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

xosweetseducingsighsxo;3911153 said:

Make the whole Jackson family 'look' bad? Lemme do a review over things said and done here:

•Joseph physically and emotionally abused Michael.
•Katherine is filing a lawsuit that not only exploited her son's personal, PERSONAL info, but his financial info too.
•Rebbie's friends with Stacey Brown (that jerk talks all sorts of crap about MJ.)
•Jermaine dissed his brother (I don't care if he wanted some 'attention' or not. You don't ever diss your little brother, especially during a horrible time in his life.)
•Latoya dissed her brother on LIVE TV! (Jack Gordon made her do it? I sympathize there, but dude..you're on TV..tell them that bastard is making you say that crap. Don't go with it...at least not without a fight.)
•Randy, Janet, Jerm, and Rebbie kidnapped Katherine last year.
•Tito, Marlon and Jackie are at fault because they didn't check on Michael the last years of his life, and they sure aren't protecting those beautiful kids.

^^ They make themselves look bad..no one's making this stuff up. That's not even bad, that's horrible.

AEG is liable, and quite frankly, every single Jackson is liable too. They ALL killed Michael. I think this whole trial was unnecessary, and it opened one more wound that'll be hard to heal.

Click to expand...

Wow--when you put it that way, makes me wonder why people who criticize the Jackson family in an MJ fan forum are accused of NOT BEING MJ FANS!!!

Korgnex;3910475 said:

[*]What about option a)? Is there anything to suggest that "showing up to rehearsals" is a request by AEG Live to consider a risky treatment, providing sub-standard care or enforcing a treatment for which Murray was not qualified?

Click to expand...

Korgnex, I reviewed your outlined post again that attempts to answer question three because I want to follow your logic as someone who wants to find AEG not liable by answering no to this question. The doctor being tasked with Michael’s rehearsal attendance was one task. He was also tasked to gather Michael’s medical records for AEG so they could garner additional insurance.

AEG, as the third party, tasked a personal doctor to ensure Michael attended rehearsal. That is a conflict of interest. What other way can this be characterized? What was Gongaware’s “smoking gun” email in reply to? Ortega telling Gongaware Michael did not attend rehearsal.

If the doctor was not successful in getting Michael to rehearsal, AEG had grounds to terminate him whether Michael wanted the doctor to remain or not. Again, that is a conflict of interest. What is the doctor’s primary focus in this scenario which was the reality? If he did not get Michael to rehearsal, he was not going to collect his $150K fee. I do not believe anyone can reasonably believe that the doctor would put Michael’s health above the collection of his $150K fee. When the patient is not placed first, the doctor is conflicted.

Is the conflict of interest more clear now? With a conflicted doctor, how is the patient not at risk. What would happen if AEG did terminate the doctor? Where would that leave Michael? AEG could not see how that would be a serious point of concern? Can a reasonable person see how this is a serious point of concern?

How can one arrive at a no answer to question three?

Please do not ignore the relationship between AEG and the doctor. This relationship has been avoided in general in this subforum. I have routinely posted comparisons between the AEG/Klein relationship, a doctor paid by an advance, and the AEG/killer doctor relationship, a doctor with an employment contract. I am confused why the relationship between the doctor and AEG which resulted in the doctor’s conflict interest is not reviewed when answering question three.

Korgnex;3910647 said:

You're forgetting that there were no conflicting draft agreements for any of those.

Click to expand...

Korgnex I was only referring to the fact that those independent contractors had implied contracts that, yes, were agreed upon by the parties involved before a written, signed contract existed.

What was the conflict for the doctor’s contract? Would it be the absence of Michael’s signature or was there another issue like Michael's passing? Michael’s signature was not needed for AEG to recoup the pre-production costs after his passing.

Btw, "per our agreement" is a double-edged sword and does not imply Murray felt he had established a contract between him and AEG Live.

Click to expand...

Please explain how the “per our agreement” phrase is a double-edge sword.

Because of Michael's contractual commitment to the concerts, they talked to Murray in the first place.

Click to expand...

I agree if it was not for Michael, AEG would not have any discussions with the doctor. However, the actions of AEG and the doctor point to more than just a discussion of Michael’s health. A relationship was formed that did not exist with AEG and others who were paid through an advance.

