Latest on MJJC

Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Status
Not open for further replies.
Panish asked if Erk knows some of MJ's #1 songs. He responded Beat It, Billie Jan, Man in the Middle, Heal the World, Can’t Stop Loving You.
Click to expand...

Man In The Middle Lyrics ABBA

Did you see that man in the limousine
With the pretty blond, he is fifty and the girl's only seventeen
But she doesn't care, and she never will
If he's ninety-five she don't give a damn
Just as long as he pays the bill

Did you see that man with a fat cigar
He just left his lunch with a belly full of lobster and caviar

He can choose the wine from a vintage year
He will drink champagne in his limousine
When the rest of us drink a beer

'Cause he's the man in the middle, never second fiddle
Just like a spider in a cobweb
Hard as a hammer, not the kind of boss you double-cross
'Cause he's the man in the middle, knows the way to diddle
He's never bothered by his conscience
Deals with the Devil, 'cause he wants to be
Man in the middle, the middle, the middle
In the middle

But you see that man made a big mistake
Even though he's got all his servants and a mansion beside a lake
And the money too, all that he can spend
He can buy the most, nearly anything
But he can't buy an honest friend

'Cause he's the man in the middle, never second fiddle
Just like a spider in a cobweb
Hard as a hammer, not the kind of boss you double-cross
'Cause he's the man in the middle, knows the way to diddle
He's never bothered by his conscience
Deals with the Devil, 'cause he wants to be
Man in the middle, the middle, the middle
In the middle
 
Random question from an outsider jumping in...
AEG has I believe stated that they can definitively prove that Prince/Paris are biologically not Michael's children. For the sake of it let's leave out the are or aren't they (I myself believe they clearly are) and address the one hypothetical that has suddenly started to seem glaringly obvious AEG may try if things are not going so well, to limit any damages to "family"... Well, you can probably see where this is going.

Would it affect any claimed damages if AEG *did* somehow have such proof and presented it?
Do YOU (anyone reading here) think AEG may actually try to do so? They did seem pretty confident of their supposed proof, and it just feels like a now painful but obvious tactic to try if they believe they have it. I hadn't seen this idea brought up here.
 
PikminZero said:
Random question from an outsider jumping in...
AEG has I believe stated that they can definitively prove that Prince/Paris are biologically not Michael's children.
Click to expand...

they did not. it was just a tabloid report

For the sake of it let's leave out the are or aren't they (I myself believe they clearly are) and address the one hypothetical that has suddenly started to seem glaringly obvious AEG may try if things are not going so well, to limit any damages to "family"... Well, you can probably see where this is going.

Would it affect any claimed damages if AEG *did* somehow have such proof and presented it?
Do YOU (anyone reading here) think AEG may actually try to do so? They did seem pretty confident of their supposed proof, and it just feels like a now painful but obvious tactic to try if they believe they have it. I hadn't seen this idea brought up here.
Click to expand...

no they can't and won't do it because they already said they had no intention and judge already concluded paternity cannot be addressed. plus as far as damages go, paternity makes no difference as the kids are legally seen as Michael's kids.
 
Tygger said:
If Michael found himself in debt in his future after TII, he would find himself having to work thus, increasing earnings.
Click to expand...

ivy said:
nothing to do with earnings potential but everything to do with loss income. because it is earnings minus spendings. isn't it?
Click to expand...

Sorry, Ivy, but I believe you are wrong. Your logic may right for you, me and about 99% of people, but not for Michael Jackson's birth-family.
Of course: his earnings from the shows and tours would have Michael distributed to his circa 100 relativs!
And after that, for his debts..... there was the Sony/Atv-catalogue for his own children and therefore PPB would have sold it and paid father's debt.
Yeah, and if Michael wouldn't want his cildren leave his debt then look obove.
"...he would find himself having to work thus,..."


I know it is a bit polemic but I cannot find other words in the moment.
 
Bubs said:
Thanks Jamba, I needed a good laugh :giggle:
I must say that Erk's testimony was kind of comedy testimony. I find it extremely funny to think about, MJ went on solo tour when he was in his 30's, and did 3 big tours in ten years + few one off gigs, but now when there is 40 billion on the table, they want us to believe that MJ would do 4 tours when he is in his 50's.
Click to expand...

