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

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

@Tygger, then don't accuse me of saying something I didn't.

the draft contract clearly lays out the hiring, it is also very clear it is on behalf and on request of the artist. It clearly lays out how AEG can terminate Murray and how Michael can terminate Murray. No spinning or twisting involved it is there in black and white.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Tygger said:

Perhaps you need to remember the contract was retroactive to May 1st? It was not drafted in April. I do not know why some continually suggest Michael did not have a lawyer at anytime during TII's pre-production. That being said, AEG was the promoter and that is why they tackled the employment issues including the alleged employment of the doctor.

Click to expand...

the only lawyer he had was Dennis Hawk who happened to be Tohme's lawyer. All of the other people Katz, Dileo, Kane and Branca came on board later. Branca was hired only one week before. So Branca was hired to late to be involved in any type of drafting of any contract. Let's not forget that early May Gongaware talked to Murray, Woolley had told Jorrie to draft the contract, Jorrie worked on it and had the first draft ready on June 18 or so. Branca wasn't hired at that time period. And just because someone is a lawyer, it doesn't mean they would have the expertise to do hiring contracts. Dennis Hawk has a small practice and his area of expertise is intellectual property.

I'm thinking MJ's lack of staff and having people being able to handle contract issues was one of the reasons why AEG handled every single one of the contract for TII.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

ivy said:

I'm guessing no one remember Murray's criminal trial? Michael's own actions contributing to his death was always a part of all of the trials. Murray's defense tried to blame Michael with self injection and drinking theories. The jury instructions at the criminal trial also have stated that Murray does not need to be the sole reason, Michael could have played a role. In the criminal trial jury concluded that Murray's actions was a substantial factor.

Click to expand...

The murray trial was about mj dying from the negligent administration of propofol, not mj choosing propofol, or making bad choices, or being negligent in his health care. One of the reasons Dr schaeffer testified was because he wanted to make sure people understood that it wasn't propofol per se, but the gross negligence in administering it was the reason mj died.

ivy said:

Also that affirmative defense would not come into play unless the jury comes back with a verdict favoring Jacksons. If the jury says "no" to any of the first 5 questions, their verdict would mean AEG did not hire Murray or they weren't negligent in the hiring. Only if the jury says yes to the 5 questions and determine AEG has negligently hired Murray, they would assign percentages to the parties.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't. If the jury comes back with a yes to the 5 questions, it's the comparative fault of the decedent, ie that mj contributed to the negligence, that comes into play. It's this that reduces the plaintiff's damages by the percentage of the % of mj's responsibility. This affirmative defence that mj's death was caused by his own negligence is separate. It provides a complete defence to the plaintiff's case that hiring/supervising murray led to mj's death, it's not just a tool to reduce damages.

I also don't get being pro-Jackson and complaining about the percentages part. Jacksons lawyer Panish from his opening statement maintained that there were 3 parties and each shared responsibility. And in his closing he assigned 20% of the responsibility to Michael. So regardless of AEG's win or loss, Jackson lawyers have already put partial responsibility on Michael.

Click to expand...

I wasn't complaining, so not sure if this is directed at me. My issue in my post is how aeg in this trial is attempting to reassign the responsibility between mj and murray for mj's death with their affirmative defence that mj died because of his own negligence, rather than due to what murray did.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Bonnie Blue said:

The murray trial was about mj dying from the negligent administration of propofol, not mj choosing propofol, or making bad choices, or being negligent in his health care. One of the reasons Dr schaeffer testified was because he wanted to make sure people understood that it wasn't propofol per se, but the gross negligence in administering it was the reason mj died.

No it doesn't. If the jury comes back with a yes to the 5 questions, it's the comparative fault of the decedent, ie that mj contributed to the negligence, that comes into play. It's this that reduces the plaintiff's damages by the percentage of the % of mj's responsibility. This affirmative defence that mj's death was caused by his own negligence is separate. It provides a complete defence to the plaintiff's case that hiring/supervising murray led to mj's death, it's not just a tool to reduce damages.

I wasn't complaining, so not sure if this is directed at me. My issue in my post is how aeg in this trial is attempting to reassign the responsibility between mj and murray for mj's death with their affirmative defence that mj died because of his own negligence.

