Latest on MJJC

KJ vs AEG - Appeal Thread

So will we be able to see the filing with the claimed mistake
 
krikzil said:
One doesn't admit to a mistake when no mistake was made.
Click to expand...

It is human nature for one to not admit to errors even after correction. There are examples of such here in this thread.

I believe this is simply a step to the Supreme Court similar to the denied motion for a new trial lead to the appeal.
 
Tygger said:
It is human nature for one to not admit to errors even after correction. There are examples of such here in this thread.

I believe this is simply a step to the Supreme Court similar to the denied motion for a new trial lead to the
Click to expand...

LOL, yip it does happen in forums -- being "pro" a particular side no matter what, for example. ;) However, with the Court, it's about the law and actual reversible error. Courts can and do reverse themselves. As to the latter, plaintiff indicated their intent previously so it's a given.
 
Last edited:
Krizkil, when one does not share your view it is not an error. If you truly believe that, that is a very narrow view but, it is yours to have.

It is human nature for some to not admit to an error and this fact has been properly accounted for in the U.S. Justice system. This is why a party has the legal right to appeal to a higher court if they feel wronged by a decision.
 
There was no error and the appeals court confirmed it and the Supreme court won't even look at it. But Katherine's lawyers will try to get paid for as long as they can.....
 
Tygger said:
Krizkil, when one does not share your view it is not an error. If you truly believe that, that is a very narrow view but, it is yours to have.
Click to expand...

Curious response since I've never claimed such.

Tygger said:
It is human nature for some to not admit to an error and this fact has been properly accounted for in the U.S. Justice system. This is why a party has the legal right to appeal to a higher court if they feel wronged by a decision.
Click to expand...

Actually, many folks are quite capable of admitting when they've made an error. On forums and in courtrooms. I see Judges reverse themselves and their rulings when warranted.

The Appeals process exists because errors occur and the judicial system recognizes this obviously. I believe every person should pursue their case to the fullest extent possible, however, I also expect actual merit to exist in the pursuit.
 
Last edited:
krikzil said:
Curious response since I've never claimed such.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting I misunderstood your response as per the below? Please enlighten me if I am indeed incorrect.

Tygger said:
It is human nature for one to not admit to errors even after correction. There are examples of such here in this thread.
Click to expand...

krikzil said:
LOL, yip it does happen in forums -- being "pro" a particular side no matter what, for example. ;)
Click to expand...

A view that is different from yours is not an error; it is a disagreement however; if you see it as an error - which is a rather narrow view - that is your choice.

krikzil said:
Actually, many folks are quite capable of admitting when they've made an error. On forums and in courtrooms. I see Judges reverse themselves and their rulings when warranted.

The Appeals process exists because errors occur and the judicial system recognizes this obviously. I believe every person should pursue their case to the fullest extent possible, however, I also expect actual merit to exist in the pursuit.
Click to expand...

I never said there are those who cannot admit to an error; what I said above was rather clear and is fact.

How would you suggest the judicial system recognizes errors? Could it be that one does not admit to an error causing a trial to be escalated to an appeal process? Please do not let this particular trial cloud your response as I am not allowing it to cloud mine.
 
Last edited:
Tygger said:
Are you suggesting I misunderstood your response as per the below? Please enlighten me if I am indeed incorrect.

"A view that is different from yours is not an error; it is a disagreement however; if you see it as an error - which is a rather narrow view - that is your choice."
Click to expand...

As I said, a curious response.

Tygger said:
I never said there are those who cannot admit to an error; what I said above was rather clear and is fact.

How would you suggest the judicial system recognizes errors? Could it be that one does not admit to an error causing a trial to be escalated to an appeal process? Please do not let this particular trial cloud your response as I am not allowing it to cloud mine.
Click to expand...

As the saying goes, I had no dog in this fight. I'm simply someone who has spent her life in the legal system and, as always, was interested in what the facts might say either way and how the law would apply. Meanwhile your pro-KJ stance makes the above admonition in re my judgment pretty ironic.

