View Poll Results: Final verdict

Voters
166. You may not vote on this poll
  • AEG liable

    80 48.19%
  • AEG not liable

    86 51.81%
Page 23 of 114 FirstFirst ... 1321222324253373 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 345 of 1699

Thread: Verdict Reached: AEG NOT Liable - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

   
  1. #331
    Points: 17,085, Level: 83
    Level completed: 47%, Points required for next Level: 265
    Overall activity: 4.0%
    Achievements:
    Three Friends10000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,226
    Points
    17,085
    Level
    83
    Thanks
    166
    Thanked 1,256 Times in 457 Posts

    Default Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

    Quote Originally Posted by Tygger View Post
    You are mistaken. Michael could not terminate the doctor. AEG could very well terminate the doctor without Michael's approval as can be seen in the other termination clauses.
    You are mistaken. How does AEG Live terminating their advance payment stop Murray performing services for Michael? He could always invoice Michael, he's a doctor and NOT an employee of AEG Live. If anything Murray is an independant contractor.


    Quote Originally Posted by dam2040 View Post
    I find it very worrying Murray's contract could be terminated if the first show wasn't performed on the 13th of July.
    Why? AEG Live only had an interest to loan Michael the money IF Michael was fulfilling his tour obligations aka performing concerts on schedule.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tygger View Post
    Why is AEG protecting the advancement? What is the danger AEG is protecting their advancement from? Would they not recoup the monies from Michael?
    You can't see it? I'll help you:
    Recouping the money from Michael who was short in the ready and deep in dept is not an adequate option. It could take years to get back the money. Being in the right and getting justice are two different things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tygger View Post
    7.3 Immediately BY PRODUCER if the Artist decides for any reason that the Artist no longer wants or needs the services of Dr. Murray.
    Stop skipping straight to Artist and read the first three words. Why would Michael need to "make a call" FIRST in your scenario to terminate his own, personal doctor? If he wanted to terminate his own, personal doctor, as per this contract, Michael has to call AEG first.
    See? You don't understand this one. Though you highlighted "by producer", your argumentation reveals that it is the "immediately" that had you caught.
    Try to understand it:
    Who can terminate Murray from performing services?
    Who can terminate Murray from receiving advancement payments?
    In which order does that happen?
    ["immediately" combined with "if" - a condition to be fulfilled first - should tell you this)

    And if you wonder why the contract doesn't state that Michael could terminate the doctor from performing services, you should remember that you don't need to formalize fundamental rights: Services of a doctor are conducted personally, no matter who pays (eg the government/charity for people out of money).
    [Exceptions: emergency treatment and people not being capable of contracting like minors, the mentally ill etc. - in those cases you have either a legal guardian, or an authorized representative.]

    That means only you personally can

    • a) choose a doctor
    • b) request services from a doctor
    • c) accept services from a doctor
    • d) decline services from a doctor
    • e) terminate services of a doctor


    And yet the contract has this:
    if the Artist decides for any reason that the Artist no longer wants or needs the services of Dr. Murray
    You don't see the word "terminate", right?
    Is that word needed to understand what is written here? If I don't longer want or need "the services of my doctor", how do you call that?
    Colloquially you'd say "I dropped my doctor" or "I let my doctor go". How do you call that formally?
    Last edited by Korgnex; 30-09-2013 at 01:24 PM.

  2. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Korgnex For This Useful Post:


  3. #332
    Points: 12,146, Level: 72
    Level completed: 24%, Points required for next Level: 304
    Overall activity: 15.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    1,755
    Points
    12,146
    Level
    72
    Thanks
    1,127
    Thanked 2,295 Times in 517 Posts

    Default Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

    Quote Originally Posted by Tygger View Post
    Again, you, as many other posters have done throughout the day, flat out refuse to state that Michael could only terminate the doctor through AEG. There was no other option than to submit a grievance to AEG first and then they would terminate the doctor.
    That's because it's not true. A boss tells one of his executives I want that person fired. The person is fired. He's fired because of the ORDER he's given. The boss isn't consulting with the executive. He's giving him a direct order. MJ wouldn't need to consult with AEG. He would tell them what he wants done, and they would execute his wishes.
    "Of all the thousands of entertainers I have worked with, Michael was THE most outstanding. Many have tried and will try to copy him, but his talent will never be matched." Dick Clark

  4. The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to gerryevans For This Useful Post:


  5. #333
    Points: 20,697, Level: 90
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 153
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Three Friends10000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Appalachians in the U.S.
    Posts
    9,147
    Points
    20,697
    Level
    90
    Thanks
    954
    Thanked 2,312 Times in 612 Posts

    Default Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

    In terminating the doctor, Michael didn't have to explain himself to anyone, or submit a "grievance," or "complaint" to AEG. Leaving the topic of Michael having the right to "terminate" his doctor alone now. (the other word for that is FIRE the doctor!) Ah, yes, on to verdict-watch again?
    Last edited by Autumn II; 30-09-2013 at 03:23 PM.