Yes, the improperly conducted propoful infusion was sub-standard care and thus put Michael at risk.

Click to expand...

Honestly, if the doctor was to give Michael a Tylenol PM every night for $150K, it would be substandard care. Why? The doctor would not be concerned with Michael's health first. There would come a day when the doctor would be tempted to give Michael more Tylenol PM than necessary or not give him Tylenol PM at all if it meant the doctor could achieve the desired result of Michael showing up at rehearsal. Again, conflicted interest results in the patient not being first.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

jamba said:

Wow--when you put it that way, makes me wonder why people who criticize the Jackson family in an MJ fan forum are accused of NOT BEING MJ FANS!!!

Click to expand...

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.

LastTear;3910672 said:

So AEG did not check to see if Murray had any medical malpractice suits brought against him?

Michaels signature was was the final signature before the contract was binding and active, doesn't that make sense that he and his people would see it last?

Click to expand...

Last Tear, repeating, AEG did not vet the doctor. Jorrie’s ten minute Google search was the only search done on the doctor and she is not a part of AEG. I do not believe it is logical or sensible that Michael’s legal team would see the contract after the doctor signed it.

Right here

This agreement will be terminated if the Artist, for any reason,does not want Conrad Murray’s services

Click to expand...

Can you quote the passages that show how AEG can terminate the contract please.

Click to expand...

Last Tear, I am extremely disappointed with this response. That statement is NOT in the contract the doctor signed and I am baffled as to why you posted it!

Because you said “please” and I prefer AEG be found liable, here is the termination section from the contract the doctor signed in its entirety with an accompanying link.

Note 7.3. Michael cannot terminate the doctor. If he would like the doctor to be terminated, he can express his grievances to AEG first and AEG will then terminate the doctor. It is difficult to terminate someone you did not hire.



http://www.psblaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Exhibit-168-Aegl-127388-127393.pdf

smoothlugar;3911055 said:

I am in the middle of your post, (and pages back), but before I forget it, because it's the 2nd time you have written this. Where did you get the idea that propofol "cannot" be administered without lidocaine?

Click to expand...

Beshlie;3911119 said:

Lidocaine is given with Propofol because otherwise it is very painful as it enters your vein.

Click to expand...

smoothlugar;3911164 said:

Yes, thanks, I know that. It is usually given before injection or mixed with the amount to be infused. My question was for the choice of words, "cannot be given without it".

Click to expand...

Smoothlugar, Beshlie is correct. However, a professional would not harm a patient and give propofol without lidocaine to prove simply that they can. This was discussed in the criminal trial as well. In the civil trial, however, if it can somehow be suggested that Michael was receiving propofol from the doctor before May (when the doctor ordered and received lidocaine cream and his employment contract started), one can somehow twist it to hopefully absolve AEG.

xosweetseducingsighsxo;3911153 said:

Make the whole Jackson family 'look' bad? Lemme do a review over things said and done here:

•Joseph physically and emotionally abused Michael.
•Katherine is filing a lawsuit that not only exploited her son's personal, PERSONAL info, but his financial info too.
•Rebbie's friends with Stacey Brown (that jerk talks all sorts of crap about MJ.)
•Jermaine dissed his brother (I don't care if he wanted some 'attention' or not. You don't ever diss your little brother, especially during a horrible time in his life.)
•Latoya dissed her brother on LIVE TV! (Jack Gordon made her do it? I sympathize there, but dude..you're on TV..tell them that bastard is making you say that crap. Don't go with it...at least not without a fight.)
•Randy, Janet, Jerm, and Rebbie kidnapped Katherine last year.
•Tito, Marlon and Jackie are at fault because they didn't check on Michael the last years of his life, and they sure aren't protecting those beautiful kids.

^^ They make themselves look bad..no one's making this stuff up. That's not even bad, that's horrible.

AEG is liable, and quite frankly, every single Jackson is liable too. They ALL killed Michael. I think this whole trial was unnecessary, and it opened one more wound that'll be hard to heal.

Click to expand...

I can add the use of Michael´s children to get money .

MIST;3911248 said:

I can add the use of Michael´s children to get money .

Click to expand...

