Latest on MJJC
Katherine & MJ's kids sue AEG / Trial date April 2, 2013
- Thread starter marc_vivien
- Start date
- Status
Bubs
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,856
- Points
- 0
Re: Katherine & MJ's kids sue AEG / Trial date delayed to April 2, 2013
Oh I see what you mean. It is possible they could claim dependency and control, and I admit Randy P sounded arrogant bastard by saying it, but it is true though. AEG paid all those, but at the end it would have taken away from Michael's profit.
Having said that, my employer can also claim that he feeds my family, clothes us, keep us warm in the winter, but would he be responsible and in control of me? In my opinion, he is not responsible or in control of me.
That's me being not clear.If my memory isn't failing me Murray said stuff like Phillips said about paying Michael's bills including to the stuff his kids wore & eat. I tried to say - and failed
Murray made it sound like that made Michael desperate to take the drugs and /or self medicate. That can be used again for responsibility. I don't think this is a matter of how Michael died but if AEG had any responsibility
Obviously AEG has already addressed that, everyone is dependent to their employer for financial stuff and everyone also has the choice of going bankrupt.
Oh I see what you mean. It is possible they could claim dependency and control, and I admit Randy P sounded arrogant bastard by saying it, but it is true though. AEG paid all those, but at the end it would have taken away from Michael's profit.
Having said that, my employer can also claim that he feeds my family, clothes us, keep us warm in the winter, but would he be responsible and in control of me? In my opinion, he is not responsible or in control of me.
Re: Katherine & MJ's kids sue AEG / Trial date delayed to April 2, 2013
that's AEG's argument - as you can see in the summary judgment.
I know most fans are emotional but think this from a realistic perspective and think about yourself.
You are employed.
Does your employer want you to show up to the job and perform satisfactorily? Yes
If you don't show up or do not show good performance can they threaten to fire you and even fire you? Yes
Are people in need of or dependent to their salaries? Yes, these salaries are what pays the bills, mortgage, food and so on.
Does this need or dependence establish a control? Not necessarily, everyone has the option to resign, find a new job, become unemployed, go into bankruptcy, welfare and so on.
Then comes the health / welfare. Employers are responsible for providing a safe environment and if you are hurt at the job they would have doctors that they have agreements with to provide workers compensation claims and treatments, employer will pay the bills for such things. For rest they would provide health insurance to the employees.
Does this bring a responsibility to the company about the service of the health providers / doctors? Or are they only required to provide access to health care and the rest is the responsibility of the doctor.
------------
I'm not gonna lie, everything we heard coming from Phillips makes him sound like an arrogant bastard. AEG had put in a significant money into TII (production costs, salaries, advances to Michael) and it's apparent that they were demanding and naturally wanted to recover their expenses. However these things aren't necessarily illegal.
Also if Michael had used propofol before especially at other tours, then it'll become really hard for Katherine to claim that AEG was the stressor for the use of Propofol.
that's AEG's argument - as you can see in the summary judgment.
I know most fans are emotional but think this from a realistic perspective and think about yourself.
You are employed.
Does your employer want you to show up to the job and perform satisfactorily? Yes
If you don't show up or do not show good performance can they threaten to fire you and even fire you? Yes
Are people in need of or dependent to their salaries? Yes, these salaries are what pays the bills, mortgage, food and so on.
Does this need or dependence establish a control? Not necessarily, everyone has the option to resign, find a new job, become unemployed, go into bankruptcy, welfare and so on.
Then comes the health / welfare. Employers are responsible for providing a safe environment and if you are hurt at the job they would have doctors that they have agreements with to provide workers compensation claims and treatments, employer will pay the bills for such things. For rest they would provide health insurance to the employees.
Does this bring a responsibility to the company about the service of the health providers / doctors? Or are they only required to provide access to health care and the rest is the responsibility of the doctor.
------------
I'm not gonna lie, everything we heard coming from Phillips makes him sound like an arrogant bastard. AEG had put in a significant money into TII (production costs, salaries, advances to Michael) and it's apparent that they were demanding and naturally wanted to recover their expenses. However these things aren't necessarily illegal.
