Добро пожаловать в Мир Майкла Джексона, Гость!    Регистрация  Или выполнить  Вход       

Судебные процессы против Конрада Мюррея, иск Кэтрин Джексон против AEG Live./The Trial of Conrad Murray, Katherine Jackson AEG Lawsuit

Кэтрин Джексон против AEG Live

Re: Кэтрин Джексон против AEG Live

#1061  Сообщение Liberian Girl » 08 окт 2013, 07:09


At first we thought that the verdict was simply a bad joke. But now we realize that the jurors were serious when they called Murray ‘fit and competent’ though it was this doctor who actually killed Michael Jackson and was sent to jail for this crime.


The civil jury’s verdict admitted that AEG hired Murray, but stated that Murray was competent for the work he was hired for, so in the opinion of the present jury there was no negligence on anyone’s part – Murray was asked for propofol by his patient and this resulted in an accident as poor Murray simply didn’t know “how to” because he wasn’t hired for this job.

So the latest version of Michael’s death is that no one is to blame for it, especially AEG as ‘there was no way they could know about it’, and even Murray is not to blame now as Michael asked for propofol himself and in all other aspects except propofol Murray was ‘competent and fit’. The AEG lawyers describe it as ‘simply a tragedy’ and by this interpretation make a generous gesture in Michael’s direction kindly releasing him of any guilt too. No one is to blame, it just happened, you know.

After we got over the first shock of the jury’s explanations the second impression was that for the gullible public this verson could even pass for the truth, if it were not for the two absurdities.

The first absurdity is that this jury finds Murray competent though the previous jury found him criminally negligent and these two concepts look a little contradictory even to the most dumb.

And the second absurdity is that the present jurors, while slightly wincing at Murray’s poor ethics, explain that the ethical aspect was not even considered because “no one asked them a question about it” and since it was not on the list of the jury’s instructions everything was to be done in strict accordance with the letter of the law.

This is said in full seriousness and with a straight face and implies that if  the judge had added the word “ethical” to the question “Was Dr. Conrad Murray fit and competent for the job he was hired for?” the jury’s answer would have been different. And without this word the jury found themselves facing a terrible dilemma and were helpless and lost like a flock of sheep without their guardian dog.

After several hours of racking their brains and several lunches consumed they finally said “No” to a question of Murray’s incompetence thus asserting his competence, ending the trial and setting new standards for the medical community. Since time immemorial doctors have been guided by the Hippocratic oath and now they have a new interesting concept from the AEG jury which says that even if a doctor killed his patient through gross negligence he is still good, fit and competent, and ethics are an outside matter which have nothing to do with the problem. This way the jurors actually set a precedent which some criminal doctors will surely appreciate.

To test yourself whether ethics can be snatched away from the concept of a medical doctor per se, all you need to do is imagine a notice on the door of a doctor’s office – “Dr. X is competent and fit but doesn’t follow the medical ethics” and you will immediately understand that no one will ever entrust him with their health as an unethical doctor will not hesitate to ruin it or is probably even a sadist who will do deliberate harm using his competence and skills.

Doctors of this kind do exist, and the whole world regards them as criminals, and it is only for the jury in the AEG case that this type of doctor is okay.

Evidently feeling a little uneasy about what they did the jurors dealt with this minor discrepancy by clarifying that Murray was competent in doing the job he was hired for (which was general care to his patient), and for propofol he wasn’t hired, so it was okay that there he was incompetent and killed his patient. Of course he should have never agreed to administer it, but this is an ethical problem and ethics is not part of a doctor’s job as this jury has already explained to us.

Following the jury’s lead the excited media took the matter further and though the verdict didn’t say it declared the deceased Michael Jackson guilty of his own death – “he was an adult and had personal responsibility” and should have never asked for propofol.

If you listen to these poeple you will get the impression that Michael was the only adult in this company while Murray was a little kid who simply fell under the spell of a villain, and AEG was also a naïve little thing who never guessed to check up what this kid in their employement was actually up to.

To help the jury and everyone realize prior to the start of jury deliberations that AEG executives aren’t responsible for anything at all – even for the extreme pressure they exercised on their doctor employee by emails like “We want to remind him that it is AEG, not MJ, who is paying his salary. We want to remind him what is expected of him” – at the very last minute of the trial the judge Yvette Palazuelos released Paul Gongaware and Randy Phillips of any personal responsibility whatsoever thus sending the jurors a clear signal on the outline of their future verdict.  Judging by the result this signal was not lost on these perceptive people.

And in addition to all that it has also become a tradition now that some Michael Jackson’s fans rush to be the first advocates of AEG and explain how perfectly correct the jury was in exonerating them even of a little thing like negligence in hiring Murray which was all Katherine Jackson’s lawsuit was all about.

Here is a typical quote from a fan forum:

Some of you either didn’t follow the trial or you didn’t even bother reading the jury instructions.

As per the contract between Murray, AEG, and Michael, Conrad Murray was hired for GENERAL CARE. He was NOT hired to administer Propofol. Administering Propofol does not fall under general care, therefore, Murray was carrying out actions that went beyond the duties he was actually hired for at the time he was hired.

Somebody explained it perfectly on twitter. It would be like hiring a driver to drive a bus, but if said drive instead flies a plane and crashes, you cannot hold the company who hired him liable. He was not hired to fly a plane, he was hired to drive.

Before becoming Michael’s doctor, Murray had an impeccable record as a doctor and was a highly regarded cardiologist. A credit check cannot determine somebody’s ethics or abilities to behave morally. To say his debt should’ve indicated he would behave in an unethical and criminally negligent manner would mean ANYBODY who is in debt is potentially just a criminal waiting to strike.

The jury foreman made it clear…they do believe Murray was competent and fit to carry out the duty of GENERAL CARE. However, had the question been with regards to ethics, he stressed the verdict could’ve been different because the jury did not believe Murray was ethical.

The foreman said there was no evidence presented in the trial to show or prove that AEG knew or should’ve known Murray would be a risk to others, especially since Katherine’s attorneys failed to prove that AEG knew about Murray administering Propofol.

It all came down to the jury instructions and if you read them, you’ll see that the jury came to the appropriate decision based on LAWS, not emotions as Katherine’s attorneys were hoping. And regardless of conspiracy nuts trying to accuse Judge Palazuelos of setting up the jury instructions to facilitate AEG’s victory, please remember, the jury instructions were agreed upon by both Katherine’s attorneys AND AEG’s attorneys.

Since the above fan appeals to laws and scorns at “conspiracy nuts” like us, our conclusions should also be based on the juiry instructions and other documents which actually won’t be any different for us as this is what we always do. And the first thing we need to determine is whether the jury was right in claiming that Dr. Murray was competent in doing the job he was hired for – which was the general care of his patient.


Dr. Murray’s contract says that the scope of his services was “to provide general medical care to the Artist to be administered professionally and with the greatest degree of care to be expected from similarly situated member in the medical field”.

It also added that  “such services shall include tending to the Artist’s general medical needs and assisting and treating the Artist in the case of a medical emergency

Murray’s contract – the scope of his services

General care is a very broad term but usually it is the scope of services rendered by general practitioners or internists. Whatever the name for this medical specialty sources define it as “practicing medicine concerned with promoting, maintaining or restoring human health through the study, diagnosis, and  treatment  of disease, injury, and other physical and mental impairments.”

Besides being a cardiologist Murray probably considered himself an internist or general practitioner, however this does not look like an impediment as cardiologists are a step higher and are actually internists specializing in cardiology. The only exception to it would be if Murray were a heart surgeon (which he probably was?) which is a counter indication to rendering general care as internists are taught to people conservatively:

* Internal medicine or general medicine is the medical specialty dealing with the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of adult diseases. Physicians specializing in internal medicine are called internists, or physicians. Internists are especially skilled in the management of patients who have undifferentiated or multi-system disease processes. Internists care for hospitalized and ambulatory patients and may play a major role in teaching and research.
* General practitioners assess and treat general medical conditions and issues. They diagnose conditions, but normally are able to refer patients with specific conditions to specialists to deal with their conditions.

So the very general idea of Murray’s job was to diagnose and treat a broad range of illnesses and refer his patient to a specialist if he was unable to cope with the problem himself.  Michael Jackson’s medical needs like insomnia, loss of weight, dehydration after rehearsals and fatigue were well within this scope and were to become the matter of everyday care and concern of Dr. Murray.

However judging by Michael’s steady deterioration of health and the fatal result Dr. Murray dealt with those medical problems absolutely inadequately.

EPISODE 1. Nutrition


Murray did not pay proper attention even to a grave sign like Michael’s quick loss of weight. Since he had an everyday opportunity to check up Michael’s condition before his sleep, there was absolutely no chance for him to overlook the fact that Michael was turning skeletal – so skeletal that when Michael Bush saw Michael undressing  on June 19th he noticed the heartbeat under his skin!

Bush saw it just once and was utterly shattered by the sight, but where was Dr. Murray all this time? What steps did Murray take to halt the process of Michael’s speedy loss of weight? None at all. At one point he did promise to make some special protein shakes but he never did and never even asked what kind of food his chef Kai Chase was cooking for him.

This fact surprised her so much that she made a note of it in her testimony at the trial:

Q. Now, let me ask you, in June, did you ever have conversations with Dr. Murray at any time in which you discussed  any instructions from him regarding the nutrition or Mr. Jackson?
A. No, and I thought that was quite strange.
Q. Why?
A. Well, for a doctor to have a patient there, and you don’t consult with their chef of eating habits or, you know, nutrition? It was quite strange to me.
Q. Did you ever ask him if there was anything you should be doing?
A. I’d asked him a couple of times, but his answer to me would always be, “You can fix him
Q. Okay. And in the time period that you were there, was there ever nutritionist at the house?
A. No.
Q. And in the time period that you were there, did Dr. Murray ever make a protein shake?
A. No.
Ms. Stebbins: Objection, lacks foundation as to whether Dr. Murray ever made a protein shake. She can say whether she saw one.
Q. I said in the time period that you were there, did you ever see Dr. Murray make a protein shake in your presence?
A. No, I never.
Q. Did Dr. Murray ever request that you make any special type of protein shake?
A. No.

So did Murray act as a fit and competent doctor in dealing with Michael’s dramatic loss of weight? Absolutely not!

Then why are the jurors of so high regard of Murray if he neglected the most basic needs of his patient and when the medical problem was obvious even to those not in the medical profession?

EPISODE 2. Sick leave

From the little this trial revealed of Conrad Murray’s general care for MJ we nevertheless learned that in the first decade of June he was concerned about Michael’s health bad enough to give him a sick leave, however the sick leave was quickly withdrawn as soon as Paul Gongaware reminded Murray of who was paying his salary and “what was expected of him” (the wording makes it obvious that Michael Jackson’s health was not one of their expectations and was not on the AEG priority list).

