KJ vs AEG - Appeal Thread

[Victory22]

Victory22, I have no issue with your views; I simply do not share them.

I will say Michael showed much compassion towards those who were extremely hurtful to him. I believe that is a quality he inherited from his mother.

And I believe Mother is a counterfeit. I don't believe she has never done right by Michael but that's just me.

 

[Autumn II]

When restitution is ordered by a court, the perp's ability to pay is taken into consideration, i.e. in Murray's case, his obligations to his children (about which we know he was deficient, anyway) would have been considered. Restitution may be ordered as a part of the sentencing. In Murray's case, Katherine was given a choice as to whether or not she wanted Murray to pay restitution, and she declined. There is no compensation possible that would have made up for the loss of Michael to his children, and to the world. However, restitution would have given some small measure of closure and the assurance that Murray would be reminded of his crime, for the rest of his life. We can't know Michael's children's reaction to the lack of restitution, but for most fans, probably, it was a shock -- when clearly the judge thought restitution was warranted. This was an opportunity to balance the scale of justice a little more toward Michael, his children, and those throughout the world who loved him. It is my opinion that not requesting restitution was a FAIL.

http://www.victimsofcrime.org/help-...-help-bulletins-for-crime-victims/restitution

 

[Bubs]

**** him and his ability to raise his kids. This man killed her son and couldn't care less about it. Had Michael's estate not sent him a cease and desist letter he would be talking shit about him. Oh and of course she wanted the trial public, she wanted the world to know her son's medical issues. She wanted the world to know he struggled with pain killers at times. She wanted us to see him laying on an autopsy table again. And guess what she lost

I agree with you as email leak support everything what you posted.
That email leak came from KJ's business parter, the same man KJ sold Michael's kids forever and without payh34r:
Those emails didn't portray MJ in good light,but that didn't matter when there is millions on stake.

Oh, ok right! I forgot that mothers change their natural emotions and get real sentimental toward their sons murderers when the concert promoter hired the doctor who killed, abused and abandoned their children.

and no normal mother offer to write letter of recommendation for CM appeal if CM signs declaration supporting KJ's caseuke:

So wrong so many levels.

 

[Bubs]

Tygger, when you have an insurance case with insurance company - it is claim and possible outcome is compensation.
When you have case in court - you can call possible outcome restitution.
AEG dropped their claim, thus they didn't seek compensation from insurance company because they were reimbursed by MJ's estate.

If you don't understand the paragraphs, there is something wrong that you are unable to separate two things in the following post:

AEG Live, the concert division of privately-held Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG), had filed a claim seeking a $17.5 million insurance payment from Lloyd's of London for losses they incurred in up-front costs for Jackson's "This Is It" sell-out shows that were to start in London in July 2009.

Lloyd's later filed a lawsuit against AEG Live in Los Angeles Superior Court, seeking a declaration that the insurance company did not owe the money.

Marvin Putnam, an attorney for AEG, said the company no longer needed the $17.5 million because it was reimbursed by the Jackson estate for its concert-related losses and that it informed Lloyd's in June that it was withdrawing its claim.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

I dont know why you are all bothering. we all know said poster supports the family no matter what regardless of the facts. just use the ignore function as to me every thread is getting ruined because they purposley enter them to either play devils advocate or cause agruments. you end up going around in circles.

we all know the jacksons loved mjs money more than him.there actions time and time again support that and mj actions time and time again of looking for families to attach himself to add to that evidence. "tight nit my ass"

 

[Bubs]

^^ I know and you are right, every now and then I have to try to argue whether Black is Black or is it new White

 

[krikzil]

^^ I know and you are right, every now and then I have to try to argue whether Black is Black or is it new White

We really need a LOL button.

 

[Tygger]

Bubs, the leaked emails, published before the civil trial, were authored by those employed by Michael’s business partner, AEG. Those emails served as evidence in the civil trial. Justthefacts’ views were not in those emails. I would have to review the documents that allowed Mann (is that who you are referring to?) to sell Michael’s children forever and without pay. Look forward to reading them if you have a link.

I believe my understanding of AEG’s withdrawal as defendants from the Lloyds’ trial is quite clear. It seems your understanding of my posts listing facts about the civil trial is not. Please note: AEG not pursing restitution AND removing themselves from the Lloyds' trial are two, separate events. Now, compare your reposting of the Reuters' article to my previous post. For your convenience, I bolded the similar statements. Looks familiar, eh?

