threw her on the bed and tried to rip off her underwear. Hazel screamed for Jermaine Jr.and Autumn, but neitther of them came." (64)

So it was Hazel Gordy who filed a police report accusing Jermaine of attempted rape.

 

[Petrarose]

Anyone thinking AEG could make Michael change his mind about a doctor, should remember when Ortega tried to make Michael sing out, use more emotion & redo the song in TII. Michael said about 3 NOs and he did not budge. He was not going to do it, because he wanted to save his voice, and the way he said No and made a gesture you really saw he could be firm and stubborn if he wanted to. This is no baby that people can sway to do things if he does not want to do it.

 

[passy001]

it's the conversation we had yesterday, so I'll just repeat the same thing :

it's not "debt" as you constantly say, it's not paying them back when he was saying he had 4 successful clinics that made 12 millions a year. So it's not debts per se, it's lying.

Then I specified when they did the contract : there WERE suspicions about Murray when they were doing Murray's contract, as per Phillips himself "we check everyone out, he's sucessful , doesn't need this gig, unbiased" to convince Ortega there was no problem with Murray.

Phillips was acknowlegding money issues could push a doctor to do unethical things. That's what dr Green, the AEG expert, said too. That's also what Orlando Martinez said.

And it happens to be the truth : Murray did what he did for money. So we all know it's true, don't we ?

So yes a credit check would certainly have helped, at that point, after mid june, especially if you think that Phillips believed Murray was successful and super rich and didn't need a 1.5 million job

Murray was a medical doctor occupying a medical position not a financial position or job that requires the handling of money.

being in debt or not "paying back" as you like to spin it does not change the fact that Murray was in debt. that is the bottom line. It can't get any clearer than that. a credit check will show that he is a delinquent debtor, which is inconsequential to the issue of medical malpractice. Dr green stated very clearly that being in debt does not diminish a doctor's obligation to his patient. nor does it diminish a doctor's competence. he was very clear about that. otherwise, noone would be able to get a job. even worse people would lose their current jobs the moment their employers suspect them of having unpaid debts.

Kenny Ortega also testified to that and even divulged that he had been in debt many times before and still managed to find employment with no problem. so i don't see why Murray would be treated any differently. what is so special about this dude?

even if Phillips and Dr. Green acknowledged on the stand that being in debt can lead to unethical behavior, there was no reason at the time to believe that Murray was violating his oath due to his unpaid debts. it just does not make sense. the first thing a reasonable person does when suspecting a doctor of malpractice is to check his track record. not his credit history, which has nothing to do with medicine. secondly, AEG had no right or whatsoever to run such a check on Murray. NONE. ZERO. and Murray would be well within his absolute right to deny such a request due to the lack of good cause. thirdly, AEG never suspected Murray. They never saw him as someone who was actually harming MJ. Fourth, the check AEG did was strictly related to Murray employment history and according to Jodie who was handling the contract negotiations, everything "matched". she saw no red flags.

your comment about doing it for money is very interesting. we all work for money, money we use/need to pay down our existing debts. does that mean we're all bound "to do unethical things" ? should a doctor with unpaid debts, or anyone for that matter, not be ambitions anymore? should any of us with unpaid debts be denied better opportunities? opportunities to make good money?

 

[8701girl]

On another note, wondering why Pearl Jr is arguing/insulting Debbie ....

I think she trying to coax debbie into saying yeh its true mjs death is a hoax...well thats the impression im getting or pearl is seriously obsessed with debbie

 

[ivy]

what is so special about this dude?

I've been asking the same question, as far as I can gather he killed Michael. That's a hindsight knowledge and circular logic but never mind it.

the first thing a reasonable person does when suspecting a doctor of malpractice is to check his track record. not his credit history, which has nothing to do with medicine.

exactly. even if everyone in AEG was alarmed that Michael was getting under Murray's care, the first thing to do would be was to check is ability. licenses, certificates, references , reviews etc. as a doctor. I can't imagine anyone saying "hmm let me run his credit report".

 

[Tygger]

this shows that you are totally missing the point. you need to remove hindsight

Jacksons argument is that AEG should have done a background check - including a credit check- and what they found there - Murray's debts and him not paying them- should be a red flag before they hired him.

