Re: AEG files their summary judgment motion asking to dismiss Katherine Jackson lawsuit
One thing that seems to be missing from all of this is any coordinated statement of "purpose" from the Jacksons, i.e. "justice for our son/brother and for the children's father." The word "justice" is rarely, if ever, spoken by any of them (and the kids certainly don't need the money). And if not that as a motivation, then what? Just raking in the bucks, at the expense of throwing Michael under the bus, yet again? If justice was what the Jacksons truly wanted, then they would have sought restitution from Murray -- as a matter of principle, not just money acquisition -- to prevent his tell-all books that are sure to come. I expect this lawsuit will be as successful as "tribute shows, perfumes, tell-all books, and reality shows," and is a significant waste of everyone's time. . . .
What a win here (unlikely) would do for the Jacksons would be to line KJ's pockets, so she could distribute more to the "cubs," and that's about IT, as a motivation.
As far as the content of the lawsuit as it stands now, it's a long-shot for the Jacksons, that they will see anything from this, at all. The area that seems muddied is, if Murray was employed by Michael, WHY was he reporting back to AEG, at all? There were several leaked emails, some from years ago, and a few currently, where he is discussing his patient with third parties. So what about HIPAA regulations, or perhaps Michael signed away confidentiality -- or more likely, Tohme did that "FOR" him as part of Power of Attorney? Dunno, but medical information about a patient should not be shared without the patient's written consent, under law. So, I've wondered about that.
The other thing involves "a background check" on Murray, and whose responsibility that was? We know from sworn statements during the trial that Murray had at least ONE negative report of "patient abandonment" where he left a post-surgical patient, and could not be reached by phone at all, for far too long. So that is a matter-of-record, as would be any pending claims of failures to pay child-support, impending foreclosure of his home, and so forth. The fact that he was practicing cardiology without board certification is not technically illegal, but also might have raised a red flag or two? So, a good background check probably would have unearthed some of these things. Michael apparently had a personal relationship with Murray, but treating his kids' sniffles is far different from being a primary-care physician of, arguably, the world's most famous person about to embark on a residency that would have been physically demanding. So again, that goes back to the only legal question that seems to be left in this lawsuit -- "who hired Murray?" The answer at present seems to be, "no one," in that he was never paid, and the contract was not signed. Maybe "intention to hire Murray" could be proven circumstantially (i.e. through the content of email exchanges), but that is quite a long-shot. As far as "justice for Michael" is concerned, I don't see any of that coming out of this fiasco.
