KJ vs AEG - Appeal Thread

[Bubs]

why did the judge question KJ's appeal costs request then? I get it that you feel anything and everything should be paid but Michael's will/trust doesn't really say "pay her legal costs". but that being said like I said there's no need to argue as this is mostly a moot debate as I'm almost certain KJ's AEG trial cost will be paid by Estate one way or another.

You are right Ivy, this is not about allowance, and not only judge questioning it, but PPB's GAL was concern of it. It is about KJ asking the estate pay her legal costs and court questioning whether it was preliminary distribution or what.
-------------------------------------------------
FACTS: Petnr is co-guardian, seeking the court to instruct the Executors to pay atty fees incurred by petnr individually and as guardian. Petnr and the minor children are bens of this estate.

On 9/15/10, petnr, individually and on behalf of the decd's 3 minor children, filed a wrongful death suit agst AEG Live (BC 445597). A verdict was entered in favor of AEG Live. On 1/22/14, petnr filed an appeal, retaining the firm of Reed Smith LLP to handle 2 consolidated appeals (B252411 and B251972)

In April 2014, petnr and the minors were ordered to pay costs of 854,820.16 to AEG Live. On 5/27/14, Reed Smith filed Appellants' Opening Brief, Appendix, and the Certified Reporters' Transcripts. Reed Smith agreed to forego its typical hourly rate and agreed to a fee cap of 200,000 for the work on Appeal, plus a 100,000 success bonus if a reversal of the judgment was attained. There is an additional amt of 9,500 for costs. Petnr will provide a copy of the retainer agreement for in camera review. Atty rates are 340/hr - 830/hr.

Pursuant to PC 2642(b) & (c), petnr requests that the court instruct the Executors to pay Reed Smith a maximum of 300,000 from the Estate, for legal services relating to the Appeal on behalf of petnr and the minor children, plus costs 9,500.

Per decl of appellate atty, issues raised on appeal are numerous and complex, as the appeal challenges the trial cout's summary adjudication rulings and certain rulings during trial. Atty has reviewed trial court file, inc 17,700 page reporter's transcript, extensive legal research, prep and filing of opening brief and 16 volume appendix. A Reply brief will be due 50 days after the Respondent's Brief is filed.

MATTERS TO CLEAR:
A. Petnr alleg she is proceeding under PC 2642(b) & (c). There is no PC 2642(c). Moreover, this section permits ATTORNEYS to bring a petition fixing fees. Appears any such petition fixing fees related to the guardianship should be brought in the guardianship hearing. And petnr, as an indvidual adult, can incur fees without any court order fixing them. How is PC 2642(c) applicable to this petn, brought in this decd's estate proceeding by the guardian, and by an estate bene in her individual capacity? supp reqd.
B. Under what authority is this estate liable for the atty fees of petnr, individually, and as guardian of the minors? Is petnr actually seeking a preliminary dist to beneficiaries pay atty fees? If so, in what proportion should this amount be charged to the share of each beneficiary? are all equal benes? supp reqd.
C. If this is really a petn for prelim dist, appears a separate petn must be brought in the gship estate to determine if this is an appropriate expenditure of guardianship funds (as to the share attributable to the minor benes only). supp reqd.
D. When is this payment to be made, since the 100,000 is due only upon successful appellate outcome? Is the other 200,000 to be paid up front, or as incurred? Who is responsibility is it to review the bills for accuracy - petnr or extrs? supp reqd.
E. No copy of retainer agreement - petnr alleg it will be provided for in camera review. o/w, if court will not allow in camera review, to be filed w/ supp.
F. Who are the tees of the irrev life insurance tr? ntc? o/w, what authority to request relief as to Irrev Life Ins tr in this estate proceeding? supp reqd.

RELIEF:
1. JTD instruct and order the executors of the Estate of Michael Joseph Jackson OR the trustees of the Irrev Life Insurance Trust, to pay counsel for the benes, Reed Smith LLP's attorney fees and costs not to exceed the sum of 300,000, for legal services rendered w/ respect to the Appeal, as well as related costs NTE 9,500 - COMMENT: No authority to direct tees of Irrev Life Ins Tr in this decd's estate proceeding. If any order is made, it can be as to the executors only

P/A COMMENT: see notes. What authority for this estate to pay the attorney fees incurred on behalf of the beneficiaries individually? The code section cited in petn (PC 2642(b)& (c) does not appear to be applicable in this proceeding. If this is a really a petn for prelim dist, then it appears the court in the guardianship proceeding must determine if this is a proper expenditure of funds due to the guardianship. O/w, if this is really some sort of petition for instructions that petnr has authority for, then court may consider in camera review of retainer agreement. o/w, copy of retainer agreement to be filed w/ supp.
-------------------------

 

[gerryevans]

Gerryevans, your post is a bit confusing. Assets and equity of the estate rightfully belongs to the beneficiaries.

