Victory22
Proud Member
This is the most respectful comment I have heard made about Michael from ANYONE since this entire mess started
Latest on MJJC
- Latest Michael Jackson News
- Click Here to Join Our Community
- Follow us on X
- Wanna talk Michael? Come join the chat rooms
- The Michael Jackson Chart Watch
- Become an MJJC Patron
- Join the Premium Member Group and Get Lot's of Extra's
- Major Love Prayer - Worldwide Monthly Prayer Every 25th
- MJJC Exclusive Q&A - We talk to the family and those in and around Michael
- Join us in the Chat Rooms
- Find us on Facebook
Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG
- Thread starter ivy
- Start date
- Status
This is the most respectful comment I have heard made about Michael from ANYONE since this entire mess started
bouee
Proud Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,369
- Points
- 0
From the pharmacist : he started buying propofol on april 6th, ordered again on april 28th.
from Metzger's testimony : Michael asked for sleep medication on april 18th.
Other interesting tdibits from Metzger' testimony
Nurse Lee : She was initially called to treat the kids for a cold. Michael mentionned he was tired. In march , Michael asks her if she would go to London with him. The first mention of sleep issue is april 12, then on april 19th Michael asks for propofol.
David Adams did not testify in CM trial, but his card was found in Michael's private room or bathroom. I think his lawyer said he had contacts with Murray about the job in London.
qbee
Proud Member
maybe they did consult MJ to seek out a specialist. We dont know ... But We know MJ was having nurse cheryl lynn try and help him with more natural ways to help him sleep. When it didn't work for him, he asked her about Propofol. I don't think MJ felt conventional methods would work for him. Or that he had the time to go through all that being he was preparing for his concerts.
serendipity
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,451
- Points
- 48
Tygger;3843967 said:
I believe the promoters/producers are AEG Live:
I'm not sure how that would show that Gongaware knew about Propofol.
Tygger
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2012
- Messages
- 2,316
- Points
- 0
AEG would have created the list of artists to perform at the BET experience correct? The Jacksons would then agree and perform or disagree and not perform. What would fans prefer the Jackson brothers do? I assume they would want the brothers to perform/work.
Patience. We shall see what they testify to.
Tygger;3843967 said:
I would think they were admitted first week of testimony and no LAPD did not release them. But do you think the media got the pictures by going to the clerks office in person or if they simply copied them from Jacksons lawyers website?
simple. the venue is owned by AEG so they are being paid rent. They are promoters so they are probably being paid a fee for that job as well. Probably they are also making money from the sale of foods, drinks and even parking. So when Jacksons perform in AEG owned arenas, AEG makes money. That's the irony.
just a general comment here : different versions is very common. Even when you have for example 100 people witness the same event, you would have 100 different versions. Everyone's perception, understanding and memory will be different.
Unless she can say Gongaware knew and aware of it, it would help AEG's case that Michael kept it a secret.
bouee;3843976 said:
why is simple. Ratner was an anesthologist that probably properly administer Propofol. Murray did not use proper administration.
This will depend to the jury IMO. I don't want to go back but the normal legal definition of the negligent hiring has a really direct relationship - such as having a violent past and beating someone. The different stuff doesn't matter - such as you can't look to a person with a beating past and conclude that person will drive negligently.
AEG is definitely trying to differentiate Propofol from the painkillers. Whether it would matter or not will depend on the jury. Whether they would see it different or whether they would approach it like dependency is dependency doesn't matter which drug.
It became apparent that they suspected Klein. Can't that explain why they did not suspect Murray?
FYI - Michael was involved in 15 lawsuits when he died.
bouee;3843981 said:
why do you say this? also the next question becomes "who hired him"
I kinda agree that hiring can be proven, unless the jury goes with "MJ signature was required", there was a lot (oral talks, negotiations, drafts etc. ) to conclude a hiring was going on and there was an implied contract. but don't forget who hired Murray is the second question. IF they believe he was hired by Michael, it ends there.
Tygger;3843987 said:
Do you realize that you just argued for AEG? If you say the risk of Murray cannot be foreseen then there's no negligent hiring.
AliCat
Proud Member
Guilt is not doing anyone any good. If you think for one minute that the evidence so far brings out that Katherine should not have filed this lawsuit and that AEG Live should not be liable for Michael's death and if anyone of us says otherwise, you can't say we don't have a choice in the matter, that is wrong for you to presume.
