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

[LastTear]

Re: [General Discussion] AEG files their summary judgment motion asking to dismiss Katherine's lawsu

^^^^ I liked your quote but I didn't realise it was posted in support of another's post which I found to be condescending. I'm all for honest disagreement, you and I have discussed our different points of view in a civilised manner, and I have made every effort to understand you and how you have reached your point of view. That is honest disagreement, standing on a high soap box and labelling people is not.

 

[Bubs]

Re: [General Discussion] AEG files their summary judgment motion asking to dismiss Katherine's lawsu

Leonard Rowe met with AEG on May 15, 2009, along with Joe and Katherine Jackson.
Then shortly after Michael dies, Leonard Rowe and Joe Jackson go on "Larry King Live," to level accusations against AEG Live.
Leonard Rowe knew Michael was an addict in the last day's before he died. Why?

"based on Michael's physical appearance; weight; mental capacity."

:bugeyed:hysterical:
That mental capacity is sooooooooo funny. If above is used as criteria who is addict, then most of the Jackson's themselves are addicts, ouch:cheeky:

"Michael was being controlled and manipulated."

Not that I believe anyone was controlling MJ during that time, but Joe and other Jackson's were so pissed of that it wasn't them that was controlling and manipulating MJ.
That is exactly they tried to do all of MJ's life, manipulate and control him.


"Joe Jackson and Leonard Rowe continued with 'people was brought in to run Michael Jackson's life that he had dismissed in the past. AEG brought people in that Michael had dismissed in the past.'"

How funny Joe:bugeyed
As far as I can read, they have hooked up and are making shady deals with all the crooks MJ fired in the past.
That is the pot calling the kettle black in Jacksonese.


"Although, Joe had no answer as to why Michael didn't want to see him."

If for once Joe dared to look the man in the mirror he would find the answer to his question.


"So now instead of an act of Congress, we've got Katherine Jackson suing AEG Live in a Civil Suit!"

There is no money for them from Congress, so AEG is the next best thing.

 

[willbe]

Re: [General Discussion] AEG files their summary judgment motion asking to dismiss Katherine's lawsu

Willbe wouldn't that be something if the kids state they are pulling out of the deal. That would cause such a fight in LA that grandma might pack up her clothes and walk out.

They will have a heart attack.

 

[Tygger]

Last Tear, the Ghandi quote was not used to support P77’s post. I re-quoted Petrarose’s comment and was responding to that with that quote.

My post above yours is responding to Petrarose who said the quote was not appropriate in regards to P77’s posts. The quote was about Petrarose’s comment I re-quoted and not P77’s second post which I thanked.

 

[LastTear]

Re: [General Discussion] AEG files their summary judgment motion asking to dismiss Katherine's lawsu

^^^ Ah I see. Anyway, I enjoy honest debate as well, it's how we learn.

 

[Prometheus77]

Re: [General Discussion] AEG files their summary judgment motion asking to dismiss Katherine's lawsu

The problem is that that quote ^^ does not apply to the discord we are talking about where some fans are labeled negatively by one person, and notice the word "honest disagreement" there. We are not talking about disagreement ^^above either, but efforts to cause bad feelings & infighting among others.

There is no "efforts to cause bad feelings & infighting among others". There is effort to cause some balance and perspective.

^^^^ I liked your quote but I didn't realise it was posted in support of another's post which I found to be condescending. I'm all for honest disagreement, you and I have discussed our different points of view in a civilised manner, and I have made every effort to understand you and how you have reached your point of view. That is honest disagreement, standing on a high soap box and labelling people is not.

Ah, you object to that "labelling" of some fans, but labelling the Jacksons is perfectly fine. Right.

 

[LastTear]

Re: [General Discussion] AEG files their summary judgment motion asking to dismiss Katherine's lawsu

There is no "efforts to cause bad feelings & infighting among others". There is effort to cause some balance and perspective.

Ah, you object to that "labelling" of some fans, but labelling the Jacksons is perfectly fine. Right.

You said 'only see in black and white' which is not true, I have an opinion about what is leading this lawsuit, and I have taken an interest where others don't share that opinion. Perhaps I read your post the wrong way, but I read it as rather condescending.

 

[Prometheus77]

Re: [General Discussion] AEG files their summary judgment motion asking to dismiss Katherine's lawsu

You said 'only see in black and white' which is not true

Well, it may be not true for you, but you can't say it's not true for everyone. Especially when viewing the comments here and in other threads and forums.

 

[LastTear]

Re: [General Discussion] AEG files their summary judgment motion asking to dismiss Katherine's lawsu

^^^ Unfortunately many people have become more and more disappointed and i think that is showing in many threads, and i guess as a result some might have drawn a strong line under the Jacksons, perhaps the grey has been faded out, idk. In trial threads, particularly this one, news will come in and sometimes responses can be reactionary. Human nature.

