Restitution discussion removed from Cease and Desist letter thread

[billyworld99]

Thanks to AndJustice Forsome

This is by far the best and most informative response I have read re the Estate's cease and desist letter to Murray. Please read, and thank you to Ethemer Jackson for writing such an informative description as to why the Estate's letter was the right option re Murray and the media.

"This is brilliant. Kudos to the Estate legal team.
To say that the Jackson family could have stopped him from speaking about Michael in interviews/books is false. There is no law anywhere that would have allowed any family member to inhibit Murray's speech. We have a constitution in this country which reigns supreme. All laws must abide by all provisions of the constitution, and when a law is challenged, the Supreme Court has the final say in determining whether that law is constitutional or not. Among the First Amendment restrictions, "Congress shall pass no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;..".

In the 70s, Son of Sam laws were enacted across the country with the intent of preventing criminals from selling their stories and profiting from their crimes. The Son of Sam law in California was challenged the Court overturned the Son of Sam law for restricting speech of the criminal based on content. As a result of that ruling, laws in other states were overturned or were amended to comply with the SC ruling. So, even if the family could establish jurisdiction in a state where Son of Sam law stands, it still would never stop him from publishing books or giving interviews, it would only give the family grounds to sue for the profits he made from selling his lies.

An order of restitution against a convicted criminal has absolutely NOTHING to do with prohibiting his speech. There is no criminal liability attached to restitution. It is just a fine that gets transferred to civil court as a financial debt owed to the victim's family.

That's why this "cease and desist" order from the Estate is so deserving of praise. It's PERFECT. Because of the specific doctor-patient relationship, they were able to use patient privacy protection laws to prohibit his speech based on content. The law remains in effect after death, unlike defamation laws. The code and case law establish that the "representatives" or "estate" of the patient hold the privilege to authorize the release of any information, which they clearly state have never and will never do, thereby establishing that Murray has already violated the law. They also establish that the courts have interpreted the law broadly and in favor of nondisclosure. Nicely researched and written!

The family could NOT do this because the family would have no legal say in authorizing disclosure of patient confidential information. Katherine and the children are not representatives or the estate, they are the beneficiaries. "The Estate" refers to Branca, McClain and their legal team, including Weitzman. They represent Michael's interests, carry out his wishes regarding the administration of his estate, and distribute assets to beneficiaries

 

[Tygger]

Re: Update: Estate sends cease and desist to Murray / From Estate Of Michael Jackson, Re: Conrad Mur

This bears repeating:

To say that the Jackson family could have stopped him from speaking about Michael in interviews/books is false. There is no law anywhere that would have allowed any family member to inhibit Murray's speech.

So, even if the family could establish jurisdiction in a state where Son of Sam law stands, it still would never stop him from publishing books or giving interviews, it would only give the family grounds to sue for the profits he made from selling his lies.

An order of restitution against a convicted criminal has absolutely NOTHING to do with prohibiting his speech. There is no criminal liability attached to restitution. It is just a fine that gets transferred to civil court as a financial debt owed to the victim's family.

The family could NOT do this because the family would have no legal say in authorizing disclosure of patient confidential information. Katherine and the children are not representatives or the estate, they are the beneficiaries.

 

[passy001]

Re: Update: Estate sends cease and desist to Murray / From Estate Of Michael Jackson, Re: Conrad Mur

This bears repeating:

It's not about physically stopping Murray from talking. It's about removing the incentives for him to talk. If Murray knows that the restitution is $100m, essentially his talking would be like making money to pay back the $100m fine. in other word he would be working for the jacksons. In this regard, Murray of course would see no point in doing interviews. more so as the jacksons would have a legal ground to demand compensation. all they had to do is scream in court " Hey, this dude is profiting off mj and we want all the proceeds".

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: Update: Estate sends cease and desist to Murray / From Estate Of Michael Jackson, Re: Conrad Mur

It's not about physically stopping Murray from talking. It's about removing the incentives for him to talk. If Murray knows that the restitution is $100m, essentially his talking would be like making money to pay back the $100m fine. in other word he would be working for the jacksons. In this regard, Murray of course would see no point in doing interviews. more so as the jacksons would have a legal ground to demand compensation. all they had to do is scream in court " Hey, this dude is profiting off mj and we want all the proceeds".

i wouldnt waste your time. some will defend anyone but michael and try to justify and excuse their .actions. your statement is pointing out the obvious but regardless of that some will try to act like that is not the issue in order to defend others actions

the jacksons hae spent years using and abusing mj and talking crap about him for money so why anyone would think they would give a dam about murray doing the same is beyond me.. they are two peas from the same pod

