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

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Tygger 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...

You are mistaken. How does AEG Live terminating their advance payment stop Murray performing services for Michael? He could always invoice Michael, he's a doctor and NOT an employee of AEG Live. If anything Murray is an independant contractor.

dam2040 said:

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

Click to expand...

Why? AEG Live only had an interest to loan Michael the money IF Michael was fulfilling his tour obligations aka performing concerts on schedule.

Tygger said:

Why is AEG protecting the advancement? What is the danger AEG is protecting their advancement from? Would they not recoup the monies from Michael?

Click to expand...

You can't see it? I'll help you:
Recouping the money from Michael who was short in the ready and deep in dept is not an adequate option. It could take years to get back the money. Being in the right and getting justice are two different things.

Tygger said:

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.

Click to expand...

See? You don't understand this one. Though you highlighted "by producer", your argumentation reveals that it is the "immediately" that had you caught.
Try to understand it:
Who can terminate Murray from performing services?
Who can terminate Murray from receiving advancement payments?
In which order does that happen?
["immediately" combined with "if" - a condition to be fulfilled first - should tell you this)

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

That means only you personally can

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

And yet the contract has this:

if the Artist decides for any reason that the Artist no longer wants or needs the services of Dr. Murray

Click to expand...

You don't see the word "terminate", right?
Is that word needed to understand what is written here? If I don't longer want or need "the services of my doctor", how do you call that?
Colloquially you'd say "I dropped my doctor" or "I let my doctor go". How do you call that formally?

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Tygger said:

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.

Click to expand...

That's because it's not true. A boss tells one of his executives I want that person fired. The person is fired. He's fired because of the ORDER he's given. The boss isn't consulting with the executive. He's giving him a direct order. MJ wouldn't need to consult with AEG. He would tell them what he wants done, and they would execute his wishes.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

In terminating the doctor, Michael didn't have to explain himself to anyone, or submit a "grievance," or "complaint" to AEG. Leaving the topic of Michael having the right to "terminate" his doctor alone now. (the other word for that is FIRE the doctor!) Ah, yes, on to verdict-watch again?

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

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

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

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

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

ivy said:

stop it, you are making way too much sense.



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

So it becomes like this, all parties wanted Michael to be healthy so that he can do a long -even a world - tour, that way everyone would make money - so everyone had the same interests. Michael asks for Propofol for sleep, Murray says yes to keep Michael happy and keep his job. Michael begins to deteriorate. AEG asks what is going on, Murray and Michael tells AEG everything is okay as neither of them wants AEG to cancel the tour. So there's some conflict but I don't think that conflict would go away if AEG wasn't involved in the hiring.

Click to expand...

ok, I get the CM says yes to MJ's request for propofol to keep his job, but why give it in the terribly sliposhod, careless way he did--that was what directly killed MJ, obviously (although the extended propofol use was causing a physical and mental decline and may have ultimately killed him later on). CM claims he stopped giving propofol the last 2 nights before the 24th, so that would suggest he was able to say no and that MJ agreed to no propofol. MJ was in this man's hands as far as his medical care. I can't get around the fact that CM was an unethical, irresponsible dr. and these disastrous flaws were his responsibility alone.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

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

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

gerryevans said:

That's because it's not true. A boss tells one of his executives I want that person fired. The person is fired. He's fired because of the ORDER he's given. The boss isn't consulting with the executive. He's giving him a direct order. MJ wouldn't need to consult with AEG. He would tell them what he wants done, and they would execute his wishes.

Click to expand...

Exactly. MJ didn't need AEG's permission to fire Murray, he just needed to inform them so they could stop paying him because he no longer needs his services. He could dismiss him at any time he wanted.

Michael wanted propofol and Murray agreed to give it to him.
I don´t understand why Murray also gave the other medicins to sleep on.
If Michael wanted propofol..well Murray bought a lot of the other drugs too.
I wonder if they tried night after night with the other drugs and maybe there were other nights where Michael managed to sleep without propofol.
Otherwise wouldn´t it have been safer if Michael only got propofol?
As far as I know noone knows exactly why Michael deteriorated it doesn´t have to be propofol, it could be the other drugs or it could be mental.
I wish there existed a truth serum they could give Murray, then Michael´s mother would know more about what happened to her son.

LastTear;3911673 said:

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

Click to expand...

Always best to move on when you cannot prove your argument.

Michael still had the power to terminate Murray, he didn't even have to put anything in writing or give a reason, just give AEG the nod.

Click to expand...

According to 7.3, he had to give a reason. Regardless of what that reason may have been, which would most likely be a grievance/complaint, it would have to be given first before AEG would terminate the doctor.