 

[marebear]

Re: [General Discussion] AEG files their summary judgment motion asking to dismiss Katherine's lawsu

The Jacksons have talked about conspiracies and saying a lot of accusations. If they actually had real evidence of something I would be interested in looking at that. But a lot of the times they don't and just talk. I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt because they are Michael's family. But you can only do it for so long before you have no more excuses or reasons to understand their actions.

I was expecting them to ask millions of dollars but $40 billion? That's not being realistic and shows greed. AEG didn't kill Michael it was Murray and that fact comes across like a minor detail. It feels like anyways. I want Michael's family on his side and support him. Katherine is going to allow her lawyers to call her son an addict or even an alcoholic when she admitted herself she never saw him like that. She heard things but that's not the same thing. She is the one that talked to Michael the most. It's just hard to understand at times.

 

[Petrarose]

Last Tear, the Ghandi quote was not used to support P77’s post. I re-quoted Petrarose’s comment and was responding to that with that quote.

My post above yours is responding to Petrarose who said the quote was not appropriate in regards to P77’s posts. The quote was about Petrarose’s comment I re-quoted and not P77’s second post which I thanked.

NO. This relates to an original quote from someone being disdainful of others. When someone responds to a quote, you have to read the quote that the person is responding to as well. That will give you the context in which the person responded. What you did was look only at my response, so you did not know the history behind what the quote related to, so when you made your response it did not fit in with the spirit of my response. You cannot say it is in response to my comment & not the one you thanked, since the one you thanked is the main comment that started this. Comments in the thread flow one from another, so there is going to be a problem if we separate one out of context disregarding what it relates to. This is becoming very muddled now, that I may need a pill.

These problems tend to arise when people read quickly, misread a response, or are not relating the response back to the original comment someone said.

Anyway has anyone heard from X17 about this case?

 

[Tygger]

Petrarose, I have no clue what your issue is with my posts. I say my posts because you don’t know me at all. If you have decided to cross some imaginary line to dislike a person you don’t even know, as well as their posts, feel free.

You have rudely suggested that I haven’t read whole threads, whole posts, or I have read threads and posts and did not understand them because I don’t agree with your thoughts.

Maybe you should go back and re-read. I CLEARLY stated (several times now) that I disagreed with YOUR post and that is what I re-quoted quite CLEARLY above the Ghandi quote.

You can twist that fact however you like but, the fact still remains clearly in black and white; no grays whatsoever.

If that pill will give you clarity, please, ingest.

 

[MsMo]

Re: [General Discussion] AEG files their summary judgment motion asking to dismiss Katherine's lawsu

C'mon people. Michael would not want us feuding with each other over this or any circumstance.

:cheeky:

Just because we don't agree with an opinion, doesn't mean it HAS to be challenged.
Anybody who feels that way is looking for an argument, imho.

Sometimes it's better to just post your own opinion and let it go when you're not getting your point across to someone.

Trust me, I've had to Moonwalk away from my computer MANY times here. :smilerolleyes:

Juss sayin'

 

[Member Service]

Re: [General Discussion] AEG files their summary judgment motion asking to dismiss Katherine's lawsu

It's time leave the personal disputes behind now and discuss the topic of this thread , not each other. The tit for tat is going nowhere and is derailing the thread , so please, lets ALL get back on topic.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

Finally finished reading 138 pages of AEG's motion to set date for Paris's deposition and
Katherine's opposition to the above motion:bugeyed

I read email’s between Boyle and Stebbins, and I have to say, Boyle comes across as pompous arrogant and bully! He tells to Stebbins to take a holiday, put her feet up and have a herbal tea to calm her nerves? Then he goes on to say” Based on your strange intensity with regard to deposing these children, I’m wondering if we are going to need a representative of the court present to make sure the questioning doesn’t become abusive and harassing. Please el me know if you think that will be necessary.”

Is he stupid or what, of course they want to hear from kids as after all they are plaintiffs?
I think he got Jacksonised after spending too much time with them, and he is expecting them to just hand out the money.
All in all, after reading the email chain between Boyle and Stebbins, she conducted herself very well and professionally, but I cannot say the same about Boyle.

I began looking through the docs too (thanks ivy). I got a different impression - there is real animosity between the 2 sets of lawyers and i'm not seeing the aeg lawyers as the sweet innocent party in it all.

One thing that jarred completely. In the ex parte application on p7, aeg write

Defendants had hoped to avoid the need to depose Paris jackson (a minor who is nearly fifteen years old)...it is now clear, however that her testimony has become necessary...She has stated in written discovery that she interacted with the decedent's personal physician, dr conrad murray. Moreover she is seeking extensive damages based on her alleged relationship with the decedent and on gifts and services he allegedly provided to her.