Yes, I estimate in his entire career he did about 500-800 live shows (just a rough estimate b/c some were not listed re # of shows in the early days); this is going back to the beginning up to 2001. So all of a sudden he is going to do 260 more shows up to age 65-66. No way. You mean to say a solo performer, as he was after the 80's, is going to do all those shows at that age? You can't compare him to the Stones or any group b/c MJ was a solo act with great physicality of dancing and singing. Who else dances like MJ while performing and singing?? This is madness--I am so irked with Erk! (sorry, couldn't help it).
 
you need to read the tweets about the cross of Erk
 
@ABC7Courts: Erk said there was testimony that MJ could've done a 48-month tour, which would increase revenue in approximately 30%.
Click to expand...

Where is this testimony?

@ABC7Courts: Using the simple 30% increase calculation, there would be an additional 78 shows, totaling 338 shows in 48 months.

*side eyes*
@mccartneyAP: Erk said he spoke to Jackson’s son Prince on Saturday night. He said Prince told him his father said, “’We’re going to Asia.”
Click to expand...
 
"I packed a lot of shows in to go out with a bang," Erk said.

Erk, you are completly delusional. MJ would have told you no way. Do you realize he only wanted to do TEN shows at first? TEN?? Not 260. "Go out with a bang"--what kind of talk is that? That amount of live shows would have killed him.

What about spending time with his kids? That was his first priority. Do you think he wanted to drag them around all over the globe in 260 shows for 4 years? He wanted them to STOP LIVING LIKE VAGABONDS and have a settled, permanent, stable HOME.
 
marebear;3868882 said:
How come this trial is so long and the Zimmerman trial was so fast?
Click to expand...

The Zimmerman trial was over fast because the prosecution didn’t put much effort into winning the case so the defense had a minimal responsibility in defending their GUILTY client. It wasn't a hard case at all. All they had to do was play on our nation’s long history of racism and Florida is a southern state.
 
Erk spoke to Prince. Kai spoke to Paris. Latoya spoke to Paris. It seems some of these witnesses are asking the children information to build their testimony. If Michael told Prince they were going to Asia, did he mean he was going to tour there for a huge number of shows?

Anyone knows why Panish needs another prof dr on the witness stand again. I don't get his method of having 2 to 3 people testifying about the same issue.

I am wondering what the plaintiffs closing argument will be. Something like: First we showed you that Michael's body was in healthy shape for his age, but it was also unhealthy. He was a drug addict, but he also was not. He could not handle 10 shows, but he could do 250........
 
MIST said:
Man In The Middle Lyrics ABBA

Did you see that man in the limousine
With the pretty blond, he is fifty and the girl's only seventeen
But she doesn't care, and she never will
If he's ninety-five she don't give a damn
Just as long as he pays the bill

Did you see that man with a fat cigar
He just left his lunch with a belly full of lobster and caviar

He can choose the wine from a vintage year
He will drink champagne in his limousine
When the rest of us drink a beer

'Cause he's the man in the middle, never second fiddle
Just like a spider in a cobweb
Hard as a hammer, not the kind of boss you double-cross
'Cause he's the man in the middle, knows the way to diddle
He's never bothered by his conscience
Deals with the Devil, 'cause he wants to be
Man in the middle, the middle, the middle
In the middle

But you see that man made a big mistake
Even though he's got all his servants and a mansion beside a lake
And the money too, all that he can spend
He can buy the most, nearly anything
But he can't buy an honest friend

'Cause he's the man in the middle, never second fiddle
Just like a spider in a cobweb
Hard as a hammer, not the kind of boss you double-cross
'Cause he's the man in the middle, knows the way to diddle
He's never bothered by his conscience
Deals with the Devil, 'cause he wants to be
Man in the middle, the middle, the middle
In the middle
Click to expand...

:doh: Omg how the ehck could he have got abba's song mixed up with mjs ..lol
 
tumblr_mh9a4jdtm71rhk2w1o2_250.gif





Oh God :doh:, I'm so curious to see how will be the end of it. :bugeyed :fear: *big sigh*
 
I believe this witness’ testimony will be difficult for the jury because it is technical estimations. Every activity is an assumption. I do not believe the jury has to accept all of the activities as successful but, I do not believe the jury has to accept all of the activities as unsuccessful or that they would be attempted at all. It will be beneficial if we are able to know the judge’s instructions regarding how to handle this expert’s testimony.

