Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

[jamba]

I don't agree with it. I don't belive KJ is this soft spoken clueless woman as she is portrayed to be. Margaret M wrote about her in the book, and her discriptions doesn't go with what you wrote. Also she was behing the book My Family, The Jacksons.
She aint that clueless woman in that book either. She was in the left, right and center when there were negotiations about touring etc. How could she not think MJ had money problems if her house mortgage went without payment for months?
I think it is possibility that MJ told her that he'll pay the mortgage when he gets money from TII, thus KJ must have know MJ was in troubles, at least in 2009.
I don't find it believable that MJ didn't tell KJ anything and just left her hanging and wait for losing her home.
More believable is that he told her, so she must have been aware of money problems.

Also if MJ was holding on to that 5 million that Tohme had (I maintain that MJ didn't know about that money, but in sake if he did), he certainly didn't use that money to pay KJ mortgage?

I agree she had to know he had money problems b/c for one thing, the cubs would complain that MJ owed them $ (Randy), and Jermaine knew the Neverland was going to go into foreclosure and that's when he got hold of Tohme, so if Jerm knew that, how come KJ did not? How could KJ not notice that there were no promotions of Invincible, no singles after YRMW? Also not tours after HIStory (97), no new albums after Invincible (2001). She had to know he was in bad shape. She was there for the 05 trial, or did she forget about that too as well as the CM trial?

I find it hard that a mother would have such a lavish home as Hayvenhurst, over 200K just for the staff, all expenses paid by a son she knew was hurting for $$, and then to badger him for the AllGood tour and ignore the stress he was already under--MJ must have npoticed that his mother did not notice what was going on with him physically and emotionally in May and June 09. But she did notice she wanted a 600k motorhome. This is really so sad. A woman who lived in a small 2 bedroom home and now demands such luxuries from her son instead of supporting him and saying look, money is not important, love is.

 

[jamba]

Panish: Did he give you gifts?
Mrs Jackson: All the time. He gave me everything, the necessities of life, gifts, cars, jewelry, mobile homes (ABC7) Those are not necessities of life
Panish: Did he give you money?
Mrs. Jackson: Yes, cash. Michael never wrote checks (ABC7) Take my last few pennies why don't you

Regarding Michael having money problems, Mrs. Jackson said : "My son made a lot of money, he had people working for him."
Putnam: Where you aware MJ was having financial difficulties when he passed away? Mrs. Jackson: Yes, I've heard from some people
"They have been saying it for 15 years," Mrs. Jackson said. "People were taking money from him also, stealing I should say."
Mrs. Jackson testified she heard stories about it. Putnam: Who did you hear that from? Mrs. Jackson: Just different people
She also said MJ told her too that people were making deals on his behalf. Like Joe and Len Rowe. And let us not forget the Moonies
"They were being offered money under the table, that's what I heard from my son," Mrs. Jackson testified. And Mrs. Jackson asked: "What does this have to do with the death of my son?"
Putnam: You heard about MJ having money problems? Mrs. Jackson: I heard for years Michael Jackson was broken and he wasn't
Putnam: Did you ever ask MJ about having money problems? Mrs. Jackson: No, because I didn't believe it. Because he wasn't. (ABC7)
You never asked him about it because you did not think it was true, Or you didn't want to know
Putnam also asked Katherine Jackson about her son's payments to her over the years. She said he directly paid many of the expenses on her home and would occasionally give her cash as a gift. Katherine Jackson said she didn't keep track of the payments and appeared to grow annoyed at the questions. "What does this have to do with the death of my son," she asked Putnam. (AP) Putnam asked Mrs. Jackson whether she was aware of her son’s financial difficulties before his death. She said yes. Katherine Jackson: "They’ve been saying for years, last 15 years that Michael Jackson is broke." She said she knew that wasn't true. (AP)

Notice how at this point they had to stop the cross-examination b/c KJ was suddenly too tired to answer the questions. The media reports noted the Jekyll-Hyde way she was a sweet old lady with a hankerchief on direct and a hostile, angry, argumentative fighter on the cross.

What does this have to do with my son? I think a great deal. People do all kinds of crazy things when they are in deep in debt--they have a lot of psychological issues-- anxiety, insomnia, fear--it's called major stress. Especially when they have kids.

