Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

[jamba]

Er what drug addiction were the family wanting to get mj into rehab for in spring 09? Or are you going with the aeg expert's view that mj was a continuous drug addict since the mid 80s and at any given point since then would benefit from a stint in drug rehab?

This idea of the allgood deal involved rehab only originated a year after mj's death - where were the concerns expressed before 25 june? joe and rowe wd have been mad at being cut out of the tii deal and wd have gone to the press with any damaging info. That issue of mrs j being asked to go and look after mj in carolwood was totally misrepresented by joe in a paid newsof the world interview in 2010 where he blamed mrs j for mj's death - classy. Joe only wanted mrs j to go and stay with mj in spring 09 as he wanted to retain the family's influence over mj - he knew mj wd try and shut them out. I don't know how anyone can possibly believe joe was concerned about mj's health at this time, the man was suggesting tours in the hospital on pajama day, when mj most definitely was not looking good.

It's not me who is making these claims, it's Leonard Rowe. So please go after him, not me. He claims in his book that he was very concerned about MJ's dependence on narcotics (that's his word). He also claims Randy and Joe were too. So I am just reporting what he said. I got into that b/c I was interested in finding out what was going on in MJ's life around April 18/19 when Lee says he was 'not himself' and 'stressed' --so I got into the meeting with Leonard and Joe and MJ on the 14th.

Rowe was there--he is involved in these events--whatever your take on it is up to you but all I suggested (and of course it's as much speculation as anyone else b/c--let's face it--NONE OF US were there) is that it is possible that Rowe (and possibly others) wanted the AllGood shows AND wanted MJ to go into rehab. The 2 things are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

btw, as far as Joe being concerned about MJ's health during the 05 trial, Dick Gregory says that he went to visit MJ at NL at the request of Joe b/c he was concerned re MJ not eating or drinking. Gregory took MJ to a hospital where he got IV fluids for 8 or more hours and the drs said MJ would have died if he had not gotten the fluids. I am not saying Joe is a saint--far from it--I know about all his many flaws-- but I am just repeating what Dick Gregory said. There is a tendency to see things in black or white, including people, but it is not always that way. People can be a mixture of good and bad and often are IMO.

 

[LastTear]

@Tygger, It's not just up to the defence to bring evidence, the Plantiffs have to back up their claims as well, and we have not seen any evidence that Michael did not want AEG to write up a independent contractor contract. Even if the jury believes that AEG hired Murray it does not mean they believe he was hired against Michael's wishes. As has been said many times, the contract required Michael's signature in order for it to be valid.

 

[Bubs]

as far as I can tell , video deposition and testimony will resume Wednesday.

Monday and Tuesday are motions/ hearings days. they have motion of nonsuit as well as I think they will work on verdict forms and jury instructions.

09/09/2013 at 10:00 am in department 28 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Oral Argument(RE NON SUIT)

Will we hear the result today or will judge take time to decide?

Was jury instructions read to jury already or what was this?
09/03/2013 Jury Instructions ( read to the jury on 9-3-13 )
Filed by Clerk


Ivy, if there is any money left in the pot, could we get closing arguments from both sides and possibly verdict form?

 

[LastTear]

^^^^ I would be very surprised if she threw it out, I don't think it often happens. But I would be very interested to read all the details.

 

[Mneme]

Bubs, I agree there is a huge disconnect between Rowe saying MJ looks terrible and needs treatment asap, and at the same time wanting him to tour/perform. On the other hand, the AllGood show (s) were supposed to be later on--2010 or later, and Rowe states that he wanted MJ to go into rehab before he did any shows with AllGood.
...
What I see is multiple pressures from different quarters mounting and converging in a time period where MJ did not have the support he needed.

Maybe Rowe is full of it, but there were others involved who need to reveal what they know about it (Randy, Rebbie, Joe, KJ). Why were they trying to get KJ to intervene in 07 and 09 if not about drugs? Also it is not necessarily either drugs or AllGood pressure--it can be both together--we want him to do the AllGood shows and we want him to go into rehab and get off drugs.