The below bold is exactly what I meant.

Gerryevans post is abundantly clear. KJ is wasting money that she never had to work to receive on a lawsuit she has zero chance of winning even by her own lawyer's admission. Had this money been earned through hard work, chances are that she would not so easily be keen to squander it. at least not on frivolous lawsuits.

The fact is most of the legal fees incurred by the MJ Estate are due to the Estate lawyers. Assets and equity from the Estate rightfully belong to Michael's mother and his children to spend as they wish. The beneficiaries earned the monies in the worst way.

If you seriously believe inheriting money is the same as working for it, I strongly disagree.

 

[Victory22]

I do wonder if it was actual money that Mrs. Jackson exerted her own sweat for to earn would she be allowing this case to continue. No way are her lawyers going to walk away with nothing. The more they appeal and appeal, the higher their out of pocket expenses. With the MJ estate pockets relatively deep these days, it's no sweat on Mrs. Jackson to let them continue this futile course.

She benefits handsomely because of her brilliant son, but she hasn't had to work for it at all. But if these monies were her hard EARNED cash, would she be so easy to let lawyers go on and on and incur expense after expense.

I think it makes a big difference when you have to earn something yourself versus benefitting from what someone else has earned.

Plus she knows she can't leave her share of MICHAEL'S hard earned money to Rebbie and her other senior citizen kids so she doesn't care how most of Prince, Paris and Blanket's money is wasted in her extortion attempt against AEG. Shows how much she really loves and misses MJ.

 

[Victory22]

No matter how you slice it or try to deflect Katherine’s selfish, twisted behavior she is still a loser who didn’t protect her dead sons name or punish his killer. She continues to waste money her son worked himself sick to earn and she doesn’t respect the fact or care at all about what it cost him.

 

[barbee0715]

I really don't understand the discussion/argument about the appeals attorney fees as opposed to the executors' attorney fees-I am sure if the executors' fees were astronomically high for the work they are doing, they would be stopped by the probate court, as everything they do is being monitored.

I do see a difference between initiating a lawsuit and defending lawsuits, of course, and I DO expect the executors to defend every single lawsuit that comes their way, whether it's Robson, or Safechuck, or the IRS, or Quincy, or whoever with every means and dollar possible, so that the assets and value of Michael's estate is not depleted or ruined. And that goes for future earnings-his legacy is so important and they need to do whatever to make sure that it stays in tact, that his good name and reputation stays restored, so that there will be a future for the beneficiaries and their beneficiaries one day. If that means they create new deals on future products, great. If that means they have to initiate lawsuits in order to protect Michael (and his beneficiaries) great. That's what they're supposed to do.

I'm not anti-Estate. Personally, I was extremely grateful that Branca had been named as executor-because of his past with Michael-I think he and Michael inspired each other to their respective greatness in their fields. Going all the way back when Branca negotiated a new contact with Epic with Off The Wall.
If Michael hadn't had all these creative ideas, there might not have been clever financing of Thriller, or the original purchase of the ATV catalog (which almost fell through multiple times), or the purchase of Neverland for millions under asking price. I think he was looking after his client and all of these deals were great for Michael-and the product of really great lawyering.

I'm not anti-Jackson either. Yes, certain members of the family have disappointed me and I use that word lightly. And I don't really forgive and forget anymore either. But I have to separate my feelings when I think about them back to the times when that person and Michael were close and what they went through together, or as a family. I have affection for Joseph too-even though I know he beat the kids-I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that he was born in 1930 and that's the way he was brought up. Michael inherited a lot of qualities from his father that I admire-mainly his drive and perfectionism. And his loyalty to his family. One thing I have always noticed about Joseph is that he was determined to keep his family together-even his brother and all of his brother's kids were part of the family. And Michael followed suit. He always treated his brothers' children and his cousins' children as his own. So, on the whole I think of the Jacksons with affection.