Also if Michael had used propofol before especially at other tours, then it'll become really hard for Katherine to claim that AEG was the stressor for the use of Propofol.
ilmjj
Proud Member
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2009
- Messages
- 922
- Points
- 28
Re: Katherine & MJ's kids sue AEG / Trial date delayed to April 2, 2013
The Jackson's are saying AEG failed to monitor Dr. Murray ,who at the time was a medical doctor. I don't understand how they believe AEG was qaulified to monitor a medical doctor? AEG isn't a medical society is it?
I think when Murray told Kenny, Randy and the rest that he knew what he was doing and MJ would be ok, they believed him because he was the M.D and they are not. They assumed he was working in Michael's best interest. An assumption most people make when a doctor tells them they are taking good care of their patient.
Michael needed an advocate and he thought he had one in the felon...
The Jackson's are saying AEG failed to monitor Dr. Murray ,who at the time was a medical doctor. I don't understand how they believe AEG was qaulified to monitor a medical doctor? AEG isn't a medical society is it?
I think when Murray told Kenny, Randy and the rest that he knew what he was doing and MJ would be ok, they believed him because he was the M.D and they are not. They assumed he was working in Michael's best interest. An assumption most people make when a doctor tells them they are taking good care of their patient.
Michael needed an advocate and he thought he had one in the felon...
Bubs
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,856
- Points
- 0
Re: Katherine & MJ's kids sue AEG / Trial date delayed to April 2, 2013
I agree with your post.
AEG= Randy P and others are people just like you and me. They have no more medical experience than any normal person outside of med field out there. Just because they had an agreement with MJ for series of concerts, doesn't mean they have to go on medical school and learn to be a doctor.
I too cannot understand how Jackson's can accuse AEG failing to monitor Murray?
In practical way, how it is even possible if doctor tells them MJ is ok? Where they supposed to hire another doctor to keep an eye on the first doctor?
I agree with your post.
AEG= Randy P and others are people just like you and me. They have no more medical experience than any normal person outside of med field out there. Just because they had an agreement with MJ for series of concerts, doesn't mean they have to go on medical school and learn to be a doctor.
I too cannot understand how Jackson's can accuse AEG failing to monitor Murray?
In practical way, how it is even possible if doctor tells them MJ is ok? Where they supposed to hire another doctor to keep an eye on the first doctor?
Re: Katherine & MJ's kids sue AEG / Trial date delayed to April 2, 2013
It's a responsibility claim
One of the best example is that sometimes bartenders are charged with IVM in drunk driving accidents. They aren't the ones that drive but they are charged because they knew or should have known that the person was getting drunk and they should have stopped serving them alcohol and/or stopped them from driving.
Similarly there have been examples of charging parents for leaving loaded guns out. It's the kids that get the guns and shot other people but parents are still charged manslaughter as it's irresponsible for then to leave loaded gun in easy reach.
you will also see that sometimes companies are held responsible for the actions of their employees. some explanation here : http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/employer-liability-employees-bad-acts-29638.html
and let me copy examples
- A restaurant promises delivery in 30 minutes "or your next order is free." If a delivery person hits a pedestrian while driving frantically to beat the deadline, the company will probably be legally responsible for the pedestrian's injuries.
- A pizza company hired a delivery driver without looking into his criminal past -- which included a sexual assault conviction and an arrest for stalking a women he met while delivering pizza for another company. After he raped a customer, the pizza franchise was liable to his victim for negligent hiring.
So you can see this is a question of negligent hiring, the level of relationship between the parties and the knowledge - all of which was mentioned at Katherine's lawsuit.
AEG is denying these claims based on : they never hired Murray therefore there's no employee-employer relationship, even if they hired he was an independent contractor and they didn't have responsibility, there was no negligent hiring as he was a licensed doctor with no discipline record and that they had no knowledge.
We will see the outcome.
It's a responsibility claim
One of the best example is that sometimes bartenders are charged with IVM in drunk driving accidents. They aren't the ones that drive but they are charged because they knew or should have known that the person was getting drunk and they should have stopped serving them alcohol and/or stopped them from driving.
Similarly there have been examples of charging parents for leaving loaded guns out. It's the kids that get the guns and shot other people but parents are still charged manslaughter as it's irresponsible for then to leave loaded gun in easy reach.
you will also see that sometimes companies are held responsible for the actions of their employees. some explanation here : http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/employer-liability-employees-bad-acts-29638.html
and let me copy examples
- A restaurant promises delivery in 30 minutes "or your next order is free." If a delivery person hits a pedestrian while driving frantically to beat the deadline, the company will probably be legally responsible for the pedestrian's injuries.
