Latest on MJJC

Proposed Verdict Forms by Katherine Jackson and AEG

Status
Not open for further replies.
Do we have any information what was the reason for that meeting? I'm getting those meetings mixed up as I thought that was the time when Joe was worried of the payment. Who was there?
 
^Really elusive, i'm getting my meetings mixed up too as i thought mrs j and joe were trying to get a piece of the aeg tour at least originally in march 09. Joe got together with len rowe demanding mj make him his manager for the tour and mj in fact agreed for about 24 hours before he recanted as i imagine joe must have made it impossible for mj to say no. That is pretty good evidence that the jacksons were not worried about the tii tour, whatever they said later about the schedule - they were just mad they weren't a piece of it and just seemed bothered about mj being paid in euros or £.
 
Last edited:
Er im abit confused now lol. was len rowe the allgood show? or was that someone else
 
These are from MJJ timeline:

April 14 :
Michael has a meeting with Leonard Rowe & Joe Jackson at his home in Beverly Hills and signs the letter addressed to Randy Philips of AEG to advise him that he has appointed Leonard Rowe as his representative.

May 15 :
Michael attends a business meeting at the Beverly Hills Hotel with his parents Joe & Katherine, Randy Philips, his business associate Paul Gongaware and Leonard Rowe

Can someone remain me what happen in those meeting, and which was where Joe asked euros, and which one was when they talked about Allgood?
 
The jacksons were pushing for mj to appoint len rowe as manager so he could get mj on board with the allgood famliy show. But that letter that mj signed in april, was appointing rowe as manager who would financially oversee the 02 shows as well and roger in one of his articles made it clear that joe and len were feeding him info saying they were wanting to take over the 02 tour. That is probably where joe was giving his financial advice about euros. Phillips was alarmed enough by joe and len, to try and recruit dileo to become mj's manager instead. I don't think it was a case of either aeg tour/or allgood deal - i think mj was expected to do both.

Joe and len, and mrs j who were all at these meetings with mj where he signed that letter making len his manager knew full well that mj had a habit of reneging on his agreements (which of course is what happened, mj cancelled that letter days later) and that is why joe suggested mrs j move in with mj into carolwood. He wished to make sure they could retain their influence over mj and make sure mj wasn't going to isolate the family again from his business dealings. Of course after 25 june, joe twisted this in that infamous news of the world interview where he blamed mrs j for mj's death, saying he had wanted mrs j to move into carolwood to look after mj as he was looking ill. It was nothing of the sort - joe was just concerned about keeping mj under the family's thumb.

That's my understanding of it all anyway, it's all confusing to us because it was confusing - everyone as usual trying to get a piece out of mj.
 
I dont know what was specifically talked about bubs at the 2 meetings, it might come out at this trial i imagine, i suppose joe and len were trying to muscle in on the 02 tour. Whatever happened on 14th may it couldn't have gone that well for joe and len as mj wrote a termination letter on 20 may to len saying basically, get lost.

What i wd be confident about is not paying any attention to joe saying post 25 june that it was all concern about mj's health - i'm sure it was all business. Len rowe wrote a book about it all, i've not read it but read some reviews of it.
 
Bonnie Blue said:
I dont know what was specifically talked about bubs at the 2 meetings, it might come out at this trial i imagine, i suppose joe and len were trying to muscle in on the 02 tour. Whatever happened on 14th may it couldn't have gone that well for joe and len as mj wrote a termination letter on 20 may to len saying basically, get lost.

What i wd be confident about is not paying any attention to joe saying post 25 june that it was all concern about mj's health - i'm sure it was all business. Len rowe wrote a book about it all, i've not read it but read some reviews of it.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Don't waste any money on buying his book, when you can read it for free
http://jetzi-mjvideo.com/books-jetzi-04/10wrh/10wrh0a.html
I have to read certain parts of it again as seemingly I've forgotten many things already.
 
Documents on the case are now 6 + days behind. I just got Katherine's objection to AEG's verdict form.

Basically Katherine's side is saying AEG's verdict form is improper and at times leading.

Katherine says there are 4 questions in a negligent hiring claim
1. employee or independent contractor was unfit - incompetent to perform the job they are hired for
2. defendant knew or should have known this
3. employee's incompetence hurt plaintiff
4. defendant's negligence in hiring was substantial factor in causing the harm

They continue to state that jury is not required to answer if there was a written or oral contact (AEG questions 1-4) and judge can just give instructions. similarly they say whether Katherine was dependent on Michael could be addressed in instructions.

