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

Final verdict

  • AEG liable

    Votes: 78 48.4%
  • AEG not liable

    Votes: 83 51.6%

  • Total voters
    161
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

The fact that AEG saw MJ deteriorating in 60 days and did nothing is actually shocking to me..

And when they became concerned, I "thought" they held a meeting wherein Michael said "I know you're worried, but I'M FINE." And then Michael's personal physician tells them to basically "mind their own business."

What would YOU have done, if you were part of that meeting?

Don't get me wrong, I can see how this would go down if Michael was a minor and needed an adult to guide his every move, but he was a 50-year old man, with 3 children.
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

pulling out the old race car to make a point huh?


just asking... big white corporation practically allowing the biggest black entertainer of all time to attempt to perform to bring them money knowing good and well he wasn't ready.. a lot of racial undertones to be looked at..
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

And when they became concerned, I "thought" they held a meeting wherein Michael said "I know you're worried, but I'M FINE." And then Michael's personal physician tells them to basically "mind their own business."

What would YOU have done, if you were part of that meeting?

Don't get me wrong, I can see how this would go down if Michael was a minor and needed an adult to guide his every move, but he was a 50-year old man, with 3 children.

Big Apple,

I would have told MJ the truth meaning you don't look healthy or good and that Doctor is not helping you. We can't go on until you get a second opinion or get yourself together.
 
<style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Cambria; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {mso-style-noshow:yes; color:purple; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} span.skimwords-potential {mso-style-name:skimwords-potential;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style> I&#8217;ll give this a try, but with the disclaimer that I haven&#8217;t been following this trial nearly as intensively as I&#8217;ve followed other Michael-related court cases. I&#8217;m just sorry this trial ever happened. I don&#8217;t particularly care at this point who &#8220;wins.&#8221; I just want Michael to be left in peace.


First, a little bit about the American legal system. &#8220;A jury of one&#8217;s peers&#8221; doesn&#8217;t mean that jury selection is terribly specific, in terms of educational background, race, religion, ethnicity, etc. Basically it means the jury is not comprised of lawyers and other legal experts. Sometimes it&#8217;s possible to opt out of jury duty if it represents a &#8220;hardship.&#8221; That might include professional people whose interests would suffer if they spent time on juries, and for other reasons. (Juries sometimes are top-heavy with retired people, who have the time to spend.) A jury will not usually have any specific knowledge of the law, other than what&#8217;s said in court. There is no way to know what a jury&#8217;s collective critical thinking skills might be. (there are those on this board with a high level of critical thinking skills, but we can't assume that the jury will be comprised of people of the same level.) Although they are supposed to focus on the law, EMOTION clearly plays a part in any judgments. That component would be very hard to predict. I think juries tend to rely heavily on common-sense, and not so much on the minutia presented in court by attorneys.


If I have any opinion at all about the verdict, I&#8217;m leaning toward hoping for a win for the Jacksons. Not because they particularly deserve to be supported by Michael for the rest of their lives, but because if they get a substantial settlement, maybe they will finally leave Michael&#8217;s children alone as a money-making conduit for Michael&#8217;s estate?

Question No. 1
Did AEG Live hire Murray?


Yes. I&#8217;m pretty sure this will be a &#8220;yes.&#8221; The law does not require a contract for every instance of &#8220;hiring,&#8221; and oral agreements are very possible. In a personal sense, I work as a consultant (professional editing) and in fifteen years have never required a contract. I do the work, and on the honor system expect periodic payment. This works well. The Murray contract shows intention to formalize what was already occurring, i.e. Murray&#8217;s &#8220;work.&#8221; The emails confirm a relationship between AEG and Murray, if not an actual contract. I think he was "co-hired" by Michael and AEG, so AEG was in that mix as an employer.

Question No. 2
Was Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?



Yes. To me, key here is &#8220;the work for which he was hired.&#8221; I assume that in a general sense, that was to provide medical care for Michael. He did that. He killed him. This may seem far too simple, but it&#8217;s not impossible that the jury will give a lot of weight to this particular fact. Murray killed Michael.

Question No. 3
Did AEG Live know or should it have known that Murray was unfit or incompetent and that this unfitness or incompetence created a particular risk to others?