 

[passy001]

Re: Update: Estate sends cease and desist to Murray / From Estate Of Michael Jackson, Re: Conrad Mur

While I know nothing would have stoped Murray from talking when he is out of jail, I would certainly have preferred the Jackson family especially Katherine Jackson as the guardian of Michaels three children to speak more openly out about how huge the danger is that whatever this man says can hurt the souls of three innocent children and that's why she should have asked for restitution, no matter if this would have stoped Murray... but just to tell this world: HEY HERE ARE THREE CHILDREN WHO HAVE NEVER DONE ANYTHING WRONG BUT ARE CONTINUED TO BE VICTIMS OF A GUY WHO IS A CONVICTED CRIMINAL and probably suffering from a severely mental disorder!!!

That's because the Jacksons put their own financial interests before anyone else. They wrongfully gambled on the AEG trial and now they've lost everything. the only chance they actually had was the restitution but they blew it. now the estate can sue Murray for hundred of millions of dollars which means Murray will be paying that restitution to the estate instead of the jacksons. ins't that ironic?

it's going to get really tough for the jacksons from now on. soon Prince is going to turn 18 (14 months from now). and when he does he will get his money directly from the estate, meaning less money in the hand on KJ. also, a year after that Paris will be 18 (28 months from now), that means even less money in the hand of KJ. worse when she dies she won't have anything left for them.

 

[Virre]

And this bears repeating..

No one at this board expected Murray to be quiet, it´s about him making money out of it. No one here expected him to not say a word and no one here expected that a restitution would stop him from talking about Michael. But it would stop him from making money when talking about Michael. I get so tired of these posts and you trying to make it look like we are some stupid group of muppets who don´t get this at all. We know it wouldn´t make him stop talking about Michael, but it would stop him from making money out of Michael and in the end maybe it would have stopped him from trying.. you know..

 

[Tygger]

I have no issue with those who have distaste for the family. My issue has been posts that misstate or spin facts to support that distaste.

This is not the restitution debate thread. Instead, support the estate’s letter and quote how the doctor violated doctor-patient confidentiality in his transcribed interviews that restitution would not hinder because the doctor most likely did NOT directly profit from them.

 

[Bubs]

Re: Update: Estate sends cease and desist to Murray / From Estate Of Michael Jackson, Re: Conrad Mur

Bubs I agree with you and think that person who wrote the letter misses the point. It is true that there is free speech. However, if Muarry had a multi-million restitution, he would not be able to make profit from talking about Michael which is his main aim. He would know that every time he spoke for a tab, wrote a book, gave interviews the family would be able to get substantial amounts of the money. It is this knowledge that prevents the criminal from spewing a lot of false dirt or write books, because there would be no profit in it. This is the same think that happened to OJ, and we have cited that case several times. It is sad to see that after all this, some still do not understand.

The person who wrote that letter missed the bit that while CM has a freedom of speech, but he also is under the Hippa, and he simply cannot violate his doctor-patient confidentiality. It still applies after MJ's passing.
She also says that "family" couldn't have stopped CM talking even if they had taken the restitution.
My question is, what harm would it had done to take restitution (other than it would have messed the amount of money "family" wanted from AEG, but what else? Nothing, nada, zilch, no harm at all, only benefit.
At least there would have been something on place from CM making money off MJ, but they just handed Michael's head on the platter for CM to do whatever he wants.

 

[Tygger]

Krizkil, you are simply stating the opposite of my words for your response.

Again, that post I re-quoted spoke to how restitution would not prevent the interviews that caused the estate to send this letter which is the topic of this thread. Responses to my post consisting simply of distaste for the Jacksons’ rejecting restitution are not on-topic. I have not participated in that thread although some of my posts have been moved there.

It is easier to repeat that the doctor is in violation than to prove he is indeed in violation. We all have access to that evidence. As I said before, I would prefer to see the estate sue this killer however, there has to be a violation first or else it is a publicized threat where they are the only party receiving gain.

Yes, these interviews were most likely paid for. However, those who believe so, will have to prove the doctor was paid directly by these outlets and I am 99.9% sure he profited indirectly as he has in his past interviews from his cell. These outlets would prefer not to suffer a moral violation or worst, bad press.

 

[Soundmind]

Re: Update: Estate sends cease and desist to Murray / From Estate Of Michael Jackson, Re: Conrad Mur

You are trying very hard . daily mail does not care about moral violation nor 60 minutes cares about bad press. the Jacksons for sure did not care about neither so why do you expect strangers to care ?