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Autumn II For This Useful Post:


  7. #334
    Points: 32,067, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 8.0%
    Achievements:
    OverdriveThree FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    7,859
    Points
    32,067
    Level
    100
    Thanks
    17,536
    Thanked 16,232 Times in 4,840 Posts

    Default Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

    Inserting official :smilerolleyes: about MJ couldn't fire CM.

    How about other likes Karen fake, Travis P, Kenny O etc that MJ wanted and AEG advanced their salary from MJ's money? Could MJ fire them or was he suppose to go to Randy P hat in his hand and explain his reasons why would he want them to fire Karen fake before he could get rid of her?

    Of course he could fire CM, but AEG couldn't fire CM other reason that were mentioned in the contract.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Bubs For This Useful Post:


  9. #335
    Points: 8,599, Level: 62
    Level completed: 50%, Points required for next Level: 151
    Overall activity: 30.0%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassVeteran5000 Experience Points
    jamba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    1,261
    Points
    8,599
    Level
    62
    Thanks
    6,594
    Thanked 3,207 Times in 862 Posts

    Default Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

    Quote Originally Posted by ivy View Post
    stop it, you are making way too much sense.



    I think the only conflict of interest is the assumption that as Murray needed the money , he wouldn't be able to say "let's postpone or cancel the tour" when Michael was deteriorating. However Michael was deteriorating under Murray's care, so if he had done a good job with caring for Michael, that conflict wouldn't be an issue. So that conflict was created by Murray imo. Also some conflict could have been created by Michael too. As jw244 said, Murray probably couldn't say no to Michael because he did not want to lose his paycheck.

    So it becomes like this, all parties wanted Michael to be healthy so that he can do a long -even a world - tour, that way everyone would make money - so everyone had the same interests. Michael asks for Propofol for sleep, Murray says yes to keep Michael happy and keep his job. Michael begins to deteriorate. AEG asks what is going on, Murray and Michael tells AEG everything is okay as neither of them wants AEG to cancel the tour. So there's some conflict but I don't think that conflict would go away if AEG wasn't involved in the hiring.
    ok, I get the CM says yes to MJ's request for propofol to keep his job, but why give it in the terribly sliposhod, careless way he did--that was what directly killed MJ, obviously (although the extended propofol use was causing a physical and mental decline and may have ultimately killed him later on). CM claims he stopped giving propofol the last 2 nights before the 24th, so that would suggest he was able to say no and that MJ agreed to no propofol. MJ was in this man's hands as far as his medical care. I can't get around the fact that CM was an unethical, irresponsible dr. and these disastrous flaws were his responsibility alone.

  10. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to jamba For This Useful Post:


  11. #336
    Points: 38,201, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Three FriendsTagger Second ClassVeteranOverdrive25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Mexico
    Posts
    10,192
    Points
    38,201
    Level
    100
    Thanks
    3,427
    Thanked 10,351 Times in 3,647 Posts

    Default Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

    ^I agree. Leaving aside Michael himself requested propofol, CM didn't take care of him, he didn't keep medical records. With that anesthetic in a persons's body, it was needed a proper equipment and monitoring, he left Michael alone and unattended. He could have requested an assistant and the equipment but his greed was an obstacle for it. When Michael had administrated propofol in the past, he wasn't unattended, they had the proper equipment.

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Snow White luvs Peter Pan For This Useful Post:


  13. #337
    Points: 9,504, Level: 65
    Level completed: 52%, Points required for next Level: 146
    Overall activity: 24.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,445
    Points
    9,504
    Level
    65
    Thanks
    1,351
    Thanked 2,697 Times in 679 Posts

    Default Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

    Quote Originally Posted by gerryevans View Post
    That's because it's not true. A boss tells one of his executives I want that person fired. The person is fired. He's fired because of the ORDER he's given. The boss isn't consulting with the executive. He's giving him a direct order. MJ wouldn't need to consult with AEG. He would tell them what he wants done, and they would execute his wishes.
    Exactly. MJ didn't need AEG's permission to fire Murray, he just needed to inform them so they could stop paying him because he no longer needs his services. He could dismiss him at any time he wanted.