This one is more difficult, and I&#8217;m not sure what I&#8217;d answer if I were on the jury. A Google search is NOT a background check. A human life was at stake, and a lot of money. Common sense might lead the jury to think that a thorough background check should have been done by AEG. Even baby-sitters may have background checks done on them! Murray had one arrest for domestic abuse. He had at least one instance where he was reprimanded for &#8220;patient abandonment&#8221; where he was unable to be reached after performing a heart procedure on a patient. His office staff were volunteers, and apparently not being paid. His home was in foreclosure, and he was in arrears on child-support. While none of these things may directly apply to Michael, they paint a picture of someone who is LESS than responsible. This question could probably go either way.

Question No. 4
Did Murray's unfitness or incompetence harm Michael Jackson and the Jackson plaintiffs?



Yes. Michael died. Murray was doing medical procedures he was not qualified to do. To me, that indicates that as a doctor, he was incompetent because he should have known the risk, and yet he did it anyway. For this one, I&#8217;d think that AEG would not have had to have any specific knowledge that Murray was administering propofol. But this is a common-sense opinion, and I&#8217;m not really sure what the jury will do with it.

Question No. 5
Was AEG Live's negligence in hiring, supervising or retaining Murray a substantial factor in causing Michael Jackson and the Jackson plaintiffs' harm?



Not sure about this one, either. It remains unclear to me what, exactly, AEG&#8217;s supervising role actually was. The emails may come into play here, that AEG DID have a major hand in supervising. This one depends on the jury&#8217;s interpretation.

Questions No. 14-16
The amount of damages calculated by the jury could be significantly reduced when they reach the last three questions on their verdict form. These ask them to decide how much, if any, Michael Jackson's own negligence was a factor in his death.



I would think that if the jury gets this far, the damages could be significant. This one could go either way, but I doubt it would be even close to what is being asked for. There are too many unknowns. We do know that Michael supported his mother, but to what extent in the future that would have happened, and even how long Michael would have lived and what income he would have earned, remains speculation.
 
Last edited:
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Big Apple,

I would have told MJ the truth meaning you don't look healthy or good and that Doctor is not helping you. We can't go on until you get a second opinion or get yourself together.

And you would "most likely" have been KICK TO THE CURB, while Murray was kept on.

But at least, unlike a bunch of folks that surrounded Michael, i.e. Karen etc., you would have been able to say "I told him something was wrong, but he wouldn't listen."

ETA: I don't believe you can force an adult to get a second opinion. That would be up to them and them alone.
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Big Apple,

I would have told MJ the truth meaning you don't look healthy or good and that Doctor is not helping you. We can't go on until you get a second opinion or get yourself together.

Agree. Aeg deny it, but there was a massive conflict of interest at play. Aeg say all parties,interests of mj murray and aeg were all aligned - have a healthy mj to do the tii tour. But the conflict was within that statement - a healthy mj was incompatible with doing the tii tour. Murray of course knew that. He knew mj was only able to get the rest needed to do rehearsals and perfs if he was put in a drug induced coma every night - how cd anyone think that this was in any way acceptable - but he was desperate for the over $1m fee and he cd only get that if mj went on tour.

Aeg knew mj had been declining and losing weight throughout the rehearsal period, opening night to the most incredibly gruelling and exhausting tour was 2/3wks away and yet there was no question of getting a second opinion, of postponing the shows, of trying to find out what on earth was going wrong with mj. Randy's sole preoccupation was to go ahead with tii, he had no interest in finding out what was wrong with mj and in fact admitted after that meeting with mj/murray in an email that he doubted murray cd do much for mj but he felt it was all too late to bring anyone else in. Instead there was just an operation to neutralise ortega's concerns who's the only guy who comes out with any credit in this whole affair.
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Whenever we have these discussions about responsibility, it seems odd to me that we treat Michael as if he were a child or an adult who was mentally compromised in some way and couldn't make decisions for himself. When he started showing symptoms--what some call "deterioration"--he likely spoke to Murray about WTH was happening & Murray likely said--don't worry, it's just a reaction to the propofol. Otherwise, Michael would have been calling Klein, Metzger or whomever if he wasn't satisfied with Murray's explanation. Michael was no fool.

There was a LOT going on behind the scenes that we don't know about. I suspect sadly it will be revealed in Murray's book that he's allowed to write (if he hasn't already) due to the absence of any restitution order.
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

We can all sit here and say what we WOULD have done... The truth is we don't know how we would react to specific things until we are in the position.. First you don't know how much you would know if you were "them", if you'd be in position to subside him or be pushed out of his life you'd think a little different..

We can go back and forth about if Michael had addictive personalities but anyone that has dealt with anything like that should know it's much easier said than done.. An addict of any sort first "out" is sympathy and guilt.