It's not me who is making these claims, it's Leonard Rowe. So please go after him, not me. He claims in his book that he was very concerned about MJ's dependence on narcotics (that's his word). He also claims Randy and Joe were too. So I am just reporting what he said. I got into that b/c I was interested in finding out what was going on in MJ's life around April 18/19 when Lee says he was 'not himself' and 'stressed' --so I got into the meeting with Leonard and Joe and MJ on the 14th.

Rowe was there--he is involved in these events--whatever your take on it is up to you but all I suggested (and of course it's as much speculation as anyone else b/c--let's face it--NONE OF US were there) is that it is possible that Rowe (and possibly others) wanted the AllGood shows AND wanted MJ to go into rehab. The 2 things are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Jamba
in my opinion too the AllGood re-union thing with all the pressure from his birth family was the reason for Michael's sleepless and his decision for Murray's sleep help!
But I think: L. Rowe, Michael's parents, his brothers/sisters they all are telling NOT the truth. Not in their many interviews, not in their books, not in court on the witness chair. All tell their OWN story and all are different. Maybe that is intentional so that we never know what was really happened.

I want not torment you. But you are wrong if you take this L. Rowe book 1:1 for your timeline because obvious he is -at leat in parts- telling lies:
It is not right when you states "the AllGood show (s) were supposed to be later on--2010 or later, and Rowe states that he wanted MJ to go into rehab before he did any shows with AllGood."
Allocco in person claims in his complaint: "...Jackson Family concert on a date to be determined, but to be scheduled sometime IN THE SUMMER 2009..." (attachment 2-090610134309; June 09., 2009)

So there is no rehab 'before' and AllGood shos 'after rehab'! Unless....Michael goes to rehab in the morning and do the show in the evening...
No!, both at the same time is impossible.
From what also is Rowe telling in his book.

And once more: It is obvious L. Rowe (and Michael's father) were trying to get KJ to intervene in 07 AND 09 not about drugs but only to do convincing work for a re-union.

And what's this: "He claims in his book that he was very concerned about MJ's dependence on narcotics (that's his word). He also claims Randy and Joe were too."
Interesting about 'narcotics' and 'Randy + Joe'...
Now, who is lieing???

 

[gerryevans]

@Tygger, It's not just up to the defence to bring evidence, the Plantiffs have to back up their claims as well, and we have not seen any evidence that Michael did not want AEG to write up a independent contractor contract. Even if the jury believes that AEG hired Murray it does not mean they believe he was hired against Michael's wishes.

As has been said many times, the contract required Michael's signature in order for it to be valid.

It seems like its being said repeatedly but not in that courtroom. I wonder if the jury is remembering that tidbit as much as they do all the information about addiction, addiction, addiction. I still think AEG continues to be so intent on casting a negative light on MJ, that they are not shining as bright a light on other significant factors. That negative light on MJ doesn't even seem to be about much more to me than reducing a potential award.

I think they are helping the plaintiffs more now with all the addiction dogma, secretive or not as it comes across as they're saying this was a person with an ongoing problem, and even though it may not have been public knowledge, it's reasonable to believe they should have STRONGLY suspected drug abuse was the case with MJ. Whatever that drug may have been. One of the reasons the judge allowed this case to go forward is the belief the industry is known for drug abuse, and what happened could have been foreseeable.

Has AEG commissioned any studies to show MJ's behavior could have been due to the anxiety of getting back out there before the public again and they reasonably assumed that was case? Nope, everything is about drugs. So if the jury is being immersed in drug theories, why wouldn't they assume AEG had to have some serious ones of their own and should have suspected Murray.

As this is a negligent hiring case and about background checks, have they commissioned any studies about debt equaling negligent, heinous behavior, especially from doctors. Even if there isn't a lot to be said about employment practices and independent contracts, this trial has shown you can find a specialist to pontificate incessantly about anything.

I think AEG is going to have to give the greatest summation of all time to pull everything together that they should have been stressing during the entire trial process to win this case.

 

[LastTear]

@Gerryevans I agree, the defence has focused on reducing possible damages and the Plantiffs has focused greatly on the emotional loss of Michael. And I have to say that if I were on the jury I would probably be quite bored of the addiction talk by now, but in order to be liable AEG have to be shown as being aware of drug issues, which is obviously where all the secrecy testimony comes in to play. They have shown that Michael was not the only artist to have their own tour doctor.