It's not that fans don't believe he would be as successful as the plaintiffs suggest. To the contrary, I think most fans believe MJ could have surpassed any predictions in the music and concert arena. Just like he wildly exceeded expectations in selling out the O2. We just don't believe MJ would have wanted to or would have toured that much. Even the plaintiff Katherine Jackson has alluded to that.
Click to expand...

Gerryevans, Jamba, I agree Michael did not want to tour much if at all. However, it was said he wanted to retire after the Bad tour and he went on to do Dangerous, History, and planned to complete TII. When Michael needed to work, he did like most responsible people.

I think this is a misrepresentation of what the fans are saying. Yes there were talks about taking TII to other cities, there were even emails sent asking for 5 shows in Japan and so on. So yeah it's highly probable that TII would be taken to other cities and there were high earning potential.

but 260 shows? Do you find that even remotely realistic? When Michael in Bad tour only performed 120+ shows? When he wanted to do movies? when he reportedly complained about "waking up to 50 shows"?

Also add to this Michael's health, according to Jacksons he was emancipated, paranoid, slow to get the material, couldn't do 360 spins, and was about to die within weeks because he did not get sleep. Do you really think that in this situation could the tour really be successful and will he be able to continue to do 260 shows?

It sounds such an oxymoron to me, on one hand saying he was on his dead bed and on the other one he's working till he's 65. How does this magical improvement happens? Just because AEG doesn't hire or fire Murray?
Click to expand...

Ivy, I am a bit confuse by the cross examination. I do not see 260 shows as unbelievable. Michael was expected to do 50 shows in less than a year with four to five months preparation even though he did not tour in over a decade. Why would he not be able to do five times as much with three to four years approximately to complete?

It was shown in court Michael did a similar amount in 10 years at younger ages. However, Michael was at a different point in his life (a 50 year old single father) and this tour was going to help him get the stability he wanted. I believe he would use the TII success to pursue other interests as well.

The expert admitted he assumed good health for Michael and the coroner’s report proved Michael was in good health. This means this expert did not factor the doctor negligently and inappropriately administering an anesthetic into his calculations.

I agree with the expert and AEG in that Michael had to clear debt. With any other person, income has to come in to pay debt down; why is that not applicable to Michael? Michael already proved he was willing to do the 50 shows even though he grumbled and was contracted for 31. He had to work.

I agree with Smooth72 in that AEG will blame and trash Michael and I believe it started with the cross of this expert. I do not agree with Justthefacts that this is the plaintiffs’ fault as the defense chose to defend themselves in this manner to deflect from the claim that they allegedly and negligently hired the doctor.

TII was a gamble but, with 50 sold out shows on paper, it was considered successful and AEG's own emails support that. AEG had a multi-year plan that they were enacting due to those sold out 50 shows. AEG tried minor disagreements about the stadiums and unusable seats and such. Then they tried Michael’s past: the molestation charges (did Strong mention Michael was acquitted in 2005?) Michael dangling his youngest child over a balcony, Michael being more successful in the 80’s, etc. for reasons Michael would NOT be successful in the future. That argument is a bit confusing because they are not saying if that pending failure based on Michael’s past would happen immediately after the 50 sold out shows, after AEG’s multi-year plan was completed, or maybe, Michael would fail if he did not perform in a partnership with AEG.

nothing to do with earnings potential but everything to do with loss income. because it is earnings minus spendings. isn't it?
Click to expand...

Actually, ABC7 tweet explained the plaintiffs cannot get damages for money to repay debts. I agree with the expert, he was not hired to calculate Michael’s future debts and he should not attempt it. I find AEG is portraying Michael as undisciplined and irresponsible by saying he consistently spent more than he made which is actually what most people do.

Michael did earn his money honestly and earned the right to spend that money how he chose. To suggest that his choices would not change as a 50 year old, single father looking to stabilize his life and his family is rather rude of AEG in my view. Even if he continued to spend more than he made, it would be his choice and, he would most likely have to continue to work.

Maybe the transcript will go into more detail but, just based on the tweets: AEG said Michael spent $570k+ monthly in 2009 without saying what the expenditures were. Should I simply assume it was all spent on frivolous luxury items like cars, jewelry, and clothes? Stating Michael spent $435k in the early 2000’s on airfare and hotels for two months without any details such as how many people were accompanying him and if he could actually afford that is just showing him purposely as careless.