^ Amen. But I don't wanna derail the thread :shifty:

xosweetseducingsighsxo;3911257 said:

^ Amen. But I don't wanna derail the thread :shifty:

Click to expand...

We can say if some fans don´t want the jackson family to have any money from AEG it has nothing to do with how much they love Michael.It´s the same if some fans want AEG to pay.

@Tygger

Last Tear, repeating, AEG did not vet the doctor. Jorrie’s ten minute Google search was the only search done on the doctor and she is not a part of AEG. I do not believe it is logical or sensible that Michael’s legal team would see the contract after the doctor signed it.

Click to expand...

Its what we do best, going round in circles Jorrie represented AEG, the doctor was vetted, to a point, you can't make a blanket statement that the doctor was not vetted. It is logical to me that Michaels team are the last to review the contract.... We don't know if there would have been changes made.

Last Tear, I am extremely disappointed with this response. That statement is NOT in the contract the doctor signed and I am baffled as to why you posted it!

Because you said “please” and I prefer AEG be found liable, here is the termination section from the contract the doctor signed in its entirety with an accompanying link.


Note 7.3. Michael cannot terminate the doctor. If he would like the doctor to be terminated, he can express his grievances to AEG first and AEG will then terminate the doctor. It is difficult to terminate someone you did not hire.

Click to expand...

I know, I was lazy and needed to get on with something else and I just couldn't find the contract fast enough on Panish's site.

7.3 I believe was changed as a point of law. Note: AEG can terminate the agreement only for cancellations or failure to obtain licences, conduct, treatment etc is dependant on Michael. This clause tells me that Michael has the final say on Murray.

maviefly;3910712 said:

His power was taken away by things like this:

'After the horrible events of 2005, I worked with him on This Is t as well. Michael was terribly loyal and so we were basically the same old crew: Karen Faye used to do his hair, Michael Bush did his clothing and I worked his voice. But then I left the project. I told Michael: „Mike, they offer me less money than they did twenty years ago. They want me to take less salary that buys two thirds less of what it used to buy. They are doing it with everybody.“ He said: „I know, they taking away all the people that I know and that I'm comfortable with. My securityblanket is disappearing. I don't know what I'm gonna do.“
Michael's voice trainer Seth Riggs in "A Life for Love"

Click to expand...

His power was taken away! Did you say that or Seth?
Is Seth saying that he left TII because he was getting less money from MJ than he got 20 years ago?
No wonder MJ was stressed, there were problems coming in from every direction. If Seth left, it only means that MJ didn't go to AEG people and told them Seth needs to be paid more.

I find it extremely sad, that as we now know, MJ was in deep financial troubles, and could even get more credit to his credit card or couldn't pay Havenhurst bills (if he was supposed to pay for those), then there are people who are unhappy that they get less money than 20 years ago. MJ money issues were a lot more better 20 years ago then they were in 2009.
20 years ago there weren't around $400 million hanging around his neck.

http://www.sethriggs.com/seth_mj2009_statement.html

I have worked closely with Michael for over 21 years, as his vocal coach and his friend. We have been through countless concerts, performances, rehearsals and tours… but nothing quite like his “This is it Tour”. We worked tirelessly, everyday, as Michael is indeed a true perfectionist. He took every measure to make sure he was prepared for the grueling tour, vocally and in all other aspects as well. It truly would have been a legendary tour.


At this time there are millions of press releases flooding us with “reports” and accusations. I stand strong that Michael Jackson was well before his tragic death and eager to begin his world-wind tour. I believe he was devoted to making the best tour for his fans that was humanly possibly, and beyond! Any other misquotes or assumptions posed to be my words are false, as this is my first and possibly only public statement regarding this matter. I believe that unless it is proven otherwise, his cause of death was accidental.

Annita;3911306 said:

http://www.sethriggs.com/seth_mj2009_statement.html

I have worked closely with Michael for over 21 years, as his vocal coach and his friend. We have been through countless concerts, performances, rehearsals and tours… but nothing quite like his “This is it Tour”. We worked tirelessly, everyday, as Michael is indeed a true perfectionist. He took every measure to make sure he was prepared for the grueling tour, vocally and in all other aspects as well. It truly would have been a legendary tour.