Katherine's lawyers argue that some questions AEG had are affirmative defenses (Q6-7 whether AEG knew Murray was unfit and if reasonable person can foresee harm to Michael). Katherine's lawyers call these questions obstacles and imply preference for a particular outcome.

Katherine's lawyers state AEG's form does not include retention and supervision - which are also the claims by Katherine.

This document also shows their disagreements about the allocation of fault section:

Katherine's lawyers state their form has one line for Murray / AEG and another line for Michael Jackson. they state AEG's form does not include Murray and AEG is opposing "Murray / AEG Live" line stating this suggests that AEG is vicariously liable for Murray's actions.

Katherine's lawyers state that
- Murray has to be listed
- AEG's liability is coextensive with Murray's liability (any fault attributable to Murray is attributable to AEG)
- putting AEG and Murray on one line reduces confusion as KJ's lawyers claim AEG's liability and Murray's liability is the same.
- omitting Murray could confuse jury and could make them allocate Murray's fault to someone else
- listing defendants separately should not be done.

AEG and KJ are also having disagreements about
- whether the damages - what is included - should be explained on verdict forms (AEG) or should be explained by judge during instructions (KJ)
- whether to have damages determined all together for all plaintiffs (AEG) or whether they should be determined individually for each plaintiff (KJ)
- KJ's lawyers also state as defendants AEG has no say in how the damages are divided among plaintiffs
 
ivy said:
Documents on the case are now 6 + days behind. I just got Katherine's objection to AEG's verdict form.



This document also shows their disagreements about the allocation of fault section:

Katherine's lawyers state their form has one line for Murray / AEG and another line for Michael Jackson. they state AEG's form does not include Murray and AEG is opposing "Murray / AEG Live" line stating this suggests that AEG is vicariously liable for Murray's actions.

Katherine's lawyers state that
- Murray has to be listed
- AEG's liability is coextensive with Murray's liability (any fault attributable to Murray is attributable to AEG)
- putting AEG and Murray on one line reduces confusion as KJ's lawyers claim AEG's liability and Murray's liability is the same.
- omitting Murray could confuse jury and could make them allocate Murray's fault to someone else
- listing defendants separately should not be done.

AEG and KJ are also having disagreements about
- whether the damages - what is included - should be explained on verdict forms (AEG) or should be explained by judge during instructions (KJ)
- whether to have damages determined all together for all plaintiffs (AEG) or whether they should be determined individually for each plaintiff (KJ)
- KJ's lawyers also state as defendants AEG has no say in how the damages are divided among plaintiffs
Click to expand...

but how can KJ lawyers put "Murray/AEG" line without establishing that Murray worked for AEG. in fact evidence so far show that Murray was not working for AEG. also Murray is not a party to this suit though he could be called to testified by either side. the verdict should focus on the parties at the center of the dispute. if not, then the verdict should also add all those doctors who pumped MJ with drugs over the years. the verdict should also include other factors such as the child molestation trials as another major contributor to MJ increase intake of drugs, which in turn led him to Murray, who eventually finished him off. they should also include all the media lynching on the form as well as all the incompetent staff MJ was surrounded by. how about that?

as for the damage, this is not a class action suit. and the given kj responsibility and life expectancy and other factors, it's not unreasonably for AEG to ask the jury how much damage she might be entitled to.
 
The family want aeg/murray listed together because it obviously effects the jury imo. sering the two as one
 
ivy said:
AEG and KJ are also having disagreements about
- whether the damages - what is included - should be explained on verdict forms (AEG) or should be explained by judge during instructions (KJ)
- whether to have damages determined all together for all plaintiffs (AEG) or whether they should be determined individually for each plaintiff (KJ)
- KJ's lawyers also state as defendants AEG has no say in how the damages are divided among plaintiffs
Click to expand...

I quite don't understand this argument that they have? Both parties has damages put in to their proposed verdict form?
Aren't they argue against themselves in that case?

"KJ's lawyers state that AEG has no say how the damages are divided among plaintiffs."

I think as AEG will be bring in evidence on Katherine that will make her look bad on jurors eyes, lawyers might think that if that is the case, jurors might not award much money to Katherine and award plenty for kids (of course this only applies if AEG loses). It is must that Katherine gets as much money as possible as that is the reason for this case and she got the feed the cubs.
 
elusive moonwalker said:
Im thinking the is kj responsible is more about her pushing mj to do reunion tours asking him for money for the others. i hope the meeting at the hotel gets brought up
Click to expand...

Either of parties haven't got any witnesses regarding Allgood (Patrick A, or Rowe) unless they call out Joe and Katherine when they are called to take a stand.
 