What's that all about - 'alleged relationship with the decedent' - that's her dad or are they expressing doubt on that issue? Everybody's so quick to condemn the jacksons for raising the paternity issue, but i'm having a hard time with understanding what aeg are implying here.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: [General Discussion] AEG files their summary judgment motion asking to dismiss Katherine's lawsu

I guess its alleged cause her wanting damages is apart of the lawsuit. in not saying alleged its like admitting we owe her damages because that was her dad and he provided her gifts etc. and its up to the jury to decide on damages if any

 

[LastTear]

Re: [General Discussion] AEG files their summary judgment motion asking to dismiss Katherine's lawsu

I began looking through the docs too (thanks ivy). I got a different impression - there is real animosity between the 2 sets of lawyers and i'm not seeing the aeg lawyers as the sweet innocent party in it all.

One thing that jarred completely. In the ex parte application on p7, aeg write



What's that all about - 'alleged relationship with the decedent' - that's her dad or are they expressing doubt on that issue? Everybody's so quick to condemn the jacksons for raising the paternity issue, but i'm having a hard time with understanding what aeg are implying here.

I read them all as well and I agreed with Bubs, the only criticism I could say is that AEG's lawyers became rather stubborn, but tbh I probably would as well.

Re 'the alleged relationship' well spotted, I didn't pick up on that. I wonder if they are referring to gifts etc, I guess until it's proven then it is alleged that he brought her gifts for example. Perhaps that's it. So stupid this paternity subject even came up because any court would recognise Michael as their father regardless of any tests.

 

[ivy]

Re: [General Discussion] AEG files their summary judgment motion asking to dismiss Katherine's lawsu

Both Katherine and the kids claim that if Michael lived he would have given them 40% of his income. That's what AEG lawyers call alleged.

For example we know that if the 50 TII concerts have happened Michael would have made $100 Million dollars. Do you think he would have given $10 Million to each of Katherine, Prince, Paris and Blanket?

 

[jamba]

Re: [General Discussion] AEG files their summary judgment motion asking to dismiss Katherine's lawsu

AEG is in a bad situation re the kids--on the one hand, the kids are a big part of the plaintiffs and are asking a huge amount of $$ from AEG, and on the other hand, as kids, they get a certain sympathy from a jury, the public, and it makes AEG look bad if they mount a strong counter-attack. Same with KJ, going after an elderly lady doesn't look good either.

 

[Tygger]

Re: [General Discussion] AEG files their summary judgment motion asking to dismiss Katherine's lawsu

Agreed Bonnie Blue. I understood it as a way to decrease damages as damages are in multiples of four. Prove someone is not an heir and $10 billion is saved; all three is $30 billion saved. The plaintiff's lawyers obviously had good reasons to enter that exclusion and the judge rightfully allowed it.

 

[LastTear]

Re: [General Discussion] AEG files their summary judgment motion asking to dismiss Katherine's lawsu

@Tygger, I don't think that is what is meant by alleged relationship, see Ivy's explanation. It is refering to how their relationship was in terms of gifts etc at this moment it is alleged that he would give these gifts for example.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

Re: [General Discussion] AEG files their summary judgment motion asking to dismiss Katherine's lawsu

^@last tear, ivy, elusive. That passage i quoted, it's not just the alleged gifts mj gave paris, i'm talking about the words 'alleged relationship with the decedent' that aeg chose to describe the father/daughter relationship. How do you explain that?

I understood it as a way to decrease damages as damages are in multiples of four. Prove someone is not an heir and $10 billion is saved; all three is $30 billion saved. The plaintiff's lawyers obviously had good reasons to enter that exclusion and the judge rightfully allowed it.

There is no way that ppb cannot be seen as mj's legal heirs - if it's a deliberate slight as to paternity i just see it as aeg playing nasty. I agree that the jackson lawyers making a motion to exclude paternity was not a totally random act, it made no sense to me - there are 100s of thousands of docs and hours and hours of depositions that we are not privy to, and i can see aeg being suspect in some of their language. If i was a jackson lawyer i would be concerned about the phrasing of that exparte motion for example.

 

[LastTear]

Re: [General Discussion] AEG files their summary judgment motion asking to dismiss Katherine's lawsu

Firstly you need to remember that AEG did not oppose the paternity ruling, this tells us that they had no intention of using it.

The wording alleged relationship is referring to how their relationship was in practice, in all cases of law, every aspect is alleged until it's proven. As I said earlier, when you first read it it does sounds suspect.

I'm sure Ivy will explain this better than I can.