Yes, I do get aggravated with Katherine, but I think she's the kind of woman that always put her husband first-that she loved Joseph more than anything or anyone and turned to her church and prayer when things were not right. It's how I see Rose Kennedy, as well, and there are a lot of similarities in their families and how they turned out. Because of all that, I try not to lash out at but I don't always succeed. If Branca made me mad with something, I'd say that too.

That being said-about the appeal-I'm ambivalent to it now. I was against the trial from the beginning-only because I felt like a lot of things were going to be told about Michael, that would kill him if the world knew about them. I felt like Michael was being thrown under the bus, and frankly, he is the ONLY one that I love or care about since I first laid eyes and ears on them back in 69. As it was, yes, a lot of stuff came out, but it was only confirmation of things that I had assumed anyway. It broke my heart that I was right about a lot of things. A lot of horrible actions came out on the part of AEG, but isn't that just the way ALL corporations are? I can't think of one that isn't-look at Sony, look at Epic-for that matter, look at Motown. Berry has had a bad rap for taking advantage of his artists since the inception of that label. Most of it is probably true. So I guess I'm not anti-AEG either. Michael had been in show business since he was five-and he knew about the sharks out there much better than all of us did and dealt with it all of his life.

So I say-go ahead and take it to the CA Supreme Court. We all know what happened for sure now, and so does Katherine. So no harm in appealing it, unless the attorneys are plumping up the fees. And since the fee is capped, it looks like that is not the case. Appeal it and get it over with.

Sorry for such a long post. This has just been going around and around in my head for so long now-that I just finally had to get it out.

 

[serendipity]

Katherine has been throwing MJ's money out the window for decades, so what is new? How many times her business dealings has ended up in lawsuits and MJ has always been the one having to pay? I've lost count.

Imagine how tired of this he must have been when he refused to bail her out from the Koreans mess! Just think about it... Poor guy must have been fed up.

 

[passy001]

Ivy, I disagree. I believe you have a vested interest. There is a reason you have an intense reaction to my posts. In this instance, it a fact, not a view.

By the way, the $34M production costs was approved by Tohme after Michael passed. It included the $17.5M:





Agreed. When someone passes, it is human nature to be plagued with "what-if" concerns. In this instance, those concerns can be thwarted by completing the appeal process.

1) Tohme was long out of the picture by the time MJ died. 2) 34.4 m were the actual costs incurred of producing the show. they did not include the insurance policy of 17.5m.

 

[ivy]

1) Tohme was long out of the picture by the time MJ died. 2) 34.4 m were the actual costs incurred of producing the show. they did not include the insurance policy of 17.5m.

I think Tohme was at a meeting with Estate and AEG. but the costs weren't approved by Tohme. There are documents showing that Estate paid the costs after an audit.

As for the $17.5 Million that's an insurance policy, plain and simple. MJ -AEG agreement said AEG would advance the production costs and MJ would pay it back. MJ and AEG jointly got a cancellation policy from Lloyds which wasn't to cover the production costs, it was to protect parties from accidents (and possibly sickness etc). I would assume that everyone knows insurance policy payout can take a long time even if insurers plan to pay it (and most of the time they don't want to pay it). This $34 Million versus $17 Million issue is semantics. Regardless I don't see how it can be denied that TII brought in money. Sure Estate paid AEG $34 Million but got $4 from memorabilia tickets, $60 million from Sony, TII grossed $290 Million (or something like that) and Estate got 90% of profits. So even without Lloyds and insurance money, it was a plus financially. Lloyds filed a lawsuit, Estate had some legal costs but it ended with a multi million dollar payment to Estate. So I don't get how either TII release or Lloyds lawsuit can be portrayed as financially unfavorable.

 

[gerryevans]

Gerryevans, you chose the first definition for the word earn but, did not post the second as per Merriam-Webster.com.

The above second definition includes obtaining monies as a direct result of an action (specifically 2b).

The question was how was it inherited. Michael’s unnatural death allowed his beneficiaries to earn their inheritance which was/is not pleasant.

I defined and used earn in the exact context I meant. Earn as in work. Mrs. Jackson did not work or contribute in the building of the multi million dollar estate of which she handsomely benefits. My post was explicitly about whether or not she would continue to expend large amounts of monies on appeals if she had actually worked hard to earn those monies herself.

