[ Pretrial Discussion Closed ] AEG files summary judgment motion to dismiss Katherine's lawsuit

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: [Disscussion] AEG files their summary judgment motion asking to dismiss Katherine Jackson lawsui

I thought bashir took the 5th in '05 and didn't answer any questions. Perhaps that was slightly different and something to do with journalism.

that was the shield law (think its called that) protects journos like they are above the law and some type of god in the legal system imho

 

[mdiegee210]

Re: [Disscussion] AEG files their summary judgment motion asking to dismiss Katherine Jackson lawsui

The way I understand this case both sides are claiming Michael was a drug addict, am I right?

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: [Disscussion] AEG files their summary judgment motion asking to dismiss Katherine Jackson lawsui

Pretty much

 

[Petrarose]

"Conrad Murray, the physician convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the death of Michael Jackson, has asked for a publicly funded lawyer to handle his appeal on that conviction, claiming that he cannot afford to pay for one out of his own pocket."

He is not paying Valerie V fees, you as a tax payer pay her fees.
Did you forget the instrument sold CM's cry tape in order to pay rent, so CM is pretty much broke.

Oh yeah I forgot he did ask for that type of lawyer, but he had the trial lawyer with him until recently when they had the fight in jail, so who was paying for him?

Last Tear you are right that he took the 5th. However, he did so on specific questions dealing with the Shield law. Notice that he had to answer other questions that did not deal with the Shield. The Shield is something made for journalists, but to me it helps them be dishonest, & then they hide behind that legal protection. Yes, I know it has good intent, but many abuse that privilege.

Oh Oh I just saw someone write this above ^^ didn’t the estate also rejected restitution along with the family?

Answer: the estate did not reject anything. The family rejected the restitution because they knew that if they asked for money from Muarry, the amount they would have gotten from AEG would be substantially reduced. The rationale is that why ask for money from a person who cannot give it to us, & then have the amount that we could really get from a rich company substantially reduced. Once the family rejected the restitution the Estate then accepted their decision. Grandma made a decision or should I say Randy & company, & the Estate accepted it. So let's not imply that the Estate made a decision & said to Walgren that they did not want him to push for the restitution.

 

[passy001]

Michael’s mother and kids are following customs by having a criminal trial followed by a civil trial. Restitution is for the lost of Michael in the business sense and is limiting. They are seeking damages from AEG for the lost of Michael overall.

The only problem is that KJ is prosecuting the wrong party i.e AEG.
The guy who KILLED MJ is sitting in jail until 2015. He's the one she's supposed to prosecute. but since he's broke she's looking for excuses to blame AEG.

 

[Petrarose]

Re: [Disscussion] AEG files their summary judgment motion asking to dismiss Katherine Jackson lawsui

The only problem is that KJ is prosecuting the wrong party i.e AEG.
The guy who KILLED MJ is sitting in jail until 2015. He's the one she's supposed to prosecute. but since he's broke she's looking for excuses to blame AEG.

Good point Passy but you only see one problem from the post? There are several. (1) She had no choice but to have the civil after the criminal because after 93 Sneddon made sure that would not happen, so it is not as though she said "hey let's do the right thing and have the civil after the criminal. (2) Both Restitution from Muarry & Damages from AEG are limiting. Restitution takes into consideration ALL the money this man could have made till he stopped working & there has to be a limit. Damages also involves a limit. Both have a formula to reach a final amount, & it is not as though you can go back & back again & ask for more money. (3) Family is not seeking damages from AEG only for the lost of Michael overall, but because AEG has money. They are using the same formula that is used for Restitution, that is, counting up all the money Michael would have made if he lived. Anyone can look back some pages & see the documents & comments from the attorneys. That is why it is good to read a thread from inception (I don't mean you Passy).

Think about this. If Muarry knew that AEG made him give Michael prof, told him to do so, required him to do so, wouldn't he tell his attorneys & give them proof? His attorneys then would drill Randy & co more on the stand about this. Muarry would have been blasting this information from day 1, to get the company involved. He did not do that, but rather made little statements about Randy's comments about michael, toilet paper, & money. His main statement from day 1 was that he did not give him anything that should kill him. It was always Michael killed himself because he was desperate & afraid the show would be cancelled, so he self-injected & gave himself too much (at least that was one of the defenses).