Do they expect AEG to postpone the tour - with no negative effects - and get Michael in rehab - when all Jackson interventions failed - , cure him completely, solve his sleep problems and then get him back to touring? Perhaps it is me but I just don't get the logic.
Click to expand...

What would be wrong with that option? This option would mean maintaining the machine was priority number one and not profits.
 
Last edited:
KJ says in deposition that between MJ moving to Carolwood (end of 2008) and announcement in UK (March 2009) MJ never told her he is returning to the stage. Interesting indeed. I was wondering as KJ is the closest of the family to MJ, why didn't he tell her that he is returning on stage?


Mneme said:
Sorry, Ivy, but I believe you are wrong. Your logic may right for you, me and about 99% of people, but not for Michael Jackson's birth-family.
Of course: his earnings from the shows and tours would have Michael distributed to his circa 100 relativs!
And after that, for his debts..... there was the Sony/Atv-catalogue for his own children and therefore PPB would have sold it and paid father's debt.
Yeah, and if Michael wouldn't want his cildren leave his debt then look obove.
"...he would find himself having to work thus,..."

I know it is a bit polemic but I cannot find other words in the moment.
Click to expand...

You said it perfectly, it is what it is.
In certain Jackson's la la land, there is no such a thing as paying debt, it always profit and thats it.


jamba said:
Erk assumed MJ was in good health and SUPERMAN!
Click to expand...

Michael%20Jackson_%20Superman02.jpg



Petrarose said:
I am wondering what the plaintiffs closing argument will be. Something like: First we showed you that Michael's body was in healthy shape for his age, but it was also unhealthy. He was a drug addict, but he also was not. He could not handle 10 shows, but he could do 250........
Click to expand...

Sorry but the latest number is 338 shows in 48 months, and 4 tours after that. If plaintiffs keep Erk on stand few more days, that number will increase, after all, he is earning his $ 300 thousand from this case and he seems to be willing to go to moon with his estimates :giggle:
 
Last edited:
Strong asked if Katherine Jackson's Hayvenhurst home was about to go in foreclosure. Erk said yes.
"The reason he was going on tour was to get himself straight, earn money to take care of his family," Erk said.

and KJ in her testimony said that she didn't know MJ was going back on stage? Maybe Erk meant Mj was going to take care of his own family (his children and buy a house for them)
--------------------------
"Erk said the estimate of cost of his firm's work in this case is $300,000. He didn't review thousands of pages, eliminated all unnecessary."

Ivy, do we get to see the estate accounting any time soon? I would really want to see how much (if charged from the estate) the estate spent on Katherine's lawyers and others .
---------------------------
Strong said Erk's opinion assumes that MJ would do something he had never done before.
Strong: The artist usually had the final decision?
Erk: Yes, they have final say but consult with the professionals that surround them.

:bugeyed
Plaintiifs tried to add claim that AEG controlled MJ, but it was thrown out. Now they have witness telling that people around MJ told him how many gigs he should do and MJ would have willingly done as told? They are really spinning this case to suit their agenda!
-------------------------------
Erk said he didn't calculate how many more shows would be required to fulfill a 48 month tour.
Using the simple 30% increase calculation, there would be an additional 78 shows, totaling 338 shows in 48 months.

Few more days on stand, this man would say MJ was doing 1000 shows :smilerolleyes:
---------------------
Michael did altogether 275 shows for BAD, Dangerous and HiStory.
I had to laugh at this:
Strong: Now you have him in one tour, 12 years later, at age of 50, doing 260 shows?
Erk: Yes
:D
---------------------
Strong asked if Erk's projection is inconsistent with MJ's tour history. Erk said the show was called This Is It, his final extravaganza.
"I packed a lot of shows in to go out with a bang," Erk said.

The only extravaganza was Erks estimates, and he certainly went out with bang :D
I can believe MJ would have done some additional tours in other countries after UK, but what Erk says is way too much.
----------------------
Strong asked if MJ never agreed to do more than 50 shows. Erk said he doesn't know if he agrees with that.
Erk said he spoke with Prince on Saturday and he said MJ told him they were going to Asia.

I have an issue with this. Erk said MJ was going on tour after 02 gigs and he relied on RP testimony of possibility MJ going on longer tour with them, and calculated his possible earnings to go with it.