Click to expand...

To me it's all the same difference.

"blame the victim" is a very common defense strategy. for example Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin but his whole defense was blaming the victim. Similarly Jodi Arias shot and killed her boyfriend but her whole defense was blaming her boyfriend. I'm pretty sure neither of the victim families were happy with it as MJ fans aren't happy with blaming of Michael but again it's a common defense strategy.

We saw the same strategy at Murray's criminal trial. They tried to bring in these doctors but it was denied due to the narrow focus of criminal trials. Murray's defense still blamed Michael by claiming he self injected. If successful that trial could have resulted in a verdict of not guilty and meaning putting the blame on Michael. Luckily it did not happen but that's a risk you (generally speaking) are taking in these types of lawsuits.

Also as I said from the criminal trial to the civil trial the position was Michael could have some responsibility in his death. Criminal trial clearly stated this in the jury instructions so did the Jackson lawyers in their opening and closing statements. Also I think public makes up their minds not necessarily based on the verdicts. For example a not guilty verdict in Zimmerman's case did not result in an opinion change in many people in regards to Zimmerman's guilt. The downside for me is the possibility that this jury might put a percentage of responsibility on Michael on the court record and I'm not happy with that. But I feel that is something that the Jacksons knew and went on with this lawsuit regardless. If that's a risk Jacksons are willing to take for truth and justice, I don't understand the complaining (and no not directed to you). Yes that affirmative defense and/or putting a percentage on Michael for his death is not nice but it is the reality of this beast of a trial - and any other trial. Unfortunately blame the victim happens, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't work but regardless it's a risk you take when you go into these types of trials.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

I find it very worrying Murray's contract could be terminated if the first show wasn't performed on the 13th of July.


*did this happen or did I dream it to be a part of the contract?*

I think what Kathy Jorrie said its telling. She testified that AEG could fire Murray at any time that did not require MJs consent. I still think its a legit question to ask if MJ was solely Murrays employee then why could AEG fire him without MJs approval?

dam2040;3911554 said:

I find it very worrying Murray's contract could be terminated if the first show wasn't performed on the 13th of July.


*did this happen or did I dream it to be a part of the contract?*

Click to expand...

This is what the Jacksons wrote in their lawsuit

"Unless Jackson got to rehearsals, the shows would be cancelled and Murray’s employment would be terminated". “Murray was to perform the services as AEG directed, and Michael Jackson had no right to terminate the Agreement. It was AEG who directed, controlled, oversaw, and supervised Murray’s services.”

"AEG could fire Murray if MJ did not perform to their liking".

“It was Murray’s job to ensure Jackson was at rehearsals, and Murray was to attend rehearsals with Jackson.”

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

So, I'm really torn with what I think, after watching all the closing arguments and everything it's just left me thinking Michael could have been a drug addict.....I don't think he did it to get high, but I do think he was addicted. I'm really not sure what to think anymore.

Jw224;3911560 said:

So, I'm really torn with what I think, after watching all the closing arguments and everything it's just left me thinking Michael could have been a drug addict.....I don't think he did it to get high, but I do think he was addicted. I'm really not sure what to think anymore.

Click to expand...

<!-- google_ad_section_start(name=default) -->Michael Jackson, The Addict ?



Being an an addict or drug dependent person doesn't mean the person is always a practicing addict or using and taking drugs. It Just means they have addiction or dependency health issues and can easily relapse back into that behaviour. Addiction is an illness, not a question of ones character.

Michael himself admitted he had a problem with addiction and dependency in 1993 and with the help of his good friend Elizabeth Taylor checked into a rehabilitation center.

Sadly MJ would never be afforded the opportunity to attend a 12 step program group or similar programs to continue therapy and help . (He was too famous to have privacy in doing that) But one of the Drs' testified that Michael was given and following a 12 step program along with his narcan implant and he said it was helping him at that time.

We heard from several Doctors that Michael reached out for help and didn't want to be dependent on these pain medications. We know he wasn't always taking these drugs and was successful many times in getting free from them. but the sad truth is, because of his Great fame he wasn't able to get the proper help that is afforded to so many millions of others who also suffer from addiction or dependency. He was alone in fighting his battles. Michael said sometimes he felt like the loneliest person in this world. I believe he was most of the time, because of his great fame, he was alienated from the world and so many things we take for granted.