We know that Murray gave in to the AEG pressure and withdrew the sick leave given to Michael on Saturday 13th as the very next Monday June 15th Michael had to attend rehearsals despite his obviously ill condition. Karen Faye was aghast but described Michael’s demeanor as stoic and this stoicism went on until June 18th when he came to a rehearsal very late, visibly shaken from another of those riot meetings arranged for him by AEG and their doctor employee.

Does the story with the sick leave impress you as Conrad Murray duly fulfilling his obligations of general care for Michael Jackson and  professionally “tending to his general medical needs”? Why am I sure that it doesn’t?

EPISODE 3. Emergency

When Michael’s health deteriorated so badly that he could no longer make a spin on stage for fear of injuring or embarrassing himself (according to Bugzy’s email) and he started “rambling and obsessing” and his body temperature became icy cold as was noted by almost everyone on June 19th, Michael’s medical condition could already be qualified as a medical emergency. This condition demanded Dr. Murray’s immediate attention as one of his responsibilities under the agreement with AEG was to “assist and treat the Artist in case of a medical emergency”.

On June 19th Michael was indeed so bad that even Ortega who had been previously pressing him for rehearsals fell into a panic, and began to cry out for help and a good therapeutist. He also wondered why there was no one (Murray) around Michael to offer him at least a cup of hot tea. The SOS emails from several people started bombarding Randy Phillips as they actually saw with their own eyes that Michael was dying.

Any of us would regard the above situation as a grave medical emergency requiring hospitalization or at least urgent qualified help, but Conrad Murray did nothing of the kind and remained unperturbed. Instead he reprimanded Ortega for playing an amateur physician and arrogantly demanded that Michael’s treatment should be left solely to him as a result of which only five days later Michael Jackson was dead.

Randy Phillips: “The doctor was fantastic”

Conrad Murray’s public lashing of Ortega took place in the presence of Randy Phillips who was so impressed by the doctor’s performance that he called it “fantastic”.

Though fantastic in the eyes of his emplyer the question is whether the above was compatible with the standards of general care for a patient expected of Murray or was Murray’s condut in line at least with his own contract with AEG requiring him to administer “general medical care to the Artist professionally and with the greatest degree of care to be expected from similarly situated member in the medical field”?

Would any other doctor behave the way Murray did in a similar situation? No, never! Then why did the jury award Murray the title of being “fit and competent” even after hearing at the trial about all those atrocities? How could the jurors overlook so flagrant a manifestation of Murray’s incompetence and criminal negligence as his behavior on June 20th?

Or look at it from another angle – what grounds do the jurors have for calling Murray ‘competent and fit’? Only the fact that he had a license and had no claims from his patients?

But Murray wasn’t even board certified as a cardiologist as Dr. Alon Steinberg said at Murray’s trial and as regards the patients’ complaints I clearly remember a patient testifying against Murray and threatening him with a lawsuit. He said that Conrad Murray operated on his heart and then abandoned him as he took up a job with Michael Jackson and never even referred him to anyone else leaving him with no follow-up medical help.  Dr. Murray reappeared on his horizon only when the patient threatened to sue him and this was one of the long calls Murray made right at the time when Michael was dying.

Even these three episodes show that Murray was totally unfit for giving general care to Michael Jackson – he was largerly indifferent to his patient and too fearful of his employees, arrogant to those who questioned his skills and totally unqualified to treat so serious a matter as Michael’s biggest problem – his insomnia. And Michael was not just an ‘ordinary’ patient. He had a complex history of auto-immune diseases and after-effects from previous treatments and therefore required only the best and most competent of doctors.

Murray surely wasn’t one of them, but why do the jurors in this trial still insist that he was competent for this job?


If these episodes are not convincing enough let us look at what the law says about Murray as a doctor. Here is a well-informed opinion of Judge Michael Pastor from his closing statement at Murray’s trial:

Dr. Murray abandoned his patient who was trusting him. His patient was vulnerable under certain circumstances having been administered potentially dangerous drugs by his medical provider. Dr. Murray repeatedly lied engaged in deceitful misconduct and endeavored to cover up his transgressions. He violated the trust of the medical community, of his colleagues, and of his patient and he has absolutely no sense of remorse, absolutely no sense of fault, and is and remains dangerous…. He is a shame to the medical community.

When answering questions after Murray’s trial Dr. Steven Shafer, the leading US anesthesiologist who proved Murray’s guilt, characterized Murray as follows:

Murray was grossly reckless. For medical error to be manslaughter requires that the physician be reckless in giving care. Thus, as I understand the law, the finding of manslaughter by the jury is a finding of recklessness. That was my conclusion after reviewing the records. The complete lack of monitoring, backup, and training were egregious violations of care. The lies to the paramedics and the physicians at UCLA were unconscionable, as was failure to obtain informed consent and keep records. Conrad Murray’s behavior was reckless, cavalier, and self-serving. Judge Pastor summed it up well in his final comments at Murray’s sentencing.

In his testimony Dr. Shafer named 17 egregious deviations from standard medical care out of which at least half were general deviations in no way connected with propofol. This is important as it points to Murray’s gross incompetence and negligence even in the area of general care where the present jury found Murray perfectly okay.

Here is a reminder of some of those deviations from my then post about Dr. Shafer with a few of his very valuable comments:

Lack of a blood pressure cuff is another egregious violation.

Considering that Michael Jackson was dehydrated from strenuous exercise (lacking enough liquid in his system) his blood pressure had a tendency to be low. Dr. Shafer explained the phenomenon which takes place when the blood pressure drops – the body “closes” legs and hands and that is why they feel cold, and preferentially sends the blood to vital organs only – like the heart, for example.

Failure to make records is an egregious and unconscionable violation.

Dr. Shafer stressed it again and again that keeping the records was not optional. It is part of the general care of the patient. The records were indispensable as in case another doctor were to treat the patient he should have the full medical history (his lab results, his reaction to this or that medication, duration of certain drugs administered, the effect they had, etc.). Medical records are indispensable for making a referral to another doctor.  After all, the state which licenses doctors is responsible for the care the doctor provides to patients and has the right to demand their records too.

And if he saw that Michael was dehydrated as he was sweating a lot during exercise – why didn’t he measure his blood pressure and pulse? And he didn’t do as little as a simple recording of the vital signs!  Any physician does that, while Murray did not. Lack of a regular physical assessment is another serious departure from the standard of care and coupled with the failure to keep records is so profound a violation that Dr. Shafer could hardly find a word to describe it. He said it had no excuse.  

Failure to have a proper doctor-patient relationship is an egregious violation

This relationship is built on the foundation that the doctor will always put the patient’s interests first. It doesn’t mean doing what he asks of – it means doing what is right for the patient and acting in his best interests. If the patient requests something foolish or dangerous, it is a doctor’s obligation to use medical judgment and say ”no”.

Dr. Shafer says that if Murray had acted as a doctor he would have referred Michael Jackson to sleep disorder specialists for evaluation and therapy.

In fact even Kenny Ortega saw the need for Michael to be evaluated by a qualified therapist – only no one paid attention to his words, including Conrad Murray.

And it is noteworthy that Kenny Ortega did not approach Murray with this request – no, he approached Randy Phillips with it! This alone shows who the real master of the situation was. However a true doctor will never bend to anyone’s orders and will be guided by nothing else but medical judgment and the oath of Hippocrates he takes to observe the code of medical ethics.

Dr. Shafer says that Murray’s unwillingness to say “no” and his failure to refer Michael to a proper specialist directly resulted in Michael Jackson’s death. And I would add to that package Murray’s full willingness to say “yes” to those in whose real employment he was.

When Walgren asked,  “And will being on the phone even in the general vicinity of the patient be an independent egregious violation?”  Dr. Shafer said that it was a setup of disaster.

“The patient is receiving IV drugs and the doctor is not focused on the patient – instead he is talking on the cell phone, sending text messages, answering emails. You cannot multitask like this, even if you are a couple of feet away, particularly with no monitors in place and no alarms.

The failure to call 911 was another of those outrageous, egregious violations.

Dr. Shafer said that there is nothing that has a higher priority than calling 911.

Conrad Murray was expected to immediately assess the situation and then call 911. The assessment would include checking the pulse and looking for signs of responsiveness (you literally shake the patient) – so it takes a matter of seconds to make an assessment. David Walgren assumed that Murray became aware of Michael Jackson’s condition at around noon and the delay in calling 911 was something like 20 minutes. How would Dr. Shafer assess that Dr. Murray called Michael Amir Williams at 12.12, left a voicemail message to him and then had the bodyguard Alvarez make a 911 call at 12.20?

Dr. Shafer said: “That is so egregious that I actually find it difficult to comprehend. You have a patient who had a respiratory arrest and you call and leave a voice message? It is just inconceivable. A physician would not do that…. I almost don’t know what to say. It is completely and utterly inexcusable”.

Walgren asked, “And how effective is a one-handed compression on the bed?”

Dr. Shafer said, “Not at all”. When you do chest compressions on the bed the patient just sinks into the cushions. You have to push the force against the spine and squeeze the heart. It should go directly down and with one hand it is difficult to do it in the right direction. So it is always two hands, pushing straight down and a patient being on a hard surface.

However based on Murray’s own words that when he returned Michael had a thread pulse, the issue here was not that Michael’s heart had stopped – the issue was that he stopped breathing and because of that oxygen was running out of his lungs. His heart only stopped because it was starved of oxygen. In the presence of a pulse the heart doesn’t need to be compressed – what you need to do is get oxygen into the lungs. So doing PCR in those circumstances was even harmful.

A mouth-to-mouth resuscitation done by Murray to resuscitate his patient was a serious violation too

Dr. Shafer says that if nothing else is available a mouth-to-mouth resuscitation is the only alternative. But for a health-care provider the need to resort to it means the admission of a failure to have the necessary resuscitation equipment available. The mask would have been much more efficient – because when you breathe into a patient it is your expired air. The usual level is no more than 20%. And if he had ventilated Michael’s lungs with oxygen he would be alive now.

In his interview with the police Murray described raising Michael’s legs. This was a minor violation as Dr. Shafer said it was just a waste of time. You raise a person’s legs if you believe you need more blood going into the heart, but since Michael’s heart was beating anyway Dr. Shafer said he didn’t know why Murray had done it – he needed oxygen and not raising his legs!

It shows that Dr. Murray was clueless as to what to do.

Walgren asked  – what is polypharmacy? Dr. Shafer said that it is administering many drugs at once.

Walgren enumerated the drugs Conrad Murray administered that night – Lorazepam, Diazepam (Valium), Midazolam as well as Propofol. “Is it polypharmacy?” “Absolutely”, said Dr. Shafer.  He shook his head and said that it didn’t make any sense. Lorazepam and Midazolam are very similar drugs and from the perspective of the brain they are nearly identical. The molecules do exactly the same thing in the brain. The only difference is how long they hang around for.