Muarry would not go down by himself. Look at how he blamed the victim, so why wouldn't he bring his evidence of AEG's role so that they could go down together?

 

[jamba]

Re: [Disscussion] AEG files their summary judgment motion asking to dismiss Katherine Jackson lawsui

Good point,Petra, that if Murray had any proof of AEG controlling him or telling him to give Mike propofol or causing its use, he would have presented it at his trial.

Re Sneddon's change in the CA law--I am confused about this. I read that Sneddon asked the Arvizos to not file civil suit, begged them, maybe it was Feldman who said that Sneddon asked him not to file a civil suit til after the criminal casew was over. This might have been some kind of deal between Feldman and Sneddon in 03-05. Feldman was the first guy to testify to the Grand Jury and he really made a big deal about this poor cancer patient abused by a bad rock star, a very sympathetic story to get the jury on Sneddon's side and against Michael. So what was the change? Was it that a child (under age of majority--18 years old; or maybe under 14, not sure which applies) CAN be subpoened to testify? Remember the law protected Jordan from testifying at the time??

 

[jamba]

Re: [Disscussion] AEG files their summary judgment motion asking to dismiss Katherine Jackson lawsui

Interesting timeline from muzikfactory re Michael's last years. The Leonard Rowe, Allgood, Joe badgering re family concerts in Texas is covered.

http://muzikfactorytwo.blogspot.com/2011/09/michael-jackson-last-years-timeline.html

also this on Leonard Rowe:

http://muzikfactorytwo.blogspot.ca/2011/02/did-michael-hire-leonard-rowe-as-his.html

 

[Daryll748]

Re: [Disscussion] AEG files their summary judgment motion asking to dismiss Katherine Jackson lawsui

When the AEG trial was first mentioned, I had the 'impression' that the skeletons would fall out of the AEG Closet :scratch:
Following this discussion, I tend to think more :blink: that "KJ & CO" are the ones with the 'skeletons' in the closet instead :doh:

I mean, IF the 'motive' is to find "the killers of their dad" then, going after a BIG a$$ company like AEG ,who was only the 'employer' ,gives me such a 'wrong' impression and FOUL taste in my mouth...
I'm wondering what "KJ & CO" THINK is IMPORTANT :scratch: Money or Justice? :scratch:

I have no intention to choose sides here but it seems to me... that 'hunting' for the BIG fish is the 'greedy' deal...

If Michael would have been my dad or son... I would have 'saved' him in the first place and make sure he got the 'right' care instead and if that would have 'failed' :sigh: I would drag all those quacks through the dirt... Murray, Klein, Hoefflin and whatever Quack 'treated' Michael... Cause they will get a big ZERO on their 'report' card :angry:

I'm NOT in favour of AEG either... They were indeed 'negligent' to a certain degree but I guess the question is HOW 'responsible' is your employer concerning your health hey?
I still think those 'quacks' :beee: should get the full blow though instead of eyeing a company that is able to 'cough' of Millions...

It's sad exactly that you try to buy off your 'grief' with 'greed'... Maybe, I'm too 'focused' on 'principles' and
cause my family isn't any better at this... They can only think about the money they are gonna 'inherit' instead of WHY did they lose their mum so soon :sigh:
Silly me, hey :blush:

 

[Petrarose]

Re: [Disscussion] AEG files their summary judgment motion asking to dismiss Katherine Jackson lawsui

Jamba about the law, I have to dig around for the exact information so I will just say it in a general way, but Sneddon had a lawyer friend and after the experience with the Chandler case where once they got the money they had no intention of going forward with the criminal case, with the aid of his friend they were able to push for change where you cannot have the civil before the criminal. That is why Katherine going with the criminal first was not her choice; the criminal had to be first and then the civil. When I come across the exact information I will give it to you.

 

[bluetopez]

Re: [Disscussion] AEG files their summary judgment motion asking to dismiss Katherine Jackson lawsui

Good point,Petra, that if Murray had any proof of AEG controlling him or telling him to give Mike propofol or causing its use, he would have presented it at his trial.