- A pizza company hired a delivery driver without looking into his criminal past -- which included a sexual assault conviction and an arrest for stalking a women he met while delivering pizza for another company. After he raped a customer, the pizza franchise was liable to his victim for negligent hiring.
So you can see this is a question of negligent hiring, the level of relationship between the parties and the knowledge - all of which was mentioned at Katherine's lawsuit.
AEG is denying these claims based on : they never hired Murray therefore there's no employee-employer relationship, even if they hired he was an independent contractor and they didn't have responsibility, there was no negligent hiring as he was a licensed doctor with no discipline record and that they had no knowledge.
We will see the outcome.
Bubs
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,856
- Points
- 0
Re: Katherine & MJ's kids sue AEG / Trial date delayed to April 2, 2013
Interesting point Ivy, thanks.
Unfortunately AEG people couldn't estimate whether Murray was a good doc by looking at him like bartenders do when they check if person is drunk or not. The only thing they could do to check his background, trust Murray's word that MJ was ok and in the end Michael wanted him.
It does look bad for Katherine's side, and I suppose that drove her side to ask Murray's help for the case.
Interesting point Ivy, thanks.
Unfortunately AEG people couldn't estimate whether Murray was a good doc by looking at him like bartenders do when they check if person is drunk or not. The only thing they could do to check his background, trust Murray's word that MJ was ok and in the end Michael wanted him.
It does look bad for Katherine's side, and I suppose that drove her side to ask Murray's help for the case.
Re: Katherine & MJ's kids sue AEG / Trial date delayed to April 2, 2013
well the two examples "not letting drunk people drive" and "not leave a loaded gun out" are common sense - meaning that any adult will have the basic knowledge of not to do that. You are right medical stuff is a lot more tricky.
For example even if we are to assume that someone random walked into the room that Murray had Michael on a Propofol IV , would they understand what is going on and it was not proper way to do it and it was risking Michael's life? Well probably not. Unless they have a medical experience.
We know that Katherine argued that Gongaware should have known because he toured with Michael before. Here I want to mention Frank Cascio, I don't know if you read this book but he mentions seeing doctors coming into the room - at 99 birdge collapse and during invincible recording. It seems he was never in the room and he didn't know about Propofol and what the doctors were doing until after Michael's death. Similarly he mentions his concerns at other events, calling Michael's doctor and being told that everything is fine. So Frank is a good example of a regular person with no medical knowledge. He wasn't knowledgeable enough to argue with a doctor that told him everything was fine and even though he saw doctors around Michael he didn't know about the exact nature of the treatment.
As for Murray's background we don't know if they did a background check but it's important to point out that Murray was a licensed doctor in multiple states with no discipline record. AEG in their contract also required Murray to have all the necessary licenses and permits to practice medicine and a malpractice insurance. So it doesn't seem like they were looking for a rogue doctor that would do stuff under the table and even if they ran his background they wouldn't find a red flag.
well the two examples "not letting drunk people drive" and "not leave a loaded gun out" are common sense - meaning that any adult will have the basic knowledge of not to do that. You are right medical stuff is a lot more tricky.
For example even if we are to assume that someone random walked into the room that Murray had Michael on a Propofol IV , would they understand what is going on and it was not proper way to do it and it was risking Michael's life? Well probably not. Unless they have a medical experience.
We know that Katherine argued that Gongaware should have known because he toured with Michael before. Here I want to mention Frank Cascio, I don't know if you read this book but he mentions seeing doctors coming into the room - at 99 birdge collapse and during invincible recording. It seems he was never in the room and he didn't know about Propofol and what the doctors were doing until after Michael's death. Similarly he mentions his concerns at other events, calling Michael's doctor and being told that everything is fine. So Frank is a good example of a regular person with no medical knowledge. He wasn't knowledgeable enough to argue with a doctor that told him everything was fine and even though he saw doctors around Michael he didn't know about the exact nature of the treatment.
As for Murray's background we don't know if they did a background check but it's important to point out that Murray was a licensed doctor in multiple states with no discipline record. AEG in their contract also required Murray to have all the necessary licenses and permits to practice medicine and a malpractice insurance. So it doesn't seem like they were looking for a rogue doctor that would do stuff under the table and even if they ran his background they wouldn't find a red flag.