Dr. Shafer does not see any rationale for switching between Lorazepam and Midazolam in a patient who is having trouble falling asleep. So the therapy that was used does not suggest any understanding of these drugs…. Dr. Shafer said,  “We don’t go willy-nilly – let’s give him more Lorazepam, let’s give him more Midazolam”. The care of the polypharmacy in this case suggests that it was done without any real understanding of the drugs being used, how they worked and how they interacted. And this of itself was a serious violation of the standard of care.

The fact that Murray did not admit to the paramedics and the UCLA emergency room doctors that he had given propofol is another egregious deviation from the standard of care.

When a person’s life hangs in the balance as it did to withhold information is inexcusable. In addition to that he mischaracterized it as a witnessed arrest which is very different from what it was. A witnessed arrest is usually not the arrest for lack of breathing – it is something like a heart attack. You see the person and suddenly he is down and you realize that something catastrophic has happened.

When a patient goes into an arrest you have only seconds to go one way or the other. They were not given the information to choose a treatment path that was appropriate for what had happened.

In a scenario when the patient is transferred from one physician to another one it is a professional, ethical and moral obligation to tell the truth. The doctor is obliged to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Anything less than the truth is inexcusable. And this is another egregious and unconscionable violation of the standard of care.

Dr. Shafer stressed again that the doctor-patient relationship is built on trust and the patient’s interest always going ahead of the doctor’s interests. By withholding such information you violate this trust. “When it is withheld from the people who are trying to save the life of your patient you violated that trust in ways that are so foreign to me that I truly have trouble of conceiving it”. The patient has a right to expect the doctor to be honest.

Dr. Shafer looked very sad when he was saying all that because it clearly means to him that Conrad Murray is ignorant, incompetent and totally unprofessional.

All in all Dr. Shafer described 17 egregious violations of the standard of care out of which 4 were also unethical and unconscionable.

Dr. Shafer stressed that each of those violations individually was likely or should have been expected to result in death. And all those risks were completely foreseeable too.

Answering Walgren’s question the doctor focused once again on the fundamental principles of a doctor-patient relationship. He said that this relationship goes back down to the dawn of civilization.  Doctors are permitted to know the most private details of a person’s body and of a person’s life. Doctors are permitted to give very powerful drugs that might harm or kill a patient, and are permitted to cut into a patient’s body to remove a cancer or repair an organ or replace a knee.

Doctors are allowed to do these things because they give a Hippocratic oath which dates back to 500 BC.  It says: “In every house in which I come I will enter only for the good of my patients”,
because at the core of a doctor-patient relationship is the principle that you put the patient first.  This is the cornerstone of this relationship. It is because you put the patient first that you are entrusted with surgery, drugs and intimate knowledge of the patient, said Dr. Shafer.

The Geneva Declaration says: “The health and life of my patient will be my first consideration”. Columbia University says: “We put patients first”.

And when Dr. Murray agreed to treat Michael Jackson with propofol and disregarded his patient’s interests in so many ways Dr. Shafer said that Dr. Murray put himself  first – not Michael Jackson.

I hope that Dr. Shafer’s words will be a good reminder for the jurors in the AEG case what the law already said on the subject of Conrad Murray’s competence and ethics, so there was no need for them to introduce any novelties here. And the burden of proof in a criminal trial is much higher than the one in civil cases so if Murray was found guilty at a criminal trial it is not in the power of the civil jurors to negate their verdict and pronounce Murray competent in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the opposite.

These jurors simply closed their eyes to all the evidence in the case and are trying to create the impression that Murray was competent as the admission of his incompetence would mean that AEG hired an incompetent doctor and have to bear responsibility for it. But this scenario was for some reason unacceptable to the jurors, so Murray had to be found competent and this is why they are now getting out of their way to prove the impossible.


However despite all their demagogy over Murray’s competence the main question at the AEG trial was “Who hired Murray?” and it was given a Yes answer even by this highly suspect jury.

From the very start of it “Who hired Murray?” was the main intrigue of this trial. In their Overview of the Case the jury instructions did not limit the answer to hiring Murray only, but included there “retaining” and “supervision” too, so a Yes answer to “hiring” may mean that AEG was also found responsible for retaining and supervising Murray:

* Plaintiffs claims that the defendants are liable for the death of Michael Jackson because they negligently hired, retained or supervised Dr. Contrad Murray… The defendants deny they hired, retained or supervised Dr. Conrad Murray. The defendants also deny that they were negligent.

But if Murray was hired by AEG, this means that Murray was the same type of employee as the tour pyrotechnics, for example, for whose negligence (burning someone) AEG would be obliged to bear full responsibility in case of an accident.

Similarly they should bear responsibility for Murray’s negligence in handling Michael Jackson’s health as Murray was in their direct employment and not only at the moment of Michael’s death but during the whole time of his more than 8 weeks while his health was slowly declining.

Sceptics will say that Michael died of propofol over which no one could have any control. However even though the immediate cause of death was indeed propofol his steady health deterioration wasn’t due to propofol, but was due to his insomnia and lack of sleep which were well within the scope of Murray’s general care and responsibility.

Now I am sure of it even more than ever, because when looking through Dr. Shafer’s notes I found his observation that the ice-cold temperature of the body could not be in any way connected with propofol:

*Question: On June 19 and 20 when Michael was sick at the rehearsals, he called Cherilyn Lee. He asked her why half of his body was cold and the other half was warm.
*Dr. Shafer: That wouldn’t be a side effect of propofol. I don’t know what makes half your body warm, and half cold, but propofol doesn’t do that
. It could be that he simply had a virus. There are some symptoms of withdrawal from sedatives. Withdrawal from propofol has not been described.

In addition to the above information the AEG trial introduced us to the studies made by the leading sleep expert Dr. Czeisler whose research shows that the loss of the body temperature is a grave consequence of sleep deprivation.

His findings are fully confirmed by the study made on rats as early as 2002 which states that sleep deprivation results in excessive heat loss which is a precursor of death:

Later in [sleep] deprivation all rats …showed a precipitous decline in body and brain temperature from which they did not recover, even when the test chamber was rewarmed.

… The rats given antibiotic cocktails near the end of deprivation continued their temperature decline and died “on schedule” even though no trace of systemic infection was found.

The 2002 study also says that all sleep deprived rats lost weight even despite increased food take, had to spend much more energy and developed severe skin lesions of the unknown nature (so in application to Michael Jackson lack of sleep was very likely to exacerbate his skin condition).

The overall conclusion of the 2002 study is that the function of sleep is a tough nut to crack:

“The rats lost weight in spite of increased food intake. The large rise in energy expenditure calculated from the caloric values of food intake and weight loss was confirmed. The development of scrawny, debilitated appearance was confirmed. The severe ulcerative and hyperkeratotic skin lesions localized to the paws and tails of the rats were confirmed.

… The cause of death, the deterioration of appearance, the skin lesions, and how brain activity is changed have resisted explication. As unlikely as it might seem, perhaps the problem is that the mediation might be related to functionally significant physiological processes that have not yet been clearly identified—and that may be why the function of sleep has itself been such a tough nut to crack.” http://www.journalsleep.org/Articles/250104.pdf

The AEG and Murray’s advocates will say that as the sleep function is so difficult a nut to crack Dr. Murray as a general care physician could not solve Michael’s insomnia on his own, but we remember that one of the responsibilities of a general practitioner is to spot the problem and refer the matter to a respective expect specializing on it. However even when offered at least some help from John Branca Murray’s boss Randy Phillips and evidently Murray himself refused it….

The eyes say it all. He had not slept in 60 days…

However if Murray and AEG had approached Dr. Czeisler for example, Michael would be surely alive now. Dr. Czeisler said that Conrad Murray was totally incompetent to help Michael but if MJ had been properly diagnozed and given qualified help, he would have been able to complete the tour and could perform for many years to come!

Q. Do you have an opinion, to a reasonable medical probability, if Michael Jackson had been appropriately diagnosed and treated for his sleep disorder, whether his sleep problems would have prevented him from continuing with the tour?

A. I believe that if Michael Jackson were appropriately diagnosed and treated for his sleep disorder, then his sleep disorder would no longer have interfered with his ability to perform and to tour.

Q. Do you have an opinion, based on a reasonable medical probability, in the long term, if the sleep disorder was treatable?

A. Yes. I believe that if his sleep disorder had been appropriately diagnosed and treated, that he would have been able to complete not only this tour, but perform for many years to come.

Q. Last question I have. Do you believe Dr. Conrad Murray was fit and competent to treat him?

A. Dr. Conrad Murray was clearly not fit or competent to diagnose or treat Mr. Jackson’s sleep disorder.

A… I indicated that the key issue in this case is that his insomnia, his sleep disorder, was greatly exacerbated when he was on tour or preparing for tours. And I think that that is the most important take-home message from this … from my evaluation of the record, is that whatever sleep disorder or disorders that he had, were not disabling in between. And that’s why I called them today rather mild when he was not in the tour mode or tour-preparation mode. It was disabling to him when he was either on tour or preparing to go on tour.

Q. I want to talk a little bit now about your opinion that Mr. Jackson, if appropriately diagnosed and treated, could have recovered from his sleep problems and performed and toured for quite a long time.

A. That’s correct.

Q. Ok.  And that his sleep disorder was treatable?

A. Yes.

Q. And for that opinion, you’re assuming, aren’t you, that Mr. Jackson would have been willing to enter into an appropriate sleep diagnosis and then treatment program, correct?

A. Yes that is … That is correct.

If Mr. Jackson had come to you and said, help me with my sleep problem, and you had gotten a licensed physician to partner up with you to diagnose and treat him, you would have taken a … Well, you would have used a whole team of sleep specialists to diagnose Mr. Jackson, right?

A. Yes, I … If I were asked to help the most successful performer who ever lived, I certainly would have assembled a team to try to help him with being able to continue his success.

Michael Jackson’s death was entirely preventable and this is the saddest part of the story. If Dr. Murray had indeed been a competent doctor providing the best possible general care for Michael Jackson all he had to do was referring him to a proper specialist like Dr. Czeisler. And it was AEG’s responsibilty not to hinder him in doing his job.

However none of them did what was expected of them and this is actually why Michael Jackson died. And now we are told that no one  is responsible for it?


It turns out that Dr. Czeisler is actually very easy to find. He does not work solely for agencies like NASA and the military – no, he is quite accessible to the general public and is a frequent spokesman at various forums where he calls on corporations to change their policies and urges the public to stop the trend to glorify sleeplessness as a means to success.