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

^They just live in extreme poverty 11 years and Michael has made them live lavishly 44 years, obviously they don't want that life-style he has accustomed them to go away. The amount KJ is asking makes it more obvious. SMH

 

[Victory22]

When you have one parent that ain't shi-- you tend to put all of your faith onto the other one. Even when that parent is using you, and hurting you, you still cling onto them because it is all you have. Clearly the Jacksons were raised to with that one for all mentality If Michael made a million we made a million if Michael bought a new house we all got a new house. If Michael got a big fancy car we all got big fancy cars. Now that is over they got nothing hence the problems you see now. Had Michael left them something you would not be seeing this lawsuit Remember when Branca said they applauded when he got done reading the will? Whyin heck would you do that? They thought they through Katherine had money coming<o></o>

Only problem with the Jackson’s one for all thinking is the only ONE who’s all belonged to the group was Michael. All of the others kept and spent their money and MJ’s too.

 

[ivy]

so now Jacksons are trying to say they did not rest their case in chief to not allow the judge to rule on the motion of nonsuit?

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 24m
Defendants have filed a motion for non-suit already. Judge said she won't rule on it right away.
Expand
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 24m
Panish to tell the judge in the morning. She wants to tell the jury and put it in the record.
Expand
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 25m
Outside the presence of the jury, there was a discussion with the attorneys whether plaintiffs have formally rested their case.

 

[8701girl]

And Katherine just sitting there listening to this........ I wonder if she feels at least a little bit bad about it all or does she continue to "close her ears" for the bad stauf....

She will continue to "close her ears" she s been doing it for years so i doubt she will stop that now

 

[crillon]

Then please enlighten me. It is a fact that Michael was in NY on the 6th, 7th and 8th July yet his will states it was signed in Los Angeles. Please tell how this discepancy was explained in court.

The focus is always on the Will, but the document that really matters is the family trust. The siblings won't accept that Michael left them all out of the Will/Trust, but that's exactly what he did and he did that in each and EVERY Will he did. I think Michael's siblings need to face the facts, move on and find a way to support themselves.




Here's an explanation about the Will being challenged from a Syracuse University Professor of Law:

Michael's Will is very short, and only names his executors, beneficiaries, and intention to create a trust. The will directs his executors to &#8220;pour&#8221; all of his property into the trust, which is a separate written document that goes into much greater detail about distribution. Like the will, the trust&#8212;which is uncontested&#8212;leaves nothing to his siblings.

The Jackson siblings may have standing to object to the will as blood relatives, yet their brother had no intention of an estate plan that included them. Because there are two documents that fail to mention the siblings, the validity scale tips in favor of Michael Jackson&#8217;s executors, because all of Jackson&#8217;s actions show that he wanted to provide only for his mother and children.

The siblings are placing a lot of weight on the will&#8217;s signature to prove or disprove validity, which is unlikely to be the sole factor of consideration. In order to assess the validity of a will, courts look to extrinsic evidence. This allows a court to resolve any ambiguities, like a flawed description, an incorrect address, or a questionable signature. There would have to be much more extrinsic evidence demonstrating that the current will did not represent the interests of the testator than just the location question.


The trust instrument, dated March 2002, coincides with the intent of the will, dated July 2002. Seven years passed between the execution of the will and Jackson&#8217;s death. The named beneficiaries&#8212;Michael&#8217;s Jackson&#8217;s children&#8212;are the unsurprising recipients of the testator&#8217;s bounty in both the will and the trust documents. Right now, the extrinsic evidence in the form of the trust puts more weight in favor of the will being authentic.


The siblings may argue that the executors replaced Michael&#8217;s interests with their own in a falsified version of the will, but they lack sufficient evidence to prove that Michael wanted anything other than to leave everything to his kids with his mother to guide them. His brother&#8217;s intent is clear, even if the nature of the signature is ambiguous.

http://thegrio.com/2012/07/31/evide...s:katherine-blanket-prince-paris-jackson-16x9

 

[Ashtanga]

How I wished Michael was able to tell 'NO' to his mother. That was his biggest problem because all those slackers knew he wouldn't refuse to give her money and they still use her for their benefit.