Bubs
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,856
- Points
- 0
Re: Katherine & MJ's kids sue AEG / Trial date delayed to April 2, 2013
Thats right! I did read Frank's book and remember those things he said.
Didn't AEG ask Frank to testify or subpoena him? Maybe that is the reason they wanted to hear from him as he is not medical person either, and he can tell what he observed during the years on tour with Michael.
Just checked FC subpoena, it was Katherine's lawyers that subpoenaed Frank.
Well, if I were AEG lawyers I would be asking Frank's observations when its his time to testify.
Thats right! I did read Frank's book and remember those things he said.
Didn't AEG ask Frank to testify or subpoena him? Maybe that is the reason they wanted to hear from him as he is not medical person either, and he can tell what he observed during the years on tour with Michael.
Just checked FC subpoena, it was Katherine's lawyers that subpoenaed Frank.
Well, if I were AEG lawyers I would be asking Frank's observations when its his time to testify.
Last edited:
bouee
Proud Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,369
- Points
- 0
Re: Katherine & MJ's kids sue AEG / Trial date delayed to April 2, 2013
OK so is Katherine 's theory something like "my son was abusing medication, you knew that from previous tours, you should have been more careful + there were visible signs that it was happening again" ???
Great. :no:
OK so is Katherine 's theory something like "my son was abusing medication, you knew that from previous tours, you should have been more careful + there were visible signs that it was happening again" ???
Great. :no:
Bubs
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,856
- Points
- 0
Re: Katherine & MJ's kids sue AEG / Trial date delayed to April 2, 2013
Something like that K's lawyers are after.
Something like that K's lawyers are after.
Petrarose
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2009
- Messages
- 9,574
- Points
- 0
Re: Katherine & MJ's kids sue AEG / Trial date delayed to April 2, 2013
^^But I thought with Frank it was only speculation. He only assumed after Michael died that Michael was getting prof--am right? He has no direct knowledge of it. He can only say exactly what he say but he cannot give his conclusions because he is not an expert. At least that is what I remember from Jury duty.
Time is coming closer so we may see more antics from the fam side.
^^But I thought with Frank it was only speculation. He only assumed after Michael died that Michael was getting prof--am right? He has no direct knowledge of it. He can only say exactly what he say but he cannot give his conclusions because he is not an expert. At least that is what I remember from Jury duty.
Time is coming closer so we may see more antics from the fam side.
Bubs
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,856
- Points
- 0
Re: Katherine & MJ's kids sue AEG / Trial date delayed to April 2, 2013
I'm not sure if your post was directed to me, but I was kind of thinking out loud, and was reply to Ivy's post about question whether AEG people would have know what they were seeing if they entered into MJ's room. It's is a question whether they are qualified to understand what they see and what they were supposed to do in that situation.
In FC's book, he didn't know at the time what he saw, but after he learned about propofol, he thought it might have been it.
If Katherine's lawyers call him to testify on trial, AEG (as defence has right to question him too) should ask him his experience of doctors and how he trusted the doc. If he trusted to doc, why shouldn't Randy at all trust what Murray told them?
"For example even if we are to assume that someone random walked into the room that Murray had Michael on a Propofol IV , would they understand what is going on and it was not proper way to do it and it was risking Michael's life? Well probably not. Unless they have a medical experience.
We know that Katherine argued that Gongaware should have known because he toured with Michael before. Here I want to mention Frank Cascio, I don't know if you read this book but he mentions seeing doctors coming into the room - at 99 birdge collapse and during invincible recording. It seems he was never in the room and he didn't know about Propofol and what the doctors were doing until after Michael's death. Similarly he mentions his concerns at other events, calling Michael's doctor and being told that everything is fine. So Frank is a good example of a regular person with no medical knowledge. He wasn't knowledgeable enough to argue with a doctor that told him everything was fine and even though he saw doctors around Michael he didn't know about the exact nature of the treatment."
I'm not sure if your post was directed to me, but I was kind of thinking out loud, and was reply to Ivy's post about question whether AEG people would have know what they were seeing if they entered into MJ's room. It's is a question whether they are qualified to understand what they see and what they were supposed to do in that situation.
In FC's book, he didn't know at the time what he saw, but after he learned about propofol, he thought it might have been it.