He calls the sleep deficit a performance killer, and started alerting people to the problem as early as 2003 (this is the earliest of his papers I found).  In the video below you can see Dr. Czeisler in person talking of the beneficial effect longer hours of sleep have on the employees and their productivity – despite working less hours their productivity raises by 20%:

Sleep Deprivation And Productivity: Harvard Professor Explains Need For Shift Schedule Change
Posted: 03/12/2012 9:14 am EDT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... qnjx5WucUo

And in this October 2006 presentation he called on corporations to change their performance killer policies and stop the tendency to glorify sleeplessness. All of it sounds as if written about AEG and the way they treated Michael Jackson:

Sleep Deficit: The Performance Killer

Sleep deprivation, in your opinion, is a far more serious issue than most executives think it is.

Yes, indeed. Putting yourself or others at risk while driving or working at an impaired level is bad enough; expecting your employees to do the same is just irresponsible. It amazes me that contemporary work and social culture glorifies sleeplessness in the way we once glorified people who could hold their liquor.

We now know that 24 hours without sleep or a week of sleeping four or five hours a night induces an impairment equivalent to a blood alcohol level of .1%. We would never say, “This person is a great worker! He’s drunk all the time!” yet we continue to celebrate people who sacrifice sleep. The analogy to drunkenness is real because, like a drunk, a person who is sleep deprived has no idea how functionally impaired he or she truly is. Moreover, their efficiency at work will suffer substantially, contributing to the phenomenon of “presenteeism,” which, as HBR has noted, exacts a large economic toll on business.

Sleep deprivation is not just an individual health hazard; it’s a public one. Consider the risk of occupational injury and driver fatigue. In a study our research team conducted of hospital interns who had been scheduled to work for at least 24 consecutive hours, we found that their odds of stabbing themselves with a needle or scalpel increased 61%, their risk of crashing a motor vehicle increased 168%, and their risk of a near miss increased 460%. In the U.S., drowsy drivers are responsible for a fifth of all motor vehicle accidents and some 8,000 deaths annually. It is estimated that 80,000 drivers fall asleep at the wheel every day, 10% of them run off the road, and every two minutes, one of them crashes. Countless innocent people are hurt.

There’s a man in Florida who’s serving a 15-year prison term for vehicular homicide—he’d been awake for 30-some hours when he crashed his company’s truck into a group of cars waiting for a light to change, killing three people. I would not want to be the CEO of the company bearing responsibility for those preventable deaths.

What should companies be doing to address the sleep problem?

People in executive positions should set behavioral expectations and develop corporate sleep policies, just as they already have concerning behaviors like smoking or sexual harassment. It’s important to have a policy limiting scheduled work—ideally to no more than 12 hours a day, and exceptionally to no more than 16 consecutive hours. At least 11 consecutive hours of rest should be provided every 24 hours. Furthermore, employees should not be scheduled to work more than 60 hours a week and not be permitted to work more than 80 hours a week. When working at night or on extended shifts, employees should not be scheduled to work more than four or five consecutive days, and certainly no more than six consecutive days. People need at least one day off a week, and ideally two in a row, in order to avoid building up a sleep deficit.

Now, managers will often rationalize overscheduling employees. I hear them say that if their employees aren’t working, they will be out partying and not sleeping anyway. That may be true for some irresponsible individuals, but it doesn’t justify scheduling employees to work a hundred hours a week so that they can’t possibly get an adequate amount of sleep.

Finally, I would recommend that supervisors undergo training in sleep and fatigue management and that they promote good sleep behavior. People should learn to treat sleep as a serious matter. Both the company and the employees bear a shared responsibility to ensure that everyone comes to work well rested.

http://hbr.org/2006/10/sleep-deficit-th ... nce-killer

“Both the company and the employees bear a shared responsibility to ensure that everyone comes to work well rested.”

Wow. If the approach of Dr. Czeisler had been the basis for cooperation between AEG and Michael Jackson (though he wasn’t even their employee), Michael would be alive now.

Now it is becoming clear that since they couldn’t demand anything of him directly the whole idea of their hiring Murray was to exert pressure on Michael via their employee doctor, who was rendering services to his patient but was actually reporting to them as his employer.

And this once again brings us to the problem of AEG bearing responsibility for the death of Michael Jackson.


Firstly, AEG is responsible for Michael’s death directly as they treated him as another of their employees –  though he was none and was actually a co-director of the show.

They simply overworked him by scheduling for him a working day of 12 or more hours 6 days a week. Judging by Dr. Czeisler’s findings this schedule alone was a recipe for disaster, not to mention a ‘minor’ thing that they had no right to coerce him into this or any other working schedules made at their whim. I will never tire to repeat that the AEG own general counsel Shawn Trell said that the Artist has no obligation to attend the rehearsals and it is even an insult to demand it of him.

So it is no wonder that Michael was constanly asking “Why can’t I choose?” and cried almost each time he spoke to Randy Phillips on the phone. He said to his son that they were killing him and this is what they were really doing by overworking him to his death.

Secondly, AEG bears responsibility for Michael’s death indirectly as they hired Dr. Murray for the job of taking care of Michael’s health and it was during the general care he was giving to Michael that his health gravely deteriorated and ended in his death.

Judge Greg Mathis explains this matter further in this video:  https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151937405142079

And here is the transript of his statement:

In a case where Michael Jackson’s mother Katherine sued AEG promoters for hiring Dr. Murray, a jury concluded that Dr. Conrad Murray was competent when AEG promoters hired him to provide medical care for Michael. Dr. Murray is currently in prison on a manslaughter conviction for his negligence that caused Michael’s death.

Do you think Dr. Murray was competent when he was hired by AEG?

Under the legal doctrine of Respondeat Superior* an employer is legally responsible for the actions of his employees when they are acting within the course and scope of employment unless the employee deviates from his assigned duties.

.. In this case Dr. Murray was performing the duty AEG hired him to perform which was to medically care for Michael Jackson. And that it is in direct resort of his care that Michael Jackson died.

Therefore AEG should have been held liable for his wrongful death because AEG hired Dr. Murray. Send me your comments and see if you can make sense of this jury’s decision.

Note: “Respondeat superior” is Latin for “Let the superior answer”, or the employer’s legal responsibility for the employee’s actions.

By now the judge’s statement has collected more than 4000 likes on Facebook. I hope it takes us to an appeal in this case and a really fair retrial of it.

And we could stop at that if it were not for one more phenomenon which is attracting our attention.


The overview of the post-verdict battlefield  would be incomplete if we did not mention the friendship the Michael Jackson’s fans suddenly struck with the jurors who just declared “competent’ the doctor guilty of killing Michael Jackson through his gross negligence and who found the AEG company ‘not guilty’ though it directly contributed to his death.

All these jurors had to do to drive the fans into a frenzy of a big new love was paying lip service to Michael and saying that as a result of the trial the two of them became his fans. The juror who called herself #27 approached the MJJC fan forum with a letter praising the fans for their attitude to their verdict and since then we’ve been observing there the scenes of mutual glorification, deep appreciation for each other and the exchange of gratitude for the great work done.

The kindred spirits have met and fallen into each other arms.

Another interesting phenomenon is that even in comparison with the ordinary public the MJJC fan forum has an abnormally big proportion of AEG supporters among their ranks.

Just prior to the verdict the HLN CNN branch site which is actually a place attended by a huge number of Michael’s detractors (judging by their comments) conducted a public opinion poll on whether AEG was responsible for Michael’s death, and as many as 74% of its readers said that it was.

Today, almost two weeks after the not guilty verdict for AEG  the same poll is showing that 71% of the readers are still of the opinion that AEG is responsible for Michael Jackson’s death: http://www.hlntv.com/poll/2013/09/24/ae ... sons-death

Since the date of verdict the number of people thinking AEG responsible for Michael Jackson death has fallen from 74% to 71% but still makes the overwhelming majority of the HLN site readers

However if you look at a similar poll conducted at the MJJCommuinity forum among its registered and eligible to vote fans  you will be immensely surprised to see that over there more than a half of the forum members consider AEG not liable for Michael’s death.

What a heart-breaking result for a forum claiming to represent the fan community that is actually guiding them in their views on the trial and all other matters concerning Michael!

On the MJJCommunity forum more than a half voters support AEG and consider them not liable for Michael’s death

The difference in the poll results is telling the whole story and does not require much comment.

It clearly shows that the MJJC fan community has more supporters for AEG than even a HLN site which is reflecting the opinion of the general public containing many of MJ’s open critics and even haters.

Does it mean that even MJ’s detractors are able to see what the so-called fans cannot? That AEG is responsible for Michael’s death?

Or is the MJJC love with AEG a simple case of “Tell me who your friend is and I will tell you who you are”?

Whatever it is the results of the poll say that despite the fact that the jury delivered a not guilty verdict for AEG, the overwhelming majority of the general public (71%) still thinks AEG to be responsible for Michael’s death - which is a result I applaud with both of my wounded hands.

And on the MJJCommunity forum the number of  fans who think the same is only 48,9%, so the share of Katherine Jackson’s supporters on the MJ fan site is almost 22% lower than among the general public.

Similarly if we compare the number of supporters for AEG on both sites their share on the Michael Jackson forum will be again higher by 22% than on a HLN site which reflects the opinion of non-fans and the ordinary public.

So will it surprise anyone now that the juror from the AEG trial went directly to MJJC and was welcomed there as a dear guest? The MJJC love affair with AEG has had a long history of its own, so the recent embraces with the jurors acquitting both AEG and Murray are just a new but logical step in all that flirting.

Considering the above statistics I suggest renaming MJJC into a forum of AEG fans.  This way it will be at least much more honest and true to the actual data.

Я готова верить, но надо знать во что!

Показать ссылки поста

За это сообщение автора Liberian Girl поблагодарили (всего 3):
TAIS (11 окт 2013, 11:47) • franklin5569 (09 окт 2013, 03:58) • Admin (08 окт 2013, 17:07)
Рейтинг: 27.27%
Аватара пользователя

Liberian Girl
Благодарил (а): 2485 раз.
Поблагодарили: 13664 раз.

Re: Кэтрин Джексон против AEG Live

#1062  Сообщение Liberian Girl » 08 окт 2013, 10:23

Over Michael's Death  


Katherine Jackson has no regrets for suing AEG over Michael Jackson's death -- despite our sources who say she's having buyer's remorse -- her attorney tells TMZ.

A source close to Katherine bristled at our post, telling us, “Any reports that Katherine Jackson is feeling remorse for filing the wrongful death lawsuit are completely untrue.  Mrs. Jackson feels the lawsuit is very important, and that so far it has proven that AEG did in fact hire Dr. Murray."

As we reported, our sources say Katherine felt pressured by Jermaine and Randy to file the case in the first place.

Katherine's lawyer says, "The lawsuit has also confirmed that Michael Jackson was an outstanding father, son, humanitarian, and human being. [Katherine] hopes that the lawsuit will change the way that entertainment companies treat their talent."

Fact is ... even though MJ was arguably pushed to the limit, the jury didn't feel AEG did anything wrong.


Я готова верить, но надо знать во что!

