Latest on MJJC

Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Status
Not open for further replies.
I went to the news thread and read it. That's just rude. He probably was nice to Michael's face and then says that behind his back. I just hate that sorry. I know that has nothing to do with what Murray did but I hate the way Michael gets judged like that.
 
Justthefacts said:
Don't even go there. No one was forcing Michael to work with AGE. How many times have talked bad about a person behind there back? There are people who claim they love Michael who have called him worst
Click to expand...

So, you're OK with them calling him a creepy freak?:unsure:
 
Justthefacts said:
Don't even go there. No one was forcing Michael to work with AGE. How many times have talked bad about a person behind there back? There are people who claim they love Michael who have called him worst
Click to expand...

Exactly. All the people who hung around Michael for money including managers, concert promoters, & family called Michael names that the press always use. It is not that I condone it, but it is naive to think that behind his back some of his managers, some family members, some friends, etc., did not use these media labels for Michael.

We all knew that some AEG people are phonies, bullies, & nasty. Yesterday Treel was talking in a warm tone about his meeting with Jackson, but when his associate used a stigmatizing name for Michael he fell right in with his buddy and used one of the typical media words for Michael. Even Lloyds did something like that, even though they did not call him names--they looked at all the tabloid lies about Michael's health and asked for a doctors examine so the dr could check this out. So Lloyds believed the media & uses information in the media about Michael in the same way AEG people use the media's stigmatizing labels for Michael. I would not be surprised if Staff in Lloyds call Michael those media names too. So to me this is all typical of these types of people, & they are no different from many of the people we meet who call Michael bizzare but still listen to his music.

I like the way AEG's attorney responded to the reporter who asked about the freak e-mail---all she could say was that the email speaks for itself. She is right; it tells a whole lot about the person who wrote it.

Anyway Treel knew that Panish had that e-mail. They know that Panish has all the nasty emails they sent to each other & he will be showing them to the jury. However, they will not lose this case because they are nasty human beings, and Panish needs to remember that.
 
I'm glad this trial is happening because so much is coming out that we didn't know. They treated Michael so badly. And for Randy Phillips to claim they checked Murray out when they didn't. Shameful. They should have pulled the plug on these shows with Michael the way he was. And those emails where they are insulting him are unprofessional and only highlight their true colours. I think it will only get worse for AEG.
 
Justthefacts said:
Did I say I was ok with it? Was it rude? Yes. Does it mean they hired Murray? No
Click to expand...

I wasn't implying that it meant they hired Murray. I just thought it was a very cruel thing to say behind his back. If someone in the media called him a freak, which they have, we would all be upset by it.
 
It was not cool but let's not kid ourselves. Others have said worst to Michael's face
 
Interesting quote from an interview with Randy Phillips shown in court today regarding Conrad Murray:

"This guy was willing to leave his practice for a very large sum of money, so we hired him,"
 
^Randy strikes me as a person who likes to act as though the boss's business & assets is his. He made comments about paying for Michael's tissue paper as though the money advanced to Michael from AEG was his & the advance given to Michael was a handout from Randy & not funds that Michael had to pay back. Yesterday Treel was asked about Randy's comment about hiring Muarry. I think Randy shows his importance by boasting about what he did, and in Randy's head he is AEG, so Putnam will have to do some damage control in relation to Randy & the statements he made.

I really have not learned much from this trial yet. We already knew AEG staff were nasty from the leaked e-mail. I am merely hearing more information about how unpleasant these people are, but these things do not show me that they negligently hired Muarry.
 
marebear said:
I went to the news thread and read it. That's just rude. He probably was nice to Michael's face and then says that behind his back. I just hate that sorry. I know that has nothing to do with what Murray did but I hate the way Michael gets judged like that.
Click to expand...

he probably did not even meet Michael.

As far as I can understand from AP story

Gongaware asked Phillips - are we going today to get the contract signed?

Phillips said - yes and told Trell - AEG Live's lawyer that he should be there

Trell forwarded the email to Fikre - lawyer of AEG Inc. who said "the freak"

Trell's reply called the situation "kinda creepy".