If Katherine's lawyers call him to testify on trial, AEG (as defence has right to question him too) should ask him his experience of doctors and how he trusted the doc. If he trusted to doc, why shouldn't Randy at all trust what Murray told them?
"For example even if we are to assume that someone random walked into the room that Murray had Michael on a Propofol IV , would they understand what is going on and it was not proper way to do it and it was risking Michael's life? Well probably not. Unless they have a medical experience.
We know that Katherine argued that Gongaware should have known because he toured with Michael before. Here I want to mention Frank Cascio, I don't know if you read this book but he mentions seeing doctors coming into the room - at 99 birdge collapse and during invincible recording. It seems he was never in the room and he didn't know about Propofol and what the doctors were doing until after Michael's death. Similarly he mentions his concerns at other events, calling Michael's doctor and being told that everything is fine. So Frank is a good example of a regular person with no medical knowledge. He wasn't knowledgeable enough to argue with a doctor that told him everything was fine and even though he saw doctors around Michael he didn't know about the exact nature of the treatment."
Re: Katherine & MJ's kids sue AEG / Trial date delayed to April 2, 2013
I was just using Frank Cascio as an example of a person who has been close and around Michael, who has seen doctors and/or equipment but wasn't able to understand what's going on. He didn't have knowledge about what the drug was or whether it was okay or not, whether it was dangerous or not.
From that example one can argue that it'll be the same for every person who is not medically trained.
I was just using Frank Cascio as an example of a person who has been close and around Michael, who has seen doctors and/or equipment but wasn't able to understand what's going on. He didn't have knowledge about what the drug was or whether it was okay or not, whether it was dangerous or not.
From that example one can argue that it'll be the same for every person who is not medically trained.
Ashtanga
Proud Member
Re: Katherine & MJ's kids sue AEG / Trial date delayed to April 2, 2013
This family is a hot mess! :blink:uke: Who can understand them? Nobody! :doh:
This family is a hot mess! :blink:
uke: Who can understand them? Nobody! :doh:Big Apple2
Proud Member
Re: Katherine & MJ's kids sue AEG / Trial date delayed to April 2, 2013
Those dang Jacksons continue to crack me up (not really, but you know what I mean).
ALWAYS pointing the finger at somebody else. NEVER at themselves.
Case in point: Now it's all about what AEG "should" have known. What about what the Jacksons should have known, namely MOTHER!
As we all know, she was one family member who had total and complete access to Michael at all times. She could come and go as she pleased. No announcements necessary.
Did she ever question why those oxygen tanks were lined up in/or around the kitchen area? During any of her visits to Michael's home on Carolwood, did she ever run into Conrad Murray and wonder why he needed to spend the night at Michael's home? Did she have access to Michael's bedroom (I'm sure she did) and ever wonder why he needed an IV pole in his bedroom? It would appear (to me anyway) that Conrad Murray had the very same access to Michael that Mother had, did it ever cross her mind to ask why this doctor is coming and going like he was?
I certainly hope, IF she takes the witness stand, some of those questions are asked of her. I'd love to hear her answers.
Those dang Jacksons continue to crack me up (not really, but you know what I mean).
ALWAYS pointing the finger at somebody else. NEVER at themselves.
Case in point: Now it's all about what AEG "should" have known. What about what the Jacksons should have known, namely MOTHER!
As we all know, she was one family member who had total and complete access to Michael at all times. She could come and go as she pleased. No announcements necessary.
Did she ever question why those oxygen tanks were lined up in/or around the kitchen area? During any of her visits to Michael's home on Carolwood, did she ever run into Conrad Murray and wonder why he needed to spend the night at Michael's home? Did she have access to Michael's bedroom (I'm sure she did) and ever wonder why he needed an IV pole in his bedroom? It would appear (to me anyway) that Conrad Murray had the very same access to Michael that Mother had, did it ever cross her mind to ask why this doctor is coming and going like he was?
I certainly hope, IF she takes the witness stand, some of those questions are asked of her. I'd love to hear her answers.
Re: Katherine & MJ's kids sue AEG / Trial date delayed to April 2, 2013
I always wondered if Katherine really paid attention to Michael. She was the only one that talked to him on a regular basis. The others in the family would say that they wouldn't talk to him for years at times. I think she always thought he was fine and he probably told her he was fine. She even admitted to Oprah that she thought he was fine but others kept coming to her and telling her things. People who never saw him at all. I really don't think any of the Jacksons knew Michael's life because he kept a distance from them.