Of if she was more directly affected, like if all the appeals cut into her allowance.

When someone passes, it is human nature to be plagued with "what-if" concerns. In this instance, those concerns can be thwarted by completing the appeal process. I am quite impressed an appellate lawyer was found who would cap their fee.

I completely agree with you here. The "what-if's" can be merciless. But she was willing to forgego all what-if's if she was given a settlement.

Mrs. Jackson has tried unsuccessfully to "earn" monies off of MJ again and again, and has failed again and again. The appeals are another of her attempts which she again is not directly being affected by the costs. A six figure cap is a lot of money to me. If it was hitting her allowance, I think it would be a lot to her, too.

About the how of the inheritance, I never disputed the how or why. Just said that's what the monies are, not something she herself has earned as in worked for.

 

[Tygger]

Gerryevans, the word earn has two definitions. Michael’s mother and his children do not need to retain traditional jobs and/or contribute monies to the estate as they are the estate beneficiaries so, that is not their position. They earned their inheritance in the worst way because Michael had an unnatural death. If you feel the beneficiaries and particularly Katherine need to retain traditional jobs and/or contribute monies to the estate that is fine, however; that is not their role as beneficiaries.

But she was willing to forgego all what-if's if she was given a settlement.

She may not concern herself with “what-if” as the appeal process will go to completion. Had AEG settled, evidence would most likely be sealed and the public would not have access but, Katherine would have known through Panish so, she would not have “what-if” concerns with a settlement either. Because it was not settled, the public knows the evidence as well.

In my original response to you (which has caused an intense reaction and several posts) I stated that the amounts owed to AEG and the appeal lawyer is still less than what is owed in legal fees to the Estate lawyers. I understand that fact may not put you at ease but, it does put such costs in perspective.

I will say, this conversation included the revelation that the appeal lawyer capped their fee which I did not know before so I am glad I responded to your post. Panish’s team worked on a contingency basis so, this civil trial actually is being completed in an economical manner. Needless to say, it could have cost much more.

 

[passy001]

Gerryevans, the word earn has two definitions. Michael’s mother and his children do not need to retain traditional jobs and/or contribute monies to the estate as they are the estate beneficiaries so, that is not their position. They earned their inheritance in the worst way because Michael had an unnatural death. If you feel the beneficiaries and particularly Katherine need to retain traditional jobs and/or contribute monies to the estate that is fine, however; that is not their role as beneficiaries.

That is besides the point. the point here is that KJ is receiving money as a gift from MJ. hence is prone to spending it recklessly, more so because she does not appreciate the hard work and sweat that have gone into raising that money in the first place.

She may not concern herself with “what-if” as the appeal process will go to completion. Had AEG settled, evidence would most likely be sealed and the public would not have access but, Katherine would have known through Panish so, she would not have “what-if” concerns with a settlement either. Because it was not settled, the public knows the evidence as well.

In my original response to you (which has caused an intense reaction and several posts) I stated that the amounts owed to AEG and the appeal lawyer is still less than what is owed in legal fees to the Estate lawyers. I understand that fact may not put you at ease but, it does put such costs in perspective.

I will say, this conversation included the revelation that the appeal lawyer capped their fee which I did not know before so I am glad I responded to your post. Panish’s team worked on a contingency basis so, this civil trial actually is being completed in an economical manner. Needless to say, it could have cost much more.

It does not matter if KJ legal costs were just $1. the fact of the matter is that she is spending on a legal action that has no chances of succeeding. therefore she's wasting money. That's like investing in a venture that has no chances of becoming profitable. That's pretty much the crux of the argument.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Katherines legal fees can be deducted from her monthly allowance. problem solved. yeah i know to obvious and fair eh mr branca? let her be given her allowance and have free will to spend it on lawyers etc etc as its her choice to spend her allowance as she wants. but then i wonder if she would be happy to do so . nah thought not.

 

[ivy]

Not really related to appeal but I don't think we have any other AEG related thread.
Apparently Randy Phillips has become the CEO of Global Entertainment US Division - http://www.billboard.com/biz/articl...r-aeg-live-ceo-randy-phillips-launches-global

 

[passy001]

Perhaps I am just ill-informed, but how does anybody know this to be a fact? Did she say it somewhere? Is there any evidence you can provide to back up that claim?

very good catch. I based this on my own observation. Anyway I actually was looking to stress here that KJ receiving money has nothing to do with merits. And giving how easy she's getting money from the estate, she's lax in her spending and as such more prone to spending without thorough considerations. That's pretty much the idea i was looking to flush out.