Imo the Plantiffs changed course during the trial their opening focused heavily on drug use and I assume the defence was based around that assertion. I'm not really sure what benefit anxiety studies would bring, either way whatever the reason for any drug use was, the question would remain, should AEG have known. If anyone were to bring those kind of studies IMO it would be the Plantiffs because AEG wouldn't want to give further reasons that they may possibly be aware of for Michael to use any kind of drug.

There was some testimony about debt and negligence, I can't remember off hand who gave it though.

I agree, summing up is going to need to be very clear and concise.

 

[Tygger]

@Tygger, It's not just up to the defence to bring evidence, the Plantiffs have to back up their claims as well, and we have not seen any evidence that Michael did not want AEG to write up a independent contractor contract. Even if the jury believes that AEG hired Murray it does not mean they believe he was hired against Michael's wishes. As has been said many times, the contract required Michael's signature in order for it to be valid.

The claim is negligent hiring by AEG and that is where the plaintiffs focused their case. The plaintiffs do NOT have to show Michael wanted AEG to hire the doctor only that hiring was most likely done by AEG and that it was negligent. Please see this post I did in response to Bubs below.

AEG controlled how their monies were spent during the TII venture. There is no instance where Michael dictated to AEG how to spend their monies. None.

I would have preferred to see AEG show Michael hired the doctor however, it is most likely that evidence does not exist. Instead, to defend themselves, they focused on lowering damages, portraying Michael as a secretive addict, and a few experts (I think a couple actually) who stated it was not necessary to do a background check and the contract did not have a conflict of interest.

Last Tear, Gerryevans, Michael was to sign the employment contract as the patient in the doctor-patient relationship. If Michael is the patient and the doctor is the doctor and independent contractor, who is AEG in the employment contract?

Bubs, I completely disagree. I took a moment to do a short calculation myself albeit not completely accurate. I counted 28 witnesses as per Ivy’s summary for the plaintiffs. I tried to classify the testimonies; again, not completely accurate. It is very clear the majority of witness and time spent was supporting the claim of negligent hiring of the negligent doctor which lead to Michael’s passing.

Only 6 out of 28 witnesses dealt with damages and four of them are Jacksons. This means 79% of witnesses testified for reasons other than damages.

Please feel free to re-classify any of the categories below or add witnesses for the plaintiffs' that were missed.

Negligence of the doctor: LAFD Paramedic Richard Senneff, LAPD Detective Orlando Martinez, Toxicologist Dan Anderson, Cardiologist Dr. Daniel Wohlgelernter, Medical Examiner Christopher Rogers, Dr. Charles Czeisler, Dr. Sidney Schnoll, Dr. Emery Brown

Michael’s Decline: Producer/Dancer Alif Sankey, Karen Faye, Kai Chase, Kenny Ortega

Negligent Hiring: Julie Hollander, Shawn Trell, Paul Gongaware, Randy Phillips (all adverse witnesses), Marty Hom, David Berman, Dr. Gordon Matheson, Tim Leiweke, Jean Seawright, Dr. Stuart Finkelstein

Damages: Michael’s son, TJ Jackson, Taj Jackson, Katherine Jackson, Arthur Erk, Peter Formuzis


Question please: if the defense is not successful, how will those who support the defense having a successful verdict explain their failure? If the plaintiffs were to be not successful, I can say it is because adverse witness put enough doubt into jurors’ minds that the doctor was not hired implicitly by AEG. I would not be able to contribute that success to the defense’s actual defense which is Michael was secretive about his issues.

 

[LastTear]

@Tygger In the interests of this thread and my sanity lets just agree to disagree how we view aspects of this trial, all we are doing now is repeating ourselves. Even the last question you asked has been asked and answered.

Your quote to Bubs: you can add a few more on the damages even if they weren't brought there for that testimony, Paris, Kai, Debbie, home videos, Michael's music - just as an example off the top of my head.

 

[LastTear]

@mccartneyAP: Judge has dismissed two AEG Live executives from lawsuit filed by Michael Jackson's mother over her son's death: http://t.co/yA78N1FS8o

Judge dismisses AEG execs from Jackson lawsuit
Share on facebook

Share on twitter

Share on google_plusone_share

Share on email

By ANTHONY McCARTNEY, AP Entertainment Writer
Updated: Monday, September 9, 2013, 2:35 PM EDT
Published: Monday, September 9, 2013, 2:35 PM EDT
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A judge has dismissed two executives from a negligence lawsuit filed by Michael Jackson's mother against the promoters of his planned comeback concerts.


Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazuelos ruled Monday that lawyers for Katherine Jackson hadn't proven claims that Randy Phillips, CEO of AEG Live LLC, and promoter Paul Gongaware could be held responsible the death of the pop star.


The judge ruled that a jury should determine whether AEG Live hired the doctor later convicted of giving Michael Jackson a lethal overdose of anesthetic in June 2009.


Katherine Jackson's lawyers have attacked the actions of Gongaware and Phillips during the months leading to the death. They have claimed the men missed warning signs about the superstar's health and created a conflict of interest for his physician.


AEG Live denies any wrongdoing.

 

[marebear]

Isn't that a big blow to Katherine's case?

 

[LastTear]

Double post, wrong thread.

@marebear Im not really sure, the jury have already heard their testimony, I think it just means they can't be held personally responsible. I may be wrong though.

 

[Petrarose]

Petrarose, this is exactly what I've been wondering about as well. So many doctors and no one sat him down and convinced him to see a sleep specialist? It's baffling.

I remember Debbie made a brief mention about Metzger going with him to a sleep clinic. I wish we'd get more info. What happened? Maybe Metzger will talk about it.

I think she said he was going to and then the tour came? I have to check back but I remember something interrupted the doc's plan before it even started.

Great news about dismissing the 2 executives. I remember Panish was asking Gonga about his insurance, which I think he was suggesting that since Gonga had insurance the money to be paid would not really come out of Gonga's pocket. First it was Ortega, & now Gonga, & Phillips are out. The case is being whittled down a bit.

Gerryevans your statements about the drug testimony is the same thing I have been saying before. In fact, I was even wondering if Panish would find some trade paper/magazine dealing with the music/art industry that had information about Michael and drugs to show that AEG had to have read it. Anyway I see nothing like that came out.

Memne liked your arguments about Rowe et. al. The best thing to do with Rowe, Joe, Randy, Katherine's words or writings, is to make a chart with columns. In each column put the date. Then you put what each say about specific topics on that date. You will really see the difference. I looked at what Randy said about the drug intervention in New York and what Jermaine said--2 different things. Randy said in New York they did an intervention. Jermaine said they talked to Michael AFTER he returned from New York. With these people you have to cross check and cross reference everything.

 

[marebear]

I don't know either. It was them that dealt with Michael and Murray especially Randy Phillips. I am not sure.

 

[LastTear]

Updated version



Judge Dismisses AEG Execs From Jackson Lawsuit
By ANTHONY McCARTNEY AP Entertainment Writer Sep 9, 2013, 2:33 PM
A judge on Monday dismissed two executives from a negligence lawsuit filed by Michael Jackson's mother and allowed the case to proceed against AEG Live LLC, the promoter of his planned comeback concerts.


Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazuelos said lawyers for Katherine Jackson hadn't shown enough evidence that Randy Phillips, CEO of AEG Live LLC, and promoter Paul Gongaware were responsible for the death of the pop star.


The judge, however, did rule that jurors should decide whether AEG Live hired Conrad Murray, the former cardiologist convicted of giving Michael Jackson a lethal overdose of anesthetic in June 2009. AEG Live denies any wrongdoing.


The ruling will simplify the case for jurors, who could begin deliberations before the end of the month.


During the trial, Katherine Jackson's lawyers attacked the actions of Gongaware and Phillips in the months before the death. They claimed the executives missed warning signs about the superstar's health and created a conflict of interest for his physician.


Phillips and Gongaware denied they did anything wrong when they testified early in the case.


Katherine Jackson sued AEG Live in 2010, claiming the company hired Murray.


AEG Live lawyers argued the Jackson family matriarch had failed to prove that the company hired Murray or that its executives could have foreseen that the doctor was giving the entertainer treatments that would lead to his death.


The company is expected to conclude its defense next week. Lawyers for Jackson's mother say they plan to call several rebuttal witnesses.


Due to an illness in a juror's family, Palazuelos said there would be no testimony in the case this week.