I know he loved them but I think it's sad that he really wasn't close to them as he used to be. Do I know this for sure? No but if they were really close to Michael then they would have talked and seen him more than they did. Michael was close to a lot of people and they saw him more than his family did. It seemed that if Michael wanted you around then you were able to get in touch with him.
I wish the family especially katherine would drop this. Even if they win and get money to me it's like death money. I don't know how they can live with that.
I always wondered if Katherine really paid attention to Michael. She was the only one that talked to him on a regular basis. The others in the family would say that they wouldn't talk to him for years at times. I think she always thought he was fine and he probably told her he was fine. She even admitted to Oprah that she thought he was fine but others kept coming to her and telling her things. People who never saw him at all. I really don't think any of the Jacksons knew Michael's life because he kept a distance from them.
I know he loved them but I think it's sad that he really wasn't close to them as he used to be. Do I know this for sure? No but if they were really close to Michael then they would have talked and seen him more than they did. Michael was close to a lot of people and they saw him more than his family did. It seemed that if Michael wanted you around then you were able to get in touch with him.
I wish the family especially katherine would drop this. Even if they win and get money to me it's like death money. I don't know how they can live with that.
elusive moonwalker
Guests
Re: Katherine & MJ's kids sue AEG / Trial date delayed to April 2, 2013
aslong as hayvernhurst/the family was paid for etc etc then imo thats all that mattered. false concern after the event when all that mattered at the time was getting the bros together in texas or getting them on stage with him at the 02. when that didnt happen we saw all those articles about how family members were going to london to keep an eye on mj as he was an alcoholic etc. imo retaliation for not getting involved in texas or having the family involved in the shows
blind eyes were always turned when it was for the good of the family
aslong as hayvernhurst/the family was paid for etc etc then imo thats all that mattered. false concern after the event when all that mattered at the time was getting the bros together in texas or getting them on stage with him at the 02. when that didnt happen we saw all those articles about how family members were going to london to keep an eye on mj as he was an alcoholic etc. imo retaliation for not getting involved in texas or having the family involved in the shows
blind eyes were always turned when it was for the good of the family
Re: Katherine & MJ's kids sue AEG / Trial date delayed to April 2, 2013
The family is not credible to me because when Michael didn't want to tour with them then he had "problems". When they were trying to get on his good side he was doing fantastic and great. If there was a real concern to them it would not have mattered if he toured with them or not. They change their story all the time depending what is going on and how they will look in the matter.
The family is not credible to me because when Michael didn't want to tour with them then he had "problems". When they were trying to get on his good side he was doing fantastic and great. If there was a real concern to them it would not have mattered if he toured with them or not. They change their story all the time depending what is going on and how they will look in the matter.
Re: Katherine & MJ's kids sue AEG / Trial date delayed to April 2, 2013
It looks like Katherine's lawyers have sent a document production request to the LA Coroner. They are asking for x-rays (listed on pg 10 of autopsy report) and pathology slides (listed at pg 9 of autopsy report).
LA Coroner has filed objections for several reasons
- Estate who happens to be the legal representative of Michael was not given notice.
- Estate had previously (at Lloyds lawsuit) had asserted right of privacy.
- Pathology slides are considered to be remains of a decedent and it will either require consent from the legal representative (Estate) or a court order.
- X-Rays are photographs / negatives of decedent's body and they are considered to be confidential and privileged by law and cannot be copied.
------------------
applicable law cited by coroner - California Code of Civil Procedure Section 129
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no copy, reproduction, or facsimile of any kind shall be made of any photograph, negative, or print, including instant photographs and video recordings, of the body, or any portion of the body, of a deceased person, taken by or for the coroner at the scene of death or in the course of a post mortem examination or autopsy made by or caused to be made by the coroner, except for use in a criminal action or proceeding in this state that relates to the death of that person, or except as a court of this state permits, by order after good cause has been shown and after written notification of the request for the court order has been served, at least five days
before the order is made, upon the district attorney of the county in which the post mortem examination or autopsy has been made or caused to be made.
This section shall not apply to the making of such a copy, reproduction, or facsimile for use in the field of forensic pathology, for use in medical or scientific education or research, or for use by any law enforcement agency in this or any other state or the United States.