 

[serendipity]

I don't even think Katherine's the one making the decisions here. As it was shown in court it was her kids who initiated this whole thing. I believe Katherine is just told what to do and she does it, doubt she's even thinking about money. She knows MJ/Estate will cover anything and everything as it's always has been.

 

[ivy]

why is her fighting to get the verdict changed such a problem?

I don't think anyone said it's a problem.

If you lost your child, and you felt a certain person or organization was responsible for your child's death, would you not stop at anything to fight for that, even when the world around you is saying "You're crazy to move forward with this"?

Yes and I agree with that. but then again when do you stop or when the odds come into play? Trial to find truth makes sense. when you go to an appeal chances of winning it goes down to 20%, when you go to supreme court only 2% of the cases are ever reviewed and 98% gets rejected without a look right off the bat.

why would any sane parent stop when they get a payoff?

katherine's side offered AEG to settle twice. and they even went to media saying AEG's insurance would have paid and nothing would come out of AEG's pocket. Truth, justice, making them pay is all valid reasons for a lawsuit, but if you say "hey let's settle so this stays private and nothing will come out of your pocket" it makes it a little suspect. she could have said "absolutely no settlement and I'll pursue this to the end whatever the odds" and not offer AEG a settlement.

She is not "suing" at this point, she is not looking to gain anything financially. She simply wants the verdict changed.

Verdict overturned means another trial and another chance at billions. So indirectly the goal is financial.

And so what if she using her allowance funds to pay for the lawyers. Whether she "earned" it or "inherited" it, the bottom line is, the money she is given is hers. So who are any of us to complain about how she spends it?

she is not using her allowance though- at least from what we can see. for the appeal lawyers costs she went and asked Estate to pay for her lawyer costs. we will see what will happen after all the appeal opportunities are tried and failed and she has to pay AEG's trial costs & appeal costs. I wrote it before, I don't think anyone cares how she spends her allowance.

The discussion have been about how Estate gets asked for her legal fees and as she doesn't have to worry about paying her legal fees out of her pocket, she probably doesn't care about any financial aspect, any odds and so on.

 

[passy001]

Okay. I understand and I appreciate your honesty, thank you

That being said, okay. She lost the initial law suit- everybody knows that. At this point, my understanding is she is taking this to higher courts to get the verdict changed.

But if Katherine feels- if she truly believes in her heart- that AEG is responsible for playing a role in Michael's passing, why is her fighting to get the verdict changed such a problem? Maybe I just do not know enough about the situation to fully understand what is going on, but this is not "Michael Jackson" we are talking about here. This is her son she's fighting for. Put yourself in her shoes. If you lost your child, and you felt a certain person or organization was responsible for your child's death, would you not stop at anything to fight for that, even when the world around you is saying "You're crazy to move forward with this"? I think back on all the discussions in the Wade Robson thread, for example. And how people talk about the earlier accusations from 93 and it's always said "If Michael was guilty of the accusations/charges, why would any sane parent stop when they get a payoff? Why would they not go to the proper authorities and fight the case and get the bastard behind bars?"

Can't the same logic be applied here? She is not "suing" at this point, she is not looking to gain anything financially. She simply wants the verdict changed. And regardless of how hopeless it looks from the outside, and even with her lawyer saying she has a slim chance of winning... why is she so wrong to want to fight this? Would you not fight for your child? And so what if she using her allowance funds to pay for the lawyers. Whether she "earned" it or "inherited" it, the bottom line is, the money she is given is hers. So who are any of us to complain about how she spends it?

Personally, I believe that KJ is being manipulated by incompetent lawyers and other people, most likely her children, who are chasing after a jackpot. Conrad Murray was proven the killer of MJ, after all MJ died in his care. Even so, the jacksons continue to refuse to hold him responsible. in fact they repeatedly refer to him as the "fall guy", meaning that they just see him as this dude who happened to be at the wrong place and at the wrong time. that explains why they have not sought restitution against him, fearing it would dent their chances of extracting a big pay from AEG.