Then how it is possible that Prince testified this:
Q did you know anything about the business deal involving AEG and your father?
A no. But from what he told me, he wasn't happy with it.
Q as far as what the terms were, all that --
A no.
Q -- that wasn't something you were involved with?
A no.
Q now, even though you were young, did your father confide in you at all about his dealings with Randy Phillips, AEG live, and Dr. Tohme?
A yes.

There is more of his testimony relating on AEG and MJ being unhappy with them.
If MJ was unhappy with them, are they saying that MJ still would have extended his contract with AEG and done 260 dates with them around the world? They are very conflicting with this whole thingy! Junior says that AEG made him cry and didn't like them, then they have expert who talked to Junior and he says daddy was going on Asia with promoter that made him cry?
I find it odd that plaintiffs have been trying to show, via their witnesses how big bag AEG controlled and basically abused MJ and didn't look after him, but when it comes to calculate how much MJ would have earn with them, it is totally different language!

I'm very concern about if they are using Junior to suit their agenda.
-------------------
Strong asked if people had issue w/ MJ dangling a baby over the balcony of hotel. He said for a short time yes, but not to affect attendance

Low blow but expected. I agree with Erk that it wouldn't have effected on attendance. I think it was mostly forgotten but this trial brought up all those thing out again. Thank you's to Jackson's greedyness.
-----------------------
Both attorneys were shouting to each other, court clerk asked them to knock it off, called sheriffs.
:rofl:
----------------------------

Link to video report from ABC
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/video?id=9174505
There is a list of cities on cities Erk based his calculations of MJ's earnings from worldwide. He listed US cities, but MJ haven't or didn't tour in North Us since Bad, or did he?
 
Last edited:
I don´t post here often but I read every single day. And I´m on Michael´s side in this, not The Jackson´s or AEG, but Michael only. I don´t want anyone to win.

Tygger;3869731 said:
Ivy, I am a bit confuse by the cross examination. I do not see 260 shows as unbelievable. Michael was expected to do 50 shows in less than a year with four to five months preparation even though he did not tour in over a decade. Why would he not be able to do five times as much with three to four years approximately to complete?

It was shown in court Michael did a similar amount in 10 years at younger ages. However, Michael was at a different point in his life (a 50 year old single father) and this tour was going to help him get the stability he wanted. I believe he would use the TII success to pursue other interests as well.
Click to expand...

Most of the time I just scroll down and doesn´t read your posts because it´s hard for me to understand most of the time, and that is because of my lack in english. But I must answer to this.. the closest person to me in my life has been around Michael a lot and talked to him on the phone for years too, sometimes with months apart or even a year and sometimes more often. And in 2009 after he had announced the concerts he said that after these concerts and a few more (which he said was going to take place in bigger cities) he wanted to get on with the movies because he wanted to work with his children and they were all into movies. He was looking forward to that. And he said no more world tours because I can´t dance that much anymore and need longer rests in between. So them saying 260 is not possible, and he didn´t want that.

Sorry if I offended anyone now, I´m so scared things will come out the wrong way.
 
We know Michael could have sold out 100 concerts in London despite baby dangling and former pedophile accusations, there is no need to bring that up again.

I wonder what songs Michael was supposed to perform in future tours, it seemed like Michael wouldn´t have time and strength after all the touring to do new albums.
Would it have been several greatest hits tours with maybe a few new songs?
In 2009 he hadn´t made a tour for over a decade and it was a big demand for him, but I don´t think it would be the same demand for later tours.

I suppose they had a miracle cure for Michael´s insomnia.
It´s to late for that now.
 
8701girl said:
:doh: Omg how the ehck could he have got abba's song mixed up with mjs ..lol
Click to expand...

Actually he didn't. It was an auto correct mistake on ABC Court's twitter:

@ABC7Courts

@K_N_Ife You're right. Apologies! "Billie Jean" and "Man in The Mirror"are the right songs. Auto-correct...
 
Tygger said:
Ivy, I am a bit confuse by the cross examination. I do not see 260 shows as unbelievable.
Click to expand...

Look I agree that 50 shows sold out quite fast which shows a good interest in Michael. I state that there were talks about taking this to other cities, so if successful I totally expect TII to be more than 50 shows and of course as a responsible person when Michael was faces with debts (a loan needed repayment in 2009) and wanted a house, he went back to work. I have no question in my mind if TII happened and successfully went to other cities Michael would make millions of dollars. (2009 top grossing tour was U2 with over $300 Million. I would also agree that Michael would make at least (if not more) that amount).