Ivy, I am not using hindsight. Let me attempt to restate again:

Had AEG did a background check on the doctor before the alleged, negligent implicit hiring, they would have discovered that the doctor was not successful at all. A responsible business partner hiring a doctor to treat a business partner they are in business with would vet that doctor to hinder risk of, among other items, losing said partner. Hiring a doctor is not the same as hiring Ortega. Ortega did not have Michael’s life in his hands.

Michael did not vet the doctor because Michael did not and never did hire him. Michael only paid for a service the self-employed doctor rendered as anyone else including me, you, and others in this thread have done.

The doctor was in debt which included non-payment of rent on his four $5K/day offices in which two were faux offices that did not contribute to that $5K. That is ENOUGH to stop negotiations as the doctor did not present himself truthfully to AEG. Most people are not hired after fabricating their experiences to their future employer.

Did you even wonder why he had to present his experience to AEG at all if he would only be paid through an advance?

so again the question is Murray says he is earning $1 Million gross per month from his 4 clinics. Jorrie checks and sees he is licensed in 4 states, has no malpractice, google shows 2 clinics, his company checks out. So what would prompt her between may 1 and June 23rd to do a more extensive background check?

exactly. even if everyone in AEG was alarmed that Michael was getting under Murray's care, the first thing to do would be was to check is ability. licenses, certificates, references , reviews etc. as a doctor. I can't imagine anyone saying "hmm let me run his credit report".

Is it so simple that it is being ignored for a more complicated response? Preventing liability which AEG obviously had no idea they would suffer from as they had never hired a doctor for a third party before is the best and only reason to perform any and all background checks they legally could. Taking on that responsibility, hiring a doctor for another, includes doing a thorough background check.

Remember the worker’s compensation example? The insurance companies perform background checks on doctors that employees will choose from their list. Do you believe the doctors hired by governments for heads of state only have malpractice checks? Are you aware their family members receive extensive checks as well oftentimes?

Why is AEG absolved from being fully responsible for allegedly hiring a doctor for a third party when other entities and persons hiring doctors for third parties are not? Is it because the Jacksons filed the civil suit accusing AEG and that is not likable to some? How is it not clear that allegedly hiring a doctor for Michael or ANYONE and not vetting that doctor is negligent as it is a careless act?

If you don't see you saying "oh Michael can have two number because of joseph and Joe" and then saying "there's no way Murray can have multiple numbers for a legit reason" shows your bias or double standards. why can Michael and 20 million Americans have legit reasons to have multiple social security numbers but not Murray? what is your reasoning? is it because he killed Michael? another hindsight conclusion? so are those 20 Million Americans possibly do criminal acts as well?

Again, the same generalization used by AEG against the plaintiffs, you are using to defend them. I am specifically referring to that doctor, not 20M Americans and I believe you know that but, will stubbornly repeat that generalization anyway. The doctor has a list of unethical behaviors and actions completed in his private life before he ever met Michael and yet you prefer I believe the doctor having three social security numbers was his one innocuous action? Utterly baffling!

Again, authorities do not investigate multiple social security numbers unless the person performs some criminal act involving said numbers; that usually helps prove the multiple numbers are used for less than innocuous reasons.

Ask that to Katherine. She said Michael gave her $10,000 to $20,000 when she visited Michael in 2009. If Michael was able to give Katherine cash gifts, he could have paid Murray cash under the table too.

yes it would have been from an advance from AEG to Michael or from Michael's profits from the concerts. yes it would remove AEG from any liability. but as you can see it might not have removed Murray from Michael's life.

Now you are comparing Katherine’s gift to the doctor’s payment? If the doctor wanted $5M and settled for $150K/month, is it logical he would accept the few $100’s Michael’s oldest gave him?

Ivy, you never have to believe the doctor would leave Michael but, I do hope you understand he was not there out of kindness to Michael. He wanted payment and he wanted substantial payment as his debt revealed why.

So it was Hazel Gordy who filed a police report accusing Jermaine of attempted rape, not anyone here making it up 'for sport' (?????).

This is just utterly baffling!

Again, Jamba, while I appreciate your attempt to assist TwinklEE, an accusation is not the same as a conviction. Did the author continue to explain why and if the accusation was dropped or did the author continue to explain the criminal trial the father of her children went through because that accusation can only end in the former or the latter.

Not ONE Jackson male was convicted of raping a woman and Michael was acquitted of similar charges to with a minor.

I do NOT understand why I would have to repeat that YET AGAIN on a Michael Jackson board where that man is still considered to be a monster by those too ignorant to accept his acquittal.