No...don't bring guilt to the table in our Conversations. Communication is the answer to the problem, unless you want to up the anti and say that those who are supporting the fact that the Jackson camp is in the wrong, then so be it, just don't be adding guilt to the fold!
California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI)
426. Negligent Hiring, Supervision, or Retention of Employee
[Name of plaintiff] claims that [he/she] was harmed by [name of employee] and that [name of employer defendant] is responsible for that harm because [name of employer defendant] negligently [hired/ supervised/ [or] retained] [name of employee]. To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following:
1. That [name of employee] was [unfit/ [or] incompetent] to perform the work for which [he/she] was hired;
2. That [name of employer defendant] knew or should have known that [name of employee] was [unfit/ [or] incompetent] and that this [unfitness/ [or] incompetence] created a particular risk to others;
3. That [name of employee]’s [unfitness/ [or] incompetence] harmed [name of plaintiff]; and
4. That [name of employer defendant]’s negligence in [hiring/ supervising/ [or] retaining] [name of employee] was a substantial factor in causing [name of plaintiff]’s harm.
New December 2009
Directions for Use
Give this instruction if the plaintiff alleges that the employer of an employee who caused harm was negligent in the hiring, supervision, or retention of the employee after actual or constructive notice of the employee’s unfitness. For instructions holding the employer vicariously liable (without fault) for the acts of the employee, see the Vicarious Responsibility series, CACI No. 3700 et seq.
It appears that liability may also be imposed on the hirer of an independent contractor for the negligent selection of the contractor. (See Noble v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 654, 662—663 [109 Cal.Rptr. 269].)
Sources and Authority
“California case law recognizes the theory that an employer can be liable to a third person for negligently hiring, supervising, or retaining an unfit employee.” (Doe v. Capital Cities (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1038, 1054 [58 Cal.Rptr.2d 122].)
“Negligence liability will be imposed on an employer if it ‘knew or should have known that hiring the employee created a particular risk or hazard and that particular harm materializes.’ ” (Phillips v. TLC Plumbing, Inc. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1133, 1139 [91 Cal.Rptr.3d 864].)
“Liability for negligent supervision and/or retention of an employee is one of direct liability for negligence, not vicarious liability.” (Delfino v. Agilent Technologies, Inc. (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 790, 815 [52 Cal.Rptr.3d 376].)
“Liability for negligent hiring and supervision is based upon the reasoning that if an enterprise hires individuals with characteristics which might pose a danger to customers or other employees, the enterprise should bear the loss caused by the wrongdoing of its incompetent or unfit employees. The tort has developed in California in factual settings where the plaintiff’s injury occurred in the workplace, or the contact between the plaintiff and the employee was generated by the employment relationship.” (Mendoza v. City of Los Angeles (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1339—1340 [78 Cal.Rptr.2d 525].)
“We are cited to no authority, nor have we found any authority basing liability on lack of, or on inadequate, supervision, in the absence of knowledge by the principal that the agent or servant was a person who could not be trusted to act properly without being supervised.” (Noble, supra, 33 Cal.App.3d at p. 664.)
“Apparently, [defendant] had no actual knowledge of [the employee]’s past. But the evidence recounted above presents triable issues of material fact regarding whether the [defendant] had reason to believe [the employee] was unfit or whether the [defendant] failed to use reasonable care in investigating [the employee].” (Evan F. v. Hughson United Methodist Church (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 828, 843 [10 Cal.Rptr.2d 748]; cf. Flores v. AutoZone West Inc. (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 373, 384—386 [74 Cal.Rptr.3d 178] [employer had no duty to investigate and discover that job applicant had a juvenile delinquency record].)
“A claim that an employer was negligent in hiring or retaining an employee-driver rarely differs in substance from a claim that an employer was negligent in entrusting a vehicle to the employee. Awareness, constructive or actual, that a person is unfit or incompetent to drive underlies a claim that an employer was negligent in hiring or retaining that person as a driver. (See Judicial Council of Cal. Civ. Jury Instns. (2011) CACI No. 426.) That same awareness underlies a claim for negligent entrustment. (See CACI No. 724.) In a typical case, like this, the two claims are functionally identical.” (Diaz v. Carcamo (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1148, 1157 [126 Cal.Rptr.3d 443, 253 P.3d 535].)