This section shall apply to any such copy, reproduction, or facsimile, and to any such photograph, negative, or print, heretofore or hereafter made.
It looks like Katherine's lawyers have sent a document production request to the LA Coroner. They are asking for x-rays (listed on pg 10 of autopsy report) and pathology slides (listed at pg 9 of autopsy report).
LA Coroner has filed objections for several reasons
- Estate who happens to be the legal representative of Michael was not given notice.
- Estate had previously (at Lloyds lawsuit) had asserted right of privacy.
- Pathology slides are considered to be remains of a decedent and it will either require consent from the legal representative (Estate) or a court order.
- X-Rays are photographs / negatives of decedent's body and they are considered to be confidential and privileged by law and cannot be copied.
------------------
applicable law cited by coroner - California Code of Civil Procedure Section 129
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no copy, reproduction, or facsimile of any kind shall be made of any photograph, negative, or print, including instant photographs and video recordings, of the body, or any portion of the body, of a deceased person, taken by or for the coroner at the scene of death or in the course of a post mortem examination or autopsy made by or caused to be made by the coroner, except for use in a criminal action or proceeding in this state that relates to the death of that person, or except as a court of this state permits, by order after good cause has been shown and after written notification of the request for the court order has been served, at least five days
before the order is made, upon the district attorney of the county in which the post mortem examination or autopsy has been made or caused to be made.
This section shall not apply to the making of such a copy, reproduction, or facsimile for use in the field of forensic pathology, for use in medical or scientific education or research, or for use by any law enforcement agency in this or any other state or the United States.
This section shall apply to any such copy, reproduction, or facsimile, and to any such photograph, negative, or print, heretofore or hereafter made.
Re: Katherine & MJ's kids sue AEG / Trial date delayed to April 2, 2013
Why do they want that? I don't want anything getting in the wrong hands of people. Michael should have some privacy. That picture of him that was shown at the trial was enough for me.
Why do they want that? I don't want anything getting in the wrong hands of people. Michael should have some privacy. That picture of him that was shown at the trial was enough for me.
Bubs
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,856
- Points
- 0
Re: Katherine & MJ's kids sue AEG / Trial date delayed to April 2, 2013
I don't believe what they say about them being close. I rely on what Michael did, not what he said. Actions speak louder than words. Have we ever heard that when MJ was in need for place to stay, he went to any family member? No.
He and his kids stays 4 months with Cascio's cramped house, rather than go to any of his siblings.
He went anywhere and any place other than his own family, and that to me speaks louder than any words.
I don't believe what they say about them being close. I rely on what Michael did, not what he said. Actions speak louder than words. Have we ever heard that when MJ was in need for place to stay, he went to any family member? No.
He and his kids stays 4 months with Cascio's cramped house, rather than go to any of his siblings.
He went anywhere and any place other than his own family, and that to me speaks louder than any words.
bouee
Proud Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,369
- Points
- 0
Re: Katherine & MJ's kids sue AEG / Trial date delayed to April 2, 2013
Didn't the Jacksons say they had their own autopsy done ?
I don't understand either. What do they want to show with that ?
Didn't the Jacksons say they had their own autopsy done ?
elusive moonwalker
Guests
Re: Katherine & MJ's kids sue AEG / Trial date delayed to April 2, 2013
Probably just grasping at straws.anyway ivy of seeing why they want the info or might that only happen if they file a court motion asking for it to be ordered.
i guess randy could leak the docs for a few bucks if all else fails like with the emails
Probably just grasping at straws.anyway ivy of seeing why they want the info or might that only happen if they file a court motion asking for it to be ordered.
i guess randy could leak the docs for a few bucks if all else fails like with the emails
Re: Katherine & MJ's kids sue AEG / Trial date delayed to April 2, 2013
I don't know what they are trying to achieve with this specific stuff. What amazes me is how late they are to request such information. Not much left for their response to summary judgment and only 2 months left to the trial start. why this late?
I don't know what they are trying to achieve with this specific stuff. What amazes me is how late they are to request such information. Not much left for their response to summary judgment and only 2 months left to the trial start. why this late?
even if the summary judgment gets thrown out the trial is April 2nd so we are at the 2 months timeline. I think it's kinda late to be just doing these depositions and sending requests for documents. They need to get them, study them and get ready for the trial. It kinda seems like they expected a settlement and when it didn't happen now they are starting to get ready for the trial.
- Status