Показать ссылки поста

За это сообщение автора Liberian Girl поблагодарили (всего 5):
TAIS (11 окт 2013, 11:46) • Lina (09 окт 2013, 07:18) • franklin5569 (09 окт 2013, 03:58) • Trueamore (08 окт 2013, 19:55) • Admin (08 окт 2013, 17:06)
Рейтинг: 45.45%
Аватара пользователя

Liberian Girl
Благодарил (а): 2485 раз.
Поблагодарили: 13664 раз.

Re: Кэтрин Джексон против AEG Live

#1063  Сообщение Liberian Girl » 09 окт 2013, 02:27

Michael Jackson's family planning to appeal after $31billon lawsuit defeat

Family to continue their legal fight for damages against concert promoter AEG over the hiring of jailed doctor Conrad Murray


Michael Jackson’s family have refused to accept last week’s jury decision against their £31billion lawsuit and are planning to appeal.

Gig promoter AEG was cleared of negligence for hiring Conrad Murray, who gave the star a fatal dose of propofol and was jailed for involuntary manslaughter.

But Jackson’s mother Katherine, 82, and his children Prince, 16, and Paris, 15, have vowed: “We won’t give up fighting for justice.”

They claim AEG should have known Murray, 60, was unfit to treat Jackson and was therefore responsible in part for his death in 2009.


The promoter said it was Jackson who hired him and that he was to blame for his own drug-fuelled demise.

The family’s lawyer Brian Panish is said to have lost about £4.5million in the case in a no win, no fee deal.

And Tom Mesereau, who successfully defended the star in his 2005 molestation trial, said: “I spoke to them. They are going to appeal.”

He also hit out at Murray for continuing to claim his innocence.

He said: “Unless he tries to change his attitude I have contempt for him. I hope he admits responsibility, but I doubt it.”

Я готова верить, но надо знать во что!

Показать ссылки поста

За это сообщение автора Liberian Girl поблагодарили (всего 4):
TAIS (11 окт 2013, 11:46) • Admin (10 окт 2013, 14:41) • Lina (09 окт 2013, 07:18) • franklin5569 (09 окт 2013, 03:57)
Рейтинг: 36.36%
Аватара пользователя

Liberian Girl
Благодарил (а): 2485 раз.
Поблагодарили: 13664 раз.

Re: Кэтрин Джексон против AEG Live

#1064  Сообщение MagicalLove » 09 окт 2013, 13:06

Кэтрин Джексон еще "не плачется в жилетку » Говорит прокурор


Мама Майкла Джексона был воодушевленчастный разговор с присяжным, что отклонил ее миллиарда долларов неправомерный иск смерти и сказал ее адвокат в четверг вечером , что она поддерживает его исследования вапелляции.

"Она не плакаться в жилетку ", Кэтрин Джексон ведущий адвокат Брайан Panish сказалDaily News пятницу после встречи сматриархат .

" Она считает, что присяжные закончилосьсудебное разбирательство действительно, что любили Майкла ", сказал он , подтвердив, что Кэтрин была заблокированы внутри зала суда судьи , когда обе стороны говорили с шести мужчин и шести женщин сразу же после их оглашения приговора .

" Один из вопросов жюри было:" Каково было ваше впечатление от Майкла ? ", И они сказали, что это был путь лучше слышать то, что послевеликого отца он был и как много он сделал для человечества , " Panish сказал. " Они поняли, он изо всех сил , но что он действительно сделал все возможное ".

В состав жюри Лос-Анджелеса , который сидел через пять - месячного судебного процесса решили в среду, что ответчик AEG Live - промоутера Майкла обречена "This Is It " возвращение концерты - и в самом деле аренда доктора Конрада Мюррея , но не должны нести ответственность заврача действия , потому что он не был ни " непригодным ", ни " некомпетентными ".

Присяжные сказал в интервью средствам массовой информации , что они знали многие не поняли бы их решение , но они считали, Мюррей был компетентным во время его приеме на работу - с действующей лицензией и никакой халатности претензий - и что AEG не было никаких оснований подозревать, что он идти изгоев с хирургией стиле анестезиологии.

Panish сказал старший сын Принц Майкл , 16, был озадачен тем, что часть приговора.

«Князь делает хорошо, " сказал Panish , рассказывая с ним разговор четверг . " Он сказал, что он чувствовал себя хорошо о жюри обнаружили, что AEG наняла доктора Мюррея , но не понимают их ответ на второй вопрос - . Так как многие из нас этого не делают "

Panish сказал, что его команда сейчас создание индивидуальных интервью сприсяжными заседателями и планирует встретиться с юристами за пределами апелляционной , чтобы принять решение о возможном обращении в течение ближайших 30 дней.

"Мы не можем сдаваться, пока мы не собрать всю информацию . Сегодня еще один глава, " Panish заявил в пятницу.

AEG главный адвокат заявил в среду , что вердикт присяжных " полностью оправдывает " своего клиента.

"Хотя смерть Майкла Джексона была ужасная трагедия , это не было трагедией AEG Live делает ", адвокат сказал Марвин Патнэм .

Он сказал, что вне суда , что он надеется Кэтрин откажутся отапелляции.

"К сожалению , дети прошли через многое, " сказал он. «Во многих мер , я надеюсь, ради них , что нетапелляции".

Он сказал, AEG " любили и заботились о " Майкл .

Katherine Jackson ‘Isn’t Throwing In The Towel’ Just Yet Says Attorney

Michael Jackson’s mom was heartened by a private conversation with the jury that rejected her billion dollar wrongful death lawsuit and told her lawyer late Thursday that she supports his research into an appeal.

“She isn’t throwing in the towel,” Katherine Jackson’s lead trial lawyer Brian Panish told the Daily News Friday after his meeting with the matriarch.

“She feels that the jurors ended the trial really liking Michael,” he said, confirming that Katherine was inside the judge’s locked courtroom when both sides spoke with the six men and six women immediately after their verdict was read.

“One question asked of the jury was, ‘What was your impression of Michael?’ And they said it was way better after hearing what a great father he was and how much he did for humanity,” Panish said. “They understood he struggled but that he really did his best.”

The Los Angeles jury that sat through the five-month trial decided Wednesday that defendant AEG Live – the promoter of Michael’s doomed “This Is It” comeback concerts – did in fact hire Dr. Conrad Murray but shouldn’t be held liable for the physician’s actions because he was neither “unfit” nor “incompetent.”

Jurors said in media interviews that they were aware many wouldn’t understand their decision, but they believed Murray was competent at the time of his hiring – with a valid license and no malpractice claims – and that AEG had no reason to suspect he’d go rogue with surgery-style anesthesiology.

Panish said Michael’s oldest son Prince, 16, was mystified by that portion of the verdict.

“Prince is doing okay,” Panish said, recounting a conversation with him Thursday. “He said he felt good about the jury finding that AEG hired Dr. Murray but didn’t understand their answer to the second question – as many of us don’t.”

Panish said his team is now setting up individual interviews with the jurors and planning to meet with outside appellate lawyers to make a decision on a possible appeal in the next 30 days.

“We can’t give up until we gather all the information. Today is another chapter,” Panish said Friday.

AEG’s lead lawyer said Wednesday that the jury’s verdict “completely vindicates” his client.

“Although Michael Jackson’s death was a terrible tragedy, it was not a tragedy of AEG Live’s making,” lawyer Marvin Putnam said.

He said outside court that he hoped Katherine would forgo an appeal.

“Sadly, the children have been through a lot,” he said. “In many measures, I hope for their sake that there isn’t an appeal.”

He said AEG “loved and cared for” Michael.


you are in my heart forever icon_colorfulherats

Показать ссылки поста

За это сообщение автора MagicalLove поблагодарили (всего 5):
TAIS (11 окт 2013, 11:46) • Admin (10 окт 2013, 14:41) • franklin5569 (09 окт 2013, 16:38) • Dream (09 окт 2013, 16:30) • Lina (09 окт 2013, 13:21)
Рейтинг: 45.45%
Аватара пользователя

Прогресс до нового звания:
Благодарил (а): 3518 раз.
Поблагодарили: 6369 раз.

Re: Кэтрин Джексон против AEG Live

#1065  Сообщение Liberian Girl » 09 окт 2013, 16:54

‘Greedy’ Jermaine And Randy Jackson Pressuring Mother Katherine To Appeal MJ Wrongful Death Verdict


Katherine Jackson is being pressured by her “greedy” sons Jermaine and Randy to appeal the decision by the jury in their brother’s billion dollar wrongful death case, RadarOnline.com has been told.

The jurors determined death doctor Conrad Murray was competent when he was hired and there was no reason for concert promoter AEG – the promoter of MJ’s doomed “This Is It” comeback concerts – to think he would start employing surgery-style anesthesiology.

Despite the verdict in the five-month trial, Katherine has indicated to her lead trial lawyer Brian Panish that she supports his research into an possible appeal.

More vocal behind-the-scenes are two of her nine living children.

“Randy and Jermaine were stunned and shellshocked… they had been counting on the jury ruling in their favor and were ready for Katherine to divide any financial judgment between all of her children,” a family insider revealed to RadarOnline.com.

“Randy in particular feels that the judge made numerous errors in the trial and that there are significant grounds for an appeal.”

Though the family matriarch is “exhausted from the entire situation,” according to our source, Panish has said she is not yet prepared to throw in the towel.

“She feels that the jurors ended the trial really liking Michael,” he said last week, confirming that Katherine was inside the judge’s locked courtroom when both sides spoke with the six men and six women immediately after their verdict was read.

“One question asked of the jury was, ‘What was your impression of Michael?’ And they said it was way better after hearing what a great father he was and how much he did for humanity,” Panish added.

“They understood he struggled but that he really did his best.”

In the lawsuit, Jackson’s 83-year-old mother and three children — Prince Michael, Paris and Blanket — had argued that AEG was to blame for their son and father’s death because it was negligent in the hiring and supervision of Murray, who gave Jackson a fatal dose of the anesthetic proposal.

However, AEG successfully argued that Jackson had a history of abusing drugs, including the anesthetic that killed him.

Despite the courtroom result, Randy and Jermaine — who were both left out of Michael’s will — are “still pushing Katherine,” the source added.

“All they want is money. They’re greedy. They tell Katherine they need answers about Michael’s death. Are they living in a cave because a jury found  Murray guilty of involuntary manslaughter death of Michael and the jury in the civil trial found AEG had no role in his death.

Charged one source: “The lengths they will go to is sad.”

Said another, “The fact that Michael’s children will also not be getting any money from the trial is actually a blessing.

“Their father left them as sole heirs of his estate, along with Katherine. They will have more than enough money to live a life and not ever worry about financial woes.

“Imagine if they had been given over a billion dollars? It would have been split, but the leeches and money mongers would have come out of the woodwork. The kids already have to deal with people after them for their money, it would have only added to their stress.”

Я готова верить, но надо знать во что!