AEG Live, the concert division of privately-held Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG), had filed a claim seeking a $17.5 million insurance payment from Lloyd's of London for losses they incurred in up-front costs for Jackson's "This Is It" sell-out shows that were to start in London in July 2009.

Lloyd's later filed a lawsuit against AEG Live in Los Angeles Superior Court, seeking a declaration that the insurance company did not owe the money.

Marvin Putnam, an attorney for AEG, said the company no longer needed the $17.5 million because it was reimbursed by the Jackson estate for its concert-related losses and that it informed Lloyd's in June that it was withdrawing its claim.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/11/entertainment-us-michaeljackson-idUSBRE88A1DE20120911

Passy001, Bubs, surely you did not forget the details of those events?

You may want to review the legal definition of restitution. You may also note AEG was asked why they did not pursue restitution for themselves as Michael was their business partner. They were made whole by the Estate who reimbursed them for cost including tour costs and the Lloyds' life insurance policy value. (That is why AEG was removed as defendants versus Lloyds'.) They also profited from the TII project.

Everything I posted is fact in the subforum for the civil trial for your review.

Elusive Moonwalker, I am not a devil's advocate and I did support the beneficiaries during the civil trial as well as the appeal. However; I did not post my views so much as I posted facts about the civil trial in this thread. While some obviously do not agree with those facts; the facts remain facts.

I would suggest the report function however; it would seem quite silly to report a post that lists facts from the civil trial simply because you do not agree with those facts.

 

[Victory22]

Posting what AEG did or did not do regarding restitution has nothing to do with Michael’s mother refusing to protect her son from Murray after his death. The AEG organization were MJ’s business partners not his parents. They went into the TII project to make money not because they were relatives. Mother dropped restitution against Murray because she’s a mercenary not a mother. That makes her actions sick as well as shameful.

 

[ivy]

fyi - http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/1111_jackson_2.pdf

 

[Tygger]

Victory22, restitution has nothing to do with the appeal but, it seems that is the more interesting discussion for some, eh?

Ivy, Katherine does not have the authority to bind Michael's children to this contract. I am sure legal counsel would have advised her as such provided she did indeed consulted legal counsel and did not implicitly and blindly trust Mann as her son did at a time.

Would anyone know if Katherine is receiving $10K a month from Mann as per the contract?

Adding: Katherine does not have the authority to use Michael's image/likeness so, the contract is not particularly valid from my view.

 

[ivy]

Ivy, Katherine does not have the authority to bind Michael's children to this contract.

Yeah we know but I'm pretty sure that's not what Buds point was. I believe Buds point was "Regardless of what legal authority Katherine has or does not have, she made a statement saying "I have the legal authority to bind and commit myself and the remainder of KJ Party(MJ's kids)" and signed a document that says "forever bind". Buds can correct me.

And as for a legal counsel I would think she didn't have a one or did not have a good one. The another thing about that contract is KJ is getting 25% of profit while Mann and Vaccaro is getting 75%.

blindly trust Mann as her son did at a time

huh? Michael did not know (or trust) Mann during his lifetime.

Would anyone know if Katherine is receiving $10K a month from Mann as per the contract?

how could anyone know Katherine's finances?

 

[Tygger]

Ivy, I understood Bubs post; no worries there. I appreciate the link.

I believe Katherine's lawyer was Striesand at the time so she had counsel. Striesand obviously did not advise Katherine to sign this.

My error: I did confuse Mann with Schaffel. I honestly do not keep track of these vultures. If there is a Jackson, there is a vulture nearby to exploit. I am not surprised Katherine was most likely exploited by Mann. I have no doubt some believe she signed such a contract with full knowledge of it being utterly invalid but, that is no concern of mine.

how could anyone know Katherine's finances?

I thought fans were aware of all of the Jacksons' finances. Surely someone knows if she is receiving the $10K a month and distributing those funds to her remaining children.

 

[ivy]

I thought fans were aware of all of the Jacksons' finances. Surely someone knows if she is receiving the $10K a month and distributing those funds to her remaining children.

I'm not sure if you are serious or joking here. Fans are aware of stuff that becomes public due to a lawsuit and/or leaks and/or reported / rumored by media. That contract became public info during Estate vs. Mann/Vaccaro lawsuit. We know allowances from Estate due to the required accounting filings and so on. So it's not realistic to expect people to know every single transaction between parties. and if it was in any way public information, don't you think you would know it too without having the need for asking anyone?

 

[Tygger]

Ah! Katherine’s greed, as some continually claim, has been discussed at length in this thread and elsewhere on the forum. I would assume someone has receipts regarding such greed unless of course that greed is basically one's view and not fact. A greedy person would demand the $10K a month for the remainder of their lifetime despite the contract being mostly invalid.

On second thought, the greed label is a bit conflicting. A greedy person would not distribute their ill-gotten gains to their remaining children; they would keep it for themselves.

 

[Victory22]

The wheels on the bus go round and round. aint: KJ's greed is special. She has all the money she needs from Michael’s Estate but she is constantly grasping at more for herself, Joe and the cubs. Starting florist shops that fail, putting out worthless books and selling PP&B to the highest bidder, going after AEG instead of Murray. Same patterns she demonstrated during Michael’s lifetime using him as her hook. Michael is the only one of her children that doesn't count in her world.

 

[Bubs]

Yeah we know but I'm pretty sure that's not what Buds point was. I believe Buds point was "Regardless of what legal authority Katherine has or does not have, she made a statement saying "I have the legal authority to bind and commit myself and the remainder of KJ Party(MJ's kids)" and signed a document that says "forever bind". Buds can correct me.

Thats about right.
I know that agreement wasn't legally valid, but my point was that she signed that contract believing she has right to sell Michael's kids, and to be honest, her view doesn't differ much from Joe's. Joe was told to stop exploiting MJ's image and likeness, and reporter asked him about it, his reply was: Michael is my son, and I can exploit him as much as I like, I made him".

She and Joe can pimp themselves as much as they like as they "own" themselves, but they do not own PPB.

Unfortunately there are many people like KJ and Joe in this world, that tries to live and make living thru their children.

 

[Tygger]

I agree with you as email leak support everything what you posted.
That email leak came from KJ's business parter, the same man KJ sold Michael's kids forever and without payh34r:

Bubs, actually your point included the leaked emails supported Justthefacts' views when they do not. I understand why that inclusion is being bypassed so, no worries.

 

[Autumn II]

When Michael first died, I know there was enormous compassion and support for Katherine -- and the rest of the family -- for her loss. Over time, event-by-event, and choice-by-choice, a different, far less savory, picture emerged. The fans are not inventing these things -- they are factual -- and accumulated over time. Those unsavory choices include a failed coffee-table book, a line of perfume, a tribute show (where inexplicably, KISS was in the line-up), the Howard Mann contract that attempted to bind Michael's children to a life of servitude, and more, and finally the AEG lawsuit and appeal. When alive, Michael carried this huge family on his back financially, where money he gave to his mother was redistributed. Since then, the trend seems to be a desire to continue that pattern. The family still does not seem to understand that having Michael as a son or brother does not mean ownership of his likeness and artistic production. He was explicit in his will, and it's no accident that a family member was not named executor nor co-executor.

The AEG lawsuit, and failed appeal, did NO GOOD for anyone, and was an enormous waste of time and money. Apparently the only gains from it were the attorneys pockets that were lined. Murray had ALREADY been convicted of the crime (even though he has never taken responsibility). The AEG lawsuit revealed no additional truths, and no conspiracies were uncovered. The lawsuit involved legal technicalities such as "who" hired Murray, and was he an independent contractor, and so on? The legal nit-picking went on interminably, and what it did do was place Michael's life and medical history before the public, and once again shredded his privacy. I'm sure the entire process was painful for his children. In his conviction, Murray was judged to be responsible for Michael's death, but yet Katherine failed to accept restitution from the one person the law judged to be guilty. The rest of it has been a pointless exercise that did no good, for anyone. I sincerely hope this will be left behind now.

 

[Bubs]

When Michael first died, I know there was enormous compassion and support for Katherine -- and the rest of the family -- for her loss. Over time, event-by-event, and choice-by-choice, a different, far less savory, picture emerged. The fans are not inventing these things -- they are factual -- and accumulated over time. Those unsavory choices include a failed coffee-table book, a line of perfume, a tribute show (where inexplicably, KISS was in the line-up), the Howard Mann contract that attempted to bind Michael's children to a life of servitude, and more, and finally the AEG lawsuit and appeal. When alive, Michael carried this huge family on his back financially, where money he gave to his mother was redistributed. Since then, the trend seems to be a desire to continue that pattern. The family still does not seem to understand that having Michael as a son or brother does not mean ownership of his likeness and artistic production. He was explicit in his will, and it's no accident that a family member was not named executor nor co-executor.

The AEG lawsuit, and failed appeal, did NO GOOD for anyone, and was an enormous waste of time and money. Apparently the only gains from it were the attorneys pockets that were lined. Murray had ALREADY been convicted of the crime (even though he has never taken responsibility). The AEG lawsuit revealed no additional truths, and no conspiracies were uncovered. The lawsuit involved legal technicalities such as "who" hired Murray, and was he an independent contractor, and so on? The legal nit-picking went on interminably, and what it did do was place Michael's life and medical history before the public, and once again shredded his privacy. I'm sure the entire process was painful for his children. In his conviction, Murray was judged to be responsible for Michael's death, but yet Katherine failed to accept restitution from the one person the law judged to be guilty. The rest of it has been a pointless exercise that did no good, for anyone. I sincerely hope this will be left behind now.

Great post. I bolded some bits that I found important to highlight.

 

[Autumn II]

The fact remains, that Michael left his siblings, and his father, OUT of his will, in an eloquent statement about what he thought he owed, or did NOT owe, his family. No matter how hard they've tried, and from how many different angles (including the AEG lawsuit and appeal), there seems to be no way around Michael's wishes. They are not going to profit from Michael -- period.

 

[Tygger]

AutumnII, I am unsure if you are directing your post to me but, as I said before, I have no issue with others' views. I simply do not share with them.

Unfortunately, not having a consensus is extremely frustrating for some however; a consensus is not necessarily common on a discussion board (or in reality).

 

[Autumn II]

AutumnII, I am unsure if you are directing your post to me but, as I said before, I have no issue with others' views. I simply do not share with them.

Unfortunately, not having a consensus is extremely frustrating for some however; a consensus is not necessarily common on a discussion board (or in reality).

My posts were not directed at you. Now that the appeal has been lost, they were a summary of my own views on the AEG court case and appeal, and in a larger sense, represent my opinions of the Jackson family's behavior, including Katherine's, in the years following Michael's death. A consensus is not expected nor desirable on a message board, and respectful differences of opinion are what keep a discussion lively.

 

[Bubs]

02/17/2015 Rehearing petition filed. By counsel for appellants.

Meaning that KJ doesn't want to give up possible millions.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

h34r:

 

[SarahJ]

Amazing the amount of energy they can put out when it comes to $$, but it seems to disappear when it comes time to defend him in public.

 

[barbee0715]

I didn't realize that you could re-hear an appeal. Appeal an appeal? What-with different judges?? I thought that was the final word and then you went to the CA Supreme court.

 

[ivy]

^^

It's with the same appeal judges. It is basically saying to them "you made this mistake, correct it"

Petition for Rehearing

If there is an important mistake in the appellate court's decision in the appeal — like a major misstatement of fact, an error of law, major law or facts that were left out, or an important argument that was not included — you can file a petition for rehearing in the appellate court asking the court to correct its mistake. The petition for rehearing should focus on the error or errors in the appellate court's decision. The petition must generally be served and filed within 15 days of the filing of the appellate court's decision.
No opposition to the petition can be filed unless the court asks for it.

After filing a petition for rehearing
If the court agrees that there was an important mistake in its decision, it will generally issue a new decision correcting that mistake. The court may ask for additional briefing or oral argument.

If the court does not act on the petition before the decision becomes final, the petition will be deemed denied "by operation of law" (automatically without an order of any kind from the court).

 

[barbee0715]

Hmmm. Thank you. So I assume in her petition that the attys pointed out the "mistakes" the judges made?

 

[Tygger]

I do not see the three appellate judges admitting to any errors as the civil trial judge did not and denied a new trial.

I believe the plaintiffs will take this to the Supreme Court. They have shown they will not give up. They have my support.