Based on evidence presented, Michael wasn't abusing pain medications in the later years of his life and at death his autopsy didn't show any signs of abuse from prescription drugs or any recreational drugs.

Regardless this has NOTHING to do with who he was as a person, as a humanitarian, Great artist and entertainer. With all the trials and tribulation he faced these are indeed awesome accomplishments, which should be awarded, lauded and applauded.

Michael Jackson was a very kind, generous, gentle, genius and artist. The best entertainer to ever grace this planet with with childlike heart of gold to match... and truth be told, The World at large Loves Michael Jackson and always will.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

I think it could go either way. I don't think it's clear cut because of things said and done by AEG.I know it confuses me. I don't believe they knew about the propofol. I think it was only Michael and Murray who did. If Murray wasn't making Michael sick then Michael would still be here and I believe he could have done those concerts. I am not blaming Michael but I do wish that somehow he could have seen that Murray was the wrong guy to help him. For me this trial doesn't change how I feel about Murray. I will always hold him responsible for what happened to Michael.

LastTear;3911540 said:

@Tygger, then don't accuse me of saying something I didn't.

the draft contract clearly lays out the hiring, it is also very clear it is on behalf and on request of the artist. It clearly lays out how AEG can terminate Murray and how Michael can terminate Murray. No spinning or twisting involved it is there in black and white.

Click to expand...

Last Tear, do you want to clear this circular discussion by showing exactly what words of yours I twisted or would you prefer to continue?

The draft clearly states Michael could not terminate the doctor. Do you remember Michael terminating Tohme? Did he submit a grievance to AEG first or did he terminate Tohme directly? AEG was the only party who could terminate the doctor. Michael had to go through AEG to terminate the services of his own personal doctor. Just repeating &#8220;Michael could terminate the doctor&#8221; does not change the contract or what it states.

ivy;3911541 said:

the only lawyer he had was Dennis Hawk who happened to be Tohme's lawyer. All of the other people Katz, Dileo, Kane and Branca came on board later. Branca was hired only one week before. So Branca was hired to late to be involved in any type of drafting of any contract. Let's not forget that early May Gongaware talked to Murray, Woolley had told Jorrie to draft the contract, Jorrie worked on it and had the first draft ready on June 18 or so. Branca wasn't hired at that time period. And just because someone is a lawyer, it doesn't mean they would have the expertise to do hiring contracts. Dennis Hawk has a small practice and his area of expertise is intellectual property.

I'm thinking MJ's lack of staff and having people being able to handle contract issues was one of the reasons why AEG handled every single one of the contract for TII.

Click to expand...

Ivy, let me see if I understand. Branca was hired a week before Michael&#8217;s passing? The first draft was ready June 18th? Branca was not &#8220;ready&#8221; to review it until after the doctor signed it a week later? Not exact a rush job was it? The doctor started his general care May first with no contract or payment. He already waited two months; he could continue until the contract was beneficial to all parties.

I believe AEG tackled this particular contract because they wanted control of the doctor. He was needed to get Michael&#8217;s medical records for insurance. Nowhere in 7.3 does it state Michael can terminate the doctor on his own. He had to go through AEG to terminate his own personal doctor. Why do you think that was? AEG protected their own interest.

Vici;3911559 said:

I think what Kathy Jorrie said its telling. She testified that AEG could fire Murray at any time that did not require MJs consent. I still think its a legit question to ask if MJ was solely Murrays employee then why could AEG fire him without MJs approval?

This is what the Jacksons wrote in their lawsuit

"Unless Jackson got to rehearsals, the shows would be cancelled and Murray&#8217;s employment would be terminated". &#8220;Murray was to perform the services as AEG directed, and Michael Jackson had no right to terminate the Agreement. It was AEG who directed, controlled, oversaw, and supervised Murray&#8217;s services.&#8221;

"AEG could fire Murray if MJ did not perform to their liking".