Re Sneddon's change in the CA law--I am confused about this. I read that Sneddon asked the Arvizos to not file civil suit, begged them, maybe it was Feldman who said that Sneddon asked him not to file a civil suit til after the criminal casew was over. This might have been some kind of deal between Feldman and Sneddon in 03-05. Feldman was the first guy to testify to the Grand Jury and he really made a big deal about this poor cancer patient abused by a bad rock star, a very sympathetic story to get the jury on Sneddon's side and against Michael. So what was the change? Was it that a child (under age of majority--18 years old; or maybe under 14, not sure which applies) CAN be subpoened to testify? Remember the law protected Jordan from testifying at the time??

Sneedon in a press conference during the 03 allegations admitted he had the law changed because of the 94 settlement. So that Civil cases don't go before a Criminal case of the same allegations. So if the Arvizo's wanted to file a Civil case they could have. But, had to wait until the criminal case regardless if they wanted MJ to go to jail as well. Of course because they didn't want anyone to think their allegations were about money (When it was) they decided to go after MJ criminally only. Hoping he would get convicted and then go after him civilly as well, which would have been easier to do if he were found guilty. Glad their plan FAILED. =D

 

[Petrarose]

Re: [Disscussion] AEG files their summary judgment motion asking to dismiss Katherine Jackson lawsui

^^Blue thanks for finding the information. It saves me from digging through my sources. I knew you would be on the ball.

 

[jamba]

Re: [Disscussion] AEG files their summary judgment motion asking to dismiss Katherine Jackson lawsui

Jamba about the law, I have to dig around for the exact information so I will just say it in a general way, but Sneddon had a lawyer friend and after the experience with the Chandler case where once they got the money they had no intention of going forward with the criminal case, with the aid of his friend they were able to push for change where you cannot have the civil before the criminal. That is why Katherine going with the criminal first was not her choice; the criminal had to be first and then the civil. When I come across the exact information I will give it to you.

Isn't this KJ vs.AEG a civil case? I am confused what you mean by "Katherine going with the criminal first was not her choice"? I wonder why Feldman said what he did in 05 at the trial--how he and Sneddon had their conversations re letting the criminal trial go first??

Thanks for any exact info you have on this!!!!

 

[jamba]

Re: [Disscussion] AEG files their summary judgment motion asking to dismiss Katherine Jackson lawsui

Sneedon in a press conference during the 03 allegations admitted he had the law changed because of the 94 settlement. So that Civil cases don't go before a Criminal case of the same allegations. So if the Arvizo's wanted to file a Civil case they could have. But, had to wait until the criminal case regardless if they wanted MJ to go to jail as well. Of course because they didn't want anyone to think their allegations were about money (When it was) they decided to go after MJ criminally only. Hoping he would get convicted and then go after him civilly as well, which would have been easier to do if he were found guilty. Glad their plan FAILED. =D

Thanks for this, but it would be nice to have the exact legal change in the CA Penal Code if anyone knows of it??

 

[ivy]

In accordance with this policy, criminal cases shall be given precedence over, and set for trial and heard without regard to the pendency of, any civil matters or proceedings.

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/1050.html

Motion to Stay

One method for combating the problems of potential parallel criminal proceedings,
including the possibility of adverse inference is to file a motion to stay based on criminal
proceedings. The Fifth Circuit has long recognized the ability of district courts to stay civil
proceedings during the pendency of parallel criminal proceedings. Issuance of a stay is proper
where there are “special circumstances” and the need to avoid “substantial and irreparable
prejudice” exists. The factors that should be considered when determining whether “special
circumstances” warrant a stay are: (1) the extent of the overlap between the issues in the criminal
case and those in the civil case; (2) the status of the criminal case, including whether the
defendant has been indicted; (3) the private interests of the plaintiff in proceeding expeditiously,
weighed against the prejudice to plaintiff caused by the delay; (4) the private interests of and the
burden to the defendant; (5) the interests of the courts; and (6) the public interest.


http://www.lockelord.com/files/News...itigator Needs to Know About Criminal Law.pdf

 

[jamba]

In accordance with this policy, criminal cases shall be given precedence over, and set for trial and heard without regard to the pendency of, any civil matters or proceedings.