Repeating ... the appeals process itself is evidence that the legal system recognizes that errors occur. The Appeals and Supreme Courts exist to ensure that rulings are based on correct interpretation of the underlying law and rules. It doesn't necessary follow though that because a judge doesn't reverse themself or grant a new trial, it's because they willfully aren't admitting they've made an error.
 
Last edited:
I do not have time to go thru all those many pages.

But are there any news?
 
krikzil said:
As I said, a curious response.
Click to expand...

I knew you would be unable to enlighten me. laughs

Meanwhile your pro-KJ stance makes the above admonition in re my judgment pretty ironic.
Click to expand...

No it does not. If you truly believe when one does not agree with your views they are somehow incorrect instead of noting a disagreement, that belief is narrow. What I said was extremely clear and had absolutely nothing to do with the AEG civil trial as it was a general statement about human nature. Unfortunately, you will not allow yourself to go beyond the fact that I do not agree with you regarding your stance - be it anti-Jackson and/or pro-AEG - on this particular civil trial; thus your resistance to one not being able to admit to an error. The fact remains that one of the reasons for the appeal process is to guard against those who will not admit to an error. Anyone spending their life in the U.S. legal system should have a fundamental understanding of that fact.
 
Court of appeal rejected kjs appeal hess and now in so many words shes trying to appeal that
 
The case against AEG was a longshot from the beginning with the odds slim to none in Mothers favor. She lost, appealed the case and lost again. I understand the cubs are old for touring and had big dreams of living off AEG bucks but enough is enough. Reminds me of an old Jackson 5 song: This ones for KJ

 
Last edited:
Ivy @Ivy_4MJ · 8 Min. Vor 8 Minuten

Appeal Court denies Katherine Jackson's petition for rehearing AEG appeal. There's still possibility of taking this to Supreme Court.
 
^
as expected. I'm thinking it's safe to assume that they will take this to Supreme court but their chances are slim.
 
again as expected

Michael Jackson's mom plans to take wrongful death suit against AEG Live to California Supreme Court
BY NANCY DILLON NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Friday, February 27, 2015, 6:44 PM A A A
11
2
2
SHARE THIS URL

Michael Jackson with his mother Katherine Jackson in 2005. His mom is taking her wrongful death claim against AEG Live to the California Supreme Court, her lawyer says.
LUCAS JACKSON/REUTERS
Michael Jackson with his mother Katherine Jackson in 2005. His mom is taking her wrongful death claim against AEG Live to the California Supreme Court, her lawyer says.
Michael Jackson's mom is heading to the California Supreme Court for another shot at her megabucks wrongful death claim against concert promoter AEG Live.

The music matriarch was denied a re-hearing of her appeal by a lower court Friday, so the next step is an even higher authority, her lawyer told the Daily News.

"We are going to the California Supreme Court. The Court of Appeals missed the point," lawyer Kevin Boyle said.

Katherine Jackson — a front-row fixture during the 2013 jury trial of her unsuccessful $1 billion wrongful death claim — remains committed to holding AEG financially liable for her legendary son's June 2009 overdose death, Boyle said.

One of her lawyers argued her appeal before the California Appeals Court on Jan. 22, but the panel of justices affirmed the original jury verdict a week later and awarded AEG and two executives their costs on appeal.

Katherine then filed her request for rehearing on Feb. 17, with the denial posting on the court website Friday.

Jackson died in 2009 while preparing for a massive concert series in London.
PreviousNextJackson died in 2009 while preparing for a massive concert series in London. Randy Phillips, chief executive of AEG Live, seen testifying at the trial of Conrad Murray in 2011. Enlarge
PAT ROQUE/AP
Jackson died in 2009 while preparing for a massive concert series in London.
"We're the underdog and we're not supposed to win. But I think we should win under the facts of the law here," Boyle told The News after the hour-long Appeals Court hearing in Los Angeles last month.

"Katherine very much misses her son, and she very much would like to see justice done and is hoping for a favorable result," he said.

Katherine's initial appeal, filed in November 2013, claims the original lawsuit's trial judge incorrectly dismissed negligence and employment claims, and allowed the jury to receive a faulty jury verdict form.