At this time there are millions of press releases flooding us with “reports” and accusations. I stand strong that Michael Jackson was well before his tragic death and eager to begin his world-wind tour. I believe he was devoted to making the best tour for his fans that was humanly possibly, and beyond! Any other misquotes or assumptions posed to be my words are false, as this is my first and possibly only public statement regarding this matter. I believe that unless it is proven otherwise, his cause of death was accidental.

Click to expand...

Thanks Annita.

I take it that Seth didn't say that what one poster posted earlier unless I see those words coming out of Seth's mouth directly.

Tygger;3911221 said:

Last Tear, repeating, AEG did not vet the doctor. Jorrie’s ten minute Google search was the only search done on the doctor and she is not a part of AEG. I do not believe it is logical or sensible that Michael’s legal team would see the contract after the doctor signed it.

Click to expand...

Actually, contracts are generally signed by one party and then sent to the other party to be countersigned. If Murray was repping himself, his signing it first is completely logical because HE agreed with the contents of the contract. That does not mean Michael was going to sign it before sending it to his team. Contracts could have continued to have gone back and forth for weeks before ALL signatures were on it. It happens all the time.

Tygger;3911221 said:

Last Tear, I am extremely disappointed with this response. That statement is NOT in the contract the doctor signed and I am baffled as to why you posted it!

Because you said “please” and I prefer AEG be found liable, here is the termination section from the contract the doctor signed in its entirety with an accompanying link.

Note 7.3. Michael cannot terminate the doctor. If he would like the doctor to be terminated, he can express his grievances to AEG first and AEG will then terminate the doctor. It is difficult to terminate someone you did not hire.

http://www.psblaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Exhibit-168-Aegl-127388-127393.pdf

Click to expand...

You're not understanding the sense of this termination at all. Of course it has to be AEG Live terminating Dr. Murray's advance payment(!!!). AEG Live was loaning the money to Michael to be able to pay Murray. AEG Live had all rights to set terms for cases in which they would terminate that advance payment. They don't loan someone money without having some legal protection.

Read clause 7.3 carefully:
Immediately by Producer if the Artist decides for any reason that the Artist no longer wants or needs the services of Dr. Murray.

That first word, "immediately", is what had you caught.
However it's Michael Jackson only who can decide "for any reason" to release Murray (from the work for which Michael hired him). AFTER Michael's decision AEG Live can "immediately" (read: immediately AFTER) dissolve this agreement about advance payment for Michael to Murray.
It is very clear in writing that only Michael Jackson is wanting/needing (=requesting) services from Murray and NOT AEG Live.

As you can read yourself all other clauses of the termination section are about AEG Live having the right to dissolve the advance payment if

• a) any of them fails to fulfill their "material obligations" (AEG Live: advance payments, Murray: performing services for Michael, clause 7.1)
  [and logically, Murray gets a right in that clause, too]
• b) concerts are cancelled/postponed (clause 7.2)
• c) Murray failing to meet any required legal prerequisites (clauses 7.4 - 7.6)

Clauses 7.7 and 7.8 are dealing with refunds (satisfactorily performed services, purchasements for equipment/medical supplies).


And about my posting: I was making it to show you how YOU would have to go through Question 3, not me. You cannot ignore you have to determine "the work [Murray] was hired for" and if he was "unfit" or "incompetent" in that regard first. You're just focusing on a "conflict of interest" without defining and answering the keywords of the actual question.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Tygger said:

Note 7.3. Michael cannot terminate the doctor. If he would like the doctor to be terminated, he can express his grievances to AEG first and AEG will then terminate the doctor. It is difficult to terminate someone you did not hire.

Click to expand...

You are contradicting yourself. if MJ cannot terminate the doctor, then why would he send termination instructions to AEG?

Let's take a look at 7.3 again

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...

Translation: MJ could send termination instructions to AEG to execute at any time for whatever reason. AEG on the other hand would act immediately upon receipt of such instructions from MJ. In other words, MJ was calling the shots. It's that simple.

This clause is similar to you sending payment instructions to your bank to transfer money from one account to another. The bank will execute such instructions immediately upon receipt. Plus, the bank on its own cannot remove money from your account without your explicit consent.