“f an employer admits vicarious liability for its employee’s negligent driving in the scope of employment, ‘the damages attributable to both employer and employee will be coextensive.’ Thus, when a plaintiff alleges a negligent entrustment or hiring cause of action against the employer and the employer admits vicarious liability for its employee’s negligent driving, the universe of defendants who can be held responsible for plaintiff’s damages is reduced by one—the employer—for purposes of apportioning fault under Proposition 51. Consequently, the employer would not be mentioned on the special verdict form. The jury must divide fault for the accident among the listed tortfeasors, and the employer is liable only for whatever share of fault the jury assigns to the employee.” (Diaz, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 1159, internal citations omitted.)
Restatement Third of Agency, section 7.05(1), states: “A principal who conducts an activity through an agent is subject to liability for harm to a third party caused by the agent’s conduct if the harm was caused by the principal’s negligence in selecting, training, retaining, supervising, or otherwise controlling the agent.”
© 2013 Justia :: Company :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Contact Us
426. Negligent Hiring, Supervision, or Retention of Employee
[Name of plaintiff] claims that [he/she] was harmed by [name of employee] and that [name of employer defendant] is responsible for that harm because [name of employer defendant] negligently [hired/ supervised/ [or] retained] [name of employee]. To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following:
1. That [name of employee] was [unfit/ [or] incompetent] to perform the work for which [he/she] was hired;
2. That [name of employer defendant] knew or should have known that [name of employee] was [unfit/ [or] incompetent] and that this [unfitness/ [or] incompetence] created a particular risk to others;
3. That [name of employee]’s [unfitness/ [or] incompetence] harmed [name of plaintiff]; and
4. That [name of employer defendant]’s negligence in [hiring/ supervising/ [or] retaining] [name of employee] was a substantial factor in causing [name of plaintiff]’s harm.
New December 2009
Directions for Use
Give this instruction if the plaintiff alleges that the employer of an employee who caused harm was negligent in the hiring, supervision, or retention of the employee after actual or constructive notice of the employee’s unfitness. For instructions holding the employer vicariously liable (without fault) for the acts of the employee, see the Vicarious Responsibility series, CACI No. 3700 et seq.
It appears that liability may also be imposed on the hirer of an independent contractor for the negligent selection of the contractor. (See Noble v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 654, 662—663 [109 Cal.Rptr. 269].)
Sources and Authority
“California case law recognizes the theory that an employer can be liable to a third person for negligently hiring, supervising, or retaining an unfit employee.” (Doe v. Capital Cities (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1038, 1054 [58 Cal.Rptr.2d 122].)
“Negligence liability will be imposed on an employer if it ‘knew or should have known that hiring the employee created a particular risk or hazard and that particular harm materializes.’ ” (Phillips v. TLC Plumbing, Inc. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1133, 1139 [91 Cal.Rptr.3d 864].)
“Liability for negligent supervision and/or retention of an employee is one of direct liability for negligence, not vicarious liability.” (Delfino v. Agilent Technologies, Inc. (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 790, 815 [52 Cal.Rptr.3d 376].)
“Liability for negligent hiring and supervision is based upon the reasoning that if an enterprise hires individuals with characteristics which might pose a danger to customers or other employees, the enterprise should bear the loss caused by the wrongdoing of its incompetent or unfit employees. The tort has developed in California in factual settings where the plaintiff’s injury occurred in the workplace, or the contact between the plaintiff and the employee was generated by the employment relationship.” (Mendoza v. City of Los Angeles (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1339—1340 [78 Cal.Rptr.2d 525].)
“We are cited to no authority, nor have we found any authority basing liability on lack of, or on inadequate, supervision, in the absence of knowledge by the principal that the agent or servant was a person who could not be trusted to act properly without being supervised.” (Noble, supra, 33 Cal.App.3d at p. 664.)
“Apparently, [defendant] had no actual knowledge of [the employee]’s past. But the evidence recounted above presents triable issues of material fact regarding whether the [defendant] had reason to believe [the employee] was unfit or whether the [defendant] failed to use reasonable care in investigating [the employee].” (Evan F. v. Hughson United Methodist Church (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 828, 843 [10 Cal.Rptr.2d 748]; cf. Flores v. AutoZone West Inc. (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 373, 384—386 [74 Cal.Rptr.3d 178] [employer had no duty to investigate and discover that job applicant had a juvenile delinquency record].)