Aeg imo have a say in the damages to kj as they are going to show evidence in relation to kjs age etc. even if they win just going by kjs age her winnings should be far less than the kids .

philips and gongaware are witnesses to that meeting at b.hills.they were there werent they?
 
Yes they were. According to Muzikfactory time line, Jackson's were there to talk MJ to do family thingy and AEG tells them that it ain't going to happen. I suppose RP and PG can testify what was said in that room, and how "worried" (sarcasm) Michael's parent were about their son's health, so much worried that they wanted to do another show on top of 02 concerts (+according to brothers another 50 shows with them was on the works).

I get angry again to Jackson's bs. They go around blaming everyone using MJ, but if MJ had done family concert instead of AEG, then they would have been the ones using MJ, but they don't see it as using MJ, its all for family.

If the worst case scenario happen, I hope Katherine is awarded only 1 dollar bill, and what to do with that $1 bill is not printable and for sensible eyes.
 
Thanks. so imo aeg will use that meeting interms of the verdict form for placing some of the blame on kj. she was pressuring him to do the family show.the lawsuit threats etc. she contributed to his insomnia etc. she was doing exactly what shes accusing aeg of
 
passy001 said:
but how can KJ lawyers put "Murray/AEG" line without establishing that Murray worked for AEG.
Click to expand...

The murray/aeg line is right at the end of the verdict form. If the jurors have got that far it means that they have accepted that murray was negligently hired etc by aeg.

I agree with the jackson lawyers on that. It's ridiculous to have an allocation of fault for mj's death and have mj mentioned and not murray. By just putting aeg live they're trying to minimise murray's involvement. By this stage if the juror's have acknowledged aeg negligently hired murray then they should have murray's name next to aeg. And i think listing gongaware and philips separately to aeg is confusing as well, are they not employees of aeg or are aeg letting them hang in the wind?

ivy said:
This document also shows their disagreements about the allocation of fault section:

Katherine's lawyers state their form has one line for Murray / AEG and another line for Michael Jackson. they state AEG's form does not include Murray and AEG is opposing "Murray / AEG Live" line stating this suggests that AEG is vicariously liable for Murray's actions.
Click to expand...

Thanks ivy for the info, but the jackson verdict form doesn't have an allocation of fault has it? And why haven't the jackson lawyers opposed mrs j being responsible for mj's death - i can't imagine they'd have been thrilled at that inclusion.
 
elusive moonwalker;3809487 said:
Thanks. so imo aeg will use that meeting interms of the verdict form for placing some of the blame on kj. she was pressuring him to do the family show.the lawsuit threats etc. she contributed to his insomnia etc. she was doing exactly what shes accusing aeg of
Click to expand...

I read a couple of the mj chapters in len rowe's book, thanks morinen. Even taking into account it was written post 25 june, len rowe was making it clear that he, joe and mrs j were wanting to get involved in managing mj's involvement in the 02 shows. He actually doesn't mention the allgood deal that much. The lack of concern for mj's health and welfare is far better shown by the jacksons wanting to be involved in the aeg deal with it's 50 concerts rather than the one concert plan for the allgood deal - they can easily and rightly say one concert wouldn't have had the same stress factor as 50 concerts for mj. But in any case, the jacksons claim is that aeg negligently hired a rotten doctor, not that they got mj to agree to a tour, i suppose they wd argue they wd have made sure mj was kept away from dodgy docs if he was on tour with them, idk.

Bubs, Rowe says they had discussions in the may meeting about the 02 tour. For eg, the schedule of 50 concerts, but it seemed mainly about the financial aspects like 'scalping' of tickets and the quite ridiculous request that mj should be paid in £ not $. I assumed this concern was all about the exchange rate that was going to be used by aeg when paying mj, but rowe writes that he was concerned because he knew that £1 = $1.4 and he seems to have made the assumption that aeg was going to be paying mj the same number of $ as they were making in £, so keeping 40% extra. I would have thought it would be impossible for someone to be quite so stupid, but apparently it's not.
 
^^ Yeas, I read those parts too and little more.
He too is talking out of his arse as anyone else in Jackson camp. He wrote his suspicious about film made of rehearsals as he knew that MJ never video taped his rehearsals:)

If its not about family concert that AEG is going to bring up in trial to blame Katherine, but they definitely are going to bring something of Katherine. That line in verdict form is not there for nothing.
 
Bonnie Blue said:
The murray/aeg line is right at the end of the verdict form. If the jurors have got that far it means that they have accepted that murray was negligently hired etc by aeg.