This clearly shows the relationship between Murray-MJ-AEG where by AEG was just a financial/credit provider (AEG was lending money) while MJ was the client(MJ was borrowing money since he was broke) and Murray the independent contractor providing health care service for the benefit of MJ.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

gerryevans said:

Actually, contracts are generally signed by one party and then sent to the other party to be countersigned. If Murray was repping himself, his signing it first is completely logical because HE agreed with the contents of the contract. That does not mean Michael was going to sign it before sending it to his team. Contracts could have continued to have gone back and forth for weeks before ALL signatures were on it. It happens all the time.

Click to expand...

Yes, and it's quite common for changes to be made as contracts reach different parties, clearly Murray was ok with it but it doesn't mean to say that what was presented in court would have been the final, executed contract.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

passy001 said:

You are contradicting yourself. if MJ cannot terminate the doctor, then why would he send termination instructions to AEG?

Let's take a look at 7.3 again

Translation: MJ could send termination instructions to AEG to execute at any time for whatever reason. AEG on the other hand would act immediately upon receipt of such instructions from MJ. In other words, MJ was calling the shots. It's that simple.

This clause is similar to you sending payment instructions to your bank to transfer money from one account to another. The bank will execute such instructions immediately upon receipt. Plus, the bank on its own cannot remove money from your account without your explicit consent.

This clearly shows the relationship between Murray-MJ-AEG where by AEG was just a financial/credit provider (AEG was lending money) while MJ was the client(MJ was borrowing money since he was broke) and Murray the independent contractor providing health care service for the benefit of MJ.

Click to expand...

Thanks. Right, the contract shows that Michael COULD decide to terminate Murray's employment, and AEG would execute that termination (i.e. tell Murray, "You're fired.") So those termination clauses show the complex relationship between Michael, AEG, and Murray. The other clauses indicate that AEG ("the producer") could fire Murray -- for various reasons. But, 7.3 shows that both parties are in the mix -- AEG, AND Michael. It looks like both AEG and Michael "hired Murray," and neither party, alone, did the hiring. But yes, according to the language of the contract, Michael had the ability to fire Murray, and then AEG would act on that decision.

With that said, though, I think the relationship between Michael and AEG was a lot more complex than the analogy of bank/creditor. I.e. the emails between AEG and Murray show a conflict of interest IMHO, in that as Michael's doctor, Murrays priority should have been to protect Michaels' health, and as also "hired by AEG" the priority seems to be to "get him to rehearsals," i.e. placing the concerts first.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

What I noted as important in the contract is that AEG could NOT fire Murray if they were unhappy or concerned with his treatment of Michael.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Autumn II said:

Thanks. Right, the contract shows that Michael COULD decide to terminate Murray's employment, and AEG would execute that termination (i.e. tell Murray, "You're fired.") So those termination clauses show the complex relationship between Michael, AEG, and Murray. The other clauses indicate that AEG ("the producer") could fire Murray -- for various reasons. But, 7.3 shows that both parties are in the mix -- AEG, AND Michael. It looks like both AEG and Michael "hired Murray," and neither party, alone, did the hiring. But yes, according to the language of the contract, Michael had the ability to fire Murray, and then AEG would act on that decision.

Click to expand...

It's not that complex IMO. AEG is almost acting like an HR department. For example in real life in a company let's say manufacturing department might interview an engineer for a job and when decided to hire they would refer the person/engineer to the HR department. HR department would arrange the contract, forms to filled, benefits, background checks, payroll and so on. Any employment would have set rules that would allow the company in general to fire any person/any employee - such as 3 or more days of sickness requiring a doctors note, more than 3 days unexplained absence could be used to fire people and so on. Also if the engineering department decides to fire this person/engineer for poor performance, it would be still the HR department which would handle the firing process such as severance pay and so on.

the only difference is some see Michael and AEG as different entities, however if you approach to this from Ortega's perspective that Michael and AEG was partners, it's not that complex of structure.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Yeah, HR department is a good analogy.

Its what we do best, going round in circles Jorrie represented AEG, the doctor was vetted, to a point, you can't make a blanket statement that the doctor was not vetted. It is logical to me that Michaels team are the last to review the contract.... We don't know if there would have been changes made.

Click to expand...

Last Tear, there are no circles. Fact: there is NO evidence AEG vetted the doctor.