“A claim that an employer was negligent in hiring or retaining an employee-driver rarely differs in substance from a claim that an employer was negligent in entrusting a vehicle to the employee. Awareness, constructive or actual, that a person is unfit or incompetent to drive underlies a claim that an employer was negligent in hiring or retaining that person as a driver. (See Judicial Council of Cal. Civ. Jury Instns. (2011) CACI No. 426.) That same awareness underlies a claim for negligent entrustment. (See CACI No. 724.) In a typical case, like this, the two claims are functionally identical.” (Diaz v. Carcamo (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1148, 1157 [126 Cal.Rptr.3d 443, 253 P.3d 535].)
“f an employer admits vicarious liability for its employee’s negligent driving in the scope of employment, ‘the damages attributable to both employer and employee will be coextensive.’ Thus, when a plaintiff alleges a negligent entrustment or hiring cause of action against the employer and the employer admits vicarious liability for its employee’s negligent driving, the universe of defendants who can be held responsible for plaintiff’s damages is reduced by one—the employer—for purposes of apportioning fault under Proposition 51. Consequently, the employer would not be mentioned on the special verdict form. The jury must divide fault for the accident among the listed tortfeasors, and the employer is liable only for whatever share of fault the jury assigns to the employee.” (Diaz, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 1159, internal citations omitted.)
Restatement Third of Agency, section 7.05(1), states: “A principal who conducts an activity through an agent is subject to liability for harm to a third party caused by the agent’s conduct if the harm was caused by the principal’s negligence in selecting, training, retaining, supervising, or otherwise controlling the agent.”
© 2013 Justia :: Company :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Contact Us
This is what I discussed with bouee before. Legal definition of negligent hiring - and jury instructions - require Murray to be [unfit/ [or] incompetent] to perform the work for which [he/she] was hired; and that AEG knew or should have known that [name of employee] was [unfit/ [or] incompetent] and that this [unfitness/ [or] incompetence] created a particular risk to others.
It's particular risk - not a general risk.
So it brings us back to my example - particular risk means : Jack has beaten his girlfriend and charged for it, Jack has beaten a co-worker and fired from his last job. IF I as an employer check his background I can see his domestic violence charge and if I check his work history I can learn how he beat up a worker. so I can know that Jack has a particular risk of being violent to others.
however Jack's history of being violent to others does not mean he would for example steal from the company. There's a lot of examples of lawsuits with verdicts like that.
You can see how this legal definition is trickly for Jacksons . The only way for Jacksons to prove this claim is as they said claiming Michael was an addict and Murray was a drug pusher hence they can foresee overdose being a risk. But then as tygger pointed out comes the incompetent part. Was there anything to think Murray was incompetent. For example even if we assume gongaware knew the tour doctors and how they helped Michael to manage, did he have any reason to suspect any doctor would be incompetent? I mean Finkelstein, Forecast and Ratner all reportedly treated Michael (even drugged him in a balance) but none of them overdosed / killed him?
It's particular risk - not a general risk.
So it brings us back to my example - particular risk means : Jack has beaten his girlfriend and charged for it, Jack has beaten a co-worker and fired from his last job. IF I as an employer check his background I can see his domestic violence charge and if I check his work history I can learn how he beat up a worker. so I can know that Jack has a particular risk of being violent to others.
however Jack's history of being violent to others does not mean he would for example steal from the company. There's a lot of examples of lawsuits with verdicts like that.
You can see how this legal definition is trickly for Jacksons . The only way for Jacksons to prove this claim is as they said claiming Michael was an addict and Murray was a drug pusher hence they can foresee overdose being a risk. But then as tygger pointed out comes the incompetent part. Was there anything to think Murray was incompetent. For example even if we assume gongaware knew the tour doctors and how they helped Michael to manage, did he have any reason to suspect any doctor would be incompetent? I mean Finkelstein, Forecast and Ratner all reportedly treated Michael (even drugged him in a balance) but none of them overdosed / killed him?
crillon
Proud Member
I don't see any "proof of hiring" thus far in the testimony. What leads you to believe that? Seems to me--based on testimony so far--that a hiring process was underway (emails, negotiations, etc.), that MJ picked Murray, but there is no signed contract. And, the signature required to have the deal done and an executable contract was Michael's. If the jury looks at just that fact, it's over really.