AEG Inc had nothing to do with TII concerts and that's why they were dismissed. So Fikre probably never ever met Michael.
 
GreenEyedOne said:
I wasn't implying that it meant they hired Murray. I just thought it was a very cruel thing to say behind his back. If someone in the media called him a freak, which they have, we would all be upset by it.
Click to expand...

I 100000% agree with you that it's a very cruel and also disrespectful thing to say and I believe every fan is upset by it - I sure am. On the other hand I also agree that this doesn't bring anything to the table about negligent hiring claim. Perhaps it might show they didn't care about Michael much but it's a indirect and circumstantial. I guess we will wait and see how the jury reacts to it.
 
I thought the one that said kind of creepy ended up meeting Michael once. He said this before the meeting and then went. I misunderstood.
 
marebear said:
I thought the one that said kind of creepy ended up meeting Michael once. He said this before the meeting and then went. I misunderstood.
Click to expand...

yeah Trell said "kinda creepy" before the meeting and then met Michael only once for just contract signing. His impressions after the meeting seemed to be positive - of course if you are believing him.

someone commented on twitter and I agree this is evidence of how people believed the tabloid caricature of Michael - which Michael was very aware of and addressed in multiple songs / videos most important one being "Ghosts".
 
marebear said:
I thought the one that said kind of creepy ended up meeting Michael once. He said this before the meeting and then went. I misunderstood.
Click to expand...

You are right. The one who said creepy was Treel and he met Micahel once. Fikre may not have met Michael. Fikre said the word that sound like his name--freak.
 
People believe the things the media would say about Michael. But I do think once they actually meet him that most people anyways think differently afterwards. It's a shame that people judge first and not wait to meet the person first. I would be embarrassed if I said something like that and the person's mother is sitting right in front of you. I know this might not have relevance if they hired Murray but it's sad to see how cruel people can be.
 
:( *big sigh*







This trial is not going anywhere! -_- :coffee:
emoticons_487_0484.gif
 
bouee said:
It's not what I understand so far- But i haven't been following closely until the trial started, so maybe I missed soome stuff.

What I understand so far, is that they're not saying AEG was unwilling to help, they're saying that AEG created a dangerous sitauation by negligently hiring Murray that lead them to get involved in Michael's health problems, misundersand the situation , take wrong decisions that made things worse.

The dangerous situation is let the production costs become a problem, and then hire Murray instead of letting Michael deal with it, by paying him an advance . Insurance was not completely secured. Money , and so time, became a problem. AEG was afraid of a cancellation, because production costs were bigger than what the insurance would have paid. They misunderstood the problem, thinking Michael had psychological issues, and put him and Murray under pressure, which made things worse.

Ideally, production costs would not have gotten out of hand, they would not have gotten involved with Murray, the situation would have been easier to deal with.
instaed of pressuring Michael to rehearse, they could/should have allowed more time, and could / should even have suspected Murray. Since they "chose" to get involved with Michael's health by hiring Murray, they could have supervised him with other "harmless" healthcare profesionals (nutritionnist, psychologist, physical therapist) that would have spotted that Murray's behavior was weird. They would never have suspected propofol, but they would have alerted about Murray's behaviour.

That's what i understand so far. It's merely assumptions, we'll see how Panish will connect the dots, and how AEG will present their side of the story. That's why AEG's defense , or at least what we've seen of it so far, (Michael being an extreme drug addict who fooled everyone, minimising Murray's role, attacking the Jacksons) seems very weak to me, and even worse than what the jacksons have been doing so far. It sounds like they're only trying to reduce the damages, but they don't answer the questions.

About Michael refusing the physical therapist, I bet Murray is behind this, and told Michael he didn't need them. It can be seen as red flag, Murray should have welcomed the help.

It's clear how AEG wants to deal with Murray , I'm not sure about the Jacksons if Murray eventually testifies.