If you would like to twist the fact that Jorrie, who is not AEG, did a ten minute Google search to somehow suggest AEG did vet the doctor, you are free to. However, it does not change the fact that AEG did not vet the doctor. It is all in the evidence for your review.

Actually, contracts are generally signed by one party and then sent to the other party to be countersigned. If Murray was repping himself, his signing it first is completely logical because HE agreed with the contents of the contract. That does not mean Michael was going to sign it before sending it to his team. Contracts could have continued to have gone back and forth for weeks before ALL signatures were on it. It happens all the time.

Click to expand...

Last Tear, Gerryevans, do either of you remember Jorrie discussing why she did not show the contract to Michael or his team?

I know, I was lazy and needed to get on with something else and I just couldn't find the contract fast enough on Panish's site.

7.3 I believe was changed as a point of law. Note: AEG can terminate the agreement only for cancellations or failure to obtain licences, conduct, treatment etc is dependant on Michael. This clause tells me that Michael has the final say on Murray.

Click to expand...

Last Tear, the jurors cannot afford to be lazy and suggest erroneous information to others. Please tell me at what point was 7.3 changed as a point of law when the doctor’s signature is on the contract and Michael passed the next day? Why change it? That is Michael's only chance to terminate the doctor, correct?

And about my posting: I was making it to show you how YOU would have to go through Question 3, not me. You cannot ignore you have to determine "the work [Murray] was hired for" and if he was "unfit" or "incompetent" in that regard first. You're just focusing on a "conflict of interest" without defining and answering the keywords of the actual question.

Click to expand...

Korgnex, repeating, I tried to follow your logic and that is why I responded again so you could show me where and if I was missing your logic. I have not ignored what the doctor was hired for although it seems to be a point of confusion for many depending on who they felt hired him.

If Michael hired him, he was hired to deal with sleep issues of which he was unfit and incompetent. If AEG hired him, he was hired by a third party who created a conflict of interest for the doctor. By not putting his patient first, the patient would receive substandard care making the doctor again, unfit and incompetent. If Michael and AEG hired the doctor, he is twice unfit and incompetent.

Now, can anyone please explain how to arrive at an answer of no to question three?

You're not understanding the sense of this termination at all. Of course it has to be AEG Live terminating Dr. Murray's advance payment(!!!). AEG Live was loaning the money to Michael to be able to pay Murray. AEG Live had all rights to set terms for cases in which they would terminate that advance payment. They don't loan someone money without having some legal protection.

Click to expand...

Korgnex, oh? You may know legal contracts are very specific to limit misinterpretation and/or re-interpretation. You are suggesting that the doctor’s employment contract is nothing more than a document about advancing him monies? I strongly disagree with you. Why is AEG protecting the advancement? What is the danger AEG is protecting their advancement from? Would they not recoup the monies from Michael?

AFTER Michael's decision AEG Live can "immediately" (read: immediately AFTER) dissolve this agreement about advance payment for Michael to Murray.

Click to expand...

Krognex, I find it interesting that you can suggest what confuses me about 7.3 and then repeat it in your explanation although your interpretation of advance monies is again incorrect in my view.

You are contradicting yourself. if MJ cannot terminate the doctor, then why would he send termination instructions to AEG?

Click to expand...

Right, the contract shows that Michael COULD decide to terminate Murray's employment, and AEG would execute that termination (i.e. tell Murray, "You're fired.")

Click to expand...

It's not that complex IMO. AEG is almost acting like an HR department.

Click to expand...

Korgnex, Passy001, AutumnII, Ivy, and others: I believe many of you are trying to re-interpret that clause so you can somehow believe Michael could terminate the doctor. He could indirectly terminate the doctor by submitting his grievances to AEG first and then AEG would terminate the doctor directly. Again, Michael could not terminate the doctor. He could have him terminated by AEG but, he could not terminate the doctor himself.

It is not the same as asking your bank to transfer monies. That is done as a convenience to the customer so the customer will not do those tasks on their own. It is not the same as an HR department handling paperwork after a direct termination by someone in the manufacturing and/or engineering department. The person who worked directly with the terminated employee most likely does not have the expertise to handle those legal documents in a manner that protects the company the way an employee in the HR department can.