I can take hearing different sides of Michael. He was a human being and we all have our different sides. What I can't take is the drug addict angle that seems to define him. He was a father taking care of 3 young children and taking care of the Jacksons. He deserves some credit and he deserves to have his strong sides being talked about. I am glad the jury heard that because at least they hear something else than Michael having drug issues and portrayed as some child that needed to be told what to do. Maybe AEG doing it for strategy but it was still nice to hear right now.
bouee
Proud Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,369
- Points
- 0
During CM trial , the judge only allowed medical records up to 6 months before his death. I think Nurse Lee advised for a sleep specialist (that would need to be checked) , and Metzger said nothing worked on Michael. I think Michael knew, maybe he had seen sleep specialits before. He turned almost directly to propofol, and was not taking his other medication as prescribed.
Ivy, the same persons, particularly PG & RP have diferent versions of the same events. Example : for RP : were sleep issues discussed at the june 20th meeting : yes at the depo, no on the stand. There are other examples of that.
Not so simple. Murray was not giving only propofol, far from it. Was Michael under the same kind of stress during history ? We know he was under a lot of stress during the last leg of Dangerous, and the Jacksons are saying he (and Murray) were pressured during TII.
Yes to the bolded part, it will how they interpret this. Bad doctor + Michael's health declining under his care = danger. That can be seen as direct.
Otherwise, the judge's ruling (AEG nt responsible for Murray's medical actions make no sense.
I think one of the reasons the defense uses propofol because it was hard to see during History tour, if he used it then. If that's the case and they kenw it, Michael used it, perfomed well and survived.
.
I posted the invoice they had . It must have been almost the same, except for the 1 or 2 last dates. They knew they were cosmetic procedures, they should have seen he was already going in april, more often than in may and june, and he was fine in april, apart from the meetings when Michael seemed ot of it. Problems started at the end of may. Then the visits were decreasing.
They pressured Murray, why not Klein ? Why didn't Murray check this out with Klein , Phillips said he told him, didn't he? Did Murray lie to them about it ?
was it Phillips job to deal with it ? Was he really dealing with this on june 20th ? apparently Michael Kane was. It's another sort of" lie to Ortega.
proof of hiring : contracts (indep contractor vs cash advance) + budgets+ relationship with Murray (including him in meetings, direct communications with him, "promotion" to "responsible of Michael's apperance at rehearsals" + PG"'s e mails (who's paying his salary , Murray full time on the tour by may 15th...). did they have that kind of relationship with Kai Chase for example ?
The last version of the contract was sent on june 24th, Michael did not have the time to sign it.
I said that if I was on the jury, I would say 50/50 AEG- Michael. If hiring is a yes or no question, I would say yes, and reduce the damage accordingly.
I don't want to answer for Tygger. personnally, I don't want to be arguing for either side. I was basically anti Jacksons when this trial started. Now that the trial is happening whether I like it or not, i try to look at it as objectively as possible.
bouee
Proud Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,369
- Points
- 0
I don't want to bring guilt to the table. I was reacting to one particular argument that shocked me.
It's a discussion board, I don't mind everybody having their opinion, I'm shocked at that type of arguments, or at fans trying to explain Phillips nose comment for ex and voluntarily ignoring what is said at court.
troubleman84
Proud Member
As much as I believe that Michael was a "man who made his own decisions", I still think he was taken advantage of by AEG. This doesn't show him to be an "idiot" and I don't think the Jackson family is that stupid to think he was since they know what he was all about. That said, Randy Phillips lost me when his e-mails clearly had him say he "slapped" him. He didn't deny that and even excused it with the sports analogy. :rolleyes2: It's actually really a lose-lose situation with AEG and the Jacksons but more so with AEG.
troubleman84
Proud Member
It goes like this: blah blah blah nose falling apart blah blah blah yeah I slapped him blah blah blah blah Michael was a force when I met him not some 5-year-old...
THAT is what gets some fans. A powerful comment like that will make you forget everything else that person said. That's what you got in the Michael Jackson world. You won't get that with Prince, Madonna, Elvis or even the Beatles. But with Michael, you get contradictory responses. Definitely doesn't prove who was the good or bad guy in his case. Just a bunch of lunatics running around with their heads cut off (not the fans but the people in Michael's corner).
troubleman84
Proud Member
@bouee, you know what struck me odd, it's not the propofol, it was the benzos! You have a point, Michael may have not known he was under the influence of benzodiazepines! Or if he did, then he probably didn't know how much dosage he was on. That's what has struck me odd about the cases surrounding this and Murray's. Everyone only has talked about the propofol. Why not the benzos?! I think THAT'S what might've really killed Michael along with the propofol. I mean the final ruling of his death was that Michael died of acute propofol and benzodiazepine intoxication after all. Especially if Michael used propofol in the past and it helped him with the concert tour concerning HIStory...