To be completely honest, i could be influenced by my culture. I'm french, and here, an employer or partner getting involved with someone's health is a huge NO NO. I'm pretty sure AEG would be found liable here. The doctor can NOT be your employee, or independant contractor, or connected with you in any way. You don't discuss anything with a doctor other than the dates the person will be unavailable, or, if necessary, how to adapt the work to a sick employee. If a doctor requests that the work be adapted, you will have to accept it, in some cases it will have to be confirmed by a second doctor.
For example, when we are on sick leave, the employer doesn't know the reason, he just knows the dates. As an employer, you're not even supposed to call the sick employee on the phone at home, that could be seen as pressuring the employee.
If something happens at work, an employee gets sick or has an accident, if you are not a medical professional, you don't assume anything. If you don't want to be held responsible, as a manager, the only reasonable thing to do is to call a doctor, and let the doctor make the decision with the employee. You would leave the room and let them talk, and let them make a decsion without interfering whatsoever.
If an employee is on a sick leave and comes to work, you're expected to send him/her back home, even if the employee wants to work. If you don't , you can be found liable if something happens.
So maybe our way of seeing this is influencing my perception of what we're hearing so far, I don't know how these things work in the US.
Click to expand...

I agree that if MJ had paid for Murray out of his own advance $$ then the question of AEG involvement would be much less, and it would have kept AEG and the dr. as separate entities, but MJ apparently did not consider taking that route. Maybe his advance was not enough to take on that expense? In any case, MJ wanted AEG to pay for Murray, with the understanding he would repay them out of the tour money later on. I really don't think they 'chose' to have Murray on board as they argued with MJ about his choice--why do you need to bring a doc from USA to UK, when there are plenty of great docs in UK?? MJ insisted--saying he needed CM.

How could they "supervise" CM, esp. with another "harmless" healthcare professional? There really was no way to force another healthcare professional on MJ if he didn't want it.

MJ wanted CM--that is the insurmountable issue/problem.
 
I cannot belive AEG had the nerve to call mj "creepy" and "a freak" in emails that just makes me blood boil i swear :angry: :rant:
 
bouee said:
To be completely honest, i could be influenced by my culture. I'm french, and here, an employer or partner getting involved with someone's health is a huge NO NO. I'm pretty sure AEG would be found liable here. The doctor can NOT be your employee, or independant contractor, or connected with you in any way. You don't discuss anything with a doctor other than the dates the person will be unavailable, or, if necessary, how to adapt the work to a sick employee. If a doctor requests that the work be adapted, you will have to accept it, in some cases it will have to be confirmed by a second doctor.
For example, when we are on sick leave, the employer doesn't know the reason, he just knows the dates. As an employer, you're not even supposed to call the sick employee on the phone at home, that could be seen as pressuring the employee.
If something happens at work, an employee gets sick or has an accident, if you are not a medical professional, you don't assume anything. If you don't want to be held responsible, as a manager, the only reasonable thing to do is to call a doctor, and let the doctor make the decision with the employee. You would leave the room and let them talk, and let them make a decsion without interfering whatsoever.
If an employee is on a sick leave and comes to work, you're expected to send him/her back home, even if the employee wants to work. If you don't , you can be found liable if something happens.
So maybe our way of seeing this is influencing my perception of what we're hearing so far, I don't know how these things work in the US.
Click to expand...

I understand where you're coming from, I think, but the question to be cleared here is, if the doctor is an independent doctor called... or if he is a doc as an employee of the very company (and if so was checked and supervised 'enough') which called him with a certain agenda possibly which is dictated by that company, means bringing Michael Jackson on stage no matter what.

However it's the Panish/Jacksons side who have to prove it...
 
[QUOTEMechi: Yes Mr. Smoozer Phillips, oh and let me add pigs fly and water runs up the mountain! yes! yes! ][/QUOTE]

LOL mechi love it !
 
bouee said:
It looks like AEG will go after the Jacksons, they might not enjoy it when they are on the stand.

When is the final verdict form going to be decided ? At the end of the testimonies ?