I'm going off a tangent a bit so I'll stop - but we really don't know what it was like. We can only imagine and say what we hope we would have done..


Plus I would like to add that the fan base at large is also a BIG reason why Michael felt the need to seclude himself, he never knew what normal life was like (not just because he was famous) but the fans did not let him. I don't think we (fans - but no one specific here) point the finger well but never take notice to what fans have caused..
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Questions No. 14-16
The amount of damages calculated by the jury could be significantly reduced when they reach the last three questions on their verdict form. These ask them to decide how much, if any, Michael Jackson's own negligence was a factor in his death.


I would think that if the jury gets this far, the damages could be significant. This one could go either way, but I doubt it would be even close to what is being asked for. There are too many unknowns. We do know that Michael supported his mother, but to what extent in the future that would have happened, and even how long Michael would have lived and what income he would have earned, remains speculation.

What about the projections of how long Katherine would live? Does that play any role in calculating possible damages? Even if we take for granted that Michael would continue to financially support her, surely he would only do it until Katherine passes?
 
^ Katherine's life expectancy isn't a factor in that calculation, however in determining how to split the awarded money between Katherine and the children it can become a factor


Autumn II;3909860 said:
Question No. 2
Was Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?



Yes. To me, key here is &#8220;the work for which he was hired.&#8221; I assume that in a general sense, that was to provide medical care for Michael. He did that. He killed him. This may seem far too simple, but it&#8217;s not impossible that the jury will give a lot of weight to this particular fact. Murray killed Michael.


If Murray was hired for general medical care, him causing manslaughter of MJ wouldn't make him unfit or incompetent for performing the work for which he was hired.
However I think, like you, some jurors also might not know these legal terms here:
"unfit" means Murray was not skilled for the particular work he was hired (eg technical knowledge)
"incompetent" means Murray was missing a legal prerequisite for the particular work he was hired (a qualification)

Moral or ethical concerns (eg financial situation) are irrelevant for those terms.
Legally, he was fit and competent to provide general medical care (he was not for the propofol infusion).

That's a sore spot for Panish because he knows too well, there's no law that requires anyone to do a background check. Doing a background check is a wise thing for many businesses but it's nothing the law dictates you to do.
 
Last edited:
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

what time is deliberations today?
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

I'm wondering if there's someone taking care if the damages for the children are considered higher than those for Katherine... that the money really goes to the children.
Is that for Katherine to decide or is there a possibility for the guardian ad litem... or even the estate to step in just to make sure such money really goes to the children like into a trust or something?

I mean if there is any payment ever cuz there's the possibilities for appeals for years... what happens if Katherine Jackson would not live anymore when this finally will be decided?
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

just asking... big white corporation practically allowing the biggest black entertainer of all time to attempt to perform to bring them money knowing good and well he wasn't ready.. a lot of racial undertones to be looked at..

Geez Jaydom:smilerolleyes:
Seriously lay off that sort of insinuations. Big white corporation! Seriously Jaydom?
Do you have any idea how you made yourself to look by airing such an statement?

If Michael wasn't ready, as an 50 year old man with family, he was cabable saying no.
He was asked to do concert was it in 2007 or 2008 but he was then cabable saying no, I'm not ready, so why wouldn't he be cabable saying it in 2009.
 
Last edited:
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Geez Jaydom:smilerolleyes:
Seriously lay that sort of insinuations. Big white corporation! Seriously Jaydom?
Do you have any idea how you made yourself to look by airing such an statement?

If Michael wasn't ready, as an 50 year old man with family, he was cabable saying no.
He was asked to do concert was it in 2007 or 2008 but he was then cabable saying no, I'm not ready, so why wouldn't he be cabable saying it in 2009.



just giving facts..
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

of postponing the shows,

POSTPONING THE SHOWS! If only it was that easy.

I remember, like it was yesterday, when it was announced that "A FEW" of the shows would have to be pushed back do to production matters.

SOME of Michael's fans nearly lost their minds. Folks, or should I say, Michael's fans were calling him all out his name. The reaction to that news was swift AND it was ugly.

Had he and/or they cancelled those shows there would have been a full out riot, in my opinion.
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Please understand that for AEG to know the doctor was administering propofol is hindsight!

They should have understood that when they inserted themselves into the doctor-patient relationship the doctor would be beholden to them and not the patient. This is the risk!