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/1050.html

Motion to Stay

One method for combating the problems of potential parallel criminal proceedings,
including the possibility of adverse inference is to file a motion to stay based on criminal
proceedings. The Fifth Circuit has long recognized the ability of district courts to stay civil
proceedings during the pendency of parallel criminal proceedings. Issuance of a stay is proper
where there are “special circumstances” and the need to avoid “substantial and irreparable
prejudice” exists. The factors that should be considered when determining whether “special
circumstances” warrant a stay are: (1) the extent of the overlap between the issues in the criminal
case and those in the civil case; (2) the status of the criminal case, including whether the
defendant has been indicted; (3) the private interests of the plaintiff in proceeding expeditiously,
weighed against the prejudice to plaintiff caused by the delay; (4) the private interests of and the
burden to the defendant; (5) the interests of the courts; and (6) the public interest.


http://www.lockelord.com/files/News...itigator Needs to Know About Criminal Law.pdf

Thank you so much!!!!:clap::clap::clap:

 

[Petrarose]

Isn't this KJ vs.AEG a civil case? I am confused what you mean by "Katherine going with the criminal first was not her choice"? I wonder why Feldman said what he did in 05 at the trial--how he and Sneddon had their conversations re letting the criminal trial go first??

Thanks for any exact info you have on this!!!!

Jamba let's backtrack. Passyquoted a post that said: Michael’s mother and kids are following customs by having a criminal trial followed by a civil trial. Passy responded to that post pointing out there is only one problem. I then responded to her & the post. The post was implying that Katherine did the right thing in doing the criminal before the civil. I am saying that mother had no choice but to do the civil after, because since the 93 case Sneddon made sure that a person will not go for the money first, & then abandon the criminal. Blue gave you the information. Yes in 05 the criminal went first because Sneddon had already taken care of that. He did not want the Avicos to run for money or a settlement & then abandon the criminal. Sneddon wanted the criminal first to get at Michael. Good I see Ivy has posted the exact legal information.

Our desktops are becoming filled with all the information we store on it.

 

[AliCat]

Re: [Disscussion] AEG files their summary judgment motion asking to dismiss Katherine Jackson lawsui

Dr. Conrad Murray was a Cardiologist when he became Michael Jackson's Personal Physician.

Michael Jackson wanted AEG Live to pay Dr. Conrad Murray $150,000 a month for the job of keeping Michael Jackson healthy.

AEG Live had the right to expect Dr. Conrad Murray to make sure his patient was healthy to perform the task of putting together a multi million dollar Show.

The June 2, 2009 meeting at Michael Jackson's house was brought out in Murray's trial. Michael Jackson was complaining about the number of Show's in the Press and basically it was a cry for help, he was tired.

Chef Kai Chase was even brought back into the picture to continue being Michael Jackson's Personal Chef.

As far as I'm concerned, AEG Live was doing everything they could, professionally speaking, to encourage Michael Jackson to continue being hard working. To get back out on Stage and show the world that he was the Best Entertainer that has ever lived.

As President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said 'there is nothing to fear but fear itself.'

 

[Autumn II]

Re: [Disscussion] AEG files their summary judgment motion asking to dismiss Katherine Jackson lawsui

That someone dropped the ball, is obvious. Michael. . .died. Murray has said "it was Michael's fault." A jury found otherwise. AEG is saying, "We didn't know, and we are not responsible." About the propofol, there is no evidence that they DID know. They are saying, "Michael hired Murray, and we didn't." That remains the central issue of the trial, and will depend on factual evidence, and the law (i.e. who was to pay Murray, "independent contractor," or employee, and so on.) AEG is a corporation, and not a person, but yet there were people involved. Could those people have done more, investigated Murray more (if at all)? Yes, probably. Were AEG execs pushing Michael too hard? Probably. Does that make them liable, as a corporation, in a civil trial? Probably NOT. Was Murray an entirely uncaring, greedy, and probably sociopathic human-being? Most likely. The Jacksons have said, "there was a conspiracy!" But, they have not produced a speck of evidence to support that claim.

About Sneddon, and civil trial AFTER criminal trial? That actually does make sense. But, there is likely a lot more to that. I do think (based on my extensive research) that the Arvizos made that claim with the full anticipation that there would be a settlement (extortion), and Sneddon hated Michael so much, that he forced the Arvizos into a criminal trial. There was NO evidence that Michael was guilty, and after that, no attorney would touch the Arvizos with a ten-foot pole for a civil suit.

There do remain unanswered questions about Michael's death, but they are peripheral to the civil trial.