Why examples of money transfers and HR departments when we can apply it directly to our own situations? When was the last time anyone here could not terminate the services of their general care doctor directly? When was the last time anyone here had to submit a grievance to a third party before you could terminate the services of your general care doctor?

I am interested in hearing about others experience with terminating their general care doctor through a third party.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

MJ never fires anyone personally anyway. He always gets someone else to do it. They wouldn't need that last part of the sentence in there if MJ wasn't able to terminate him. He was the boss and he was giving the orders and they were acting on his orders.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

serendipity said:

MJ never fires anyone personally anyway. He always gets someone else to do it. They wouldn't need that last part of the sentence in there if MJ wasn't able to terminate him. He was the boss and he was giving the orders and they were acting on his orders.

Click to expand...

Serendipity, you are referring to instances in the past where Michael terminated someone he employed through one of his own employees (Dileo for example).

AEG was not Michael's agent and Michael was not their employer. They were business partners where one partner had to submit a grievance to the other partner to terminate his own personal, general care doctor.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Tygger said:

It is not the same as an HR department handling paperwork after a direct termination by someone in the manufacturing and/or engineering department. The person who worked directly with the terminated employee most likely does not have the expertise to handle those legal documents in a manner that protects the company the way an employee in the HR department can.

Click to expand...

and Michael had that expertise to directly deal with Murray's hiring & firing as of May 1?

Why examples of money transfers and HR departments when we can apply it directly to our own situations? When was the last time anyone here could not terminate the services of their general care doctor directly? When was the last time anyone here had to submit a grievance to a third party before you could terminate the services of your general care doctor?

I am interested in hearing about others experience with terminating their general care doctor through a third party.

Click to expand...

you need to apply other examples, because no one here ever hired / made a contract with their general care doctor and no one here ever had to terminate/ fire a general care doctor. What happens is you go to a doctor when you want, you stop going to a doctor when you no longer want it. In real life no one had contract with their doctors so no hiring or termination happens - neither directly nor through a third party. so you need to have an open mind to the analogies.

@Tygger

[Last Tear, there are no circles. Fact: there is NO evidence AEG vetted the doctor.

If you would like to twist the fact that Jorrie, who is not AEG, did a ten minute Google search to somehow suggest AEG did vet the doctor, you are free to. However, it does not change the fact that AEG did not vet the doctor. It is all in the evidence for your review./QUOTE]

Jorrie checked the most important aspect - malpractice. I guess if people want to say that Murray was negligent because he needed the money then one could also say that Michael took on more than he was capable of coping with because he was having some financial issues.

Last Tear, the jurors cannot afford to be lazy and suggest erroneous information to others. Please tell me at what point was 7.3 changed as a point of law when the doctor’s signature is on the contract and Michael passed the next day? Why change it? That is Michael's only chance to terminate the doctor, correct?

Click to expand...

Im not on the jury am I! I said 'I believe' it was a point of law - meaning that I suggest that the clause changed for some legal requirement. What it doesn't change is Michaels right to terminate the doctor at any time he chooses to.

Click to expand...

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

btw the "jorrie is not AEG" argument, during his closing Panish has said Jorrie is an agent of AEG.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

ivy said:

Also it is important to understand what this trial is about. This trial still says Michael's death was due to Murray's negligence and AEG should share some responsibility because they hired Murray.

Click to expand...

I don't agree. Aeg throughout this trial has been determined to show that mj was responsible for his own death, they haven't just stuck to the defence of they didn't hire/supervise murray. The jury instructions actually state an affirmative defence, which is an alternative scenario to what the plaintiffs say about the hiring/supervising of murray leading to mj's death - 'Aeg claims that mj's death was caused by his own negligence in connection with his medical care'. That is separate to what we knew aeg wd want to do, reduce damages and so try and bring in mj's contributory negligence and there is also an aeg claim for that - 'Comparative fault of decedent. Aeg claims mj's negligence contributed to his death.'