The doctor became conflicted because he did what was necessary to receive payment. As a conflicted doctor Michael was to receive substandard care because the doctor was more concerned about satisfying his responsibility to AEG first and his patient second. You do not need to know what that care is!!

The jury questions donot include the phrase "general medical care." The written contract only the doctor signed does.
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

And when they became concerned, I "thought" they held a meeting wherein Michael said "I know you're worried, but I'M FINE." And then Michael's personal physician tells them to basically "mind their own business."

That's a good example of how unfit and incompetent Murray was. A good doctor would listen to Ortega who witnessed how unwell Michael was the day before. He would have made questions for signals, and the like, he would have shown concern and not tell him to shut up.

Although they are supposed to focus on the law, EMOTION clearly plays a part in any judgments. That component would be very hard to predict. I think juries tend to rely heavily on common-sense, and not so much on the minutia presented in court by attorneys.

That's my idea too. And that's why I think their verdict will be in favour of Jacksons, because even if they think MJ had some responsibility in bringing Murray, they will take into account that he paid the ultimate price, with his life,

I don't like the way AEG treated MJ, I don't like how Phillips, particularly, decided in the end, in spite of HIS own doubts, not to pay more attention to Ortega's concerns. And if the jury sees that as liable, I would agree. However, what I have not fully understand in this trial is liability for the actions of Murray, who started buying propofol in April, as we all knew a long time ago. That's why it has been so conflicting (at least for me) to understand this trial (apart from the "hidden" intentions after the money and no restitution...) and why my feelings have even been contradictory.


 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

That's a good example of how unfit and incompetent Murray was. A good doctor would listen to Ortega who witnessed how unwell Michael was the day before. He would have made questions for signals, and the like, he would have shown concern and not tell him to shut up.

In my opinion, the unfit doctor was CO-SIGNED by his patient, when said patient said "I'm fine."

I'm not so sure a "good" doctor would consult with somebody who was not his patient, i.e. Mr. Orgeta.

In my further opinion, Mike basically deaded the entire concern point when he said "I'm fine." He had everybody in the room, and he COULD have said "I'm NOT fine, I'm having a problem sleeping, I need help."

Folks really need to stop talking like Michael wasn't even in the room when all of this was going down.
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Bit worried they are watching TII...I'm not sure it will help much..... Now if the 'suppressed' footage was available, that would be a different matter .....

I wonder if this means that they have got past the discussion of 'was Murray hired?', and they are working on 'how much compensation?' already.



ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 31m
This morning the jurors buzzed once asking for a Coke. Then they had another note, asking for 8 legal pads for writing and a ruler
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 33m
Note 1: - 12 highlighters - 12 red pens - 12 black pens - video player - This Is It documentary - 12 copies independent contractor agreement
 
Last edited:
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 33m
The rule in this courtroom regarding the buzzes:
1 buzz -- question
2 buzzes -- verdict
3 buzzes -- emergency

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 34m
This morning the jurors buzzed once asking for a Coke. Then they had another note, asking for 8 legal pads for writing and a ruler.

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 36m
Note 1:
- 12 highlighters
- 12 red pens
- 12 black pens
- video player
- This Is It documentary
- 12 copies independent contractor agreement

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 37m
At 3:05 pm PT yesterday, jurors sent Note 1 asking:
- 12 copies of the jury instruction
- A large supply of post it notes

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 38m
They chose the presiding juror yesterday and sent Note 1.

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 39m
Good morning from the courthouse. First full day of jury deliberations under way. The jurors started working at 9:30 am PT today.
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

In my opinion AEG wasn't out for getting Michael down... they were out for the money and didn't care enough... yep to me they are liable! But considering the Jacksons are out for the same and that's why in this trial... I can't care less how the jury will decide this honestly.
But yeah in my personal view a company when doing contracts, doing the hiring, planing a project so many are dependent on with nothing more or less than their lives... yeah I think they should act more caring, more carefull, more diligent, more respectfull and less maniac like... simply because they do have responsibility. Then again that's maybe just me... *shrugs*
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

In a lighter note, I'm a bit jealous of jurors. They are having a coke and watching TII :D
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

- 12 copies independent contractor agreement

Independent contractor agreement?

What EXACTLY is an "Independent contractor agreement"?

Can somebody break that down for those of us who are not familiar with that term. Thank you.
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

[...] when they inserted themselves into the doctor-patient relationship [...]