 

[qbee]

Re: [Disscussion] AEG files their summary judgment motion asking to dismiss Katherine Jackson lawsui

I agree - katherine didn't start nor was she responsible for Murray's criminal trial.
She had no say in it. With or without her it would go forth. The charges and criminal trial was brought
on by prosecutor David Walgren, The City of L.A. / "The people vs Murray " Had Murray not been charged
criminally then she could have brought a civil suit against him. but she was offered restitution after the trial
and turned it down in order to sue AEG .. It was not Katherine that decided the criminal trial would go before
any civil trial ... So to say she did the right thing is incorrect because she had no choice.

 

[Autumn II]

Re: [Disscussion] AEG files their summary judgment motion asking to dismiss Katherine Jackson lawsui

That is true. Katherine had NO say in which would come first, criminal or civil trial. And now, the criminal trial DOES have bearing on the outcome of the civil trial, in that there is probably nobody -- no person, or potential juror -- who is unaware the Murray was found guilty, and responsible for Michael's death.

I think that the failure of the Jacksons to seek restitution from Murray was a MAJOR mistake. Not a mistake in terms of potential financial gain, for them, but a mistake in preventing justice, for Michael! Now, Murray is free to gain WEALTH from his murdering of Michael. When he is released from prison, he can say whatever he wants, write whatever he wants, and gain wealth from that. It will be his new career! Justice has NOT been done

 

[Tygger]

Michael’s mother and kids are following custom by having the criminal trial before the civil trial. Only under certain circumstances will a civil trial be completed before a criminal one. Usually the criminal trial is done first so information can be used from it in the civil trial.

Michael could not get the active civil case postponed in 1993 and he couldn’t stop information from the civil trial being used in the criminal one. Sneddon changed laws so if a civil case opened, it had to be inactive until the criminal trial was complete. This was done to save himself from the ridicule he suffered in 93 when the Chandlers received a settlement preventing the civil trial from going forward. He couldn’t get information from that to help his criminal case. Sneddon could not get an indictment from two different grand juries, the Chandlers refused to co-operate after the settlement (they got the money they wanted), and J. Chandler would not testify ruining the criminal case. Even if Sneddon didn’t change the law, the custom would STILL be criminal trial first, civil trial second unless there was a special circumstance.

Restitution is used to “make one whole.” Restitution would only include TII earnings. Damages are not as limiting as restitution. Damages are sought for the lost of Michael overall, a wrongful death, not just for the financial lost of Michael not completing the TII tour.

I never implied Katherine did something right or wrong; that's what is being said in other posts. She couldn’t file the criminal charge, the State had to do that and they decided on a lesser charge; the Jacksons wanted a tougher charge. I also never implied the estate made a decision about restitution; that again is being said in other posts. I asked if they rejected it along with the family. I checked myself and Michael’s mother and lawyers for Michael’s father, Michael’s children, and his estate all agreed separately not to seek restitution so the prosecution withdrew the request.

The original question from my post still remains: someone who lost a father/son, lost the chance for a tougher charge, will watch the killer be released by the end of this year because of the lesser charge somehow does not deserve to seek damages and are somehow akin to a family that sought only to extort Michael.

 

[Autumn II]

Re: [Disscussion] AEG files their summary judgment motion asking to dismiss Katherine Jackson lawsui

The original question from my post still remains: someone who lost a father/son, lost the chance for a tougher charge, will watch the killer be released by the end of this year because of the lesser charge somehow does not deserve to seek damages and are somehow akin to a family that sought only to extort Michael.

Michael died at the hands of an unscrupulous doctor. The family had a chance to prevent further damage to Michael's reputation, by asking for restitution. That amount would have been HUGE, in theory, but the family would never have seen any money from it (and they knew that). There are some things MORE important than money. Such as justice, and protection for a (deceased) family member. There is only ONE reason why the family declined to have restitution, and that reason is GREED. Now, Murray will be totally in the clear to gain wealth, through Michael's death. But, there is a justice higher than that of human-beings, and that is from God. Or karma, or whatever one calls it. . .. . yeah. It is NOT over, for that family . . .

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: [Disscussion] AEG files their summary judgment motion asking to dismiss Katherine Jackson lawsui

The family dont care about mjs rep. its all about the good of the family as a whole rather than the individual especially when money is involved. they have done more damage to mj this last four years than many others have. why anyone would expect them to protect mj against murray and him being able to make money by selling stories i dont know because the family are no different. they sell stories about mj for cash and lie inorder to make themselves look good regardless of how it may hurt mj. in that sense the jacksons and murray are two peas in the pod.