It is a fact that Michael has always been the cash machine of family. I really can not understand how the brothers were not able to move on with their careers (except Janet) and make your own business and be independent. They had the opportunity and they have not been able or maybe they really did not want because this money comes easy on your pockets effortlessly thanks to Michael. The years passed and today they are old, the scenario remains the same and Michael remains the cash machine that holds all. :bugeyed :doh: This is something completely incomprehensible to me. :blink: I'm so sorry for everything that Michael had to endure. He did not deserve. :no: *big sigh*

Not in the eyes of Randy. He still believe Michael was not there to sign the will.

The family drama is that they are not beneficiaries of Michael and can not put his hand on his money and do what they want. So they come with this lot of stories without any foundation. They simply do not accept the reality. :doh:


P.S. Where is the Papa Joe? He is silent .... weird. :fear:

 

[jamba]

Panish wants to show how much the experts make to show bias, and you are right his client will be paying that bill if they lose. There is a trend in this trial that those who get the most money give the most dismal prognosis of Michael's situation or health, so the more money they get the more they give the client what the client wants. Panish needs to show the jury that bias. They all claim they used a lot of people to help, and I guess that is a way they stiff the client for the big bill. They claim they took 600+ hours, and used a lot of staff to make analyses, so that justifies the big fees. We all know that most of the money goes to the expert and not all the 10+ staff. The staff just gets his usual biweekly income, while the expert pulls in most of the cash.

Then, Ackerman claims it did not cost him million, when 800,000 + is almost a million. He did not even add in his fees to court.

Justthefacts Randy's daughter did graduate from Harvard, but we don't know who paid for that. Michael did pay for the 3T's school. I don't know who else he paid for.

Ok, but I believe Erk also got a big fee(such as around 700k) and so there is bias there as well. Personally, I don't think Ackerman stiffed his clients b/c he gave a good, detailed analysis of MJ's financial situation--the fullest and most reliable I have come across, esp. concerning the suppprt to the beneficiaries. I don't myself see why a son has to give his mum one M per year--esp. when he is in debt.

Regarding the dismal prognosis of MJ's health--KJ's side has made a huge deal about his terrible condition and how everyone at AEG should have seen it, but not KJ or Joe or LR.

re future earnings from TII, first that is truly speculative as it is projecting so many things, that MJ would have completed the tour even though he had CM there giving him propofol in his hazardous manner. Also the assumption is that somehow his insomnia and any dependency to prescription meds would not be a factor both in TII and ongoing. The fact is that TII wasn't projected to net MJ a lot of $--at least from the 50 shows. I believe it was under 50M. And given his expenses on the debt (30M) and the $ to the kids and KJ (6M), and the income he was getting from royalties (17M) and then his own expenses, etc. you don't have a lot left over for the principal.

I would think with that level of astronomical debt it would take a sizable amt of principal paid off to get a lower interest rate. When Ackerman says MJ was 'tapped" out and had not been able to get new loans since 07 (refinancing the debt he already had) then there has to be a significant change in terms of financial picture--being in debt 400-500M--this is really a staggering amt and not to be whittled down easily let alone paid off. Even now the Estate still has some 200-300M in debt, although they have renegotiated the interest rate to 4.5%.

Also MJ wanted to buy a house and that would take a big chunk of any TII income b/c he wanted that house in LV that the kids liked and it was not cheap!

 

[jamba]

so now Jacksons are trying to say they did not rest their case in chief to not allow the judge to rule on the motion of nonsuit?

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 24m
Defendants have filed a motion for non-suit already. Judge said she won't rule on it right away.
Expand
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 24m
Panish to tell the judge in the morning. She wants to tell the jury and put it in the record.
Expand
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 25m
Outside the presence of the jury, there was a discussion with the attorneys whether plaintiffs have formally rested their case.

The never-ending case of the plaintiffs--didn't it start early MAY???--and not finished in AUGUST??? OMG! Maybe they want to start over again as well?

 

[8701girl]

[P.S. Where is the Papa Joe? He is silent .... weird. :fear:/QUOTE]

Yeh im surprised he has been really silent lately

 

[crillon]

Anthony McCartney &#8207;<s>@</s>mccartneyAP <small class="time"> 50s </small> Sony had guaranteed to repay the loan if Jackson defaulted, Ackerman said. &#8220;It was one of the most secure pieces of debt I&#8217;ve ever seen.&#8221;

If Michael defaulted and Sony paid the debt, would they also gain control over the entire catalog? I can see why Sony structured it that way not wanting 50% of that catalog tied up in legal red tape if MJ defaulted or having to deal with another buyer/owner.