  14. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to serendipity For This Useful Post:


  15. #338
    Points: 26,280, Level: 96
    Level completed: 93%, Points required for next Level: 70
    Overall activity: 9.0%
    Achievements:
    Three FriendsTagger Second ClassCreated Blog entryVeteran25000 Experience Points
    MIST's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,705
    Points
    26,280
    Level
    96
    Blog Entries
    1
    Thanks
    7,503
    Thanked 3,593 Times in 1,731 Posts

    Default Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

    Michael wanted propofol and Murray agreed to give it to him.
    I don´t understand why Murray also gave the other medicins to sleep on.
    If Michael wanted propofol..well Murray bought a lot of the other drugs too.
    I wonder if they tried night after night with the other drugs and maybe there were other nights where Michael managed to sleep without propofol.
    Otherwise wouldn´t it have been safer if Michael only got propofol?
    As far as I know noone knows exactly why Michael deteriorated it doesn´t have to be propofol, it could be the other drugs or it could be mental.
    I wish there existed a truth serum they could give Murray, then Michael´s mother would know more about what happened to her son.
    "How much did I really know about life on earth? What responsibility did I feel for creatures outside my little space?
    How could I lead my life so that every cell of living matter was also benefited?" Michael Jackson
    "Love no violence ever, remember a beautiful future promise of tomorrow "MJ


    stop the killing of pets. Save lifes,spay and neuter your pets
    Adopt from an animalshelter
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seEpf5L8x0M

  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MIST For This Useful Post:


  17. #339
    Points: 3,360, Level: 36
    Level completed: 7%, Points required for next Level: 140
    Overall activity: 27.0%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    2,316
    Points
    3,360
    Level
    36
    Thanks
    1,410
    Thanked 1,274 Times in 703 Posts

    Default Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

    Quote Originally Posted by LastTear View Post
    @Tygger, I don't need to point anything out to you, we can both read. Let's just moved on.
    Always best to move on when you cannot prove your argument.

    Michael still had the power to terminate Murray, he didn't even have to put anything in writing or give a reason, just give AEG the nod.
    According to 7.3, he had to give a reason. Regardless of what that reason may have been, which would most likely be a grievance/complaint, it would have to be given first before AEG would terminate the doctor.

    Quote Originally Posted by Korgnex View Post
    You are mistaken. How does AEG Live terminating their advance payment stop Murray performing services for Michael? He could always invoice Michael, he's a doctor and NOT an employee of AEG Live. If anything Murray is an independant contractor.
    Krognex, the contract is an employment contract for an independent contractor. If AEG was to terminate the doctor, the doctor would not receive his fee of $150K. Where would he then get that amount or any amount near that number from if he decided to continue treating Michael as you say?

    You can't see it? I'll help you:
    Recouping the money from Michael who was short in the ready and deep in dept is not an adequate option. It could take years to get back the money. Being in the right and getting justice are two different things.
    That did not help. Michael’s assets guaranteed AEG would recoup pre-production costs. It does not matter what length of time this multi-billion dollar company would wait to get the monies.

    ["immediately" combined with "if" - a condition to be fulfilled first - should tell you this)

    You don't see the word "terminate", right?

    Is that word needed to understand what is written here? If I don't longer want or need "the services of my doctor", how do you call that?
    You have shown that the doctor’s termination is conditional by highlighting “if.” Contracts are written specifically for this very reason: prevention of misinterpretation or re-interpretation.

    If Michael wants to terminate his doctor, Michael must alert AEG first before the doctor can be terminated. Could Michael tell the doctor he was terminated? Yes. However, the doctor would continue receive payment until Michael alerted AEG. AEG was the only party who could terminate the doctor from that contract thus, terminating the three party relationship it created.

    There is no getting around this however, it has not stopped many attempts.

    A third party is not involved with my doctor-patient relationship so I can rid myself of my doctor directly without contacting any other party except my doctor first.

    Quote Originally Posted by gerryevans View Post
    MJ wouldn't need to consult with AEG. He would tell them what he wants done, and they would execute his wishes.
    Gerryevans, 7.3 proves it is fact Michael has to go through AEG to terminate the doctor. You suggest a scenario that does not apply to this situation. Michael was not AEG’s employer. You contradict yourself in your last two sentences posted above. Michael has to contact AEG first before the doctor is terminated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Autumn II View Post
    In terminating the doctor, Michael didn't have to explain himself to anyone, or submit a "grievance," or "complaint" to AEG. Leaving the topic of Michael having the right to "terminate" his doctor alone now. (the other word for that is FIRE the doctor!) Ah, yes, on to verdict-watch again?
    Autumn II, simply repeating Michael can terminate the doctor without going through AEG first does not make it so. This will be the second day of repeating clause 7.3. Personally, I would like to read an explanation on how to answer no to question three on the verdict form.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bubs View Post
    How about other likes Karen fake, Travis P, Kenny O etc that MJ wanted and AEG advanced their salary from MJ's money? Could MJ fire them or was he suppose to go to Randy P hat in his hand and explain his reasons why would he want them to fire Karen fake before he could get rid of her?
    Bubs, AEG had eight options listed which allowed them to terminate the doctor if you have seen them. Only one, 7.3, allowed Michael to go through AEG to terminate the doctor. The others you mentioned were independent contractors hired by AEG and would be terminated by AEG.