That being said I also think some of these numbers are exaggeration and unrealistic at times.

- 275 shows in 10 years versus 260 shows in 3 years or 388 shows in 4 years - especially when he clearly wanted to make movies and wouldn't sign a deal with AEG unless they agreed to a movie. When you have people Michael signed up for 10 but woke up to 50 and Prince testifying Michael was crying after talking with Phillips and Tohme.

- 4 more tours after the 260 or 388 show TII

- 10 times the gross income of any other MJ tour

- higher ticket prices

- 60 shows in India when Michael only performed once, 10 of the shows in an unavailable area

I guess you get the point. Yes I think Michael would do more than 50 shows and be successful and earn hundreds of millions (pay his loans, buy a house, and do movies) but these numbers are a little exaggeration IMO.

What would be wrong with that option? This option would mean maintaining the machine was priority number one and not profits.
Click to expand...

I did not say anything was wrong with it but again you need to consider how realistic it is. Jacksons talked about failed interventions so what makes you think AEG would be successful in any similar attempt? Do you expect AEG to force Michael into rehab - something I thought everyone was against (and I mean control over Michael).

Bubs said:
Ivy, do we get to see the estate accounting any time soon? I would really want to see how much (if charged from the estate) the estate spent on Katherine's lawyers and others .
Click to expand...

I think there's an accounting hearing set for December. I don't know if there will be any extension but yeah we should see the third accounting in a few months. It might not be itemized though.
 
Is interesting to read how Erk made his projections without taking Michael's wishes in consideration. Erk said Michael just had to work as if Michael were a factory machinery that has to produce a certain number of items. He didn't think about Michael's health & age, even machines need maintenance.

How about if Michael wanted, like Virre, says to do things with his children. That makes sense, Michael was interested in films, Paris wants to be an actress & Prince wants to be a director. What better opportunity for Michael to be with his children and at the same time earn some money. Besides Erk's predicted amount doesn't mean Michael would funneled a huge chunk from that to his mother. He had debts, he had to take care of three children who were growing & probably had more demands, he had to pay for his own little & expensive pleasures. How about money that he would need for the children's hospital. Michael gave almost all of his History earnings to charity, he didn't give it to Katherine, how is it that now that Katherine is older Michael would give her a huge mountain of money to her.

Really, I think Erk's prediction was a waste of $300,000. If AEG asks how much is he charging, can they ask if he was paid yet?
 
I think "Michael signed up for 10 but woke up to 50" is complete bull****. He knew everything and he wanted 31 shows in London (10 more than Prince did). Only 10 shows was never a plan. Then MJ agreed to do 50 shows because of high demand.

Then I think he would take the show to the world, but not a classic touring. I think he would do 5 more cities - 50 shows (like Paris, Mumbai, New York..). Around 100 shows alltogether for This Is It. And that would be it. His last tour definitively. No more touring, that's for sure. Maybe few more concert specials like 30th anniversary and award shows performances until he is 60. And that's it. Touring until the age of 65 is impossible and funny.

That's my opinion. This Is It would be his last tour. But I believe he would release 2-3 more studio albums and many more box-set albums with unreleased material, blu-rays of all of his tours including This Is It, blu-ray with all of his short films, he would do more short films and movies, Thriller 3D, Cirque show for sure, Vegas theme show, touring merchandise, clothing line with Ed Hardy.. I'm sure he would be part of Sony/ATV decision making on acquiring new music catalogs..

So yeah, it is possible he would earn 1,5 billion $ until he's 65 but not from touring. That was stupid thing to say in the courtroom.
 
Aquarius;3869911 said:
Is interesting to read how Erk made his projections without taking Michael's wishes in consideration. Erk said Michael just had to work as if Michael were a factory machinery that has to produce a certain number of items. He didn't think about Michael's health & age, even machines need maintenance.

How about if Michael wanted, like Virre, says to do things with his children. That makes sense, Michael was interested in films, Paris wants to be an actress & Prince wants to be a director. What better opportunity for Michael to be with his children and at the same time earn some money. Besides Erk's predicted amount doesn't mean Michael would funneled a huge chunk from that to his mother. He had debts, he had to take care of three children who were growing & probably had more demands, he had to pay for his own little & expensive pleasures. How about money that he would need for the children's hospital. Michael gave almost all of his History earnings to charity, he didn't give it to Katherine, how is it that now that Katherine is older Michael would give her a huge mountain of money to her.