 

[jamba]

It is a fact that Michael has always been the cash machine of family. I really can not understand how the brothers were not able to move on with their careers (except Janet) and make your own business and be independent. They had the opportunity and they have not been able or maybe they really did not want because this money comes easy on your pockets effortlessly thanks to Michael. The years passed and today they are old, the scenario remains the same and Michael remains the cash machine that holds all. :bugeyed :doh: This is something completely incomprehensible to me. :blink: I'm so sorry for everything that Michael had to endure. He did not deserve. :no: *big sigh*








The family drama is that they are not beneficiaries of Michael and can not put his hand on his money and do what they want. So they come with this lot of stories without any foundation. They simply do not accept the reality. :doh:


P.S. Where is the Papa Joe? He is silent .... weird. :fear:

I think they never got over being the stars with the audiences and the hits that they had with MJ as part of their group. Other brothers left the group--Jermaine left when they split from MoTown, after MJ left, Marlon left, but it was MJ leaving that made them mad (I think).

From what I gather, the turning point came during the Victory Tour when MJ said 'no more'--no more touring with brothers. Something happened on that tour that turned MJ off big time. I have read snippets of things he said--such that he was out voted, he couldn't do what he wanted (even though he was the star), etc. Also another poster has commented that they witnessed extreme disrespect shown to MJ in meetings with the family during the tour and that MJ walked sadly out of the room when it happened but didn't get mad or talk back.

In Moonwalk, MJ says something interesting about when he fired Joe as his manager (actually just didn't renew the contract when it expired)--he said (paraphrase)--"I felt I was working for HIM, not that he was working for me." and I think he felt the same way about the Jacksons--or came to feel that way.

 

[Ashtanga]

Yeh im surprised he has been really silent lately

Me too.... :fear:

I think they never got over being the stars with the audiences and the hits that they had with MJ as part of their group. Other brothers left the group--Jermaine left when they split from MoTown, after MJ left, Marlon left, but it was MJ leaving that made them mad (I think).

From what I gather, the turning point came during the Victory Tour when MJ said 'no more'--no more touring with brothers. Something happened on that tour that turned MJ off big time. I have read snippets of things he said--such that he was out voted, he couldn't do what he wanted (even though he was the star), etc. Also another poster has commented that they witnessed extreme disrespect shown to MJ in meetings with the family during the tour and that MJ walked sadly out of the room when it happened but didn't get mad or talk back.

In Moonwalk, MJ says something interesting about when he fired Joe as his manager (actually just didn't renew the contract when it expired)--he said (paraphrase)--"I felt I was working for HIM, not that he was working for me." and I think he felt the same way about the Jacksons--or came to feel that way.

Michael was so right. I can imagine a lot of things that must have happened behind the scenes between Michael and his family. :bugeyed The weather of course was always tense between them. :fear: *big sigh*

 

[Petrarose]

Randy's issue with the will is that Michael somehow manages to sign it in LA while he was in New York and that has never been properly explained.

That has been properly, correctly, completely explained a million times in this forum, and further, that aspect does not invalidate a will. That too has been explained about a trillion times.

 

[passy001]

so now Jacksons are trying to say they did not rest their case in chief to not allow the judge to rule on the motion of nonsuit?

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 24m
Defendants have filed a motion for non-suit already. Judge said she won't rule on it right away.
Expand
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 24m
Panish to tell the judge in the morning. She wants to tell the jury and put it in the record.
Expand
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 25m
Outside the presence of the jury, there was a discussion with the attorneys whether plaintiffs have formally rested their case.

I'm not one bit surprised to be honest. that nonsuit motion must have put both the plaintiffs and the judge on the back foot. I don't think they saw that coming, not like that.

the plaintiffs are now forced to use all kinds of bizarre tactics to save a moribund case.

for her part, the judge finds it easier to delay the ruling. no surprise there also given her attitude in this case thus far.

 

[Petrarose]

I'm not one bit surprised to be honest. that nonsuit motion must have put both the plaintiffs and the judge on the back foot. I don't think they saw that coming, not like that.

the plaintiffs are now forced to use all kinds of bizarre tactics to save a moribund case.

for her part, the judge finds it easier to delay the ruling. no surprise there also given her attitude in this case thus far.