Anyway, the AEG trial has shown that while AEG at tines acted very insensitively towards MJ, they were not responsible for his death. They had no say in the doctor MJ could have or the medical treatment MJ was getting. Plus, they had no way of Knowing that CM was incompetent. in short AEG had no chances whatsoever to save MJ.

all these facts weight heavily against the Jacksons, and the appeal court seem to concur. in fact they were reports of the appeal judges wondering what wrongdoing AEG was being accused of during the appeals hearing. given this, it's really puzzling to see the jacksons pushing for the case to be heard by the supreme court, especially that this case has no chances of being won, even by their own lawyers admission. so it seems, these lawyers are just looking for a way to earn a pay check at MJ expenses - his estate will pay the legal bills.

 

[passy001]

Yes and I agree with that. but then again when do you stop or when the odds come into play? Trial to find truth makes sense. when you go to an appeal chances of winning it goes down to 20%, when you go to supreme court only 2% of the cases are ever reviewed and 98% gets rejected without a look right off the bat.

This is precisely why her persistence with this case is so puzzling.

 

[ivy]

^^

There's a saying "Throw out a sprat to catch a mackerel." In this instance AEG is the "big fish" and this is a $1.5 billion lawsuit. In order to catch the "big fish" parties are willing to spend small money in legal expenses ($1M+ legal expenses is small when compared to a possible $1.5 Billion judgment), give up restitution and even give Murray a pass.

I don't find the persistence surprising, I find it expected. It's a big amount of money, lawyers want to get paid (hence their interest lies with trying the case again and/or getting paid for their appeal work) and as long as Estate is footing the bill, why would they stop?

 

[elusive moonwalker]

This is precisely why her persistence with this case is so puzzling.

what does she have to lose? nothing as she isnt paying the lawyers fees. the family will take it as far as they can in their attempt to become billionaires.frankly id be more surprised if they didnt

 

[passy001]

^^

There's a saying "Throw out a sprat to catch a mackerel." In this instance AEG is the "big fish" and this is a $1.5 billion lawsuit. In order to catch the "big fish" parties are willing to spend small money in legal expenses ($1M+ legal expenses is small when compared to a possible $1.5 Billion judgment), give up restitution and even give Murray a pass.

I don't find the persistence surprising, I find it expected. It's a big amount of money, lawyers want to get paid (hence their interest lies with trying the case again and/or getting paid for their appeal work) and as long as Estate is footing the bill, why would they stop?

There is a question of ethics here. Surely at some point, as a lawyer, you have the moral obligation to provide the best advice to your clients and that includes "enough is enough".

 

[passy001]

what does she have to lose? nothing as she isnt paying the lawyers fees. the family will take it as far as they can in their attempt to become billionaires.frankly id be more surprised if they didnt

The issue is that the chances are almost non-existing. so it's obvious from the start, this will not workout in the end. let's be realistic here.

 

[Tygger]

Spyce, I do you feel as if your question was answered? Were you able to view both sides of the coin as they say or one side only?

 

[barbee0715]

^^as someone who 50% of her love for Michael is that unconditional and adoring love of her own child that she never had, I read her post with new eyes and thought about it all day. Esp the part comparing to the Robson case and what a woman would do for her child.

I think some of the things she brought up were answered but some not. Or not from that view.
If wish I could get to a PC and not a phone.

 

[ivy]

my opinion doesn't matter

your opinion matters here in a discussion among people. but you are right that in a greater scheme of things our opinions whether we are supportive or not supportive, whether we are positive or negative makes no difference to what KJ will do and what will the outcome will be.

For me, I think it depends on what the motive is behind her keeping this moving. Is the motive financial or does she simply want AEG held accountable? But, seeing as how they were found to not be responsible for his death, it seems less likely that "justice" is the goal of all this. And if it's not justice... then financial is the only other motive.

It's a little tricky. After MJ's death investigation, authorities pursued Murray criminally. If KJ wanted to pursue AEG and/or other parties her only venue was civil trial in which the outcome was being found liable and ordered to pay damages. So civil trials all have a financial aspect but it doesn't need to be the focus.

As I said before for anyone lost a loved one pursuing a civil trial to "find the truth", "to held them responsible", "to make them pay" etc all makes sense. I would imagine some or all of these items would equal to what people call as "justice". However in this instance the biggest thing against all of this is KJ's two offers for AEG for settlement. Now look to below quote:

A lawyer for Michael Jackson’s family said they offered to settle their wrongful-death suit against concert promoter Anschutz Entertainment Group, but that they never got an answer.