But then , again, if it's a settlement for 500 millions/ 1 billion , it's a bluff, they just want to say it publicly for some reason. No way AEG is going to settle for such a ridiculous amount IMO, wouldn't that be close to what they would have to pay if found liable ? So AEG is not going to get caught in "negociations" that could "leak" again and make them look bad, they don't need to. If they want to settle, it will happen if and when they feel things are not turning out good for them. I guess the jacksons will testify at the end of AEG's presentation to keep a little bit of suspense.

-----

Totally unrelated, I read Ivy's summary of Karen's testimony so far. From AEG's questions, I think that they are going to say that Michael used propofol during History tour and for the HBO performance, and that no one noticed it. Karen said she didn't notice anything about drugs during those tour/show. And Kenny said that what happened in June 09 reminded him of what happened during the HBO rehearsals. Though I don't see the link with what the Jacksons have been saying so far.
Click to expand...

I'm curious to see final verdict form. Whether there is going to be Katherine's name or not, but I'm certain stuff about Katherine is going to come up during the trial, her name in the verdict form is not there for nothing.

About that unrelated part. I wonder how many people were in Michael's room at night time if MJ's tour doctor gave him propofol during HiStory tour? If Karen didn't see anything, how likely it is that producer and other staff didn't know either?
I think it is more like that they have seen doctor during the performance and other times, but it is entirely possible that they didn't have a clue that at night time MJ was put under.
 
8701girl said:
I cannot belive AEG had the nerve to call mj "creepy" and "a freak" in emails that just makes me blood boil i swear :angry: :rant:
Click to expand...

I can't believe this either - it's just so heartbreaking :(. And the Jacksons wanted to settle with them?....:bugeyed

Was there anyone who cared about Michael as a human being?
 
GreenEyedOne said:
I wasn't implying that it meant they hired Murray. I just thought it was a very cruel thing to say behind his back. If someone in the media called him a freak, which they have, we would all be upset by it.
Click to expand...

it's sad and disrespectful, yes, we know that some of them are bullies. It shows that at least some of them did not really take Michael seriously. I think we can expect other nice words like these. But it has nothing to do with the trial, which is about AEG & Murray.

jamba said:
I agree that if MJ had paid for Murray out of his own advance $$ then the question of AEG involvement would be much less, and it would have kept AEG and the dr. as separate entities, but MJ apparently did not consider taking that route. Maybe his advance was not enough to take on that expense? In any case, MJ wanted AEG to pay for Murray, with the understanding he would repay them out of the tour money later on. I really don't think they 'chose' to have Murray on board as they argued with MJ about his choice--why do you need to bring a doc from USA to UK, when there are plenty of great docs in UK?? MJ insisted--saying he needed CM.

How could they "supervise" CM, esp. with another "harmless" healthcare professional? There really was no way to force another healthcare professional on MJ if he didn't want it.

MJ wanted CM--that is the insurmountable issue/problem.
Click to expand...

AEG are grown ups too, and they are a company, with legal counsel. They are responsible for what they do, as much as Michael was for what he did, and especially as much as Murray was. That's why I said "chose", because they did, even though I agree it might have been in good faith, not meaning to cause harm. They can't say others , well Michael here, are responsible and not them, they share the responsability. Especially when they seem to minimise Murray's role, when Murray probably misled both AEG and Michael.

In theory they should not impose any healthcare provider on Michael. What I was trying to say, is that since they got invoolved with Murray (maybe hiring him, giving him orders, "reminding him who was paying his salary", asking him to go to rehearsals, etc..) then they had other options. They chose tough love and to pressure Michael to rehearse. They could have chosen tough love and pressured Michael into accepting other healthcare professionals. It would have been less risky for AEG.

They accepted to advance the money anyway, production costs were already over the budget. So they had the option of cash advance, or saying no, we can't.

I agree Michael wanted Murray, the outcome might have been the same. But this is about AEG's possible liability. Michael was a grown up, yes. So were AEG people.