Mechi
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 4,472
- Points
- 0
And I think that's exactly why it was said. Philips himself doesn't believe it! It's eyewashing he does to make him look nice... smooooozyyyy smoozer Philips lol let's make a strong guess why he got this name!
You don't treat a 'force' like he said he had to treat Michael. You don't talk about anyone you a tiny bit respect like they did in their emails.
Yeah maybe it's common for them!
Honestly... yeah probably as common as it is with every asshole on the streets!
The only force Philips respects cuz he has no other way he probably also feels breathing in his neck this time around! It is a force called Anschutz!
Oh and let me add again... I no way want the Jacksons to get through with their money hunger! I wish someone would just end this! With noone winning and noone losing... just tell what it is ridiculous blah blah blah from both sides!
All the money in this world couldn't make any better the loss Michaels children and his fans also had and still have to endure! Honestly... I feel like spying out about this trial and the ppl involved! I do not because of the kids... but I very much feel like it! And it doesn't get any better with these AEG ppl in the stand! One is suffering a huge memory loss and the other talks like he's suffering a shizophrenic disorder at times... saying this doing that! Gosh make an end to this!
Last edited:
troubleman84
Proud Member
If he didn't "believe it" why did he say it then?
Nah I don't buy that. If he didn't believe it, he'd just say "nah I didn't slap Michael!" But he didn't...or it seems that he didn't.
Mechi
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 4,472
- Points
- 0
What I mean is he didn't act as if he was dealing with a 'force' if he really slapped Michael! He didn't believe in Michael being a force! Those were empty words!
So I do think he's either pretending he did see a 'force' in Michael and only said it in court to make points looking good... for sure fans would like to hear it... superficially it sounds as if Mr. Philips did know respect!
Just he didn't act accordingly and isn't their a wise saying: Actions speak louder than words?!
Or of cuz he didn't slap Michael... what I think is as ridiculous... cuz noone would ever say this without it happening... and to make the reality clear I bet my ass on it that Randy Philips would never slap Anschutz for example who really is undoubtfully a force to him!
troubleman84
Proud Member
This case isn't about Anschultz though, it's about people in his company that were in charge to make sure the tour went off without a problem... it has everything to do with Randy and Ortega and whoever.
Annita
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 3,388
- Points
- 113
So Leiweke called Anschutz in E-Mail to Phillips a pranoid scrooge.
Email on 3/13/09 from Leiweke to Phillips:
Phil (Anschutz) can be such a paranoid scrooge. He thinks he's smarter than everyone.
Last edited:
Mechi
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 4,472
- Points
- 0
And the company which has to pay if this trial (God forbids) will get lost by 'plaintiffs' belongs to whom?
Not that I care a bit about Anschutz lol not at all, he's responsible for his choice of ppl working for him and that's why also for their actions!
However...
You do not slap a 'force', also you do not yell at a 'force'!
Surely Annita you at times talk maybe not that nice behind a 'force's back... especially when you need to encourage yourself... well that talks about character also, doesn't it?
He is their boss, he's paying them... this way to me they make some tiny cheap sausages out of themselves... loyality is a joke I guess... well well.
Well of cuz as always... everybody is free to disagree! lol nothing wrong with that!
Last edited:
I bet my ass on it that Randy Philips would never slap Anschutz for example
This is ignoring the context, or failing to take it under consideration. Would Anschutz do what MJ was doing? Not dressed, supposedly hung over, no prepared speech written, already late for the press conference, despondent and not wanting apparently to even show up until Phillips told him there were 3,000 fans and 350 media people waiting in 02 arena, then delaying further when he couldn't get the armband on and they had to call the hotel engineer--it does sound like a disorganized, chaotic scene. According to Phillips, Tohme could not get MJ to take action to get to the presser, b/c when he got into the hotel room MJ was sitting on the couch, in a robe, and despondent. So Tohme was just saying he needs more time. I can understand in the context how Phillips was getting frantic. Too bad Karen Faye was not there with bagels to solve the problem. I don't think Phillips slapped him across the face as MJ would have been upset and it could also have left a mark on his face as well. I mean I am pretty sure he didn't punch him. He said he slapped him on the rear end and I see no reason to think it was abusively violent. According to him, the ride in the van was amicable. If MJ was so offended by the slap, maybe it would have been a reason to refuse the press conf. altogether and drop the show. He got over it and went on with the presser and the tour plans.