Korgnex;3911689 said:

You are mistaken. How does AEG Live terminating their advance payment stop Murray performing services for Michael? He could always invoice Michael, he's a doctor and NOT an employee of AEG Live. If anything Murray is an independant contractor.

Click to expand...

Krognex, the contract is an employment contract for an independent contractor. If AEG was to terminate the doctor, the doctor would not receive his fee of $150K. Where would he then get that amount or any amount near that number from if he decided to continue treating Michael as you say?

You can't see it? I'll help you:
Recouping the money from Michael who was short in the ready and deep in dept is not an adequate option. It could take years to get back the money. Being in the right and getting justice are two different things.

Click to expand...

That did not help. Michael’s assets guaranteed AEG would recoup pre-production costs. It does not matter what length of time this multi-billion dollar company would wait to get the monies.

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

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

Is that word needed to understand what is written here? If I don't longer want or need "the services of my doctor", how do you call that?

Click to expand...

You have shown that the doctor’s termination is conditional by highlighting “if.” Contracts are written specifically for this very reason: prevention of misinterpretation or re-interpretation.

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

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

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

gerryevans;3911690 said:

MJ wouldn't need to consult with AEG. He would tell them what he wants done, and they would execute his wishes.

Click to expand...

Gerryevans, 7.3 proves it is fact Michael has to go through AEG to terminate the doctor. You suggest a scenario that does not apply to this situation. Michael was not AEG’s employer. You contradict yourself in your last two sentences posted above. Michael has to contact AEG first before the doctor is terminated.

Autumn II;3911790 said:

In terminating the doctor, Michael didn't have to explain himself to anyone, or submit a "grievance," or "complaint" to AEG. Leaving the topic of Michael having the right to "terminate" his doctor alone now. (the other word for that is FIRE the doctor!) Ah, yes, on to verdict-watch again?

Click to expand...

Autumn II, simply repeating Michael can terminate the doctor without going through AEG first does not make it so. This will be the second day of repeating clause 7.3. Personally, I would like to read an explanation on how to answer no to question three on the verdict form.

Bubs;3911822 said:

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

Click to expand...

Bubs, AEG had eight options listed which allowed them to terminate the doctor if you have seen them. Only one, 7.3, allowed Michael to go through AEG to terminate the doctor. The others you mentioned were independent contractors hired by AEG and would be terminated by AEG.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

@Tygger

Always best to move on when you cannot prove your argument.

Click to expand...

LOL I don't need to prove anything, the proof is in the posts, I'm just trying to get off the merry-go-round and not derail the thread.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Last Tear, as you say.

Tygger said:

ivy 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.

Click to expand...

Ivy, my original response was slightly edited so allow me to rephrase: is there another angle to conflicted interest in this situation for you which would include AEG?

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

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

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

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

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

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

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

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

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Autumn II said:

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

Click to expand...

It resumes on Tuesday

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Jw224 said:

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

Click to expand...

You are not misunderstanding.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Autumn II said:

You are not misunderstanding.

Click to expand...

Good, so the person that is arguing with people is kind of misunderstanding what everyone else is saying lol.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Autumn II said:

He just had to TELL AEG that Murray was fired, and then AEG would do whatever they had to do, technically, to fire him (such as whatever notification of Murray needed to be made, and whatever paperwork there may have been to complete.)

Click to expand...

Is that not going through AEG to terminate the doctor? It does not matter how many variations there are to say it, it will not change the fact that Michael had to go through AEG to terminate the doctor.

Korgnex said:

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

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

Click to expand...

Interesting. Do you believe 7.3 is too vague? I do not. I have consistently repeated that Michael could not terminate the doctor without going through AEG.

Jw224 said:

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

Click to expand...

You are not confused and I, the person, am not misunderstanding. Michael has to go through AEG to terminate the doctor and some were very resistant to that fact. However, many are repeating now because there is no way around it.

What you and others are witnessing actually is what Putnam did during his closing. It is not what is said but, how it is said.

When I say it, the vocal plaintiff supporter, it sounds as if Michael does not have enough authority over the termination of his doctor because he has to go through the third party and that makes AEG seem sinister.

When others say it, Michael has authority to terminate the doctor and going through AEG - which is what the contract dictated he had to do - is just as a pesky technicality and no serious issue.

See the difference? Same statement, different emotions evoked depending on how it is said and who says it.

The fact remains: Michael had to go through AEG to terminate the doctor. He could not terminate the doctor independently in that contract.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Tygger said:

You are not confused and I, the person, am not misunderstanding. Michael has to go through AEG to terminate the doctor and some were very resistant to that fact. However, many are repeating now because there is no way around it.