&#8220;It was Murray&#8217;s job to ensure Jackson was at rehearsals, and Murray was to attend rehearsals with Jackson.&#8221;

Click to expand...

Agreed and I believe as I replied to Ivy above, it was to protect their own interest. Notice when Michael wants to terminate his own doctor, he has to alert AEG and they terminate the doctor. Why? AEG does not have to alert Michael if they want to terminate the doctor.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

I have a question. If by any unknown reason the jurors decide AEG hired Murray, can Murray later sue them for unpaid employment?

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

MJ could simply stop using Murray at any time, he just needed to inform AEG as they were to be dealing with his payments/advance. And he did use Gonga to fire Grace even though he wasn't his employee. I don't see the big deal.

Frankly I wish AEG would've fired Murray. Could've saved MJ's life. But does anyone really see this happening without MJ's approval? I personally don't.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Aquarius said:

I have a question. If by any unknown reason the jurors decide AEG hired Murray, can Murray later sue them for unpaid employment?

Click to expand...

I do not believe so. The indemnity clause in the employment contract would protect them. They are trying to use the indemnity clause now yet, maintain they did not hire the doctor and the employment contract is not enforceable. It is a double standard.

serendipity said:

MJ could simply stop using Murray at any time, he just needed to inform AEG as they were to be dealing with his payments/advance. And he did use Gonga to fire Grace even though he wasn't his employee. I don't see the big deal.

Frankly I wish AEG would've fired Murray. Could've saved MJ's life. But does anyone really see this happening without MJ's approval? I personally don't.

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

xosweetseducingsighsxo said:

Okay, I'm gonna take that as a compliment, as I can't understand your tone here. Don't know if you're agreeing or if it's sarcasm :blush: if it's agreeing then that's cool, but if it isn't:



Being an MJ fan has absolutely nothing to do with thinking the Jacksons are bad and just as liable as AEG. It's about being an MJ fan. Just Michael's. It's not required to be a Jackson family fan if you love ONLY Michael. Just like it wouldn't be required to love Left Eye or Chilli if you love T-Boz from TLC ONLY. Same as it wouldn't be required to love Beyonce or Kelly if I loved only Michelle. Don't get mad at me or anyone else who feels the same way's opinion.

In my opinion, yes they are just as liable as AEG. Nothing is gonna change my opinion at all. They're all guilty in my eyes. I can't speak for everyone else.

Lemme guess? Because I can't stand the other Jacksons I'm not an MJ fan?

Since when on earth did that make sense? Please enlighten me.

But once again, ^ the above is only if you meant it other than agreeing.

Click to expand...

I am surprised you thought maybe I was being sarcastic but just to set the record straight--I was agreeing with you.

Tygger;3911573 said:

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.

Click to expand...

All MJ had to do was not let Murray treat him anymore. AEG and nobody else could make him continue to see Murray professionally if he didn&#8217;t want to.

Just as it&#8217;s been stressed that although an agreement hadn&#8217;t been signed, since Murray was acting as his doctor, he was therefore considered engaged. If MJ didn&#8217;t let his crazy butt near him anymore, he would be disengaged. It&#8217;s that simple. His services would be terminated by MJ&#8217;s action of not letting him treat him anymore. It could be followed by a formal termination, but MJ had the ability to end Murray&#8217;s services for &#8220;any reason&#8221; anytime HE desired.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

What I can't understand is how being paid 150k/mo (esp. when you are broke and in debt)is an incentive to murder your one patient. To me, that amt of $$ would be a great incentive to keep that one patient alive (and your paycheck still coming). All this 'conflict of interest" does not make sense to me. CM had a good reason to keep MJ alive and well. Against his own best interests he did not do so.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

jamba said:

What I can't understand is how being paid 150k/mo (esp. when you are broke and in debt)is an incentive to murder your one patient. To me, that amt of $$ would be a great incentive to keep that one patient alive (and your paycheck still coming). All this 'conflict of interest" does not make sense to me. CM had a good reason to keep MJ alive and well. Against his own best interests he did not do so.

Click to expand...