Kevin Boyle, an attorney for Jackson’s mother and three children, said the family made the offers in January and March.

Boyle would not provide details but said AEG’s insurance would have paid, “which means they could have settled the case without them paying a dime of their money.”

See? Now a settlement would mean AEG to avoid a public trial, what happened behind the scenes would stay private, we would have no idea about how AEG treated Michael, a settlement would mean no admittance of responsibility and according to KJ's own lawyers it would mean nothing would come out of AEG's pocket. Assume that AEG had taken KJ's settlement offer, would you consider that to be "justice" for MJ's death?

I figure you already got that settlement offers and dropping restitution and how they approach to Murray is a sore spot for some members here.

Plus regardless of all the legal costs discussion, everyone thinks Estate would eventually pay her legal costs and costs she incur during this trial is not a factor for KJ. If that's the case, why couldn't her position be "absolutely no settlement offers to AEG, absolutely will reject any and all settlement offers from AEG, don't care about the odds and win or lose I'll follow this through to the end". Now to me that would have fit more to the mother who lost a kid example you gave. But everyone would come to their own conclusion.

 

[Tygger]

Spyce, while some facts have been presented to you in response, the responses also include a personal interpretation of the facts which you may not recognize. This interpretation leans towards a certain point of view. While I do not see that view as incorrect, it leans decidedly against most actions by those who have a direct, familial relationship to Michael and share Michael's last name.

I do not have a distaste for the Jackson family and I have supported the plaintiffs in their civil trial endeavors.

I would like to respond to your question(s) in a separate post by continuing with the facts and clearly stating my view/interpretation of the facts. In this way, you can make your own decision based on the facts, regardless of my views.

 

[Tygger]

Apparently Randy Phillips has become the CEO of Global Entertainment US Division - http://www.billboard.com/biz/articl...r-aeg-live-ceo-randy-phillips-launches-global

By the way: when Phillips was removed from his position as CEO of AEG Live, the post was removed from its original forum (News and/or KJ/AEG forum) and was posted to the The Controversy forum.

Just my view but, as this news is almost two weeks old, I believe this post would be more appropriate in the Controversy forum in case it leads to a discussion.

The link is below:

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...-exec-of-AEG-Live/page2?p=3934065#post3934065

 

[ivy]

^^

that's an archived thread not active for posting though.

 

[passy001]

A lawyer for Michael Jackson’s family said they offered to settle their wrongful-death suit against concert promoter Anschutz Entertainment Group, but that they never got an answer.

Kevin Boyle, an attorney for Jackson’s mother and three children, said the family made the offers in January and March.

Boyle would not provide details but said AEG’s insurance would have paid, “which means they could have settled the case without them paying a dime of their money.”

This is perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this case. the selfish interests were apparent from the get-go. This is what is alienating the fans the most.

See? Now a settlement would mean AEG to avoid a public trial, what happened behind the scenes would stay private, we would have no idea about how AEG treated Michael, a settlement would mean no admittance of responsibility and according to KJ's own lawyers it would mean nothing would come out of AEG's pocket. Assume that AEG had taken KJ's settlement offer, would you consider that to be "justice" for MJ's death?

Well spotted.

This directly contradicts what her lawyers have been arguing in court: they want to know what went down with MJ and seek justice for him.

 

[passy001]

Yes, I read the posts earlier but was not able to respond.

Thank you to everyone who helped to answer my questions- I see now what is going on with the case and why people feel the way they do, on both sides. I was unaware that an over-turned verdict meant you could sue again, and I think that's where a lot of my confusion came in. And knowing that, it does make you see things in a different light. I also knew Katherine lost the lawsuit against AEG, but any details beyond that I knew very little about. It makes sense now that yes, it does seem silly for her to keep pushing this forward. Murray was not hired by AEG, and yes, as passy said, while they treated him horribly, they themselves were not directly responsible for his death. That was Murray. So to overturn the verdict, which offers the chance to sue again, makes sense. Not that I do or don't agree- my opinion doesn't matter- but it does make sense why she is going down that road if it means getting another chance at big money.

Paraphrasing, of course, but that's the understanding I have of what everybody said.

Just a little correction here: i think it's been established by the jury that AEG did in fact hire Conrad Murray. However, the issue is whether AEG should have known that Conrad Murray was incompetent. and the jury found not to be the case. same with the appeals court.