What you and others are witnessing actually is what Putnam did during his closing. It is not what is said but, how it is said.

When I say it, the vocal plaintiff supporter, it sounds as if Michael does not have enough authority over the termination of his doctor and seems sinister. When others say it, Michael has authority to terminate the doctor and going through AEG - which is what the contract dictated he had to do - is just as a pesky technicality and no serious issue.

See the difference? Same statement, different emotions evoked depending on how it is said.

The fact remains: Michael had to go through AEG to terminate the doctor. He could not terminate the doctor independently in that contract.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I suppose it just depends on your opinion of the whole situation.

MIST;3911909 said:

Michael wanted propofol and Murray agreed to give it to him.
I don´t understand why Murray also gave the other medicins to sleep on.
If Michael wanted propofol..well Murray bought a lot of the other drugs too.
I wonder if they tried night after night with the other drugs and maybe there were other nights where Michael managed to sleep without propofol.
Otherwise wouldn´t it have been safer if Michael only got propofol?
As far as I know noone knows exactly why Michael deteriorated it doesn´t have to be propofol, it could be the other drugs or it could be mental.
I wish there existed a truth serum they could give Murray, then Michael´s mother would know more about what happened to her son.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is hard to figure out what CM was doing--he ordered 120 vials of propofol, but then also vials of lorazepam and midazolam (80 vials combined). This is what the autopsy found in his syatem:

"The county coroner stated that Jackson died from the combination of drugs in his body, with the most significant drugs being the anesthetic propofol and the anxiolytic lorazepam. Less significant drugs found in Jackson's body were midazolam, diazepam, lidocaine and ephedrine." (from wikipedia)

I read a comment that the ephedrine was also ordered by CM and that ephedrine has a side effect of insomnia (!). The other sedatives may have been used alternately with propofol--or in some way so that the REM sleep MJ needed would be gotten through the sedatives (not the anesthetic). CM was concoting a nightmare of drugs and kept no records so only he knows what he did and we will never get the truth from him, only a CYA attempt.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

@Tygger, It does sound sinister the way you say it because it sound like Michael had no choice but to have Murray treating him.

Michael was was free to refuse Murray's services anytime he liked, in order for the contract to be terminated and Murray not get paid AEG had to deal with the official paperwork side of things.

******************

Somehow I think the jury is not having this argument, hopefully they are more productive.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

jamba said:

Yes, it is hard to figure out what CM was doing--he ordered 120 vials of propofol, but then also vials of lorazepam and midazolam (80 vials combined). This is what the autopsy found in his syatem:

"The county coroner stated that Jackson died from the combination of drugs in his body, with the most significant drugs being the anesthetic propofol and the anxiolytic lorazepam. Less significant drugs found in Jackson's body were midazolam, diazepam, lidocaine and ephedrine." (from wikipedia)

I read a comment that the ephedrine was also ordered by CM and that ephedrine has a side effect of insomnia (!). The other sedatives may have been used alternately with propofol--or in some way so that the REM sleep MJ needed would be gotten through the sedatives (not the anesthetic). CM was concoting a nightmare of drugs and kept no records so only he knows what he did and we will never get the truth from him, only a CYA attempt.

Click to expand...

yep! he intentionally never kept one record when it came to this concoction of horrors he was doing,, he kept records of MJ in 2006-2008 when he treated MJ for the prostate issue but not one note or word in regards to this propofol nightmare and that's because he knew what he was doing was dumb, stupid and unethical

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

dont know if this was posted before:

In this episode Black Hollywood Live hosts Eboni K. Williams and Mari Fagel discuss legal cases for the week of September 27th, 2013.-> its the first 12 minutes...Panish will be interviewd after the verdict

qbee;3911563 said:

<!-- google_ad_section_start(name=default) -->[h=2]Michael Jackson, The Addict ?[/h]

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.

They drew a Line to shut him out - Heretic , rebel, a thing to flout.
But love and he had the wit to win: He drew a circle and took them In"


Paraphrased From the poem " Outwitted”


~ Edwin Markham​

Click to expand...

Love your post qbee, so very true.

MIST;3910643 said:

You can also reverse it and say how can people defend Michael´s mother and siblings on a Michael Jackson forum, after all things they have done.
No side is on Michael´s side.

Click to expand...

that was happening a lot when Michael was alive too, it was breaking my heart

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Jw224 said:

Yeah, I suppose it just depends on your opinion of the whole situation.

Click to expand...

I believe it depends more on one's opinion of the plaintiffs and the defendants.

LastTear said:

@Tygger, It does sound sinister the way you say it because it sound like Michael had no choice but to have Murray treating him.