Lawyers for AEG have argued that concert executives had no reason to suspect Jackson's tour physician was giving the "Thriller" singer dangerous doses of a hospital-grade anesthetic behind closed bedroom doors to help him sleep.

In a separate criminal trial, Dr. Conrad Murray was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for giving Jackson a lethal dose of propofol without proper monitoring and live-saving equipment.

POOL PHOTO FRIDAY, OCT. 21, 2011 FILE PHOTO.
REED SAXON/AP
Conrad Murray was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for giving Jackson the drug propofol and not monitoring its use.
AEG Live lawyer Marvin Putnam has argued that the concert giant was as shocked as anyone to learn Murray, a cardiologist, was giving Jackson propofol.

"It was a long trial and the record is enormous. When you dig into it, they have no basis of appeal," Putnam told The News last month.

"They were given every opportunity to try their case. No evidence was denied them. They weren't limited by time and they failed to (convince the jury)," he said.

"The jury saw that AEG was in no way negligent in the tragic death of Michael Jackson. And nothing done today or in the papers changes that," he said.
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertai...lawsuit-calif-supreme-court-article-1.2132288
 
ivy said:
"We're the underdog and we're not supposed to win.But I think we should win under the facts of the law here," Boyle told The News after the hour-long Appeals Court hearing in Los Angeles last month.
Click to expand...
Really? On the contrary the facts are against you.

ivy said:
"Katherine very much misses her son, and she very much would like to see justice done and is hoping for a favorable result," he said.
Click to expand...

Really? Coming from the same people who are willing to let Conrad Murray run loose. and who refuse to seek restitution against him. The jacksons need real jobs instead of trying to steal AEG money through the court.
 
"Katherine very much misses her son, and she very much would like to see justice done and is hoping for a favorable result," he said."

Justice my ass.
Here is what KJ really thinks of justice:
It was revealed in court today, that the Jackson family tried to obtain a settlement from AEG Live last January and March and had not yet even received a reply.

According to the LA Times, Kevin Boyle, an attorney for the Jackson family, said that AEG has not offered to settle “and they haven’t apologized.”

Kevin Boyle for the Jackson family would not provide details but said AEG’s insurance would have paid, “which means they could have settled the case without them paying a dime of their own money.”


They can save that fake talk about justice and shovel it somewhere where sun doesn't shine.
 
I do wonder if it was actual money that Mrs. Jackson exerted her own sweat for to earn would she be allowing this case to continue. No way are her lawyers going to walk away with nothing. The more they appeal and appeal, the higher their out of pocket expenses. With the MJ estate pockets relatively deep these days, it's no sweat on Mrs. Jackson to let them continue this futile course.

She benefits handsomely because of her brilliant son, but she hasn't had to work for it at all. But if these monies were her hard EARNED cash, would she be so easy to let lawyers go on and on and incur expense after expense.

I think it makes a big difference when you have to earn something yourself versus benefitting from what someone else has earned.
 
Gerryevans, your post is a bit confusing. Assets and equity of the estate rightfully belongs to the beneficiaries.

The monies the plaintiffs would owe AEG would still be less than the total legal fees due to several lawsuits the estate is embroiled in.

You are correct in that the lawyers involved are enriched. This includes the appeal lawyers for this civil trial and the estate lawyers for several trials. It would seem these lawyers benefit from the monies Michael's estate generates as well.
 
Tygger said:
the total legal fees due to several lawsuits the estate is embroiled in.
Click to expand...

I think you need to differentiate between lawsuits initiated by Estate versus lawsuits filed against them. Estate's legal costs still could be larger than KJ's but some of those legal costs aren't their choice.
 
Gerryevans post is abundantly clear. KJ is wasting money that she never had to work to receive on a lawsuit she has zero chance of winning even by her own lawyer's admission. Had this money been earned through hard work, chances are that she would not so easily be keen to squander it. at least not on frivolous lawsuits.

Additionally, this has nothing to do with the money the estate spends on lawsuits. and even so, such money is meritoriously spent to defending MJ (child molestation, contractual disputes, fraud, and so on), protecting his image and likeness. whereas KJ's lawsuit is purely a lame bid to steal money from AEG.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top