 

[ivy]

Had AEG did a background check on the doctor

why? still no explanation about why would they perform a background check.

if it's not clear, I'm not talking about what AEG would discovered if they did a background check, I'm asking for how do you justify a background check, based on what AEG knew before Michael's death.

Michael did not vet the doctor because Michael did not and never did hire him. Michael only paid for a service the self-employed doctor rendered as anyone else including me, you, and others in this thread have done.

didn't Michael trust his life to Murray? so it's okay if doctors kill people while providing a service while self employed?

The doctor was in debt which included non-payment of rent on his four $5K/day offices in which two were faux offices that did not contribute to that $5K. That is ENOUGH to stop negotiations as the doctor did not present himself truthfully to AEG. Most people are not hired after fabricating their experiences to their future employer.

not the point. I'm still waiting for a justification for doing a credit check to start with. You cannot use what AEG would have discovered as a justification for the background check. that's circular logic combined with hindsight.

Did you even wonder why he had to present his experience to AEG at all if he would only be paid through an advance?

experience? he only had to present medical licenses. you don't rent a car without checking the drivers license, you don't hire a doctor without checking his medical license. still nothing to do with a credit check

Preventing liability which AEG obviously had no idea they would suffer from

so AEG should have done a background check to protect themselves from a liability they had no idea would happen? Does that even make sense?

Remember the worker’s compensation example? The insurance companies perform background checks on doctors that employees will choose from their list.

do they? what kind of checks? credit checks? source?

How is it not clear that allegedly hiring a doctor for Michael or ANYONE and not vetting that doctor is negligent as it is a careless act?

still missing the point. I'm looking for examples of background checks on doctors. can you provide any?

you prefer I believe the doctor having three social security numbers was his one innocuous action? Utterly baffling!

You can believe whatever you want, I don't really care what you believe. meanwhile I found this about Murray's social security numbers

http://www.psblaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Exhibit-462-4726to462-4727.pdf

they are properly recorded and cross referenced at SSA, when entered one number the others show. These are his where and when he get his numbers. His multiple aliases are also shown. He was able to get a $1.65 M loan for a house with his 3 social security numbers credit report. So if you don't mind I'll believe his multiple numbers weren't a secret for SSA. Until proven otherwise, I'll consider all possible alternatives and believe what I can see. Feel free to disagree.

464: Texas, 1981

601: Arizona, 1992-1995

289: Ohio, 1982

Again, authorities do not investigate multiple social security numbers unless the person performs some criminal act involving said numbers; that usually helps prove the multiple numbers are used for less than innocuous reasons.

so now are you saying that Murray had multiple numbers but he did not perform some criminal act involving them? peachy

Now you are comparing Katherine’s gift to the doctor’s payment? If the doctor wanted $5M and settled for $150K/month, is it logical he would accept the few $100’s Michael’s oldest gave him?

if he was in so much debt and would do anything for a payday, yes. You can't really claim on one hand that he would do anything for money and then claim he would not do stuff for money.If he was that desperate as you claim, he would not have turned down money.

Ivy, you never have to believe the doctor would leave Michael but, I do hope you understand he was not there out of kindness to Michael. He wanted payment and he wanted substantial payment as his debt revealed why.

he was also recording Michael. do you think he did that for kindness or some sort of protection if he was fired? and yes he might had substantial debt, which makes it unlikely that he would turn down any money amount.

 

[passy001]

Ivy, I am not using hindsight. Let me attempt to restate again:

Had AEG did a background check on the doctor before the alleged, negligent implicit hiring, they would have discovered that the doctor was not successful at all. A responsible business partner hiring a doctor to treat a business partner they are in business with would vet that doctor to hinder risk of, among other items, losing said partner. Hiring a doctor is not the same as hiring Ortega. Ortega did not have Michael’s life in his hands.

Michael did not vet the doctor because Michael did not and never did hire him. Michael only paid for a service the self-employed doctor rendered as anyone else including me, you, and others in this thread have done.

The doctor was in debt which included non-payment of rent on his four $5K/day offices in which two were faux offices that did not contribute to that $5K. That is ENOUGH to stop negotiations as the doctor did not present himself truthfully to AEG. Most people are not hired after fabricating their experiences to their future employer.

Did you even wonder why he had to present his experience to AEG at all if he would only be paid through an advance?

