Re: Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG (daily threads merged)
I am wondering, what would this restitution against Murray bring? I am not really familiar with the term. It just means that he would be sued for money, right? Some people said it would prevent him from earning money with his story. Would that really prevent him to publish the story or just that the earnings from that story would go to the family? And that would not include the entire money, right? He would still have what he needed to provide for him and his 100 kids?
I remember that Kj and the family received a lot of heat for suing Murray for money from the public. Maybe that was just here, but I think she was asking for tremendous amount of money and it kind of resulted in the same reaction people have now. Kind of in the sense of "he is in jail now, he is dead broke anyways so just let it go and do not be greedy". I am not saying this is my opinion, just that is what I remember.
I do however think, they did get justice by putting Murray behind bars. With AEG, they can't do that. The only way to come after a company is with money, right? I know you all think it is just money for them and I do not want to go into that discussion, but just assuming the motivation would be justice, would they have approached this case any different?
restitution is a part of the criminal trial. It's not being sued for money. It's actually pretty common in a criminal trial. Whenever someone is found guilty of a crime - such as a homicide - they can be ordered to pay restitution. Restitution would be like an income lost.
In other words as Murray was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter he could have been ordered to pay the damages. DA Walgren had asked for $102 Million ( 2 Million for each of the 50 TII shows and 2 Million for funeral expenses). Jacksons asked him to drop the restitution.
There's another rule in law that says whatever damages you are getting cannot result in "unjust enrichment". In other words you can only recover the actual damages and not more.
In other words any restitution Murray was ordered to pay would have be subtracted from any possible damages from AEG. So that they would not be paid twice.
Would that really prevent him to publish the story or just that the earnings from that story would go to the family? And that would not include the entire money, right? He would still have what he needed to provide for him and his 100 kids?
It does not necessarily prevent him from publishing the story but yes the family could get the rights to the story. The best example is Goldmans. OJ Simpson published a book and Goldmans got the money OJ got paid for the book, interviews as well as the whole rights to the book.
Income such as pension or portions of salary and so on is protected. But I don't think it covers a book deal. Like I said it's more than just the money, it's getting the control of the book.
For example today Murray can release a book talking negatively about Michael. If there was any restitution awarded, Jacksons could have get the rights to the book and take it out of the market.
As I said I'm not concerned about how much money or whether any money could be recovered from Murray or not. A restitution would have given them control over Murray's actions.
For example Goldman's father calls himself as a thorn on OJ's side. OJ killed his son, Goldman is using restitution to make OJ's life a living hell. It's not about how much money he can collect.
I remember that Kj and the family received a lot of heat for suing Murray for money from the public.
You remember wrong. They never sued Murray for money. Joe had a lawsuit that he dropped which didn't go much far anyway. It was the State of California District attorney that asked for $102 Million which he also dropped because Jacksons did not want it.
Maybe that was just here, but I think she was asking for tremendous amount of money and it kind of resulted in the same reaction people have now.
If $102 Million is tremendous amount of money" how do you describe the most recent $1.5 Billion plus non economic damages?
The only way to come after a company is with money, right? I know you all think it is just money for them and I do not want to go into that discussion, but just assuming the motivation would be justice, would they have approached this case any different?
Well personally as I said , I'm not against them suing AEG and having day in court. But it doesn't make me ignore that they did not pursue Murray, diminish his role and even did not pursue restitution which comes with a criminal verdict.
If this is not about money "Murray is broke and can't pay" shouldn't be a factor for consideration. Goldmans got a multi million judgment against OJ Simpson which they never collected. IF the argument is these trials are for the truth and justice then the goal just be the guilty verdict without consideration of who could pay or not pay or how much you can collect.
The answer is here:
CNN noted the importance of Dr Rogers' testimony in calculating Mr Jackson's expected lifespan as it would relate to damages. If he had not passed, the fact that the pop star would have continued to make billions of dollars will affect the number the Jackson family expect.
AEG continue to argue that the singer chose Dr Murray as his tour medic and the company had no way of knowing what he was giving Jackson to sleep at night.
Money! We should have known that really.
Well they need a healthy Michael as their damage calculations are assuming Michael would have lived to be in his 80s and would tour into his 70s such as Rolling Stones and so on.
So in short he was a healthy and functioning addict who obviously looked like he was on his deathbed. oxymoron?