Opening statements in the case were April 29 and jurors have heard from more than 50 witnesses in 20 weeks. Key witnesses have included Jackson's mother, his oldest son, his ex-wife Debbie Rowe, and several top AEG Live executives.


The trial has featured potentially damaging testimony to both sides, with Katherine Jackson's lawyers displaying emails sent by AEG executives describing Jackson in unflattering terms.


The company's lawyers have shown the jury testimony from several of Jackson's doctors, who described close relationships with the singer and their occasional misgivings about whether he was shopping for doctors or had grown dependent on prescription medications.


"I really think it would be inappropriate here for this to go to a jury," AEG Live defense attorney Marvin S. Putnam argued Monday.


Deborah Chang, an attorney for Katherine Jackson, countered that evidence in the case supported the family's position that AEG is responsible for Michael Jackson's death. They claim AEG Live created a conflict of interest in Murray's care of Jackson by agreeing to pay him $150,000 a month to work as a tour physician.


"They created the conflict and I think all of that is well within the record," she said.


———


Anthony McCartney can be reached at http://twitter.com/mccartneyAP

 

[LastTear]

@Ivy, how does this simplify things for the jury? Also, you pretty much called this, what made you think this was likely to happen?

 

[Mneme]

Wheter Michael Jackson was an addict or no an addict
Wheter Michael Jackson was a secret or an offensive drug consumer
Wheter Michael Jackson was doctor shopping or not ----

ALL THAT is for me totally irrelevant and indifferent.
For the human und the artist Michael Jackson is this trial completly insignificant.

And whereas Michael ist unbreakable his Mother Katherine Jackson will be the onest looser in this trial --- wheter she will win or lose it is the same
She has sued the promoter only about a flaw in relation to the Murray contract. Only about a flaw!
She has brought no evidence for her claim AEG had Michael controlled and pressured. On the contraray!:
There is the proof she and her own family wanted Michael pressure to this damn... AllGood ting. And more: They wanted L. Rowe bring in to Michael because they wanted control his property.

For me it is glas clear Katherine and her family are having Michael's dead on her conscience.

Wenn she wins, she should take this blood money and simply disapair in her palace whom Michael is paying.

 

[Petrarose]

@Ivy, how does this simplify things for the jury? Also, you pretty much called this, what made you think this was likely to happen?

The jury does not have to decide/delibrate on these 2 men any more to determine their responsibility. They are now out, and should have never been part of this case.

About this lawyer Chang:

Deborah Chang, an attorney for Katherine Jackson, countered that evidence in the case supported the family's position that AEG is responsible for Michael Jackson's death. They claim AEG Live created a conflict of interest in Murray's care of Jackson by agreeing to pay him $150,000 a month to work as a tour physician.


"They created the conflict and I think all of that is well within the record," she said.



What is this conflict she is talking about? AEG paid Muarry, so the money forced him to give Michael prof to go to rehearsals, not monitor him, and cause his death? Now if Michael paid Muarry, Muarry would NOT give Michael prof for sleep? Further, that AEG expert to me really put a blow to that conflict claim, showing that all 3 knew of each other and detailing what is necessary for a conflict to take place. How about the witness testimony that money does not take away the doc's OBLIGATION to give his patient the best standard of care. No doubt the jury will look through all this information if they can find it in all the rubble.

I am really impatient to see the instructions. I guess this will help the sides focus their final arguments.

Now I see Panish wants several rebuttals. Since there is no testimony this week due to family illness, I hope this trial is not going to slide into October.

 

[passy001]

The judge could have easily ended this trial today. she had all the evidence to make a binding ruling but chose otherwise. simply put this is a jury trial and so the judge ruling on this trial would have been self-defeating. In that regard her decision is not surprising. she really wants the jury to deliberate on the case.

 

[Big Apple2]

Judge Dismisses AEG Execs From Jackson Lawsuit

Oh my!

Randy "THIS IS NOT OVER" Jackson must be having a fit right about now.

In the beginning Mother had what, about 5-6 claims - is that correct?

Now the case is down to ONE. That my dear friends, is a SERIOUS blow to this case.

I didn't think the Judge would just dismiss the entire case, because it had come too far, but this news is STILL a serious blow, in my opinion.

 

[Tygger]

Last Tear, I agree to disagree with your view. I did not state my view, I stated what was lacking from evidence and testimony which is fact.