 

[Tygger]

Re: Update: Estate sends cease and desist to Murray / From Estate Of Michael Jackson, Re: Conrad Mur

Soundmind, be careful. You are suggesting these outlets paid the killer directly. If they did and it can proven, do so, as the general public would be outraged and these outlet will get their comeuppance.

 

[Soundmind]

Re: Update: Estate sends cease and desist to Murray / From Estate Of Michael Jackson, Re: Conrad Mur

For God sake his own family sold him HUNDREDS of times and no one cared about any public outrage. seriously , where do you get your arguments from ?

 

[Tygger]

Re: Update: Estate sends cease and desist to Murray / From Estate Of Michael Jackson, Re: Conrad Mur

Soundmind, I only have to look at past actions. Either Alvarez or his lawyers were paid for the documentary and his interviews from his cell. That was made public knowledge for a very specific reason.

No outlet wants to suffer the bad press of paying this killer directly. That would make the alleged, disgraced outlet the focus of a negative and embarrassing story for competing outlets and a target for a disgusted public.

If you have evidence pointing otherwise, please share.

 

[Justthefacts]

Re: Update: Estate sends cease and desist to Murray / From Estate Of Michael Jackson, Re: Conrad Mur

Soundmind, I only have to look at past actions. Either Alvarez or his lawyers were paid for the documentary and his interviews from his cell. That was made public knowledge for a very specific reason.

No outlet wants to suffer the bad press of paying this killer directly. That would make the alleged, disgraced outlet the focus of a negative and embarrassing story for competing outlets and a target for a disgusted public.

If you have evidence pointing otherwise, please share.

You have got to be kidding me it is about raitings not bad PR anymore. The same reason MSNBC paid for Murray's doco the same reason HLN would not show the PIC of Michael on the slab and the next day ran it. The same way John King from CNN said the Boston bombers were two dark skinned guys it is about getting people to watch not who we may upset. And even if they did not pay Murray money I am more then sure they paid for his flight his hotel room or whatever else he needed. Let's not kid ourselves

 

[qbee]

Re: Update: Estate sends cease and desist to Murray / From Estate Of Michael Jackson, Re: Conrad Mur

No outlet wants to suffer the bad press of paying this killer directly. That would make the alleged, disgraced outlet the focus of a negative and embarrassing story for competing outlets and a target for a disgusted public.

If you have evidence pointing otherwise, please share.

Lets say 60 Minutes made payment to Murrays girlfriend or a family member for his interview, So he can avoid any ramifications by placing his assets in someone elses name. Would that make it less disgraceful and disgusting. Of course they won't divulge specifics of any payment made, I guess I'm not understanding your argument about direct or indirect would hold off bad press. It doesn't make that much difference because the payment would still "indirectly" go to Murray and everyone knows that. Plus I don't think it matters to them anyway all they want is viewers / ratings $$$ If they cared what the public or media thought, they wouldn't have given the killer a voice in the first place.

 

[serendipity]

Re: Update: Estate sends cease and desist to Murray / From Estate Of Michael Jackson, Re: Conrad Mur

Lets say 60 Minutes made payment to Murrays girlfriend or a family member for his interview, So he can avoid any ramifications by placing his assets in someone elses name. Would that make it less disgraceful and disgusting. Of course they won't divulge specifics of any payment made, I guess I'm not understanding your argument about direct or indirect would hold off bad press. It doesn't make that much difference because the payment would still "indirectly" go to Murray and everyone knows that. Plus I don't think it matters to them anyway all they want is viewers / ratings $$$ If they cared what the public or media thought, they wouldn't have given the killer a voice in the first place.

Correct. Paying his gf isn't going to be any less disgraceful. Besides does anyone really see any media being outraged by Murray being paid? When pigs fly.

 

[Tygger]

Justthefacts, paying the killer directly and any profits he may have allegedly received from these outlets are two separate issues. I clearly referred to the former. If they paid his expenses (they most likely have), it is not the same as paying him directly for his fabrications.

Qbee, no outlet will pay that killer directly and be brazen enough to tell the public for the very reasons I already stated. These outlets have no issue telling a negative story about another however, they do not desire a negative story about themselves printed by another competing outlet. I never said I personally felt it was acceptable to fund Alvarez over the killer.

Restitution would not hinder this interview for the reasons listed in Billyworld99’s post and it would not hinder the indirect profit the killer may have received as I have consistently and repeatedly stated. Regardless, some fans will continue to find the Jacksons’ blameworthy in spite of these FACTS.

Restitution has NOTHING to do with these interviews or the estate’s letter so it is baffling that the concept is continually discussed in threads where it has no place such as this.