Michael was was free to refuse Murray's services anytime he liked, in order for the contract to be terminated and Murray not get paid AEG had to deal with the official paperwork side of things.

******************

Somehow I think the jury is not having this argument, hopefully they are more productive.

Click to expand...

Another post stating it is only a pesky technicality.

Clause 7.3 is what it is. If it offends you Last Tear and anyone when I, a Jackson supporter, repeated the clause ad nauseum and you find something sinister in my repetition of the clause as it is in the contract, it is your perception that I have no control over. Perception does not change the clause.

I do believe the jurors are more productive. They should not have a bias against the plaintiffs or the defendants so they will take that clause simply as it is.

One more time: Michael could not terminate the doctor without going through AEG as per the contract.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Tygger said:

One more time: Michael could not terminate the doctor without going through AEG as per the contract.

Click to expand...

Yeah, we know. I don't know why you keep saying that....he had to say to AEG when he wanted Murray fired, and they would fire him.

Tygger;3911911 said:

Gerryevans, 7.3 proves it is fact Michael has to go through AEG to terminate the doctor. You suggest a scenario that does not apply to this situation. Michael was not AEG&#8217;s employer. You contradict yourself in your last two sentences posted above. Michael has to contact AEG first before the doctor is terminated.

Click to expand...

One more time: Michael could not terminate the doctor without going through AEG as per the contract.

Click to expand...

And one more time, that is not true. And the situation I cited is similar in that AEG took direction from MJ as to who and what he wanted for his show. If he no longer wanted Murray, there would be no Murray. After all, Michael was inevitably paying for him.

MJ didn&#8217;t have to consult AEG or go through them. He had to tell AEG he was terminating Murray because they were the ones currently making payment to him, and they had to know when they should stop making payments. It&#8217;s no different than that fired employee then being contacted by the HR department for his exit package and final check. The final payment arrangement is what formalizes the termination. Just like a signature &#8220;formalizes&#8221; a contract. But the moment MJ might have decided he no longer wanted Murray, was the moment his services were terminated.

And I think this situation is sad enough without it being said MJ didn&#8217;t even have the free will to stop Murray from treating him if he wanted to unless he went through AEG.

gerryevans;3911983 said:

MJ didn&#8217;t have to consult AEG or go through them. He had to tell AEG he was terminating Murray because they were the ones currently making payment to him, and they had to know when they should stop making payments. It&#8217;s no different than that fired employee then being contacted by the HR department for his exit package and final check. The final payment arrangement is what formalizes the termination. Just like a signature &#8220;formalizes&#8221; a contract. But the moment MJ might have decided he no longer wanted Murray, was the moment his services were terminated.

And I think this situation is sad enough without it being said MJ didn&#8217;t even have the free will to stop Murray from treating him if he wanted to unless he went through AEG.

Click to expand...

I have already debunked the HR example.

What seems to confuse some of these arguments is you prefer to minimize why Michael has to go through AEG to deflect that he should not have to go through AEG at all.

AEG inserted themselves into the doctor-patient relationship and that is why Michael had to go through AEG to terminate the doctor as per the contract. That is a conflict of interest that very few seem to want to acknowledge.

This is why no one responded about how they would feel if they had to do what Michael had to do as per this contract because it stings. Attempting to make the sting hurt less does not remove the sting. Giving examples outside of the confines of the contract - Michael could stop treatment - does not change the fact that Michael had to go through AEG to terminate the doctor.

Gerryevans, I never said Michael could not refuse treatment; he simply could not terminate the doctor without going through AEG. What would happen if Michael did stop treatment? The doctor would not be terminated; he would still be an active independent contractor. Remember the doctor saying (if you believe him) he did not give Michael propofol on the 23rd and the 24th? He was scheduled to receive a full month's payment and it seems Michael stopped treatment.

How about Michael? How long do you think it would be before his insomnia was too great to bear and he did not appear at rehearsals? What happened when Michael did not appear at rehearsals previously? What did the doctor do? We know what he did and he was convicted because of it.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Tygger said:

The fact remains: Michael had to go through AEG to terminate the doctor. He could not terminate the doctor independently in that contract.

Click to expand...

The agreement in its point 1 says literally that it is between AEG and Murray, so only AEG can terminate the TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT, OR THE AGREEMENT, (clause 7).
But of course, the Artist could decide when he didnt want the SERVICES, any more. I think the discussion has been because some things said can be twisted as if AEG could sort of impose the doctor or his services over Michael. And that was not the case, as we well know.

PS: But as Last Tear and others said, the only termination of the "Independent Contractor Agreement" (by AEG, yes), but at will, with no reason given, could only be dictated by Michael.