 

[Daryll748]

Re: [Disscussion] AEG files their summary judgment motion asking to dismiss Katherine Jackson lawsui

Michael died at the hands of an unscrupulous doctor. The family had a chance to prevent further damage to Michael's reputation, by asking for restitution. That amount would have been HUGE, in theory, but the family would never have seen any money from it (and they knew that). There are some things MORE important than money. Such as justice, and protection for a (deceased) family member. There is only ONE reason why the family declined to have restitution, and that reason is GREED. Now, Murray will be totally in the clear to gain wealth, through Michael's death. But, there is a justice higher than that of human-beings, and that is from God. Or karma, or whatever one calls it. . .. . yeah. It is NOT over, for that family . . .

Indeed :agree: This civil case won't bring any justice sadly :sigh:
That would be just wisful thinking, right?

So, on the topic of WHY the judge 'confirmed' the claim of neglicence? How 'damaging' is this gonna be for AEG? Not that I am taking sides here :ermm:
Maybe, a 'stupid' question but HOW tough are civil suits? Are they only to gain money for 'damages' done? Or are we talking about 'damaging' the reputation of AEG too?
Just some 'thoughts' here :tease:

 

[ivy]

Re: [Disscussion] AEG files their summary judgment motion asking to dismiss Katherine Jackson lawsui

Of course any mention in the media can damage the reputation or vindicate a person. You never know until the end of the trial and listening to the witnesses and seeing how the media will approach to it. It could hurt reputations of both AEG and/or Jacksons or it could vindicate AEG and/or Jacksons. We will only know how it goes at the end of the trial.

Civil trials are about money. Every person will determine themselves if they see monetary compensation = justice. Some of us will, some of us won't.

It's also important to understand the claim in this lawsuit. There's no remaining claim of a murder or even civil conspiracy here. Nothing that says AEG wanted Michael dead, nothing that even says Murray had an intent and there's no proof. Claims that AEG controlled Michael or financial pressure is out. This lawsuit claims Michael died due to negligence of Murray and AEG is should share responsibility because they hired Murray. It's a simple contract lawsuit.

Sometimes I wonder if some of the fans are realizing this.

As for AEG I think the cat is already out of the bag and the "damage" is done, they are profit seeking cooperation that looks for their own best interest and is not the nicest people you have met. That's probably true for any organization. But not necessarily a crime. MJ fans have expected everyone treat Michael like the way they do with love and they get angry when they realize not everyone approached Michael like that. But again being a SOB is not a crime either.

Obviously if KJ wins , AEG loses ; it would mean AEG shares responsibility for Murray's actions. I would think that would be a "damage" as well - mainly because many people / fans will not realize or care that it's a simple contract issue and think and act like AEG had a role in Michael's death or "murder" as they like to call it.

 

[Autumn II]

Re: [Disscussion] AEG files their summary judgment motion asking to dismiss Katherine Jackson lawsui

Right. This lawsuit is limited to the contractual, only, and really continues to hinge on the simple question of "who hired Murray?" The hiring party then would have had the responsibility to do some sort of background check. The witness list seems quite extensive, and related to things that will NOT be covered in the trial, and that makes one wonder what, exactly, Katherine's attorneys are DOING? Other than running up a tab?

(Typically, the burden of proof is more relaxed in a civil trial than in a criminal trial. In a criminal trial, the burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt," and in a civil trial, is "preponderance of the evidence," which are somewhat different.)

 

[Tygger]

Compensation can happen two ways after a criminal act: the criminal doing time and monetary damages. Each situation is different. Some families of victims of a fatal criminal act seek maximum time because there is no value to monetary damages from the convicted criminal. If minimal time or no time is given (the defendant is found not guilty), monetary damages are USUALLY sought.

Some think the two years Murray will finish serving this year is compensation enough. Some (including the family) would have preferred a tougher charge resulting in much more time if successful.

The civil trial has no criminal claims. We will be able to see if Murray’s criminal act resulting in Michael’s wrongful death could have been prevented if some due diligence happened on AEG’s end. If successful, Michael’s mother and children will be compensated with monetary damages. If not, we all will have to accept Murray’s two years served as the only compensation for Michael's wrongful death.