This is ignoring the context, or failing to take it under consideration. Would Anschutz do what MJ was doing? Not dressed, supposedly hung over, no prepared speech written, already late for the press conference, despondent and not wanting apparently to even show up until Phillips told him there were 3,000 fans and 350 media people waiting in 02 arena, then delaying further when he couldn't get the armband on and they had to call the hotel engineer--it does sound like a disorganized, chaotic scene. According to Phillips, Tohme could not get MJ to take action to get to the presser, b/c when he got into the hotel room MJ was sitting on the couch, in a robe, and despondent. So Tohme was just saying he needs more time. I can understand in the context how Phillips was getting frantic. Too bad Karen Faye was not there with bagels to solve the problem. I don't think Phillips slapped him across the face as MJ would have been upset and it could also have left a mark on his face as well. I mean I am pretty sure he didn't punch him. He said he slapped him on the rear end and I see no reason to think it was abusively violent. According to him, the ride in the van was amicable. If MJ was so offended by the slap, maybe it would have been a reason to refuse the press conf. altogether and drop the show. He got over it and went on with the presser and the tour plans.
Tygger
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2012
- Messages
- 2,316
- Points
- 0
ivy;3844097 said:
The Daily Mail clearly states the evidence was admitted this week and the judge previously ruled most evidence should be unsealed. Phillips’ business card is also listed as evidence on the lawyers’ website that Anthony McCartney used this week via Twitter. Are you suggesting the evidence was not admitted this week? How is it the plaintiffs’ fault the Daily Mail chose these particular photographs to publicized as opposed to all of the other evidence posted on the website?
So, AEG as promoter/producer creating the list of artists for the BET Experience and placing the Jackson brothers on that list will be ignored? The question remains: would fans prefer the Jackson brothers work or not?
Different versions of the truth are not common within a company regarding their hiring policies, contracts, payment disbursements, and project management. AEG was very clear regarding their plans for Michael as their emails point to their early strategic efforts which included control of the 50 year old force. Presently, AEG employees are conveniently confused and forgetful of their own emails, their co-workers emails, the meaning/intention of those emails, and their own actions.
Patience. She has not testified yet. I listed Ratner as well and he will be testifying soon. After their testimony, we shall see if Gongaware is called back to the stand.
If I did indeed argue in support of AEG, why is AEG using the “Michael (and his mother) is responsible for his own death” argument instead of my argument? Can you tell if AEG hired the doctor or advanced Michael the monies for the doctor in my argument? Presently, AEG can be liable for allegedly hiring a doctor who is beholden to them for Michael because they did NOT verify that the doctor is capable of what he was hired for.
We are presuming Forecast and Ratner were hired by Michael for his purposes. Finkelstein will testify to his reservations to what Forecast was doing and alerting Gongaware to that. With AEG, they allegedly hired the doctor for similar purposes. AEG inserted themselves as a third party which brought them increased responsibility. It was not enough for them to instruct the doctor to make sure Michael rehearsed and got on stage (as Forecast and Ratner did) and pay him. They needed to verify he was capable for the job first. They also are liable for retaining him when others were suggesting the doctor was not capable based on Michael's declining health. If they had only advanced the monies, it would be Michael's responsibility to ensure the doctor was capable of what Michael wanted him for. Everyday it becomes clearer that AEG advancing the monies for the doctor's salary was not what they did.
bouee;3844178 said:
I have never been anit-Jackson and I have always supported the plaintiffs with this case. I personally appreciate your objectivity.
Last edited:
Tygger;3844324 said:
first of all why do you believe Daily Mail? Secondly you are reading testimony reports, was any of these pictures shown to Phillips? No. they were shown and asked to Senneff and Detective Martinez - hence they were admitted the very first week.
Just because Daily Mail says "admitted this week" it doesn't make it true, just because whatever media writes "LAPD released them" doesn't make it true either.
Jackson brothers can work with other promoters such as Live Nation. No one said they should not work but don't you see the hypocrisy in making money for the people who allegedly did not care about and mistreated Michael?
You expect Debbie Rowe who is mentioned by AEG on their opening statement to testify to something that would not help AEG's case?