Показать ссылки поста

За это сообщение автора Liberian Girl поблагодарили (всего 5):
franklin5569 (11 окт 2013, 15:18) • TAIS (11 окт 2013, 11:46) • Lina (11 окт 2013, 07:27) • Admin (10 окт 2013, 14:41) • Trueamore (09 окт 2013, 22:56)
Рейтинг: 45.45%
Аватара пользователя

Liberian Girl
Благодарил (а): 2485 раз.
Поблагодарили: 13664 раз.

Re: Кэтрин Джексон против AEG Live

#1066  Сообщение Liberian Girl » 11 окт 2013, 04:17

Beat it! Michael Jackson's family should have realised litigation is Dangerous

Lydia Essa, Maurice Turnor Gardner, Wednesday, 9th October 2013


'You wanna be startin' somethin'?' is not just a question Michael Jackson asked in his hit single, but one his family may wish they had reflected further upon now that a Los Angeles court has dismissed their claims that concert promoter AEG Live was negligent over the superstar’s death in 2009.

Indeed, it is understood that they have incurred eye-watering legal costs during the relatively short life of the case. Perhaps surprisingly (or perhaps not, given that they were hoping to claim up to $1.6 billion in damages if successful), the family are said to be considering an appeal which will no doubt mean millions more in legal fees.

Another high profile celebrity, Lord Sugar, has also been embroiled in a courtroom saga closer to home which began with an (unsuccessful) claim for constructive dismissal brought by former employee Stella English and concluded with an (again unsuccessful) application by Lord Sugar that Ms English (who allegedly now faces financial ruin) covers some of the legal costs incurred defending his position in the original claim.

Michael Jackson objecting to litigation

The moral of both these stories has to be that litigation is a potentially expensive business and a decision to take something through the courts is never one to be taken lightly. This has never been more true than in recent years, as regulatory changes and economic and commercial pressures have brought the need for potential litigants to control costs and mitigate risk into sharper focus than ever before.

From a lawyer’s perspective, this trend has necessitated an innovative and flexible approach to working with clients on alternative fee structures and funding models. It has also seen the increasing relevance and popularity of third party funding as a mechanism for meeting litigation costs, something which advisers must now consider with their clients when planning the funding of litigation.

The concept of third party litigation funding is a simple one, namely that a third party (private or commercial) funder who has no direct interest in the legal claim in question funds all or part of the associated legal costs. If the case is won, the funder takes an agreed share of the proceeds of any claim. If it is lost, the funder loses its investment but the litigant walks away bearing none of the burden of the legal costs.

The share of the 'upside' can be freely negotiated between the funder and the litigant and usually consists of a percentage of the damages awarded or a multiple of the amount advanced by the funder or a combination of these options.

Traditionally, third party funding has been reserved for high value commercial cases and, interestingly, one of the longest running trials in the English courts of 2012/13 (Excalibur Ventures LLC v Texas Keystone & Ors) got off the ground thanks to third party litigation funding. The market is developing continuously, however, and there has been a notable increase in the number of private litigants embroiled in high value 'David v Goliath' family disputes or contentious trusts and probate claims who have looked to third party funders for assistance.

The availability of third party funding in certain cases does not of course change the aforementioned moral of the story – one must think long and hard before embarking upon potentially costly litigation in every case. It may, however, assist in levelling the playing field and enabling access to justice in some cases where this may not otherwise have been possible.

Lydia Essa works at private wealth law firm Maurice Turnor Gardner LLP

Я готова верить, но надо знать во что!

Показать ссылки поста

За это сообщение автора Liberian Girl поблагодарили (всего 5):
Белая роза (11 окт 2013, 23:00) • franklin5569 (11 окт 2013, 15:18) • TAIS (11 окт 2013, 11:46) • Trueamore (11 окт 2013, 10:28) • Lina (11 окт 2013, 07:26)
Рейтинг: 45.45%
Аватара пользователя

Liberian Girl
Благодарил (а): 2485 раз.
Поблагодарили: 13664 раз.

Re: Кэтрин Джексон против AEG Live

#1067  Сообщение Liberian Girl » 12 окт 2013, 02:07

Fans stand by Jacksons after verdict

Decision in AEG Live trial sparks anger, more questions

For the dedicated Michael Jackson fans who came to the trial day after day, the singer still could do little wrong. They wore T-shirts expressing their love for the singer and their support for his aged mother. One fan even brought a bouquet of red roses to give Katherine Jackson and her attorneys.

Michael Jackson fan Vincent Woods holds up a photo of Jackson and a glove behind jurors as they answered reporters’ questions about their verdict in the Michael Jackson wrongful-death case in Los Angeles on Oct. 2.

So when the judge announced on Oct. 2 that jurors had decided AEG Live was not responsible for Jackson’s death, they weren’t just stunned, they were angry. They didn’t understand how a five-month trial that seemed to expose the concert promoter as caring little about the singer’s well-being could end this way.

“My heart is broken,” said Barbara de L’Orme, 42. “This was the greatest artist that we ever had, and they treated him like this. The evidence was right there.”

Emotional case

When Marvin Putnam, AEG Live’s lead attorney, stood in front of the scrum of TV cameras, microphones and notebooks, fans could be heard shouting, “Michael Jackson! Michael Jackson!”

Putnam told reporters AEG never considered settling the case, which could have cost it hundreds of millions — if not billions — of dollars in damages if a jury had voted the other way.

“They wouldn’t allow themselves to be shaken down,” he said.

The attorney said that he didn’t think the case should have gone to trial and that the judge should have dismissed it early on. He admitted the verdict was an emotional one for him, and some people in the courtroom said they saw a tear slide down his cheek.

Shawn Trell, AEG Live’s general counsel, was asked if the concert promoter and producer would negotiate a deal with a doctor again if an entertainer made such a request. “I think that answer is self-evident,” he said.

Jurors speak

Several jurors explained how they answered “no” to the question on the verdict form that asked whether Conrad Murray, the doctor who gave Jackson the fatal dose of the anesthetic propofol, was “unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired.”

Once they came to that conclusion, there was no need to answer the remaining 14 questions.

Their work was done.

Gregg Barden, the jury foreman, said the verdict was not a vindication of Murray, who will soon be released from jail, where he is serving a sentence for involuntary manslaughter.

“Conrad Murray had a license; he graduated from an accredited college,” Barden said.

Then he added, “It doesn’t mean we thought he was ethical.”

Juror Kevin Smith, 61, said he loved Jackson’s music and his dancing. Still, he voted against the pop star’s mother and three children.

“Murray,” he said, “was fit and competent for the job he was hired for … Michael Jackson thought he was competent enough.”

‘Minds were changed’

He said AEG executives had tried to persuade Jackson not to bring Murray, who was supposed to be paid $150,000 a month, on tour with him. “Michael Jackson was very used to getting his own way. … If anybody said no, he would find somebody else,” Smith said.

Barden said that when jurors were handed the case after closing arguments, the first time they could talk about the case after spending five months listening to testimony, they spent several hours “letting off steam and talking about things.”

They took three or four votes to answer the first question, “Did AEG Live hire Dr. Conrad Murray?” before agreeing unanimously that it had.

“Minds were changed,” Barden said. Some people felt that Murray was hired by both Jackson and AEG, he said.

On the second question, about whether Murray was incompetent, there was confusion when the court clerk polled jurors on their votes. However, after a couple of tries, they appeared to have taken a unanimous stand.

But outside the courthouse, Barden told a different story. He said jurors had started out 12-0 but finally came up with a 10-2 tally. Jurors in a civil case only need to vote 9-3, as opposed to the unanimous count needed in a criminal case.

Я готова верить, но надо знать во что!

Показать ссылки поста

Аватара пользователя

Liberian Girl
Благодарил (а): 2485 раз.
Поблагодарили: 13664 раз.

Re: Кэтрин Джексон против AEG Live

#1068  Сообщение Liberian Girl » 12 окт 2013, 02:10


BHL Justice Is Served - Brian Panish - October 11th, 2013

In this episode Black Hollywood Live hosts Eboni K. Williams and Mari Fagel discuss legal cases for the week of October 11th, 2013. Mari opens up with this week an interview with Brian Panish the Jackson family attorney.

Я готова верить, но надо знать во что!

Показать ссылки поста

За это сообщение автора Liberian Girl поблагодарили (всего 4):
Admin (15 окт 2013, 15:34) • franklin5569 (15 окт 2013, 07:31) • Lina (14 окт 2013, 07:20) • TAIS (12 окт 2013, 12:46)
Рейтинг: 36.36%
Аватара пользователя

Liberian Girl
Благодарил (а): 2485 раз.
Поблагодарили: 13664 раз.

Re: Разные интересные статьи

#1069  Сообщение Liberian Girl » 12 окт 2013, 02:51

Michael Jackson Rehab Interventions vs Family Concert Tours

If you stop telling lies about Michael Jackson, we will stop telling the truth about you.

This is a timeline of the conflicting stories about “interventions” by the Jackson family, and also the attempts they made to recruit him into tours during the same period, intending to show the overlap between the two; if they accuse AEG of putting undue pressure on Jackson it would seem they were guilty of the same thing.

Story about a family member who may be selling stories on MJ’s reported drug addiction as an attempt to retaliate against him, Roger Friedman -  January 6th 2006

Michael Jackson had a perfect, five-star, expensive Christmas in Bahrain, thanks to his host, the prince.

Jackson flew in his three main surrogate families from different locations, put them up in hotels and got them expensive gifts. The families were: the Schleiters, from Germany; the Bhatti’s, from Norway; and the Cascio’s from New Jersey.

The report from the Jackson holiday was a good one, however. Jackson, according to sources, ate heartily, didn’t seem to be drugged in any way and was friendly and upbeat with his guests. The guests did not get to meet the prince, but they did see Jackson’s new digs outside the palace at a house he, his kids and “nanny” Grace Rwarmba are all staying in courtesy of the prince.

If Jackson is not desperately hooked on drugs, then what about all those panic-ridden stories that ran in the supermarket tabloids just a few weeks ago? Speculation is that some members of Jackson’s family who feel left out or left back since Michael split the U.S. may be selling stories to make money.

One friend of the family who attended court sessions off and on last year has been mentioned as a go-between who sets up the deals and then kicks back the payments.

Janet Jackson tells Oprah she’s had no contact with MJ since the trial, Sept 25th 2006

Oprah – Of all your brothers and sisters, who are you closest to?
Janet – It switches.
Oprah – Does it?
Janet – Yes, I have so many…
Oprah – I’ve heard that in big families it does.
Janet – It switches. It could be one person for several months and then another person for several months. I would say right now… it’s Jermaine.
Oprah – Really.
Janet – Hmm uh.

Oprah – Anyway, ah, do you talk to Michael? Where is he?
Janet – Umm, he’s in the Middle East, in, ah, Bahrain, or… No, I haven’t spoken to him.
Oprah – Since he left? Really?
Janet – Yes, since the trial.
Oprah – Really?
Janet – No, I haven’t.