 

[ivy]

Re: [Disscussion] AEG files their summary judgment motion asking to dismiss Katherine Jackson lawsui

I'd like to give an example here to explain this situation further.

Imagine Company ABC hires John Doe as a delivery person. Sometime later delivery guy John Doe beats consumer Jake in his house during a delivery.

It turns out delivery guy John Doe had a history of assault, he was charged (and not convicted) with assault, and was fired from his last job because he fought with a co-worker.

This brings a negligence claim (and possibly a win) against Company ABC because if they did a background check they would have uncovered delivery guy John Doe's anger and assault history and the beating to Consumer Jake could have been avoided.

However this negligence claim - and win - doesn't mean that Company ABC knew the risks, doesn't mean Company ABC had an intent to harm their customers, or they hired delivery guy John Doe to beat their customers, or they told the delivery guy John Doe "go and beat customer Jake".

-------------------------------------

Now let's apply this to AEG situation. Let's look to Katherine's claims and judge's reasoning to allowing this case continue.

AEG hired Murray. Murray killed Michael through his negligence.

AEG knew or should have known Michael's history with drugs / propofol in past tours. Murray's debts means that he could be willing to compromise his integrity for money. When you added these two stuff, they should have seen the risk Murray had. If they didn't hire Murray, Michael's death could have been avoided. AEG was negligent.

However none of this means AEG had any intent to harm Michael and/or sent or told Murray to harm Michael.

-----------------------------------------------

As you can see this example isn't as direct as in the previous example. A person having an assault history assaulting another person is very obvious to see and to expect. However a debt causing a person to compromise what they do is not that obvious.

In this case also it's not the drugs that killed Michael, it's Murray's lack of care that killed Michael. In other words even though AEG or anyone can foresee a Dr. Feelgood, is it possible to foresee the risks especially in the case of Propofol? By all accounts Propofol is a safe drug when given properly. Even if they knew Propofol, could they have known that Murray would give it with such lack of care standards?

Think about Dr. Neil Ratner for example. He's a doctor with addiction history. Has a reputation of being a Dr. Feelgood. Has been involved in fraud and has even lost his medical license. However given all the red flags about him and possibility of giving Michael Propofol or other drugs, there's no indication that his treatment lacked standards of care. Michael didn't die under his care. Yes giving Michael propofol in his bedroom to make him sleep is highly inappropriate but regardless he shouldn't have died if he was monitored and cared properly.

Secondly avoidable or not is the second part and AEG has been hinting this in their statements. Even though AEG refused to hire Murray would it for example stop Michael to hire Murray or any other doctor on his own? and what about the times (especially between April and May) when AEG wasn't in the picture and Murray was treating Michael? In my example Delivery guy John wouldn't be in Customer Jake's house unless the Company ABS hired and sent him as a delivery guy. However with or without AEG hiring Murray, Murray was and could still be providing services to Michael.

 

[qbee]

^^^ That's a good analogy Ivy

Compensation can happen two ways after a criminal act: the criminal doing time and monetary damages. Each situation is different. Some families of victims of a fatal criminal act seek maximum time because there is no value to monetary damages from the convicted criminal. If minimal time or no time is given (the defendant is found not guilty), monetary damages are USUALLY sought.

Some think the two years Murray will finish serving this year is compensation enough. Some (including the family) would have preferred a tougher charge resulting in much more time if successful.

The civil trial has no criminal claims. We will be able to see if Murray’s criminal act resulting in Michael’s wrongful death could have been prevented if some due diligence happened on AEG’s end. If successful, Michael’s mother and children will be compensated with monetary damages. If not, we all will have to accept Murray’s two years served as the only compensation for Michael's wrongful death.

That's the gamble the Jackson's took when they rejected the courts offer of victim compensation from Murray and decided to sue AEG instead for compensation. The Jackson had nothing to prove AEG was in conspiracy to harm or kill MJ. They are not even allowed to bring that claim because they have no evidence to support it. In hindsight I'm sure there are things AEG could have done to help MJ but I don't see anything they did or didn't do that can hold them directly responsible for Dr Murray's actions on June 25th. That claim has already been dismissed. So now they have to prove AEG negligently hired Murray knowing he could be persuaded to use unethical treatment on MJ and that they didn't supervise him .. but being he is a medical Dr and his treatment of MJ was private and confidential not sure how much supervision was allowed them legally.