Really, I think Erk's prediction was a waste of $300,000. If AEG asks how much is he charging, can they ask if he was paid yet?
Click to expand...

I agree with you. It seems that even in death, nobody takes into consideration what Michael would have wanted or what he was his own plans :no:

About the bolded part, good question. Certainly Michael gave some money to KJ, but he never gave give her 40% of his earnings.
I went back to read Ivy's summary about speculative damages:
------------------------
The $40 billion damages are now becoming clearer. Each plaintiff (Katherine, Prince, Paris, Blanket) is asking for $50 Million in general damages and $10 Billion in special damages (it brings it to $200 M total in general damages and $40 billion in special damages). It turns out Katherine’s side is speculating Michael’s possible future income and AEG wants this to be excluded as California law says the damages should be “reasonable certain to result in the future” and “possibility or probability” is not enough. AEG says all of these based on casual conversations and wishful thinking and hypothetical scenarios and nothing was certain.

The possible future income sources are
- Possible future tours after TII
- Possible future albums
- Possible future increased on royalties from already released albums
- Possible future film career
- Possible future clothing line
- Possible future appearances
- Possible future purchase of Marvel comics
- Redacted but based on something Tom Barrack said

Jacksons claim Michael would have earned $500 Million a year for the rest of his life and would give 40% of his earnings to Katherine and his kids. AEG states if you do the math to reach to the $40 billion number it would have required Michael to live 200 more years. ( Math : 40% of $500 M a year = $200 Million a year. $200 Million a year times 200 years gives $40 billion).

AEG also mentions that these numbers aren’t realistically possible as Michael’s popularity was down due to child molestation allegations and he hasn’t performed for years. AEG also mentions how Katherine stated during her deposition that Michael did not want to tour anymore but now also claiming lost income from future tours. AEG also lists details of Michael’s past movie projects that never happened, clothing endorsements that ended in lawsuits and so on to demonstrate that there is no certainty that any of these future business projects would have actually happened or be successful. AEG also mention that Marvel was sold for $4.2 billion (meaning Michael could not have afforded to buy it at all).

AEG has no objection to any lost income from TII to be considered in determining damages.
------------------
Wouldn't plaintiffs have to show that, for example Michael gave in 2008 40% of his earning to KJ and kids, or any one years before 2009? Certainly they have to show something to jurors that they could belive Michael gave portion of his money to KJ.
 
The only person who could tell us how many shows he wanted to do and what else he wanted to do is Michael and he isn't here. To be honest I am getting tired of people saying he didn't want 50 shows or he would have done 260 shows. I honestly believe that Michael would have done the 50 shows especially how it was spread out over a 9 month period. Michael needed rest and sleep. He was a healthy and strong man but he didn't get the proper rest he needed to do the work he needed to do. That's how I look at things. I am no fan of the Jacksons or AEG. I can't wait for this to be over.
 
OnirMJ said:
So yeah, it is possible he would earn 1,5 billion $ until he's 65 but not from touring. That was stupid thing to say in the courtroom.
Click to expand...

I believe the $1.5 Billion number is for 3 years and include 260 show TII tour (at $200 ticket price), a Vegas show, merchandise, endorsements minus the 20% fees and expenses

[[as far as I can get the breakdown is
MJ's TII Gross (2009 and 2010) -- $638.976.138
Endorsement / merchandise $267,354,032.
Endorsement clothing $50 million
MJ - Vegas: $269 million.
Royalties, for use of music, would pay 5% of box office: $102 million total.
This above is $1.3 Billion]]]

the future tours bring another $400 Million

and then there's the money from movies which he did not calculate and left it to the jurors. I looked for information - average movie grosses $50 Million, top movie for 2009 (Transformers) grossed over $400 Million. If we just go with the average of $50 Million and let's say 5 movies, it would make another $250 Million

so the total comes to somewhere at $2.2 Billion or more.


edited to add : MJ's TII Gross (2009 and 2010) -- $638.976.138 and Endorsement / merchandise $267,354,032 equals to $900 Million hence AEG lawyers question that "AEG Live never projected $900 million in earnings for "TII""
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top