I don't see a relationship between credit check and doctor competence or lack thereof. do you expect a reasonable person to do a credit check on a doctor he is suspecting? personally I would check the doctor's track record. find out more about the quality of his previous services and even speak to his previous patients if necessary. but credit check is so out of it. really. it's the last thing a reasonable person would ever do. why? because there is no value in doing so in the first place. unpaid debts do not tell me whether this doctor I'm starring at is fit for the job or not. it means NOTHING. ZERO.

I told you about MJ also being in debt but managed to find work. i.e AEG and All Good Entertainment were interested in him despite a colossal debts of $300m tagged to his name. using your own logic MJ should have been denied any opportunity to do business or make money. because his debts were serious enough for him to do unethical things. remember MJ needed money more than AEG and Allgoodentertainment. MJ was facing foreclosure and a repossess of his assets. then applying your logic MJ should not have been given any chance whatsoever to make money.

also even if AEG found out about the issues you mentioned, AEG had no power to terminate the relationship between Murray and MJ. Murray was there at the request of MJ. they had a pre-existing relationship prior to AEG. Murray being around was actually one of MJ conditions to do the TII concerts.

 

[bouee]

None of this makes sense or whatsoever.

As you definitely can't help being rude , I'll do the same : don't insult others when you can't understand something.

being in debt or not "paying back" as you like to spin it does not change the fact that Murray was in debt. that is the bottom line. It can't get any clearer than that. a credit check will show that he is a delinquent debtor, which is inconsequential to the issue of medical malpractice. Dr green stated very clearly that being in debt does not diminish a doctor's obligation to his patient. nor does it diminish a doctor's competence. he was very clear about that. otherwise, noone would be able to get a job. even worse people would lose their current jobs the moment their employers suspect them of having unpaid debts.

Now that has made me angry. I'm not thre one spinning things here. It's the so called objective "explanation" of the Jacksons arguments that confuses general debts and not paying them back.
There are tens of posts here explaining that most americans have debts, and that it is a very normal situation. It is NOT what the plaintiffs are saying. So presenting things that way IS spinning and definitely not objective, and it doesn't come from me. The Jacksons are saying Murray was not paying his debts back to the point he was about to lose his home and offices and THAT was the red flag. Not his loans. They are saying Murray was desperate for money, if that makes it easier to undertsand.
Whether you agree or not with the idea, it's what they are saying.
And what lawyer would be stupid enough to say "oh he has loans, he's dangerous ? " Who will believe that kind of argument and argue that most people have loans in America ? Seriously ?

even if Phillips and Dr. Green acknowledged on the stand that being in debt can lead to unethical behavior, there was no reason at the time to believe that Murray was violating his oath due to his unpaid debts. it just does not make sense. the first thing a reasonable person does when suspecting a doctor of malpractice is to check his track record. not his credit history, which has nothing to do with medicine. secondly, AEG had no right or whatsoever to run such a check on Murray. NONE. ZERO. and Murray would be well within his absolute right to deny such a request due to the lack of good cause. thirdly, AEG never suspected Murray. They never saw him as someone who was actually harming MJ. Fourth, the check AEG did was strictly related to Murray employment history and according to Jodie who was handling the contract negotiations, everything "matched". she saw no red flags.

Question : WHEN (I specifically talked about WHEN the contract was drafted between june 15th and 23rd ) did Phillips talk about that ? For what reason did he write that the doctor was "great, unethical, didn't need this gig" . Try and answer the question, that will help youunderstand the general idea.

your comment about doing it for money is very interesting. we all work for money, money we use/need to pay down our existing debts. does that mean we're all bound "to do unethical things" ? should a doctor with unpaid debts, or anyone for that matter, not be ambitions anymore? should any of us with unpaid debts be denied better opportunities? opportunities to make good money?

Would Murray have done that for a regular salary ?
What do you think his reason was ?

 

[passy001]

As you definitely can't help being rude , I'll do the same : don't insult others when you can't understand something.




Now that has made me angry. I'm not thre one spinning things here. It's the so called objective "explanation" of the Jacksons arguments that confuses general debts and not paying them back.
There are tens of posts here explaining that most americans have debts, and that it is a very normal situation. It is NOT what the plaintiffs are saying. So presenting things that way IS spinning and definitely not objective, and it doesn't come from me. The Jacksons are saying Murray was not paying his debts back to the point he was about to lose his home and offices and THAT was the red flag. Not his loans. They are saying Murray was desperate for money, if that makes it easier to undertsand.
Whether you agree or not with the idea, it's what they are saying.
And what lawyer would be stupid enough to say "oh he has loans, he's dangerous ? " Who will believe that kind of argument and argue that most people have loans in America ? Seriously ?