This is the problem, as people not involved in legal aspects, you expect them to argue one point only. It doesn't work like that in real life, they would argue against everything because they never know what the jury will decide. they would argue we did not hire Murray but if the jury thinks they did, they would argue it was Michael that hired Murray, if the judge doesn't believe it they would argue they could not foresee the risks Murray had, if the judge doesn't agree they would need to argue that the responsibility is on Michael to reduce their damages.
It's way too risky to just stick to one argument and trying to debunk it. the better strategy is to rebut any and all claims. therefore you are going to see "the contract wasn't signed, he wasn't hired", " even if he did Michael wanted him, he was paying for him - hence Michael hired him", "we did not know or should have known Michael's issues with drugs", "we did not know or could have known the risk Murray had", "Michael shares responsibility in his death which reduces Murray's responsibility which reduces AEG's responsibility".
and what was the doctor hired for? Did they know he was hired for Propofol? if they did not how could they determine if he's capable or not?
Korgnex
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 2,509
- Points
- 113
- Country
-
If it wasn't so sad how some fans are acting, I'd laugh about the sole thought of interpreting the free expression of private thoughts in emails - and perish the thought, how could anyone dare to class another human being, namely Michael, based on concrete happenings (Michael's behaviour) - and the hectic making Michael get a move on as racist attitudes.
Sometimes people seem to forget that business people are human beings after all and Michael was a human being, too, not an untouchable divinity that could not be the actuator of a crisis.
I doubt putting ourselves in the capacity of handling Michael's comeback would make feel us very comfortable when there's a problem with Michael.
Sometimes people seem to forget that business people are human beings after all and Michael was a human being, too, not an untouchable divinity that could not be the actuator of a crisis.
I doubt putting ourselves in the capacity of handling Michael's comeback would make feel us very comfortable when there's a problem with Michael.
Last edited:
serendipity
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,451
- Points
- 48
Seriously. I don't know, but I have the feeling that the jury will not be nit picking and over-analyzing every word in those emails like we're doing here on the fan forums.
troubleman84
Proud Member
I wouldn't say their actions were "racist" but they sure are contradictory to how they say they treated Michael, to which Randy and 'em are not doing themselves any favors. I would've been upset if Don King had slapped Michael on the rump lol
Tygger
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2012
- Messages
- 2,316
- Points
- 0
Ivy, I did not say I believed the Daily Mail. They said it was admitted this week. Even if it was admitted earlier than this week as you suggested, how is it the plaintiffs’ fault that a media outlet picked that piece of evidence to publicized as opposed to Phillip’s ten-second, “we hired him” clip on YouTube or Phillips’ business card with his direct phone number that he wrote on the back in the doctor’s car that Anthony McCartney used?
Yes, the Jackson brothers could have said no to the BET Experience and the exposure it will give them. Yes, Janet Jackson could have performed in an open-air Live Nation stadium and risked not selling out as opposed to renting AEG’s smaller arenas. Some fans and media may see this as hypocrisy but, what choice do they have when Live Nation and AEG are the only valid choices? It is just something to deflect from the trial at hand. It seems the AEG lawyers are issuing a statement about this to ABC7 as I type.
I understand AEG will see which argument sticks the same way the plaintiffs are. However, they will not use my argument because my argument suggests propofol being used negligently as a sleep aid by the doctor. If AEG uses that argument, it means they knew the doctor was there to help with Michael’s sleep issues. When AEG witnesses have been asked this by the plaintiffs’ lawyers, they have responded in the negative and/or they do not remember.
Rowe was the prosecution's witness in Michael's 2005 criminal case and she did not help them. We shall see.
Yes, the Jackson brothers could have said no to the BET Experience and the exposure it will give them. Yes, Janet Jackson could have performed in an open-air Live Nation stadium and risked not selling out as opposed to renting AEG’s smaller arenas. Some fans and media may see this as hypocrisy but, what choice do they have when Live Nation and AEG are the only valid choices? It is just something to deflect from the trial at hand. It seems the AEG lawyers are issuing a statement about this to ABC7 as I type.
I understand AEG will see which argument sticks the same way the plaintiffs are. However, they will not use my argument because my argument suggests propofol being used negligently as a sleep aid by the doctor. If AEG uses that argument, it means they knew the doctor was there to help with Michael’s sleep issues. When AEG witnesses have been asked this by the plaintiffs’ lawyers, they have responded in the negative and/or they do not remember.
Rowe was the prosecution's witness in Michael's 2005 criminal case and she did not help them. We shall see.
- Status