They were not inserting themselves into the doctor-patient relationship. Does your bank insert itself into a contract between you and someone else?
AEG Live did what your bank does: payment through AEG Live (Michael must pay later) ~ payment through your bank (you must pay later)
[Michael's tour contract with AEG Live about the concerts is the reason why they interacted with Michael (and obviously, if there was a doctor, you'd talk to him, too).]

The doctor became conflicted because he did what was necessary to receive payment. As a conflicted doctor Michael was to receive substandard care [...]

There is no precedent that established a cash-stricken person would automatically provide substandard work.

The jury questions donot include the phrase "general medical care." The written contract only the doctor signed does.

The jury has to ask itself for what work exactly Murray was hired. The draft agreement(s) and any oral agreement are various versions of one and the same contract.
As you, Tygger, can only go with the oral agreement theory (no final contract with MJ's signature and you don't want to go with the draft agreement, obviously because it explicitely states "general medical care"), you're facing this issue:
If you want to assume an oral agreement that includes AEG Live as an employer(!), this agreement CANNOT differ from the "general medical care" specification without substantial evidence to suggest AEG Live hired Murray for "something else" - plaintiffs haven't provided any evidence to suggest this.



Independent contractor agreement?

What EXACTLY is an "Independent contractor agreement"?

Can somebody break that down for those of us who are not familiar with that term. Thank you.

An "independant contractor" is a person that does NOT only work for you but many other clients and has full control of his work - such as lawyers, doctors etc.
Read more: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Independent+Contractor
 
Last edited:
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Mod note: Michael Jackson had an all white Jury in 2005 and was found not guilty of all charges. Race shouldn't be a factor in this case either. Im sure the Jury will decide based on evidence, not based on their race or nationality, the race of Jacksons or the race or nationality of the owners of AEG. Please move on.
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Question No. 1
Did AEG Live hire Murray?

Yes / No


IMO AEG was basically loaning MJ the $ to do the hiring, and IMO the language of the contract made that clear. The fact that MJ hired CM is shown by the evidence that CM was treating MJ prior to May 1st, the start date of the loan via AEG, and that MJ requested CM and came up with the 150k salary. Also the contract was unsigned and no $ was paid by AEG to CM for that reason. IMO the contract may have been changed prior to MJ signing it or even AEG for that matter if MJ changed anything in the draft that CM signed.

Question No. 2
Was Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?


Yes / No

CM was hired for general medical care, and when AEG asked why do you need a tour dr or this guy in particular,MJ told them that he was concerned re nutrition and dehydration issues when performing, as well as injuries. This was the conversation where MJ insisted that his 'machine" (body) was the key point on which the tour depended. MJ also refused to consider other drs in UK when AEG (RP) asked him to do that.

Question No. 3
Did AEG Live know or should it have known that Murray was unfit or incompetent and that this unfitness or incompetence created a particular risk to others?


Yes / No

This question is deceptive b/c at what point in time should AEG have suspected CM? Not IMO at the time given for a start date on the 'final' draft contract (May 1st), but should they have suspected it on 6/19? And if so, did they take proper steps to address that issue of MJ on the 19th.

IMO this is an important point b/c KO was the main witness on the 19th (along with the guy who wrote that he had seen MJ deteriorate over the past weeks--Houghdahl), so no AEG exec witnessed that behavior, nor did they see the famous 'skinny" photo in a t-shirt. So how reliable was the info from KO and Houghdahl in the estimation of AEG execs? Was it enough for a meeting? Yes. Was it enough to make a conclusion to fire CM? Cancel the tour? Demand another dr? No. After the meeting, MJ had the great rehearsals, so it's understandable that AEG thought MJ might have had a flu or something to affect him on the 19th and that he got over it. Also re weight loss, autopsy said MJ's weight was within normal range.

I don't know of course what the jury will do, but the fact the Panish came up with MJ having a 20% role in hiring is significant in that he recognized that there is no way AEG wanted CM, suggested CM, recommended CM, and they got involved in it reluctantly.
 
Last edited:
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

so is watching TII, good for Katherine or good for AEG??
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Independent contractor agreement?

What EXACTLY is an "Independent contractor agreement"?

Can somebody break that down for those of us who are not familiar with that term. Thank you.

Isn't it a copy of CM's contract?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/158739657/Murray-AEG-June-23-Contract

They want to read it, which is good. There they see with their very own eyes what was CM supposed to do.
General medical care. And it only take 4 jurors to say no for 1 of 5 questions, then it is all over for plaintiffs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top