He also had good reason to keep Michael happy, he wasn't going to say no to him, for fear of losing his job. That's what I think.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

^ ^ He blew up the chance of a life time to get rid of his economical problems BIG TIME, he went full retard and I second jamba it doesn't make sense CM incompetence knowing he had a great incentive.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

jamba said:

I am surprised you thought maybe I was being sarcastic but just to set the record straight--I was agreeing with you.

Click to expand...

Ohhh...okay :blush: sorry, it's just I normally get sarcasm. Haha thanks

gerryevans;3911580 said:

All MJ had to do was not let Murray treat him anymore. AEG and nobody else could make him continue to see Murray professionally if he didn&#8217;t want to.

Just as it&#8217;s been stressed that although an agreement hadn&#8217;t been signed, since Murray was acting as his doctor, he was therefore considered engaged. If MJ didn&#8217;t let his crazy butt near him anymore, he would be disengaged. It&#8217;s that simple. His services would be terminated by MJ&#8217;s action of not letting him treat him anymore. It could be followed by a formal termination, but MJ had the ability to end Murray&#8217;s services for &#8220;any reason&#8221; anytime HE desired.

Click to expand...

stop it, you are making way too much sense.

jamba;3911584 said:

What I can't understand is how being paid 150k/mo (esp. when you are broke and in debt)is an incentive to murder your one patient. To me, that amt of $$ would be a great incentive to keep that one patient alive (and your paycheck still coming). All this 'conflict of interest" does not make sense to me. CM had a good reason to keep MJ alive and well. Against his own best interests he did not do so.

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

I think there also may be an analogy here concerning sports teams, and doctors. I've done a bit of research on this (maybe will post links later), but basically this is a gray area in terms of responsibilities. And yes, in many ways, Michael was an "athlete" (but not a "team"). With sports team doctors, their roles are conflicted. They are paid by the companies that support/own the teams, but as doctors, their responsibilities -- according to the Hippocratic Oath, are to their patients. . the members of the team. That is a conflict, in that they are supposed to care for the individuals on the team, but also feel a lot of pressure from the "company" to get the players to. . . perform. So if an athlete is injured, the doctor might want to say, "Do NOT play this next game." But yet the pressure from the owners of the team might be the opposite. My opinion is that Murray was in an in-between condition, hired by BOTH Michael, and AEG. This is for the jury to sort out, and good luck to them?

gerryevans;3911580 said:

His services would be terminated by MJ&#8217;s action of not letting him treat him anymore. It could be followed by a formal termination, but MJ had the ability to end Murray&#8217;s services for &#8220;any reason&#8221; anytime HE desired.

Click to expand...

Gerryevans, even in your scenario, Michael cannot formally terminate the doctor. The doctor would continue to be paid his fee of $150K until Michael submitted a grievance to AEG first and then AEG would released him.

Based on the contract the doctor signed, Michael could not terminate the doctor. You cannot terminate someone you did not hire.

ivy;3911592 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Ivy, it is truly amazing how you can discuss conflict of interest without mention AEG at all. You even suggested Michael caused the conflict.

Jamba, Jw224, SnowWhiteLuvsPeterPan, doctors take an oath to do no harm; the patient must come first. Anytime any doctor puts anything before his patient, he/she is conflicted.

In this instance, he was allegedly employed by AEG and tasked to ensure Michael appeared at rehearsal. If he was not successful in getting Michael to rehearsal, he was not going to receive his monthly fee. The doctor put his salary before Michael. Even if Michael received the best care in the world from the doctor, the doctor would still be conflicted. He would give whatever care would give him the desired result of Michael appearing at rehearsal (what his alleged employer tasked him with) which would guarantee his $150K fee. This put Michael at a clear disadvantage.

AutumnII, I agree with your sports analogy. What happened here is very much akin to what happens in the sports world. This is why the plaintiffs had Matheson testify about conflicts of interest. I remember some posters complaining why this expert was called although they may not have understood why.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

The contract seems clear to me, that Michael COULD terminate the doctor. That is how the contract actually reads, or at least, that is my opinion of how I'd read that. . . .

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Autumn II said:

The contract seems clear to me, that Michael COULD terminate the doctor. That is how the contract actually reads, or at least, that is my opinion of how I'd read that. . . .

Click to expand...

Only if he submits a grievance to AEG first then, they will terminate the doctor.