I agree with the jackson lawyers on that. It's ridiculous to have an allocation of fault for mj's death and have mj mentioned and not murray. By just putting aeg live they're trying to minimise murray's involvement. By this stage if the juror's have acknowledged aeg negligently hired murray then they should have murray's name next to aeg. And i think listing gongaware and philips separately to aeg is confusing as well, are they not employees of aeg or are aeg letting them hang in the wind?
Click to expand...

I wonder if this is the reason for Murray's name is not in verdict form:
"Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazuelos' ruling Thursday means that Katherine Jackson will have a trial on her claim that AEG negligently hired and supervised former cardiologist Conrad Murray. The ruling dismisses claims that AEG could be held liable for Murray's conduct and breached its duty to properly care for the pop superstar."

I understand above bolded part that AEG cannot be hold responsible of CM's guiltiness, just hiring him.
 
thanks for that bonnie. so i guess its more about the 02 than the allgood show. finding out what went on at that meeting is the only part,i wont say im looking forward to it but im intrested

Bonnie Blue;3809539 said:
I read a couple of the mj chapters in len rowe's book, thanks morinen. Even taking into account it was written post 25 june, len rowe was making it clear that he, joe and mrs j were wanting to get involved in managing mj's involvement in the 02 shows. He actually doesn't mention the allgood deal that much. The lack of concern for mj's health and welfare is far better shown by the jacksons wanting to be involved in the aeg deal with it's 50 concerts rather than the one concert plan for the allgood deal - they can easily and rightly say one concert wouldn't have had the same stress factor as 50 concerts for mj. But in any case, the jacksons claim is that aeg negligently hired a rotten doctor, not that they got mj to agree to a tour, i suppose they wd argue they wd have made sure mj was kept away from dodgy docs if he was on tour with them, idk.

Bubs, Rowe says they had discussions in the may meeting about the 02 tour. For eg, the schedule of 50 concerts, but it seemed mainly about the financial aspects like 'scalping' of tickets and the quite ridiculous request that mj should be paid in £ not $. I assumed this concern was all about the exchange rate that was going to be used by aeg when paying mj, but rowe writes that he was concerned because he knew that £1 = $1.4 and he seems to have made the assumption that aeg was going to be paying mj the same number of $ as they were making in £, so keeping 40% extra. I would have thought it would be impossible for someone to be quite so stupid, but apparently it's not.
Click to expand...
 
I still do not understand how AEG was supposed to know that Muarry was unfit and would do what he did to Michael, based on the fact that Muarry was in minor debt, a womanizer, and asked for a big salary.

About this part: omitting Murray could confuse jury and could make them allocate Murray's fault to someone else
- listing defendants separately should not be done -- When did muarry become a defendant in this case?
 
Last edited:
Petrarose said:
I still do not understand how AEG was supposed to know that Muarry was unfit and would do what he did to Michael, based on the fact that Muarry was in minor debt, a womanizer, and asked for a big salary.
Click to expand...

Well alot of ppl were saying they were starting to feel concerned bout mjs health aka kenny ortega etc and didnt kenny reach out saying that in emails? if thats true then aeg should've at least look in to the situation and find out what was happening
 
they did. they had that meeting where mj told them he was fine.
 
and MJ's doctor told them that too. You have to be seriously suspicious person if you don't believe what doctor tells you.

Also, if you have no medical experience, how do you go to check some person if something is wrong, especially when doc tells you everything is ok?
 
Bubs said:
I wonder if this is the reason for Murray's name is not in verdict form:
"Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazuelos' ruling Thursday means that Katherine Jackson will have a trial on her claim that AEG negligently hired and supervised former cardiologist Conrad Murray. The ruling dismisses claims that AEG could be held liable for Murray's conduct and breached its duty to properly care for the pop superstar."

I understand above bolded part that AEG cannot be hold responsible of CM's guiltiness, just hiring him.
Click to expand...

The judge here is denying the claim of respondent superior, which is a kind of automatic responsibility of aeg over everything murray did to mj. But in this claim of negligent hiring, if the jurors answered yes to aeg hiring, and supervising and training murray, and that resulted in mj's death , which they would have to have done to get to this part of the verdict form, then they are agreeing that aeg was resp for what murray did to mj. Therefore murray should appear on the blame list next to aeg. How can they just miss out murray's name on a list of people who were resp for mj's death? They've even got separate lines for gongaware and phillips who were definitely employees of aeg.

Petrarose said:
About this part: omitting Murray could confuse jury and could make them allocate Murray's fault to someone else
- listing defendants separately should not be done -- When did muarry become a defendant in this case?
Click to expand...

Welll, around the same time that mj apparently became a defendant in this case, as his name also appears on aeg's allocation of blame.
 
Maybe AEG wants to keep it within the people that are party of this lawsuit?
Gonga, RP and even MJ are party.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top