This attempt to shift blame from murray onto mj was v apparent in the case they presented - how mj was tricking and deceiving doctors, being a law unto himself, ignoring doctor's advice. They characterised what happened in carolwood as mj playing 'russian roulette' every night, he was choosing to put a loaded gun to his head. That's different to placing the blame on murray's negligence in administering propofol. It's as if mj died of dangerous propofol as opposed to the gross negligence of the administering of propofol. I agree with maviefly's posts, an aeg 'win' will have the effect in the media and public of minimising murray's role unfortunately.

ivy;3911387 said:

and Michael had that expertise to directly deal with Murray's hiring & firing as of May 1?

you need to apply other examples, because no one here ever hired / made a contract with their general care doctor and no one here ever had to terminate/ fire a general care doctor. What happens is you go to a doctor when you want, you stop going to a doctor when you no longer want it. In real life no one had contract with their doctors so no hiring or termination happens - neither directly nor through a third party. so you need to have an open mind to the analogies.

Click to expand...

Ivy, are you suggesting Michael and his team which included Branca, did not have the expertise, only AEG and their team Jorrie?

No, you do not need to suggest other analogies and I do not have to be open to accepting those analogies. Why? The scenario we have is the one Michael was in, is what this civil trial is about, and has to be tackled to decide if AEG is liable or not. If it did not happen to you, it is most likely a third party was not involved and your personal doctor was not conflicted about putting you, the patient first.

Is it not interesting that it was consistently suggested by some in this subforum that Michael “hired” the doctor numerous times whenever he paid the doctor for general care? I replied at those times no one hires a self-employed doctor; you simply pay for services rendered.

ivy;3911437 said:

btw the "jorrie is not AEG" argument, during his closing Panish has said Jorrie is an agent of AEG.

Click to expand...

You listened to Panish despite his monotone???? laughs

AEG defended themselves by stating they did not have to vet the doctor because they do not vet independent contractors and Michael suggested him. They did not defend themselves with Jorrie's Google search (for good reason). Which one is preferable? They did not vet the doctor or they rely on Jorrie's ten minute Google search as a sufficient vetting process?

LastTear;3911422 said:

Jorrie checked the most important aspect - malpractice. I guess if people want to say that Murray was negligent because he needed the money then one could also say that Michael took on more than he was capable of coping with because he was having some financial issues.

Im not on the jury am I! I said 'I believe' it was a point of law - meaning that I suggest that the clause changed for some legal requirement. What it doesn't change is Michaels right to terminate the doctor at any time he chooses to.

Click to expand...

Please see my response to Ivy above. Michael did take on quite a bit and he complained about the lack of sleep he had due to stress and anxiety during TII's pre-production. You can suggest Michael could be negligent if you like however, he could only harm himself.

Spin it how you like. Michael could not terminate the doctor, only AEG.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

@Tygger, please don't twist my words.

And there is no spinning, I don't see how you can't accept that Michael could fire Murray.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Bonnie Blue said:

bring in mj's contributory negligence and there is also an aeg claim for that - 'Comparative fault of decedent. Aeg claims mj's negligence contributed to his death.'

That's different to placing the blame on murray's negligence in administering propofol. It's as if mj died of dangerous propofol as opposed to the gross negligence of the administering of propofol. I agree with maviefly's posts, an aeg 'win' will have the effect in the media and public of minimising murray's role unfortunately.

Click to expand...

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.

So given that the affirmative defense is not something new. What I wrote is what the claim is by the plaintiffs. 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.

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.

Tygger said:

Ivy, are you suggesting Michael and his team which included Branca, did not have the expertise, only AEG and their team Jorrie?

Click to expand...

perhaps you need to read better

and Michael had that expertise to directly deal with Murray's hiring & firing as of May 1?

who did Michael had on his team - or did he even have a team - to handle these negotiations? and if he did, why did AEG handled the hiring of everyone?

You listened to Panish despite his monotone???? laughs

Click to expand...

nope, I read. laughs

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

LastTear said:

@Tygger, please don't twist my words.

And there is no spinning, I don't see how you can't accept that Michael could fire Murray.

Click to expand...

I did not twist your words so please do not accuse me of actions I did not do.

Spin continues as 7.3 does not allow Michael to terminate the doctor, only AEG. Michael cannot terminate someone he did not hire.

ivy said:

perhaps you need to read better

and Michael had that expertise to directly deal with Murray's hiring & firing as of May 1?

Click to expand...

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.

nope, I read. laughs

Click to expand...

Does MJJC have the transcripts of the closing arguments? Good news for MJJC readers.