 

[gerryevans]

Re: [General Discussion] AEG files their summary judgment motion asking to dismiss Katherine's lawsu

Firstly you need to remember that AEG did not oppose the paternity ruling, this tells us that they had no intention of using it.

The wording alleged relationship is referring to how their relationship was in practice, in all cases of law, every aspect is alleged until it's proven. As I said earlier, when you first read it it does sounds suspect.

I'm sure Ivy will explain this better than I can.

Thx for the explanations. I just read this, and immediately thought it was a reference to Paris being his daughter. It does sound suspect. The explanations make it make more sense especially IF they also refer to Katherine as having an "alleged relationship". I wonder if they do. I read the documents quickly and never caught the references. In any event, I'm glad now the parentage exclusion was requested.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

Re: [General Discussion] AEG files their summary judgment motion asking to dismiss Katherine's lawsu

Firstly you need to remember that AEG did not oppose the paternity ruling, this tells us that they had no intention of using it.

I remember, i also remember how everybody on here condemned the jackson side for even bringing up the paternity issue, and saw it as some machiaevellian revenge for the tweets from last summer. As i said in my post, i see it as an intimidatory, nasty tactic from aeg, not something that could possibly help them in their lawsuit.

The wording alleged relationship is referring to how their relationship was in practice, in all cases of law, every aspect is alleged until it's proven. As I said earlier, when you first read it it does sounds suspect.

I've read it a few times and it still sounds suspect, esp in the context of the paternity questions over ppb that are out there in the public. If every aspect of simply everything is alleged until proven, why not use the word alleged every time then, rather than specifically when talking of a father/daughter relationship.

 

[serendipity]

Re: [General Discussion] AEG files their summary judgment motion asking to dismiss Katherine's lawsu

Agreed Bonnie Blue. I understood it as a way to decrease damages as damages are in multiples of four. Prove someone is not an heir and $10 billion is saved; all three is $30 billion saved. The plaintiff's lawyers obviously had good reasons to enter that exclusion and the judge rightfully allowed it.

This makes no sense as they can't prove that the kids are not his legal heirs, period.

 

[gerryevans]

Re: [General Discussion] AEG files their summary judgment motion asking to dismiss Katherine's lawsu

I remember, i also remember how everybody on here condemned the jackson side for even bringing up the paternity issue, and saw it as some machiaevellian revenge for the tweets from last summer. As i said in my post, i see it as an intimidatory, nasty tactic from aeg, not something that could possibly help them in their lawsuit.


I've read it a few times and it still sounds suspect, esp in the context of the paternity questions over ppb that are out there in the public. If every aspect of simply everything is alleged until proven, why not use the word alleged every time then, rather than specifically when talking of a father/daughter relationship.

Did they ever use alleged relationship in reference to Katherine?

 

[LastTear]

Re: [General Discussion] AEG files their summary judgment motion asking to dismiss Katherine's lawsu

I remember, i also remember how everybody on here condemned the jackson side for even bringing up the paternity issue, and saw it as some machiaevellian revenge for the tweets from last summer. As i said in my post, i see it as an intimidatory, nasty tactic from aeg, not something that could possibly help them in their lawsuit.


I've read it a few times and it still sounds suspect, esp in the context of the paternity questions over ppb that are out there in the public. If every aspect of simply everything is alleged until proven, why not use the word alleged every time then, rather than specifically when talking of a father/daughter relationship.

I see what you are saying, but I really don't see how it would help their defence anyway, in the eyes of the law he was their father regardless of any DNA. That's my understanding anyway, I may be wrong.

I need to re-read the whole deposition.

ETA That phrase was written on the motion to set Paris's deposition, so I guess until she explains her relationship in person everything else is alleged.

 

[ivy]

Re: [General Discussion] AEG files their summary judgment motion asking to dismiss Katherine's lawsu

I can say this much : there's nothing that could change the kids legal heir status.

Prince and Paris were born while Michael was married to Debbie, he's the presumed father. His name on the birth certificate. His name is also on the birth certificate of Blanket. He listed himself as the father, he took care of the kids, he listed them as his beneficiaries on his will. They are established as legal heirs.

So biological or not it would make absolutely no difference to the determination of damages, they are legally entitled. Given that AEG did not oppose to exclusion of biological parents I would think that they are also aware of this fact and/or did not intend to bring up paternity at all.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: [General Discussion] AEG files their summary judgment motion asking to dismiss Katherine's lawsu

The wording alleged relationship is referring to how their relationship was in practice, in all cases of law, every aspect is alleged until it's proven. As I said earlier, when you first read it it does sounds suspect.
==========================

yeah i agree. everything always has alleged infront of it especially imo when thats apart of the case interms of the family wanting damages and claiming mj would have given them x y and z