Mechi said:
I understand where you're coming from, I think, but the question to be cleared here is, if the doctor is an independent doctor called... or if he is a doc as an employee of the very company (and if so was checked and supervised 'enough') which called him with a certain agenda possibly which is dictated by that company, means bringing Michael Jackson on stage no matter what.

However it's the Panish/Jacksons side who have to prove it...
Click to expand...

yes, thanks I agree. Though I don't think AEG initially "hired" Murray with an agenda. They "hired" him because Michael wanted him, and did so in a risky way for AEG (direct contract with Murray, instead of cash advance to Michael) . I think the issue is also the "red flags" and how they reacted. When problems appeared they used Murray, again, probably thinking they were helping Michael. So far I haven't seen anything that could make me say AEG intentionally caused the situation or caused harm. But they ARE liable for what they do, even if it's not intentional.
 
Bubs said:
About that unrelated part. I wonder how many people were in Michael's room at night time if MJ's tour doctor gave him propofol during HiStory tour? If Karen didn't see anything, how likely it is that producer and other staff didn't know either?
I think it is more like that they have seen doctor during the performance and other times, but it is entirely possible that they didn't have a clue that at night time MJ was put under.
Click to expand...

I think very few people knew... Though I really don't see, at least so far, how does that connect with what the Jacksons are saying. Jacksons are not saying, at least so far, that AEG could or should have known about propofol.

I'm curious to hear about the medical part, to understand the difference in Michael health state between previous use of propofol and TII. Though I'm not sure if Ratner will answer that precisely, if he doesn't take the 5th about this, and if he even takes the stand. I'd like to understand though.
 
^^

well I do see AEG responsible but only and especially in the person of Randy Philips yet.
He lied and he didn't provide everybody with all the information he at least had. And AEG had to at least supervise him or better has full responsibility for his actions/non actions.
Also he as a CEO of AEGlive is on tape with doing several interviews saying clearly "WE HIRED HIM!" (reasons why and all don't matter really).

That alone could cost AEG some money here, as I see it...

...although I don't think it would be a fair judgement, only if the money might could to charity, then maybe.
However it's not necessarily justice what is find through a trial! *shrugs*
 
every business starts with CONTRACT and lawsuit arises from breach fo that contract. Putting aside how AEG called MJ or what was their intention, I don't see here wrong doing by AEG for wrongful death case, not even breach of contract. Attorney Panish Shea simply making money out of cleint Katherine Jackson. They filed wrongful death lawsuit but all is happening on trial is interpretation of contract AEG had with Michael/Murray and same details of MJ's death that was already discussed on Murray's trial.
So, are they trying to establish/prove breach of contract or tort-two different wings of law? I doubt if Panish knows what he is doing.
 
"But they ARE liable for what they do, even if it's not intentional." bouee

Isn't this what the trial is about? IF they are liable for negligent hiring/supervision? It's yet to be determined (I realize you seem to have made up your mind but the jury hasn't heard all the evidence yet and neither have we--maybe?).

The problem I see with the argument that AEG is liable for what Murray did (killed MJ) is that it ultimately means (in terms of logic) if AEG had been as careful as they should have been, they should not have made any deal with MJ in the first place. The whole thing was a mess--an unraveling mess--from the outset. And not all of it had to do with AEG or even MJ. There were other bizarre and unreliable players here putting their ink in the water. Thome, Allgood, Leonard Rowe, Joe Jackson, the family, and of course Conrad. Not to mention the press--Ian Halperin--all the rumors--he can't sing, he can't dance.

However, if AEG HAD pulled the plug, which they clearly considered doing, and maybe/probably should have done, what would it have meant for MJ?
 
bouee--I think what you are saying re AEG needed to be more careful re making an arrangement between AEG and Murray--yes, and they realized that and that's why they would not sign the contract with Murray until MJ signed it and that's why they had under MJ's signature the languge that said he requested this person and would pay for him:

"The undersigned hereby confirms that he has requested Producer to engage Dr. Murray on the terms set forth herein on behalf of and at the expense of the undersigned."

This language was meant to protect them from liability.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top