Why is it difficult for some posters to accept that Michael had to go through AEG to terminate his own personal doctor? Is it because we ourselves would not feel comfortable in that position? Is it because it seems AEG sought to protect themselves before Michael's health?

Please explain.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Tygger said:

Only if he submits a grievance to AEG first then, they will terminate the doctor.

Why is it difficult for some posters to accept that Michael had to go through AEG to terminate his own personal doctor? Is it because we ourselves would not feel comfortable in that position? Is it because it seems AEG sought to protect themselves before Michael's health?

Please explain.

Click to expand...

I don't dispute that AEG chose to protect themselves before Michael's health. I think they DID, actually, as the corporation that they are. But in truth, the explanation about "termination" is in the language of the contract, that if Michael chose to terminate the doctor, that was final. There is no clause or language in the contract that states that AEG could "negotiate" Michael's wishes, or over-rule them. If he wanted the doctor terminated, it is in the contract, as written, that he could have done that.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Tygger said:

Only if he submits a grievance to AEG first then, they will terminate the doctor.

Why is it difficult for some posters to accept that Michael had to go through AEG to terminate his own personal doctor? Is it because we ourselves would not feel comfortable in that position? Is it because it seems AEG sought to protect themselves before Michael's health?

Please explain.

Click to expand...

You are asking the wrong question. and spamming the thread to death won't help because you refuse to read the facts presented to you.

section 7.3 of the contract clearly states,in no ambiguous terms, that MJ had the AUTHORITY to disengage Murray at any time for any reason. It does not matter whether AEG was executing the order or not. the bottom line is MJ was the trigger. It was up to MJ to have Murray treat him. It was up to MJ to get rid of him and find someone else.

Another thing you seem to conveniently forget is that Murray's salary, although was to be advanced by AEG, was ultimately going to be paid by MJ. he was going to bear those costs in the end. not AEG. which means you can't pay someone salary if you don't hire them.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Autumn II said:

But in truth, the explanation about "termination" is in the language of the contract, that if Michael chose to terminate the doctor, that was final. There is no clause or language in the contract that states that AEG could "negotiate" Michael's wishes, or over-rule them. If he wanted the doctor terminated, it is in the contract, as written, that he could have done that.

Click to expand...

Not without submitting his grievance to AEG first! Why are some posters so resistant to admit Michael could only terminate the doctor through AEG? He could not terminate the doctor on his own.

Passy001, when in doubt be rude, eh?

I am not asking the wrong question, however it is an uncomfortable one so I understand the resistance.

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 clause is written clearly in 7.3 however, that is not preventing you or others from ignoring it. If it makes you and others feel better about the situation, you can believe Michael could terminate the doctor independently. It will not change the fact that Michael could only terminate that doctor through AEG.

It does matter that AEG could terminate the doctor because it speaks to who hired him. You most certainly can pay another's salary without hiring them. You cannot terminate someone you did not hire.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

The contract as written says nothing about a "grievance." It SAYS, if Michael wanted to terminate the doctor, AEG would do so, according to Michael's wishes. That is how the language reads. It reads, that if Michael had wanted him terminated, that was exactly what would happen. AEG would do the logistics of the termination, but that choice rested with Michael, clearly.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

AutumnII, grievance only means complaint.

Even in your explanation, Michael must alert AEG before the doctor could be terminated. Michael could not terminate the doctor independently like any one of us, only through AEG as per this contract.

It seems many of you do understand, it just sounds better and maybe more comforting when it seems Michael has more control. However, it does not change the contract meaning. AEG is the only party who has the authority to terminate the doctor. Michael must go through AEG to terminate his own personal doctor.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

@Tygger, I don't need to point anything out to you, we can both read. Let's just moved on.

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

This is guess work, I suggest that clause 7.3 was changed on a legal technicality, as AEG is advancing the money they would need to make the formal arrangements for terminating the contract perhaps idk but I think there is a reason why the clause was changed but I don't believe it was a sinister one.

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. And of course, he was always free to refuse treatment, unless it is to be believed that Michael could have been held down and pumped full of meds against his will.

IMO the only person whose negligence caused Michael death was Murray. It ends there for me.