True. I am not surprised she gave that lame answer. Panish is a seasoned lawyer, so he knew once he rested his case, the defense would make these motions. Now he just realized he is not finished? How could that be? This is the same behavior they had earlier when they had all this time to prepare the case and then the trial date had to be extended to this year, due to lack of preparation. They are never ready. He needs to leave whatever witness he is thinking about for rebuttal. I find this is odd behavior, since he already said they only have 4 witnesses for rebuttal. To me this shows that he had finished and was now thinking about correcting some flaws in his case.

 

[jamba]

re the comment about how MJ felt he was working for Joe, and not Joe working for him, here is the full excerpt:


"In 1979 I turned 21 years old and began to take full control of my career. My father's personal management contract with me ran out around this time, and although it was a hard decisiuon, the contract was not renewed.

Trying to fire your dad is not easy.

But I just didn't like the way certain things were being handled. Mixing family and business can be a delicate situation. It can be great or it can be awful; it depends on the relationships. Even at the best of times it's a hard thing to do.

Did it change the relationship between me and my father? I don't know if it did in his heart, but it certainly didn't in mine. It was a move I knew I had to make because at the time I was beginning to feel that I was working for HIM rather than that he was working for ME. And on the creative side we are of two completely different minds. He would come up with ideas that I would totally disagree with because they weren't right for me. All I wanted was control of my own life. And I took it. I had to do it. Everyone comes to that point, sooner or later, and I had been in the business for a long time. I was pretty experienced for twenty-one--a fifteen-year veteran." (Moonwalk, 152)

 

[ivy]

The focus is always on the Will, but the document that really matters is the family trust.

that has been discussed a million times on this board. However there's nothing to question the trust so Jacksons are limited to "but he was in NY" argument.

Anthony McCartney &#8207;<s>@</s>mccartneyAP <small class="time"> 50s </small> Sony had guaranteed to repay the loan if Jackson defaulted, Ackerman said. &#8220;It was one of the most secure pieces of debt I&#8217;ve ever seen.&#8221;

If Michael defaulted and Sony paid the debt, would they also gain control over the entire catalog? I can see why Sony structured it that way not wanting 50% of that catalog tied up in legal red tape if MJ defaulted or having to deal with another buyer/owner.

yes it seems like Sony guaranteed payment which resulted in a very favorable interest rate of 7%. It also allowed Sony to be able to pay back the loan if Michael cannot and avoid a sale of the catalog in the case of a default.

I'm not one bit surprised to be honest. that nonsuit motion must have put both the plaintiffs and the judge on the back foot. I don't think they saw that coming, not like that.

such motion of nonsuit or dismissal is very common but usually it's a simple oral argument. for example : when the plaintiffs / prosecution rest, the defendant / defense would ask for dismissal before they start their case and generally the judge will deny it on the spot and defense / defendant would start their case. the detailed written motions is a little different.

for her part, the judge finds it easier to delay the ruling. no surprise there also given her attitude in this case thus far.

technically such motion cannot be made or considered until the plaintiff rests in their case in chief. It looks like Panish never officially rested (they mentioned Grace before ) so judge is wanting him to finish his case and say it on the record.

I think she won't dismiss the case - given her stand on summary judgment (assuming she hasn't changed her stand) - but then I wonder why she cares about an official on record resting. She could have considered the motion and say she won't be dismissing it and the trial would continue on.

 

[Tygger]

Anthony McCartney &#8207;@mccartneyAP
... could have left nothing to his mother, children if he had lived. With Ackerman&#8217;s acknowledgement that was a possibility, Panish sat down
Anthony McCartney &#8207;@mccartneyAP
Panish made the remark that between Ackerman and Eric Briggs&#8217; $1.6 million in fees, they had opinions that Jackson (cont.)

The opinion of Briggs and Ackerman, albeit very expensive, defy any form of logic. Neither could verify any accounting of Michael generating any income beyond investments and/or royalties and giving enormous amounts to charity while stating to the penny the debt Michael carried in which the vast majority was business related. Utterly bizzare! Ackerman was extremely rude; maybe he felt challenged by Panish and/or the judge.

Anthony McCartney &#8207;@mccartneyAP
The judge stopped Strong from asking her line of questions on this topic, and her questioning concluded soon after that.
Anthony McCartney &#8207;@mccartneyAP
Strong&#8217;s questions were meant to rebut questions by Panish about whether MJ had provided his mother the necessities of life, such as housing
Anthony McCartney &#8207;@mccartneyAP
Strong then asked whether a $35k a month mortgage _ like the one on Hayvenhurst _ was necessary to live.
No, Ackerman said.