 

[Bubs]

Re: Update: Estate sends cease and desist to Murray / From Estate Of Michael Jackson, Re: Conrad Mur

Where that idea came from that CM didn't get paid from his Daily mail interview?
It is simply not true. Daily mail pays for their interviews and so does other tabloids in UK, and that is a fact. It is utterly ridiculous to say that no media outlet wants to suffer bad press for paying CM.
So far I have not seen any media outlet criticizing Aus 60 min, Daily mail or ITV for giving a voice for CM and whether the payment was done over the table or under the table, everybody who works in media knows CM got paid.

Google is you friend.

This reaching is starting to show signs of desperation.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: Update: Estate sends cease and desist to Murray / From Estate Of Michael Jackson, Re: Conrad Mur

"where do you loyallties lie" dont bother answering that we all know the answer.

 

[WhoIsIt89]

Justthefacts, paying the killer directly and any profits he may have allegedly received from these outlets are two separate issues. I clearly referred to the former. If they paid his expenses (they most likely have), it is not the same as paying him directly for his fabrications.

Qbee, no outlet will pay that killer directly and be brazen enough to tell the public for the very reasons I already stated. These outlets have no issue telling a negative story about another however, they do not desire a negative story about themselves printed by another competing outlet. I never said I personally felt it was acceptable to fund Alvarez over the killer.

Restitution would not hinder this interview for the reasons listed in Billyworld99’s post and it would not hinder the indirect profit the killer may have received as I have consistently and repeatedly stated. Regardless, some fans will continue to find the Jacksons’ blameworthy in spite of these FACTS.

Restitution has NOTHING to do with these interviews or the estate’s letter so it is baffling that the concept is continually discussed in threads where it has no place such as this.

How does restitution have nothing to do with these interviews? Fact is, had that step been made, while Murray would still be free to say these things to the media, he wouldn't be able to profit off it, every disparaging thing said about Michael from Murray's mouth would lead to the cash that they'd pay him to receive such information would go to the children. While it can't really stop him, it will definitely make him think twice knowing he can't profit off it.

 

[Tygger]

Google is you friend.

This reaching is starting to show signs of desperation.

Reading comprehension is not as friendly. No Google search will prove the doctor was paid directly but, I will wait to see if anyone can post such results. I would also enjoy reading about an outlet praising another who did an immoral deed to get an exclusive story.

I do agree with you that this discussion is quite desperate especially when fandom being questioned is the only response.

Not one post re-quoting the killer’s violation as per the estate letter. That is a far easier task than the convenient twisting of my posts to create another restitution thread.

 

[Tygger]

Krizkil, again, I did not introduce restitution to this thread despite your view of it. Again, restitution would not have hindered these interviews.

Again, I have seen several post stating a violation(s) occurred, as per the estate's publicized letter (it was their decsion to make it public), without posting the actual words the killer spoke that would show the obvious violation(s).

Again, I never said it was acceptable to fund this killer indirectly. Again, restitution does not hinder indirect profit.

Lastly, again, I will not spend any time defending my fandom.

 

[krikzil]

Re: Update: Estate sends cease and desist to Murray / From Estate Of Michael Jackson, Re: Conrad Mur

Krizkil, again, I did not introduce restitution to this thread despite your view of it. Again, restitution would not have hindered these interviews.

Again, I have seen several post stating a violation(s) occurred, as per the estate's publicized letter (it was their decsion to make it public), without posting the actual words the killer spoke that would show the obvious violation(s).

Again, I never said it was acceptable to fund this killer indirectly. Again, restitution does not hinder indirect profit.

Are you even reading my posts?

Lastly, again, I will not spend any time defending my fandom.

Well, that's the best non sequitor yet.

 

[Bubs]

Re: Update: Estate sends cease and desist to Murray / From Estate Of Michael Jackson, Re: Conrad Mur

Also, I find it funny how you say those who believe he was paid directly would have to show proof, when you haven't shown any for believing otherwise.
The fact is, no one has any proof because they will never release such info.

I'm sure if we had access to CM bank accounts, there would be a few payments from media outlets.
He doesn't have to hide those payments because there is no restitution on place, so why wouldn't he get paid directly? He doesn't have to hide those monies from restitution collectors.

 

[Mneme]

Re: Update: Estate sends cease and desist to Murray / From Estate Of Michael Jackson, Re: Conrad Mur

I do not know the law in US but is there really a difference between 'direct' and 'indirect' ?

Isn't it if Mrs. Jackson would have a right to restitution per court decision she would have some possibilities:
-- If there is a media outlet that make an advertising about an forthcomming C.M. interview she / her lawyers could inform a bailiff who would inform this outlet about the confiscation from C.M.'s gage. This would be b e f o r e the interview will be shown to the the public.
(The best would be if she make this openly and if to the same time she annonced a charity which should get this money from this outlet directly.)