Are you referring to the question of Michael as patient, doctor as doctor/independent contractor, and AEG as ???? in the three party employment contract?

In my reply to Bubs, I spoke of the plaintiffs' witnesses not evidence. Chase testimony can be seen as less about Michael's decline and more about damages if you like. However, it does not change the fact the plaintiffs' case focused on the negligent hiring claim.

Passy001,agreed. The judge wants the jury to decide. Phillips/Gongaware have been removed as defendants however, their actions can still cause AEG to be liable. We all have been deliberating in this thread for months.

 

[Big Apple2]

So much for those so-called "smoking gun emails." They apparently weren't so smoking after all.

In my opinion, the REAL smoking gun will be that box of propofol. How does a doctor just give his patient a box of propofol? I still can't get over that.

 

[LastTear]

@Tygger What was lacking in your view, my view is that the Plantiffs case is also lacking.

Yes about the contract, I have said AEG's name on there is a grey area for me.

 

[Vici]

Well imo, both Congaware and Phillips must have known something was wrong with MJ because of all those people telling them, however they had no clue it was Murray that was the main issue and that propofol was involved.

Could they have done something more to prevent this tragedy? In hindsight probably they could have done more drastic things but to have them LEGALLY responsible for MJs death seemed a bit farfetched imo.

 

[Petrarose]

So much for those so-called "smoking gun emails." They apparently weren't so smoking after all.

In my opinion, the REAL smoking gun will be that box of propofol. How does a doctor just give his patient a box of propofol? I still can't get over that.

You can't get over that!!! That is minor!! How about all pretending that they did not know giving the patient the demerol would be a problem!! How about pretending they did not know he was seeing another doctor when you see a box of prof with another doc's prescription on it, and you see a patient with medicine given by a doc in your practice!!!! Really we could go on & on and find some more.......

 

[ivy]

Was jury instructions read to jury already or what was this?
09/03/2013 Jury Instructions ( read to the jury on 9-3-13 )
Filed by Clerk

it's unrelated to the final jury instructions

Ivy, if there is any money left in the pot, could we get closing arguments from both sides and possibly verdict form?

that's the plan. we have put aside money for the closing arguments.

@marebear Im not really sure, the jury have already heard their testimony, I think it just means they can't be held personally responsible. I may be wrong though.

you are correct. They were sued personally and their dismissal means they can't be held personally responsible.

@Ivy, how does this simplify things for the jury? Also, you pretty much called this, what made you think this was likely to happen?

I called it because this was a negligent hiring lawsuit and Phillips and Gongaware did not hire Murray at a personal capacity, at most they were acting as an agent of AEG. Law differentiates between individual capacity and acting as an agent.

The jury does not have to decide/delibrate on these 2 men any more to determine their responsibility. They are now out, and should have never been part of this case.

exactly. it's just one defendant now. They don't need to divide responsibility among defendants anymore and so on.

 

[Tygger]

@Tygger What was lacking in your view, my view is that the Plantiffs case is also lacking

????

It was not for the plaintiffs to show Michael wanted AEG to hire the doctor; that was for the defense to show if they chose to and they did not.

 

[LastTear]

^^^^ I said 'also lacking' Although if they have the evidence the Plantiffs could have shown that Michael didn't want them to arrange the contracts in the manner they drafted.

 

[Big Apple2]

You can't get over that!!! That is minor!! How about all pretending that they did not know giving the patient the demerol would be a problem!! How about pretending they did not know he was seeing another doctor when you see a box of prof with another doc's prescription on it, and you see a patient with medicine given by a doc in your practice!!!! Really we could go on & on and find some more.......

NO, I can't get over that!!!!!

It might seem minor to YOU, but for me it's major. I hope that's alright with you, you know ME expressing my personal opinion on a message board.

In my opinion, IT'S ALL BAD, but for ME, a patient having a box of propofol is major.

I will also say, that they ALL had a hand in Michael's death, by giving him a false sense of security, whether it was with the Demerol injections or giving him propofol to sleep!

 

[ivy]

It was not for the plaintiffs to show Michael wanted AEG to hire the doctor; that was for the defense to show if they chose to and they did not.

fyi - generally speaking burden of proof is on plaintiffs