Oprah – Do you worry about him?
Janet – Ahh, he keeps in touch with Mother, so we know what’s going on with him.
Oprah – So you know what’s going on with him.
Janet – Yeah.

Oprah – Are you close to his children?
Janet – Well, he… his children are always with him…hmm uh, so…
Oprah – That would be hard…
Janet – Yes.
Oprah – …to be close.

Jack Wishna states he never saw any drug use but it was his family coming back into his life that brought back “weirdness”, Vegas businessman and dealer worked with MJ for 7 months from December 2006-mid 2007

“It was December 23rd 2006, it was the day before Christmas Eve and we arranged it where a private jet would pick Michael Jackson up in Dublin, Ireland, and take him directly to Las Vegas,” Wishna said in an interview for Access Hollywood and Las Vegas television station KVBC with correspondent Alicia Jacobs.

And Wishna revealed the vision he shared with Jackson.

“When he came off that plane, it was the old Michael Jackson of the ‘Bad Tour,’ type thing, it was the Michael Jackson that I grew up with,” he said.

And although Jackson’s use of prescription drugs became big news after his death, Wishna said he never saw any of that kind of stuff around.

“Never saw any drugs,” Wishna said. “Never saw any intravenous, or needles or anything like that. Never met any doctors around Michael.”

“As he stayed in Las Vegas, he started to get debilitated while he was here and debilitated from a mental health standpoint, debilitated from a physical standpoint,” Wishna said.

“The family started to, you know, bother him again… His father Joe. It just started – a lot of the weirdness started to come back,” he continued.

People magazine claim of an “intervention” held by family with Janet on the phone, 2007 sometime

As far back as 2006, members of Michael’s family were terrified that his escalating dependence on prescription drugs had become a danger to his life – and attempted an intervention in Las Vegas.

“The family believes Michael is addicted,” a family insider said. “There was an intervention in Las Vegas. Janet was on the phone, but Randy, Jackie and Rebbie were there in person,” the source said, referring to several of Michael’s eight siblings.

“Michael got p—ed off. He said he wasn’t on drugs. But they didn’t believe him.”
Raymone Bain refuted the idea there’d been any intervention by his family, stating his family had only seen him to ask him about a reunion tour, February 2007

Raymone Bain, the former longtime publicist for Michael Jackson, has said there is no truth to rumors that have surfaced in the media since the pop star’s death, claiming that members of the Jackson family staged a failed intervention for the pop star in 2007.

“It is not true,” Raymone told Access Hollywood’s Billy Bush in a new interview.

Raymone, who filed suit against the King of Pop earlier this year for $44 million over claims he failed to pay her for her publicity services and more, said a meeting with the family took place in 2007, but it was business related.

“I recall in February, there was a meeting with Mr. Jackson and his sisters and brothers about a concert,” she recounted. “There was a concert promoter who accompanied them there. That is the meeting that I… am aware of… I know nothing else about any other intervention.”

Concert promote Leonard Rowe stated that he had visited Michael with the family in February and April of 2007 in an attempt to have him tour with them and that they had been angry with Jackson for not agreeing

On February 14th of 2007, I was in my kitchen fixing breakfast around 8am, and I received a call. I wondered who it could be that early, but it was too early for me to talk, so I didn’t answer. My phone beeped and I knew a message had been left. It was a message from Janet Jackson, Michael’s sister. She said, ‘Rowe, this is Jan. Would you please call me as soon as possible, it’s important.’ I said to myself, ‘I wonder what she wants this time of morning.’ I immediately returned the call and Janet answered. She was in Atlanta, and said, ‘Rowe, I’m in a little trouble; my tour has been cancelled by Live Nation, and I’m obligated to my band. They have blocked their time out this summer to tour with me. And now, if I don’t tour they will be missing income.’

She then asked, if we could go out on tour and do twenty shows. I knew very well why Live Nation had cancelled. It was because at the time Janet was cold as ice. I did not believe she had the drawing power to tour at that time, but I could not help but think about how much Michael and her brothers the Jacksons had done for me earlier in my career. Because of my appreciation and gratitude, I knew I would do whatever was needed to help Janet. Even if it meant losing everything I owned and possessed, I truly would have done it. It was very painful to me, when later I found her to be unappreciative of my efforts. Being a black concert promoter in the concert business, ‘we have always had to learn how to take lemons and make lemonade.’ I told her to give me a few hours to think and I would call her back later that day. I pondered over her problem all afternoon, and I came up with three scenarios. I knew Michael had returned to the states. He was now living in Las Vegas.

I later called her and said to her, ‘I’m going to Las Vegas, talk to Michael, and see if I can get him to get back with the brothers and tour. If he agrees to do that, I want you Janet, to be the opening act.’ Janet loved the idea. She asked me when I was going to Las Vegas. I told her I was going in a few days possibly Saturday. She asked if she could meet me there because she was flying back to Los Angeles, and would have her driver bring her to Las Vegas, so she could be there when I arrived that morning.

I arrived in Las Vegas that Saturday around 5pm; we had decided that we were going to meet at her older sister, Rebbie’s house before going over to Michael’s. To my surprise, Jermaine, Marlon, Randy and Jackie were also there. After a short meeting we left to go over to Michael’s house about 7pm; when we arrived we were met by Michael’s security. We told them we were there to see Michael. He told us to wait one minute while he went inside to tell Michael that we were out there.

When the guard returned he asked each of us to write down our names so Michael would know exactly who we were. After about fifteen minutes the security guard returned and led us into the house. When I saw Michael I could tell he was very nervous, I truly think he thought we were there for another reason. I noticed immediately that he was very thin. We went into the movie theatre room of the house to talk.

I began to explain to Michael why we had come to see him. I told him that we wanted him to reunite with his brothers and to tour America. I told him Janet had agreed to be the opening act. I told him that I felt this tour would be highly successful. He said that he agreed that it would be. [b]But he said, ‘I just can’t do it now, I have other things I am planning and working on.’ We stayed there for a few hours trying to persuade him. I think Janet was becoming somewhat angry with him. His final words to us were, ‘Maybe next year in 2008 I will be ready.’ To me this wasn’t bad because I would need the time to prepare for a tour of this magnitude, but Janet needed to work that summer. She had committed the month of July to her band, and she needed to fulfill that commitment. I could tell that Michael was becoming irritable and we decided to leave.[/b]

“Singer says his brother and pal tried to cheat him out of fortune
Sunday,” Trial between Stabler vs MJ involving his brother Randy was set to begin, June 17th 2007

“Michael Jackson names a man close to his brother Randy Jackson as the lead culprit, in disposition transcripts obtained by the New York Daily News. The behind-the-scenes battle over the pop star’s finances is detailed in a sworn deposition he gave for a federal lawsuit scheduled to go to trial this week.

The Gloved One states that Randy brought in Don Stabler, who pressured him to sign off on a multi-million dollar financing deal. Stabler, according to Jackson was persistent. He even went as far as to question Jackson’s loyalty to his African American heritage. .”[Stabler] said, ‘What’s the problem?
You’re not down, you’re with the Jews now. You’re not down with blacks anymore. Jackson testified. “It was unkind,” Jackson added. “It was mean. It was meanspirited. It was nasty. Simply because he couldn’t get me to sign something that he wanted me to sign.” “It’s full of sharks, charlatans and imposters,” he said in testimony taken last summer in Paris.

“Because there’s a lot of money involved, there’s a bunch of schmucks in there,” Jackson said. “It’s the entertainment world, full of thieves and crooks. That’s not new. Everybody knows that.” But during breaks in the trial, Jackson says he was being pressured to sign off on a multimillion-dollar financing deal by Don Stabler, an associate brought in by brother Randy, his go-to guy on financial matters during much of his career.

By then, Jackson had turned to Burkle, the billionaire pal of former President Bill Clinton, for financial help. Burkle brought in Jesse Jackson, who’s known Michael Jackson since his Jackson 5 days, to help with the consultation. Burkle was calling him on the cell phone during bathroom breaks, warning him not to sign anything, Michael Jackson said. Stabler wasn’t happy, Jackson said. The next time Jackson saw Stabler “he wanted to take my head off.” And his brother Randy wasn’t too happy, either. Randy later claimed that Jackson and his staff had run up a $700,000 bill on his American Express card during the trial, which Jackson said he would repay. It wasn’t the first time that Stabler teamed with Randy in trying to get him to sign off on a deal, Jackson claimed. At a meeting in a bungalow at the Neverland ranch, Jackson said he had his mother at his side when he fought off another proposal. “And I vehemently told them, ‘No, I am not signing this,’” Jackson recalled. “And I just remember how angry, the intensity of the anger in the room. And so they marched out.”

Jackson, it’s also revealed in the depositions, once tried to sell his half of the company to billionaire Ron Burkle during the child molestation trial. “I remember precisely at court in the bathroom stall with the cell phone in my hand, saying why don’t you just buy it? I want to sell it you,” Jackson said. Burkle, Jackson said, declined, telling him he had to keep the music catalog for his children.”

Some excerpts from Stabler’s deposition about what had happened at this meeting:

Stabler: I got a call from Taunya who said that Grace said Michael did not want to have the meeting. Randy talked to Taunya and said, “Fuck that.”

Stabler: Randy said, “We are having this meeting. We’ve gone through a lot of trouble for it. I’ll take care of it when we get there.”

Stabler: Randy asked us to stay in the car, he went in and spoke with Michael and then later came out and said the meeting is on.

Stabler: Michael looked at the document we gave him and said, “I’m not signing any document that asked me to give part of my catalog.”

Stabler: Randy tried to explain the docs to him, Sydow said he’ll go through it line by line. Michael said he didn’t want to go through it.

Stabler: Before Randy could say anything Michael said, “you know, I don’t want any violence”.

Stabler: Randy tried to go through the document with Michael but Michael was just not having it. I suggested to Randy that we should leave.

Stabler : In the car Randy said to me that my brother has been drinking.
(In his 2013 AEG testimony Randy claims he did not know his brother drank alcohol)

Roger Friedman reports that the Jacksons were attempting to stage an intervention during these same weeks, Friday, June 29, 2007

Michael Jackson’s siblings — including Janet — and his parents are so worried about the failing pop star that they’ve sent out an emergency 911 call.

Sources tell me that the Jacksons are in the process of contacting Thomas Mesereau, the superstar criminal lawyer who won Jackson an acquittal two years ago in his child molestation trial.

The word from the Jacksons is that they’ve met several times as a family and discussed bringing Mesereau in for an intervention to save Michael.

Mesereau, who did not return calls to this column, is said to be open to finding out what Jackson’s true mental and health status is at this point. If he doesn’t like what he sees, the Jacksons will ask him to do something legal to save their brother’s life. (conservatorship?)