Question : WHEN (I specifically talked about WHEN the contract was drafted between june 15th and 23rd ) did Phillips talk about that ? For what reason did he write that the doctor was "great, unethical, didn't need this gig" . Try and answer the question, that will help youunderstand the general idea.


Would Murray have done that for a regular salary ?
What do you think his reason was ?

boeue, it's not my intention to be rude. i'll take out the offending remarks. t I'll respond to your post later. not now.

 

[Tygger]

Had AEG did a background check on the doctor

Ivy, how are you able to respond to partial sentences? laughs

if it's not clear, I'm not talking about what AEG would discovered if they did a background check, I'm asking for how do you justify a background check, based on what AEG knew before Michael's death.

so AEG should have done a background check to protect themselves from a liability they had no idea would happen? Does that even make sense?

And I responded: preventing liability which is Business 101. The same way AEG sought to protect themselves from Michael’s potential non-performance by seeking additional insurance and filming 100 hours of pre-production footage.

You did not answer my question so I will restate and rephrase. Ask yourself why the doctor had to tell Jorrie about his successful $1M/month offices? If he was paid through an advance he would not have to justify his faux success at all as AEG would have no contact with him except to pay him as they did Klein.

do they? what kind of checks? credit checks? source?

still missing the point. I'm looking for examples of background checks on doctors. can you provide any?

You did not mention the example of governments running checks on doctors and oftentimes their family members if they are to take on heads of states as patients. Negligent hiring is prevented spectacularly in those instances.

Anyone in this thread who may use medical insurance can feel free to ask their “in-network” doctor if they went through a vetting process and what it entailed. If not, Google is your friend.

You can believe whatever you want, I don't really care what you believe. meanwhile I found this about Murray's social security numbers

Ah, would not be a discussion without a little rudeness, eh? It would be a sad life indeed if I was to spend it fretting about acceptance from others I do not know on the internet. Oh, the plaintiffs’ lawyer site is sourced!

All social security numbers are properly recorded and cross referenced so it is never a secret for SSA. It is a background check where multiple numbers are discovered. Of course the doctor can still get a loan as criminal activity was not assigned to those numbers. We are now back to the beginning of the argument where I stated authorities will not look into multiple social security numbers unless a criminal act is done using those numbers. *sigh*

What exactly are you attempting to disprove here because you are going in circles. The man killed Michael however, we should not be suspicious of him having three social security numbers because AEG did not discover it due to not performing any background check before the alleged, negligent hiring of the doctor. By not being suspicious, this will in turn make Tygger's view, Seawright's view, the plaintiffs' view, and the Jackson family in general somehow wrong?

if he was in so much debt and would do anything for a payday, yes. You can't really claim on one hand that he would do anything for money and then claim he would not do stuff for money.If he was that desperate as you claim, he would not have turned down money.

he was also recording Michael. do you think he did that for kindness or some sort of protection if he was fired? and yes he might had substantial debt, which makes it unlikely that he would turn down any money amount.

He did indeed turn down the monies Michael’s oldest gave him and he did have substantial debt. Again, I am unsure what you are trying to disprove here.

using your own logic MJ should have been denied any opportunity to do business or make money.

Passy001, that is actually AEG’s generalized logic that anyone in debt is suspicious. Look back at the summaries of motions Ivy did pre-trial and you can read it there.

AEG had the power to terminate the doctor’s services without Michael’s consent.

AEG did not even question the doctor’s $5K/day fabrication even though Jorrie’s ten minute Google search found only two of the four offices (the other two did not exist). Discovering the quality of his previous services or talk to any of his previous patients was not entertained. No credit check necessary when AEG had the ten minute Google search Jorrie performed when she was not required to do so.

 

[bouee]

boeue, it's not my intention to be rude. i'll take out the offending remarks. t I'll respond to your post later. not now.

Ok, thanks.

AEG did not even question the doctor’s $5K/day fabrication even though Jorrie’s ten minute Google search found only two of the four offices (the other two did not exist). Discovering the quality of his previous services or talk to any of his previous patients was not entertained. No credit check necessary when AEG had the ten minute Google search Jorrie performed when she was not required to do so.