  18. #340
    Points: 13,345, Level: 75
    Level completed: 24%, Points required for next Level: 305
    Overall activity: 33.0%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree FriendsVeteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    3,240
    Points
    13,345
    Level
    75
    Thanks
    5,937
    Thanked 3,887 Times in 1,388 Posts

    Default Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

    @Tygger
    Always best to move on when you cannot prove your argument.
    LOL I don't need to prove anything, the proof is in the posts, I'm just trying to get off the merry-go-round and not derail the thread.

  19. #341
    Points: 3,360, Level: 36
    Level completed: 7%, Points required for next Level: 140
    Overall activity: 27.0%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    2,316
    Points
    3,360
    Level
    36
    Thanks
    1,410
    Thanked 1,274 Times in 703 Posts

    Default Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

    Last Tear, as you say.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tygger View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ivy View Post
    I think the only conflict of interest is the assumption that as Murray needed the money , he wouldn't be able to say "let's postpone or cancel the tour" when Michael was deteriorating. However Michael was deteriorating under Murray's care, so if he had done a good job with caring for Michael, that conflict wouldn't be an issue. So that conflict was created by Murray imo. Also some conflict could have been created by Michael too. As jw244 said, Murray probably couldn't say no to Michael because he did not want to lose his paycheck.
    Ivy, it is truly amazing how you can discuss conflict of interest without mention AEG at all. You even suggested Michael caused the conflict.
    Ivy, my original response was slightly edited so allow me to rephrase: is there another angle to conflicted interest in this situation for you which would include AEG?

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to Tygger For This Useful Post:


  21. #342
    Points: 20,697, Level: 90
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 153
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Three Friends10000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Appalachians in the U.S.
    Posts
    9,147
    Points
    20,697
    Level
    90
    Thanks
    954
    Thanked 2,312 Times in 612 Posts

    Default Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

    There is nothing in the contract anywhere that reads that Michael had to get AEG's approval to fire Murray, and there is nothing in the contract that reads that Michael had to lodge a complaint, or a "grievance." He just had to TELL AEG that Murray was fired, and then AEG would do whatever they had to do, technically, to fire him (such as whatever notification of Murray needed to be made, and whatever paperwork there may have been to complete.)

    Is the jury deliberating today? Or, that resumes on Tuesday?

  22. #343
    Points: 17,085, Level: 83
    Level completed: 47%, Points required for next Level: 265
    Overall activity: 4.0%
    Achievements:
    Three Friends10000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,226
    Points
    17,085
    Level
    83
    Thanks
    166
    Thanked 1,256 Times in 457 Posts

    Default Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

    Tygger, I see you are not understanding. The termination of the advance payment for Michael to Murray and the termination of Murray's services are two very different animals.

    What we have been witnessing here, is you attempting to say Michael couldn't terminate the doctor's services. There is no getting around fundamental rights.

  23. The Following User Says Thank You to Korgnex For This Useful Post:


  24. #344
    Points: 8,491, Level: 62
    Level completed: 14%, Points required for next Level: 259
    Overall activity: 6.0%
    Achievements:
    VeteranOverdrive5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Glasgow, Scotland
    Posts
    1,757
    Points
    8,491
    Level
    62
    Thanks
    2,887
    Thanked 1,249 Times in 685 Posts

    Default Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

    So am I the only one that keeps seeing someone say that we are saying michael didn't have to go through AEG to fire Murray, when we aren't saying that at all. Or am I misunderstanding things? Michael did have to go through AEG, but all he had to do was say to them murray was fired and they would terminate him. Let me know if i'm misunderstanding things please.

  25. #345
    Points: 25,133, Level: 95
    Level completed: 79%, Points required for next Level: 217
    Overall activity: 4.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,426
    Points
    25,133
    Level
    95
    Thanks
    7,152
    Thanked 4,692 Times in 1,330 Posts

    Default Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

    Quote Originally Posted by Autumn II View Post

    Is the jury deliberating today? Or, that resumes on Tuesday?
    It resumes on Tuesday

  26. The Following User Says Thank You to Annita For This Useful Post:


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •