AEG is not sponsoring the tabloid, they buy ad space from several media sources including tabloids. so some fans that love a good conspiracy see a connection. I don't see the alleged connection. I think it's little off to think that AEG is fighting Katherine Jackson wrongful death trial by molestation stories published in UK tabloids. None of these molestation allegations are relevant or brought up in court. Jurors aren't reading the media. Tabloids love to print negative MJ stories and I don't think they need AEG to buy ad space from them to do so.
Latest on MJJC
Conrad Murray: "MJ hired me and HATED AEG"
- Thread starter Vici
- Start date
AEG is not sponsoring the tabloid, they buy ad space from several media sources including tabloids. so some fans that love a good conspiracy see a connection. I don't see the alleged connection. I think it's little off to think that AEG is fighting Katherine Jackson wrongful death trial by molestation stories published in UK tabloids. None of these molestation allegations are relevant or brought up in court. Jurors aren't reading the media. Tabloids love to print negative MJ stories and I don't think they need AEG to buy ad space from them to do so.
Tygger
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2012
- Messages
- 2,316
- Points
- 0
Last Tear, Ivy, Bubs, include Charles Thomson on the conspiracy.
http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-mirror-people-and-settlement-that.html
It is AEG’s defense that Michael would not generate ANY monies had he lived due to the molestation charges, his addictions (which he was secretive about) and his debt would make him unattractive to any and all business partners. This ironically excludes AEG who contracted Michael to 31 shows. A review of the tweets will show Panish corrected defense lawyers each time they did not say Michael was acquitted in open court.
May not matter to you and others however, the doctor will not profit directly. No media outlet will pay this killer directly as has been proven time and time again. Restitution only protects against direct profit so it would render Michael's parents and children defenseless against any and all indirect profitable ventures for Michael's killer such as this article.
http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-mirror-people-and-settlement-that.html
It is AEG’s defense that Michael would not generate ANY monies had he lived due to the molestation charges, his addictions (which he was secretive about) and his debt would make him unattractive to any and all business partners. This ironically excludes AEG who contracted Michael to 31 shows. A review of the tweets will show Panish corrected defense lawyers each time they did not say Michael was acquitted in open court.
ivy;3893521 said:
May not matter to you and others however, the doctor will not profit directly. No media outlet will pay this killer directly as has been proven time and time again. Restitution only protects against direct profit so it would render Michael's parents and children defenseless against any and all indirect profitable ventures for Michael's killer such as this article.
Last edited:
LastTear
Proud Member
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 3,245
- Points
- 0
I stopped following and reading CT ages ago. Anything at all can be twisted to fit into a conspiracy theory and more of them seem to pop up all the time.
Can you provide some examples of how it's proven that a person who has served their time for involuntary manslaughter has failed to profit.
If you are right then American courts have a system that is full of holes and very obvious ones at that.
Can you provide some examples of how it's proven that a person who has served their time for involuntary manslaughter has failed to profit.
If you are right then American courts have a system that is full of holes and very obvious ones at that.
Bubs;3893999 said:
logic flies off the window when your aim is to somewhat blame AEG.
Tygger;3894000 said:
okay, he's also a fan and the first paragraph is nothing more than his opinion and suspicion. luckily he knows the difference between sponsorship and buying advertisement space.
the one in 2005, their defense did not and do not need any new accusations and they made no mention of Wade accusations.
LastTear;3894010 said:
of course it can. but they don't stand logic
bouee;3894012 said:
by "none of these molestation accusations" I was referring to Wade's accusations and the Sunday people's story that Michael paid dozens of boys. They weren't brought up in court. Also in court details of any old accusations wasn't mentioned. AEG only wanted and only referred to the 2005 allegations and trial as a reason for Michael using drugs and his income potential being affected. So the new allegations and / or media stories are totally irrelevant to AEG's defense and this trial.
Tygger
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2012
- Messages
- 2,316
- Points
- 0
The system is not perfect but, it works. You have already gave examples where I showed convicts, particularly ones who take human lives, do not profit directly.
Ivy, I previously said to you that sponsorship takes on many forms which include paying for advertisements. If you continue reading the article from Thomson, you would have read this:
If you and others do not see the connection between Robson's claim and the fabricated FBI article in an AEG-sponsored paper and AEG's defense which included Michael's molestation charges against the claim of negligent hiring on their part, that is your choice. There is no way to blame the Jacksons for any of that so spin occurs. It occurs daily in these threads and it can occur both ways. It often favors AEG.
Tygger
one day you would hopefully respect that people don't agree with you in regards to restitution. your attempts to justify Katherine not seeking restitution or blaming fans for negative stories, do not change the very simple fact that Murray was given a free pass by Katherine and he does and he will continue to profit from Michael. In my book giving a free pass to Michael's murderer can't be justified. I think most people share the same opinion. You will have to accept and respect it.
and no I don't see any connection between AEG sponsored papers and portrayal of Michael negatively, because media mostly has never been positive towards to Michael. So it's not like they were writing all positive stories and then suddenly evil AEG made them change their tone during this lawsuit. Media loved to publish negative stories about Michael for decades before his death and they will jump on any negative story long after this trial is over.
finally trials are fought and won in a courtroom and not in media. in 2005 Michael was found innocent despite media's non stop negative spin about Michael. similarly no media story now would make AEG win or lose this case.
one day you would hopefully respect that people don't agree with you in regards to restitution. your attempts to justify Katherine not seeking restitution or blaming fans for negative stories, do not change the very simple fact that Murray was given a free pass by Katherine and he does and he will continue to profit from Michael. In my book giving a free pass to Michael's murderer can't be justified. I think most people share the same opinion. You will have to accept and respect it.
and no I don't see any connection between AEG sponsored papers and portrayal of Michael negatively, because media mostly has never been positive towards to Michael. So it's not like they were writing all positive stories and then suddenly evil AEG made them change their tone during this lawsuit. Media loved to publish negative stories about Michael for decades before his death and they will jump on any negative story long after this trial is over.
finally trials are fought and won in a courtroom and not in media. in 2005 Michael was found innocent despite media's non stop negative spin about Michael. similarly no media story now would make AEG win or lose this case.
LastTear
Proud Member
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 3,245
- Points
- 0
Tygger
Im confused by this, do you mean my list? I honestly don't recall you providing any information to support your claim.
Just by the by, there is a big difference between pre meditated murder and involuntary manslaughter.
As far as the system goes then it's absolutely rubbish and does not protect the victim. Common sense tells me that if the recipient of restitution believes that profit is being made indirectly then they can take it to the courts, or else why have it?
Im confused by this, do you mean my list? I honestly don't recall you providing any information to support your claim.
Just by the by, there is a big difference between pre meditated murder and involuntary manslaughter.
As far as the system goes then it's absolutely rubbish and does not protect the victim. Common sense tells me that if the recipient of restitution believes that profit is being made indirectly then they can take it to the courts, or else why have it?
Tygger
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2012
- Messages
- 2,316
- Points
- 0
Ivy, one day you will accept the fact that I do not agree with you and others on many issues regarding the Jacksons versus anything and everything.
I do not agree with you and others who believe restitution would hinder the doctor from profiting indirectly as current laws do not support this. Not one poster can show that restitution would have stopped one interview or the documentary by the doctor. Prove that and you can prove Tygger wrong. Very simple indeed.
The fabricated FBI story originated in an AEG sponsored newspaper and was debunked by Americans Freidman and CNN's Duke so the negative story ended in American media, did it not?
Last Tear, please remember 1st degree in California does not need premeditation. The Jackson and others, including myself, wanted a 1st degree charge. The State chose involuntary manslaughter. The general public felt a malpractice charge sufficed.
Last edited:
@Lasttear
Tygger has been arguing "restitution only protects against direct profit but convicts can indirectly profit ergo Katherine seeking restitution was useless". It's an attempt to justify Katherine's decision.
The reason these convicts seek to profit from their crime is because they can't get regular work so they are left with using their notoriety in terms of books and/or interviews. so eventually the money is used or aimed to go to these people themselves. therefore like the Goldman's example you can file a fraud lawsuit to hide the profit or you can even go after the assets they buy.
So for example Murray could have established a company under the instrument's name and he could have released a book. He could have bought a new car using the profits. That's indirect profit. But Jacksons could have sued to argue that the company under his girlfriend's name is a dummy corporation established to hid the income - hence a fraud and /or they could have take the possession of the new car to satisfy the monetary judgment.
no one ever claimed that it would stop the interview or the documentary or the book automatically, however it allows you to go after the money, the book rights and so on, it gives you control over them. don't you get it? The restitution did not stop OJ to write a book, find a publisher. But it did allow Goldman's to go after OJ saying "no" and get the control and rights of the book.
right now Murray can do his interviews, his book, get paid, use the money to buy a new car, go to Disneyland, buy a mansion and so on and there's nothing to do but watch him to profit from Michael. Goldmans never gave OJ a free pass. OJ was photographed with a Rolex, Goldmans went to the court to get the watch. OJ wrote a book, Goldmans went to the court and get the control of the book. They never gave OJ a free pass, yes the restitution might not be perfect but Goldmans fought and fought and it did gave them control over OJ's life and actions.
and with that I'm done with this discussion. I said this before, restitution is not perfect but it's about giving you control over the convict, Jacksons might not have gotten control over everything (and I never claimed they would) but I sure expected them to fight. I will never be okay with giving Murray a free pass to do whatever he pleases. If you are okay with it that's your choice. 2 months later he would be free doing whatever he pleases, I hope neither you nor Jacksons complain about what he does after they are willing to give him that free pass.
Tygger has been arguing "restitution only protects against direct profit but convicts can indirectly profit ergo Katherine seeking restitution was useless". It's an attempt to justify Katherine's decision.
The reason these convicts seek to profit from their crime is because they can't get regular work so they are left with using their notoriety in terms of books and/or interviews. so eventually the money is used or aimed to go to these people themselves. therefore like the Goldman's example you can file a fraud lawsuit to hide the profit or you can even go after the assets they buy.
So for example Murray could have established a company under the instrument's name and he could have released a book. He could have bought a new car using the profits. That's indirect profit. But Jacksons could have sued to argue that the company under his girlfriend's name is a dummy corporation established to hid the income - hence a fraud and /or they could have take the possession of the new car to satisfy the monetary judgment.
no one ever claimed that it would stop the interview or the documentary or the book automatically, however it allows you to go after the money, the book rights and so on, it gives you control over them. don't you get it? The restitution did not stop OJ to write a book, find a publisher. But it did allow Goldman's to go after OJ saying "no" and get the control and rights of the book.
right now Murray can do his interviews, his book, get paid, use the money to buy a new car, go to Disneyland, buy a mansion and so on and there's nothing to do but watch him to profit from Michael. Goldmans never gave OJ a free pass. OJ was photographed with a Rolex, Goldmans went to the court to get the watch. OJ wrote a book, Goldmans went to the court and get the control of the book. They never gave OJ a free pass, yes the restitution might not be perfect but Goldmans fought and fought and it did gave them control over OJ's life and actions.
and with that I'm done with this discussion. I said this before, restitution is not perfect but it's about giving you control over the convict, Jacksons might not have gotten control over everything (and I never claimed they would) but I sure expected them to fight. I will never be okay with giving Murray a free pass to do whatever he pleases. If you are okay with it that's your choice. 2 months later he would be free doing whatever he pleases, I hope neither you nor Jacksons complain about what he does after they are willing to give him that free pass.
re definition of 'sponsor':
Sponsorship[1] is a cash and/or in-kind fee paid to a property (typically in sports, arts, entertainment or causes) in return for access to the exploitable commercial potential associated with that property, according to IEG.
While the sponsoree (property being sponsored) may be nonprofit, unlike philanthropy, sponsorship is done with the expectation of a commercial return.
While sponsorship can deliver increased awareness, brand building and propensity to purchase, it is different to advertising. Unlike advertising, sponsorship can not communicate specific product attributes. Nor can it stand alone. Sponsorship requires support elements. And, while advertising messages are controlled by the advertiser, sponsors do not control the message that is communicated.
(from wikipedia.)
There is no way an advertiser who purchases space in a newspaper, etc can be regarded as a 'sponsor' of the publication.
It's important to differentiate between the 2 terms--sponsor and advertiser.
Sponsorship[1] is a cash and/or in-kind fee paid to a property (typically in sports, arts, entertainment or causes) in return for access to the exploitable commercial potential associated with that property, according to IEG.
While the sponsoree (property being sponsored) may be nonprofit, unlike philanthropy, sponsorship is done with the expectation of a commercial return.
While sponsorship can deliver increased awareness, brand building and propensity to purchase, it is different to advertising. Unlike advertising, sponsorship can not communicate specific product attributes. Nor can it stand alone. Sponsorship requires support elements. And, while advertising messages are controlled by the advertiser, sponsors do not control the message that is communicated.
(from wikipedia.)
There is no way an advertiser who purchases space in a newspaper, etc can be regarded as a 'sponsor' of the publication.
It's important to differentiate between the 2 terms--sponsor and advertiser.
It's my understanding that what was argued by Briggs (AEG witness expert) was that any future earnings were 'speculative'--that is different from saying there would be no future earnings. When asked by Panish--does that mean there would be NO future earnings? Briggs said, 'anything is possible." He did not say 'IMO there would be no future earnings,' or 'I predict there will be no future earnings, etc."
The whole 'prediction' idea of the future is 'speculative'--this was his position and he refused to put a dollar amt on future earnings for that reason.
The whole 'prediction' idea of the future is 'speculative'--this was his position and he refused to put a dollar amt on future earnings for that reason.
LastTear
Proud Member
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 3,245
- Points
- 0
I'm still waiting for you to prove the point, back it up with something because equally, you haven't proved anyone else wrong either.
It doesn't matter how much any of us wanted 1st degree (and yes I did as well) it's not what happened, we can only go by what actually happened.
In my opinion restitution was the right thing to do, make it as difficult as possible for him to profit.
Exactly. Sometimes people only hear what they want to hear.
@Ivy Yes I know but I am as stubborn as tygger is. LOL
Autumn II
Proud Member
Restitution would not have directly prevented Murray from doing interviews and selling stories or books. But doing so would have been pointless for him, because except for a bare minimum, his money would have been spoken for already in the amount he owed as restitution. Restitution would have removed incentive to engage in these activities, and he would have been effectively silenced.
As far as "those convicted of manslaughter who have profited" is concerned -- the profit for Murray will come because the man he murdered was arguably the world's most famous person! I doubt anyone would be interested in books and interviews about a case that wasn't high-profile.
As far as "those convicted of manslaughter who have profited" is concerned -- the profit for Murray will come because the man he murdered was arguably the world's most famous person! I doubt anyone would be interested in books and interviews about a case that wasn't high-profile.
Mneme
Proud Member
@Tygger
I know you writes to Last Tear. Therefore: sorry but,
this is a complete news for me.
And I ask me wheter you mean LaToya who never tired runs from Talk Show to Talk Show telling from Murray the "fall guy";
or wheter you maybe mean Tito who was saying in 2009 Septemer "I forgive Murray"
or wheter you mean Jermaine who was saying in 2009 September (pure chance?) on a press conferens in Berlin "Nobody is guilty on Michael's dead".
Michael's father has spoken from "fall guy", too and Michael's mother has spoken something religious about humans should forgive because it is God who makes the punishment.
So now: Where can I read about "The Jackson wanted a 1st degree charge."?
Bubs
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,856
- Points
- 0
Katherine & Co should have spent as much time pestering CM (restitution and maiking his life misarable) than she spent going after Michael's millions.
Soon enough, we'll be seeing photos like this, courtesy of Michael's mother, the one who said after CM sentencing that 4 years for CM wasn't enough, the one who refused to the restitution from her son's killer in order to get billions from AEG
Soon enough, we'll be seeing photos like this, courtesy of Michael's mother, the one who said after CM sentencing that 4 years for CM wasn't enough, the one who refused to the restitution from her son's killer in order to get billions from AEG
Tygger
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2012
- Messages
- 2,316
- Points
- 0
Yes, the easiest way to negate an idea one does not agree with is to dismiss it and repeat erroneous information as oppose to disproving it.
Simpson was paid directly through his daughter's publishing company as an expense which was seen as fraud. There were NO indirect profits made by Simpson no matter how many times this fact is twisted and spun.
The doctor has profited and will only profit indirectly. Not one amount of monies has gone directly to him and that is what restitution protects.
MJJC does not expect all members to agree so there is nothing to accept. I respect others views. I will never respect rudeness.
Jamba, you may want to use another source for sponsorship as Wikipedia is quite limiting. Please review court testimony; the highet paid expert in the civil trial, Briggs, was paid to say Michael would not generate income. The second highest paid expert, also for AEG, supported this.
Last Tear as many months as I have repeated restitution does not protect against indirect profit logic should tell you and others that at least one poster would have found a law and case to prove me wrong; yet in all of this time it has not happened.
Mneme, the Jacksons wanted a first degree charge. An Internet search will show that.
Simpson was paid directly through his daughter's publishing company as an expense which was seen as fraud. There were NO indirect profits made by Simpson no matter how many times this fact is twisted and spun.
The doctor has profited and will only profit indirectly. Not one amount of monies has gone directly to him and that is what restitution protects.
MJJC does not expect all members to agree so there is nothing to accept. I respect others views. I will never respect rudeness.
Jamba, you may want to use another source for sponsorship as Wikipedia is quite limiting. Please review court testimony; the highet paid expert in the civil trial, Briggs, was paid to say Michael would not generate income. The second highest paid expert, also for AEG, supported this.
Last Tear as many months as I have repeated restitution does not protect against indirect profit logic should tell you and others that at least one poster would have found a law and case to prove me wrong; yet in all of this time it has not happened.
Mneme, the Jacksons wanted a first degree charge. An Internet search will show that.
Last edited:
payment was from harper collins to his daughters publishing firm Lorraine Brooke Associates to Simpson. By legal definition and the judge's ruling it's an indirect payment through a shell/dummy corporation to defraud Goldmans. It was done to hide the money from judgment. It's apparent what you define as direct and indirect and what the law defines direct and indirect are two different things.
Federal regulation defines "indirect payments" as payments made through third parties. so if harper collins paid OJ it would be a direct payment, Harper Collins paying OJ's daughter's company who then pays/transfers the money to OJ is an indirect payment.
have you seen his bank accounts? can you for certain say that there was no payment from TMZ to Nicole Alvarez to Conrad Murray? Do you even know if TMZ pays to Murray or to someone else? You making assumptions here to fit your argument? How would Murray pay for his expenses if no money will be given to him? Wouldn't Alvarez paying for his expenses still prove Murray's connection to the money and wouldn't that be an attempt to "clearly perpetuate a fraud", a "scheme to defraud his creditors," "a sham." if there was a restitution as the judge in Goldman's case said? Do you think judge and jurors are too stupid for example to conclude that Murray's girlfriend selling audio recordings and being paid for it is a way Murray came up to hide his income sources if there was a restitution?
Autumn II
Proud Member
The Goldmans are an example of ethical behavior and what can be done to prevent a murderer from profiting from his crime. A LOT can be done. But now, there is no control over what Murray might say about Michael -- which I doubt would be truthful. All this could have been prevented through restitution. I really see no way around this assertion, that Murray would have been effectively silenced by restitution.
When Michael died, I think most fans were compassionate about his mother, and grieved with her. But as time passed, regard for Katherine shifted. That was based on her DECISIONS, choice-by-choice that she made. We all craft our own legacies, choice-by-choice. Walgren fought SO hard for Michael, and he, too, deserved better -- by Katherine's accepting restitution. We really don't know what family pressures she faced, but in the end, our legacies are defined by the accumulation of our choices. Katherine did NOT choose well. .. . .
When Michael died, I think most fans were compassionate about his mother, and grieved with her. But as time passed, regard for Katherine shifted. That was based on her DECISIONS, choice-by-choice that she made. We all craft our own legacies, choice-by-choice. Walgren fought SO hard for Michael, and he, too, deserved better -- by Katherine's accepting restitution. We really don't know what family pressures she faced, but in the end, our legacies are defined by the accumulation of our choices. Katherine did NOT choose well. .. . .
Petrarose
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2009
- Messages
- 9,574
- Points
- 0
I agree. I would add that she did not choose well for Michel, his children, his fans, & the masses who love him, but the thinking at her end is that she chose well for herself, older children, and her attorneys.
Victory22
Proud Member
Even the impact statement the family made at Murray’s sentencing was weak, dispassionate, and ineffectual... The Jackson’s have always minimized Murray’s cruelty, lack of respect, remorse and responsibility in Michael’s death. They are well aware of the severe abuse Murray inflected during the last months and moments of Michael’s life yet they have given CM nothing but perpetual free passes. In my book that makes them (including Katherine) as low down the food chain as Murray and his instrument. All of them have totally exposed who and what they are.
crillon
Proud Member
I think Katherine is caught up in the decades-long family dysfunction allowing her cubs to call the shots and there's no excuse for it. She is the matriarch who has been on this earth for a very long time and purports to be a religious woman with values. She needed to step up and do the right thing by Michael and his children, but she failed them and ultimately herself, as a mother and grandmother. I'm another fan who has lost respect for Katherine Jackson because of her behavior--she has shown us who she truly is--and it's a shameful last chapter of her life.
Here is the relevant exchange between Panish and Briggs re future earnings:
Panish: Your opinion, had MJ not died, he would have earned no money, correct?
Briggs: That's not my opinion
Panish: How much would he have made working in concerts?
Briggs: My opinion is that it is speculative to project earnings for future work
Panish: Could he have made money working?
Briggs: Sure, anything is possible (ABC7)
So when he said "anything is possible" it was agreeing that there WOULD be future earnings from working but he did not want to quantify it.
I don't see the contradiction. He said it is not my opinion that MJ would have earned no money after he died, but he did not want to speculate on the amt. Could he have made money working? Sure, anything is possible. So again he is saying he could have earned $ working but he doesn't want to say how much.
It's clear that he would have earned $ from royalties, but whether he would have earned $ from working (such as touring) is an issue Briggs seemed to think was questionable due to risks. The risks included that MJ had cancelled shows/performances before and there were health/dependency issues such that he might not have even completed the 50 shows on the TII tour, according to Briggs. However, in spite of these risks, Briggs is saying MJ could still have earned $ from working/touring (anything is possible).
Briggs referred to dr testimony saying MJ was in poor health--some drs. saying he would have died even if CM had not neglected to watch him on the 25th while mixing up a lethal combo of propofol and benzos. (The sleep expert said he would have died and so did Shileman (sp?).)
Tygger
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2012
- Messages
- 2,316
- Points
- 0
Ivy, my definition for direct/indirect does not differ from the conventional definition.
Simpson received the monies directly as an expense payment from his daughter’s publishing company. That is NOT indirect profit or indirect payment and the judge DID NOT refer to it as an indirect profit or indirect payment because it was direct. The judge did refer to it as an attempt to defraud which it was.
Federal regulation refers to rules made for various federal government agencies so I am unsure what you are referring to or suggesting.
I will refrain from discussing the doctor’s bank account as neither of us have access to it.
NO media outlet will chance paying the doctor directly. I believe Alvarez or someone else other than the doctor is receiving the payments directly which is NOT fraud. The Jackson would have no legal recourse against Alvarez or someone else receiving those monies.
Last Tear, yes, I am certain restitution does not prevent indirect profit. If it did, I am sure I would have been corrected quite some time ago.
Autumn II, it seems at least Randy would have preferred his mother sought restitution. It seems Katherine did not agree with Randy however, some fans do.
8701girl, you did not misread the conversation. Briggs, the highest paid expert in this trial, who has done forecasting for 15 years in the entertainment industry, failed to forecast Michael generating any amount of monies. This means zero. Briggs eventually conceded to Panish that “anything is possible” however, Briggs, maintained Michael would not generate any monies, again, zero.
Simpson received the monies directly as an expense payment from his daughter’s publishing company. That is NOT indirect profit or indirect payment and the judge DID NOT refer to it as an indirect profit or indirect payment because it was direct. The judge did refer to it as an attempt to defraud which it was.
Federal regulation refers to rules made for various federal government agencies so I am unsure what you are referring to or suggesting.
I will refrain from discussing the doctor’s bank account as neither of us have access to it.
NO media outlet will chance paying the doctor directly. I believe Alvarez or someone else other than the doctor is receiving the payments directly which is NOT fraud. The Jackson would have no legal recourse against Alvarez or someone else receiving those monies.
Last Tear, yes, I am certain restitution does not prevent indirect profit. If it did, I am sure I would have been corrected quite some time ago.
Autumn II, it seems at least Randy would have preferred his mother sought restitution. It seems Katherine did not agree with Randy however, some fans do.
8701girl, you did not misread the conversation. Briggs, the highest paid expert in this trial, who has done forecasting for 15 years in the entertainment industry, failed to forecast Michael generating any amount of monies. This means zero. Briggs eventually conceded to Panish that “anything is possible” however, Briggs, maintained Michael would not generate any monies, again, zero.
serendipity
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,451
- Points
- 48
I personally don't buy that for a second. Randy just want to remain in the fans' good graces by once again hiding behind his mother. He probably figured the fans won't go after the old grieving mother. He can't fool me. Most fans know he is behind this lawsuit and he's likely the first who makes or agrees with these decisions.