Tygger, just a small correction (I had to practice mental calculation recently for an exam, and now I can't help doing it all the time.. You should see me shopping for groceries )

5000/ day is what Murray would have "earned" with 150 000 per month (150/30=5)
1 000 000 /month (supposedly gross income) would have been a little over 33 000 /day.

So according to what he said, he was ready to give up 28 000/day (gross income) to become Michael's physician. And yet he was behind on child support and about to lose his home and 2 of his offices. That doesn't make sense at all.
I guess imaginary offices can't go into forclosure.

EDIT : 150 000 * 10 months = 1 500 000
Murray said his 4 clinics made 1 000 000 per month * 10 = 10 000 000

So he was OK to give up 8 500 000 dollars (gross income) to become Michael's physician for the tourn which is 85% of his "gross income".

 

[Bubs]

It was in a hotel room, DR testified that the room was set up like a proper surgery and a team monitored him.

However, I am interested to hear from Dr Ratner ( an anesthesiologist) was one of the doctors who accompanied Michael on the History tour. Debbie made no mention of him.

She don't think she can start telling her thoughts of things that isn't asked from her. AEG didn't ask her about Ratner, propably because they have him in their witness list, so he could be testifying later.

 

[Vici]

i'm reading the summary from last week.
about june 28th, 2009. the meeting where tohme signed the budget.

is it correct to say if tohme sign this he will get the 200.000 from AEG? and if he signed that AEG get 35 million from the estate?

I dont know if someone answered this but it seems as Thome was gonna get the 200,000 from AEG if he signed off the document with the production costs.

"Jorrie said Mr. Tohme did not sign the consent document in her presence. She gave him the document for review.
Panish: Were you aware Dr. Tohme was supposed to get paid $200,000 for signing this document?
Jorrie: I wasn't aware, sir".

 

[Big Apple2]

Minor updates

- Dr. Van Valin, Dr. Adams and Dr. Ratner deposition videos are being worked on

- Jacksons ordered to give AEG, Katherine's finances including payroll, household budget and family finances from 2003 to present.

I recognize the names of Adams and Ratner, but who the heck is Dr. Van Valin? I never heard that name before.

Also, it's interesting that the court has ordered Mother to hand over VARIOUS financial documents. She (and they) can't be too happy about that.

They had no problem putting Michael's PERSONAL business in the street, now more of their own personal business is about to hit the streets. Well you know what they say: WHAT GOES AROUND, COMES AROUND!

Okay, back to Dr. Van Valin. Can somebody fill me in on his back story. Thanks!

 

[Justthefacts]

I think he said Michael asked him to give him propofol in 03 for a tour. What tour is my question?

 

[gerryevans]

And I responded: preventing liability which is Business 101. The same way AEG sought to protect themselves from Michael’s potential non-performance by seeking additional insurance and filming 100 hours of pre-production footage.

The thing is if they did an in depth background check on Murray as MJ's physician, they'd have to do it on ALL doctors who they worked with or their artist wanted or they would incur a different kind of liability. If background checks are not the norm, and if they single Murray out, it does show they're giving him a scrutiny other doctors did not receive. Then the question does become why? Why did you subject Dr. Conrad Murray to this kind of background check when you didn't delve that deeply into any other licensed physician's background, especially if based on that background check, they refused to hire or advance MJ the money for him (whatever the jury decides).

If it's being said that they should have dug deeper because they saw MJ was declining under his treatment, maybe that would serve as justification. But to just do it as preventive for Murray and not everyone else raises a flag that they are treating him differently than other doctors.

That is, if they said MJ had to use the $40,000 a month doctor they recommended or they wouldn't even advance him the cash, then they better know what in depth his personal and financial background is too. I'd think they'd have a problem saying they'd worked with him before as justification because MJ worked with Murray for three years, and he was in good health during their first exam and yet they subjected him to procedures they never subjected this doctor to.


ETA: I very well can see Murray going after AEG if that had been the case, if they dumped him because of a background check they reserved specifically for him, especially since they had no idea what or who was actually making MJ ill.

 

[Big Apple2]

I think he said Michael asked him to give him propofol in 03 for a tour. What tour is my question?

Thanks Justthefacts!

I'm having a hard time keeping up with all of the doctors names, I wonder how the jury is handling it.

As a matter of fact, at first I thought some of the names were made up. Starting with Dr. Forecast. Sounds like some thing from the Weather Channel.

 

[twinklEE]

as a matter of fact, at first i thought some of the names were made up. Starting with dr. Forecast. Sounds like some thing from the weather channel.

lol..