Here is the defense being rude along with their very expensive expert. No one has the right to judge how Michael decided to provide for his family and I am glad the judge stopped Strong and Ackerman from those actions.

What was to be learned from Sasaki video deposition? That doctor decided to give Michael pain medication even when he knew Michael's pain was being managed by two other doctors. That was that doctor's choice. It also shows Michael was again NOT secretive.

I fail to see the strength in these types of arguments that AEG is using for their defense.

 

[Petrarose]

Judge now has the motion and amendment issues to deal with, and the fact the plaintiffs have not rested yet. This case is getting coo coo.

Anyone knows why Michel's charity work is not in the financial papers. Ackerman said he examined pages, and pages of documents and did not see the charity donations. Isn't this odd? The IRS give big deductions for businesses when you donate to charity. That is why the corporations give these big donations and write them off. I would think Michel's business people would list his charity donations when he filed his taxes. The only thing I can think is that Michael gave charity as a loving gesture and did not want to get any benefit from it. Ackerman did not even know about the charity awards in the book either. Now where did Michel get money to give away? Did he give away money rather than make interest payments.

I like this answer when Panish was asking for citations to show that the defense could show Michael's debt:

&#8220;The case law is clear _ you can&#8217;t give what you don&#8217;t have,&#8221; Putnam told the judge.

The testimony from the dr today via video, makes me see a little clearer what was going on in 93. He was touring while in pain due to surgery on the scalp, taking large amounts of pain medications, and then that horrible allegation.

 

[Vici]

Im reading Kennys testimony that Ivy summarized and I know this have been said but I felt he was objective and non-partial. Even though he is called by AEG his answers showed honesty and respect for MJ. I did not sense any of that BS that paid witness have been spewing out to fit their clients agendas. AEG tried to diminsh MJs power but Kenny held his own.

"Ortega: Michael had not performed in 10 years. Whether he'd command the world like he had before remained to be seen.
"However, the sell out at the O2 for 50 shows showed he still had drawing power," Ortega opined".

Panish: Are you aware of any artist in the world with the drawing power of Michael Jackson?
Ortega: I'd think if done right, that Michael would be the highest draw on the planet.

:bow:

 

[Vici]

Debbie is testifying today wednesday:

DEBBIE ROWE TO TESTIFY
MJ ABUSED PROPOFOL
12 Years Before Death

"Michael Jackson was not only addicted to powerful drugs 12 years before he died ... at least twice in the late 90s doctors misused a drug similar to Propofol so MJ could sleep through the night ... and we've learned that's exactly what MJ's former wife Debbie Rowe will tell the jury today.

Sources familiar with Debbie Rowe's testimony tell TMZ ... Rowe -- who will be called to the stand by AEG Live -- views herself as a hostile witness, because she feels AEG is largely responsible for MJ's death.

We've learned Rowe will testify ... in 1997 doctors administered Diprivan (a form of Propofol) to Michael in a Munich, Germany hotel room. We're told Rowe will say the drug was administered specifically so Michael could sleep. There was a full medical staff present and MJ slept under the influence of the drug for 8 hours. This occurred on 2 days, either consecutive or 1 day apart.

The testimony is significant because AEG is trying to show MJ was the master of his own fate and had misused Propofol for years.

But we've learned Rowe will also say while she was married to MJ she never saw him as a raging drug addict. She will testify he was addicted to Demerol ... which he used to deal with the pain and anxiety from scalp surgeries after being horribly burned. She says when she left Michael in July, 1997, he was not an out-of-control addict. In fact, he had gone to rehab and was open about it.

As TMZ first reported, Rowe injected Michael in the buttocks with Demerol and Vistaril several times while she worked for Dr. Arnold Klein -- MJ's closest doctor and confidante. Rowe had no idea in the last months of MJ's life Klein injected the singer with Demerol scores of times.

We've learned if asked ... Rowe will say she was horrified when she saw a TMZ video of Michael looking totally out of it as he left Dr. Klein's office days before he died. The day MJ passed, Rowe will testify she called Klein and said, "You killed him. What did you give him?"