-- Per court decision the media outlet/s could be forced for discovering about the person who received the money which C.M. earned with his interview. If this person cannot proof that he/she is a creditor from C.M. the money can get confiscates AND C.M. and this person can sued because money laundering.

-- From time to time a bailiff could go to C.M.'s flat and he looks how he is living; he could confiscate all things which are not necessary to live and even conficcate the pockets from C.M.

-- .....

When these possibilities carried out a few times C.M. would want nothing as his rest.


In my opinion with a court decision for right to restitution Mrs. Jackson could do many things ------ but she doesn' t want it and now she can look at her sons "doctor" on television. She likes television I have read....


The problem, is not 'direct' or 'indirect': the problem is the by Mrs. Jackson declined right for restitution and this should be called from the roofs.

 

[Victory22]

Krizkil, I have read your post. There is no need for me to respond with the opposite of what you posted or twist your words.

Serendipity, Michael's medical records were made public due to the judge not sealing the records AEG, the defense, submitted into evidence. It was not the family (or the plaintiffs) as you say.

What did the doctor say that was not public information? Should be simple to post from the transcripts if it is obvious and he indeed did so. The problem is it is not as simple as some repeated stated or that post would have been done immediately in an effort to prove me wrong.

Lastly, there is proof the doctor was not paid directly in the past as it is public knowledge Alvarez and his criminal trial lawyers were funded previously. If he was funded directly by any of these three outlets, particularly 60 Minutes, anyone could do a Google search and read other outlets maligning these outlets' actions.

Direst, indirect upside down or sideways the fact remains and will always remain that restitution would have crippled Conrad Murray’s efforts to profit off selling trash about Michael Jackson to the press. There is no getting around it. Katherine failed to protect the dignity of her dead son from his sociopath killer. It would have also been a lifelong punishment against the killer as well as a reminder to him and the world that he is GUILTY convicted killer who should not be given the time of day.

 

[Tygger]

What restitution hinders and what it does not hinder has unfortunately not been made clear and I believe it has been a disservice to many here. Restitution hinders direct profit only. Stating restitution would hinder these interviews (free speech), hinder profit to others like Alvarez (indirect profit) or expenses paid (expense is not income), and that there is not a chasm between direct and indirect profit is simply incorrect and misinformed.

Had Michael’s parents and the lawyers for Michael’s parents and children decided to accept restitution, these interview would still exist and there would be no funding to the restitution order because the doctor was not paid directly by these outlets.

Plainly stated, even with restitution, this thread would still exist and it would still be an impossible task to simply post the doctor’s violations as per the estate’s letter from the interviews’ transcripts.

Who filed the lawsuit allowing all this to happen? Oh yea, it was the family.

No, the defense decided to defend themselves against a negligent hiring claim by portraying Michal as a secretive addict. They used Michael’s medical records the doctor retrieved for AEG for insurance purposes.

 

[Mneme]

Re: Update: Estate sends cease and desist to Murray / From Estate Of Michael Jackson, Re: Conrad Mur

The "indirect" thing is a meaningless distinction both ethically and in practical terms a la Ron Goldman's dad.

It was meant from me as a rhetorical question in my posting.

But however, this thing with 'direct' and 'indirect' would not play a role if the good Mother Jackson would have accepted the advice from district attorney Walgren. And therefore for me it is some impertinent to read lectures about direct/indirect several times on every page in this (and in the other) thread as would it come from a hurdy-gurdy.

The horse has bolted now and I am very glad about that Mr. Branca / Mr. Weitzman are handling in this matter.
I am a 64 old woman and I never have heard from a mother who is thinking and handling like Michael's mother. Simply sad....

 

[Soundmind]

Re: Update: Estate sends cease and desist to Murray / From Estate Of Michael Jackson, Re: Conrad Mur

AEG could not produce any witness to say they attempted 10 interventions on MJ , in fact no witnesses but his own family talked about interventions. So how come it was AEG's fault? It was the Jacksons strategy they tried to use to invalidate MJ's will and later to extort money from AEG. You can't blame AEG for being smart or for using the Jacksons strategy against them. You can for sure blame the Jacksons for their greed and stupidity .

 

[Tygger]

sigh

Mneme, direct and indirect profit are interchangeable in these threads to support a certain view however, there is a clear legal distinction between the two.

Soundmind, Michael’s medical records and Randy’s testimony regarding his experiences with his brother are not the same.