We're told Rowe wants to tell the jury ... when the "This Is It" tour was announced and she heard the breakneck concert schedule, she told her shrink, "They're [AEG] gonna kill him."

http://www.tmz.com/2013/08/14/debbi...ongful-death-trial-aeg-live-demerol-propofol/

 

[bouee]

yes it seems like Sony guaranteed payment which resulted in a very favorable interest rate of 7%. It also allowed Sony to be able to pay back the loan if Michael cannot and avoid a sale of the catalog in the case of a default.

Didn't that also allow Sony to get hold of a larger share of the catalog, or the whole catalog, if Michael defaulted ? Sony is corporation, they certainly did not do that just to help Michael, they had an advantage in doing that, there must have been a counterpart.
Sorry if it's a dumb question, I haven't read the whole testimony yet.

 

[Korgnex]

That has been properly, correctly, completely explained a million times in this forum, and further, that aspect does not invalidate a will. That too has been explained about a trillion times.

I might add to this that anyone is always free to
1) go to an university lecture about inheritance law and talk to the professor/lecturer (NO costs)
2) go to a(n university) library with specialist books on law (NO costs)
3) call a lawyer

in order to learn and understand WHY a formal error (wrong date or wrong city etc.) on a will is NOT necessarily an obstacle to its effectiveness.
You would also learn HOW OFTEN such formal errors occur in the field
and THE MEANS a court can use to validate the formal error.

Anyone still contesting Michael's 2002 will is
either
a) unenlightened in regards to the legal aspects
or
b) with all due respect: "ignorant" (eg Randy Jackson)

 

[Bubs]

What suit are you talking about?

Suit that these useless cubs were wearing.
MJ's estate paid EVERYTHING related to funeral, including the cars that family used, including the clothes family wore, including the food family ate,
Same with memorial at Stables center, cars, clothes, everything. Family did not pay a penny towards funeral or memorial (Janet gave some money for funeral but asked the estate to pay it back)

Here is some information relation what was paid by the estate if you like to have a look:
http://mjandjustice4some.blogspot.ie/2012/10/disproving-randall-sullivan-part-one.html
and I'm sure the estate's first accounting is somewhere here in MJJC for more detailed look.



Btw, this was what Randy did when he said he worked very hard
http://www.tmz.com/2009/09/03/jackson-family-the-burial-after-party/

 

[LastTear]

To be fair I guess an after party is the same as a wake, or at least I would like to think so........

Just got back from holiday and I have lost the link to Randy's deposition video, does anyone have it to hand please.

 

[Bubs]

To be fair I guess an after party is the same as a wake, or at least I would like to think so........

Just got back from holiday and I have lost the link to Randy's deposition video, does anyone have it to hand please.

I know that TMZ uses silly headlines but that wasn't really my point
Randy testified
"Randy said he pushed everything to the side and was getting together this memorial for him and did it with AEG, Kenny Ortega and those guys.
Randy: I practically slept there to put the show together."

He practically says he put the show together and AEG basically did nothing. I don't believe Randy has capacity in him to do anything that big, so I would think that all he did was to book a restaurant and ordered some donuts, and then sent a bill to the estate.


Welcome back, hopefully you had lovely holiday:beach:

 

[Soundmind]

Beside Randy's deposition and I believe Rebbie's there was no one so far who gave any shocking testimony regarding drug abuse , Sasaki was fully aware of the other doctors , he confirmed MJ had a surgery that needed medication at some point stopped because he believed MJ was taking too much , something MJ publicly acknowledged at the time .

Seriously , the Jacksons could have had a good chance of getting something if it were not for the hate and resentment they have for MJ which they could not hide after his death .

 

[Bubs]

There's no way Katherine didn't know about the Heyvenhurst foreclosure and Neverland being near foreclosure and yet, the moment she learned he got an advance from AEG she came requesting a $600K motor home. I have no words. I find it despicable frankly and the fact that Panish keeps bringing it up to show MJ's love for him mother, without revealing the real situation, disgusts me.

And Katherine just sitting there listening to this........ I wonder if she feels at least a little bit bad about it all or does she continue to "close her ears" for the bad stauf....

About those cars MJ gave to her. Whose name they are under?
I'm not sure about this but I thought KJ couldn't keep anything under her name as Segye Times would have been there looking for the money she owned to them? Did she have a proof that MJ gave it to her, meaning something on the paper?