Jackson, according to insiders, is in perilous health right now. There is talk that his liver is damaged (autopsy confirmed this was untrue; Jackson had no damage associated with any long term alcohol or drug use) and that he’s been seen vomiting blood, although there’s no confirmation of that.

Michael Jackson’s bodyguards from 2007-2009 reveal that when Jackson was in Vegas sometime in 2007 Randy and his on/off girlfriend and business partner Taunya Zilkie attempted to crash the security gate while demanding to speak to MJ, Zilkie would attempt to call this an “intervention”

There was another occasion when Randy came to the house and crashed the security gate with his vehicle and came inside. And at the time, I didn’t know who he was and I drew my weapon on him and the first thing out of his mouth was ‘Get that thing out of my face or I’ll call the press,’” Bill Whitfield said, who said he put away his weapon when he realized it was Randy.

Whitfield said Jackson was “not happy” and refused to see Randy.

Taunya Zilkie, Randy Jackson’s public relations representative, says she was with him that day. She told ABC News that she and Jackson were at the Las Vegas house that day but never made it on to the property. And Zilkie denied that a gun was pulled.

Zilkie said ABC News Randy Jackson went to Jackson’s home that day for an “intervention” but was refused entry into the house.

The three bodyguards said that Randy tried to sneak in behind them as the doors to the gate were closing and hit the gate as he came though. Zilkie said Randy did not crash through the gate.

The bodyguards elaborated more to author Karen Moriarty about this incident,

From the open window of his car Randy yelled out, insisting on seeing his brother Michael. He shouted something about Michael owing him a lot of money.

Whitfield, doing his job, confronted Randy politely but firmly. Randy responded by threatening to call the media … on his own brother.

When the boss was informed of the nasty incident outside his front door, he was understandably upset. Whitfield sheepishly but thoroughly explained the events as they had unfolded. He seemed afraid … of his own younger brother. Who could blame him under these grim circumstances? For the next several days, there were no security details to run or errands to complete for the boss. Mr. Jackson secluded himself in the house without any word heard from him.
In her testimony for the AEG lawsuit Taunya Zilkie was forced to admit this had not been an “intervention” but that it had been an attempt to get money from MJ,

- Vegas event. Taunya says she and Randy went to see Michael for a business matter. Bodyguards did not open the gate so they waited until someone came in and they drove right behind them and parked at the front door and asked to see Michael. Bodyguards did not allow it, according to Taunya they were “belligerent and aggressive”. Randy later called Joe Jackson who came and was upset that the bodyguards was coming between brothers. Taunya says they wanted to leave but bodyguards was blocking their way. They let them out a few hours later. Taunya is asked about to explain the “business matter” they went to see Michael for, she replies “it was a financial matter”. She makes it clear that visit was not an intervention attempt. AEG asks “is it about Michael Jackson owing Randy Jackson money?” Taunya refuses to answer.

After reports in the media about interventions, Katherine and four of his brothers deny Jackson these have taken place, People 9/10/2007

LOS ANGELES — Michael Jackson’s mother and four of his brothers have formed a united front in dismissing reports of his alleged dependency on pain killers and alcohol.

An open letter to the media, signed by Katherine Jackson and sons Tito, Jermaine, Marlon and Jackie, responds to what the family views as “troubling and heinous” rumors about Michael.
An attempted drug intervention and takeover of Michael’s business affairs are among the rumors denied by the family in the letter, which also takes aim at quoted “sources” believed to be making false claims for profit.

A particular target of the letter is People magazine, which has published a story on Michael and his children in their Sept. 17 issue.

A rep for People magazine provided the following statement to “Access Hollywood”:

“We stand by our story. Throughout the process we gave Mr. Jackson’s rep, Raymone Bain, the opportunity to respond and we reported her comments.”

Below is the text of the letter, dated Sept. 7 and issued by Jackson’s rep, Raymone K. Bain:

“People magazine has followed other publications in reporting untrue and inaccurate information about Michael Jackson and the Jackson family. Of these widely reported rumors, what has become the most troubling and heinous, is that my son, and our brother, Michael Jackson, is dependent on painkillers and alcohol.

“People, and other news organizations, have quoted ‘sources’ indicating that our family has attempted a drug intervention, and engaged in an effort to take over his business affairs, because of this alleged drug and alcohol usage.

“We categorically deny ever planning, participating in, or having knowledge of any kind of intervention, whatsoever. We strongly believe that these ‘sources’ and others, no matter who they are, are making these defamatory, inaccurate, and untrue claims for monetary reasons.

“Michael Jackson, and the Jackson family, has endured years of false accusations and misrepresentations.

“It is time for these unfair and hurtful rumors, for profit, to end.

“Thank you.”
Leonard Rowe speaks about a possible Jackson family tour featuring Michael, November 15 2007

Leonard Rowe: The possibility of a Jackson family tour: “His brothers are ready. Janet is ready. But the motor of that car that makes the car run, isn’t just yet. … In April of this year, I flew out to Las Vegas and met with them all and he told me, ‘Let’s look at ’08.’ We wanted to go this year, but [Michael] said it would take a lot of preparation. He didn’t say ‘no.’

Jermaine Jackson speaks about a Jackson family tour featuring Michael, 26 November 2007

Jermaine told BBC 6 Music that concert dates have been discussed and could take place “sometime in 2008″.

“Michael will be involved,” the singer and guitarist confirmed. “We feel we have to do it one more time. We owe that to the fans and to the public.

“There’s been so much going on, getting over all the hurdles that we all were faced with during Michael’s trial,” he told the station’s The Music Week programme.

“But we are stronger than ever. I’m gonna say thank you, thank you, thank you so much to all the fans and the supporters of my family all over Europe, all over the UK especially, who came out to show their love and their support.”

Jermaine, who sang lead vocals for the band until his younger brother took over, added that Michael would definitely be part of the reunion.

“He has to be,” he said. “He is a Jackson.”

“He was at the meetings. Michael will be involved.”

The star also hinted at new material, saying that the band was “in the studio at the moment”.

Janet Jackson tells Larry King she’s working on getting her brother Michael to join a possible family reunion tour, 29 February 2008

JANET JACKSON has dismissed reports she is shunning a JACKSON 5 reunion tour, insisting she’s the one urging her siblings to go ahead with the gigs. The R+B star was alleged to have refused a support slot on the group’s planned world tour, which her older brother Jermaine Jackson is trying to organise. But she claims she’d be delighted to hit the road with her family, if only the rest of the legendary band would agree to the tour. She tells Larry King, “I would love to (tour with them). I get my brothers on the phone all the time. I’m the biggest fan of the Jacksons, The Jackson 5. “I have conference calls all the time pushing them to do a huge tour. I tell them if they did, I would love to open for them.” I have never opened for anyone. My very first tour, I was the headline. It was a nation(wide) tour. I never opened for anyone. It would be an honour.” But when asked which of her siblings is refraining from the comeback tour, she refuses to confirm reports it’s Michael, coyly adding: “They would love to, but one of them is on the fence. You have to respect that. He’s worked very hard at his solo career. I don’t know. Maybe he’ll come around. Still kind of working on him.”

Jermaine again confirms that the family will reunite for a tour including Michael, October 30 2008

The Jackson 5 will reunite in 2009, brother Jermaine Jackson confirmed today (Oct. 29) at a TV industry function in Sydney.

“This has been a long time coming for the Jackson family to get back together,” he told the Australian Associated Press.

“It is just the timing, so what we’ve been doing is working on the music and all the logistics. It is going to be more like a family affair, Janet’s going to open and, of course, the original Jackson 5 … Michael, Randy and the whole family … We’re in the studio, we’re planning on being out there next year.”

The Jacksons received a lifetime achievement award from BMI in early September in Los Angeles, but brother Marlon made no secret of his displeasure with Michael’s absence at the ceremony.

Asked where Jackson was, he told the Associated Press, “I don’t know. I think he’s in Egypt riding a camel or something.”
Michael issues a statement denying he will take part in any Jackson 5 reunion, October 31 2008

Michael Jackson has issued a statement saying he will not participate in a Jackson 5 reunion in 2009.

“My brothers and sisters have my full love and support, and we’ve certainly shared many great experiences, but at this time I have no plans to record or tour with them,” he said. “I am now in the studio developing new and exciting projects that I look forward to sharing with my fans in concert soon.”

Joe Jackson calls Roger Friedman to tell them that he and Leonard Rowe are trying to take over MJ’s TII shows, March 26th 2009

This year, on March 26th 2009, Jackson himself called me to say he wanted to take over the just announced concerts at the O2 Arena because only he and his partner Leonard Rowe would know how to run them. Shortly after that, Jackson and Rowe threw in with another concert promoter. The latter man filed suit against Michael to get a cut of his AEG Live contract.
April 3 2009

Paris’ birthday, Joe shows up with Leonard Rowe to see MJ after not having seen him for the last 2 years, he does not bring a gift for Paris, is there to speak about the concerts.

April 14, 2009

Joe and Leonard visited Michael carrying the letter of direction drafted by Rowe’s attorney on March 25. The date was changed to April 14 and Michael signed the letter but changed it to emphasize Rowe would only be overseeing his financial matters with regard to the O2 tour.

Joe and the family were still trying to get Michael to also include them in the tour, 15th May 2009 (already using Propofol)

We’ve learned there was a secret meeting yesterday at the Beverly Hills Hotel, where Michael Jackson made it clear — he will not perform with Janet and the Jackson 5; and the dude who organized the concert tour tells us he will sue them.

As we first reported, Jackson’s manager signed a deal on behalf of M.J. to perform with his sis and bros at Cowboy Stadium in Arlington, Texas in 2010. Part of the deal — that he not sign any other concert deal for 18 months. But then Jackson went and signed up for his London concerts which are scheduled to begin in July.

The company that organized the family concert — AllGood Entertainment — got Michael, daddy Joe Jackson and several others in a room yesterday at the Bev Hills Hotel. Joe tried to convince Michael that the family tour should go on, but Michael wouldn’t budge because it would have aired on pay-per-view and M.J. said he doesn’t like pay-per-view! The meeting was heated and no one agreed to anything.

Patrick Allocco of AllGood Entertainment tells us he’s going to sue Jackson and his family next week.
Stay tuned.

UPDATE: Patrick Allocco has resubmitted his offer for MJ to perform with the Jackson 5 and Janet without the pay-per-view. For this one night event, MJ would be paid $3million, Janet $1mil, and the brothers would get $500,000 to split.

Allocco is making this his last and final offer. If Jackson refuses, AllGood Entertainment will proceed with suing him and his family.

Я готова верить, но надо знать во что!

Показать ссылки поста

За это сообщение автора Liberian Girl поблагодарили (всего 3):
Trueamore (12 окт 2013, 21:26) • MagicalLove (12 окт 2013, 16:14) • TAIS (12 окт 2013, 12:46)
Рейтинг: 27.27%
Аватара пользователя

Liberian Girl
Благодарил (а): 2485 раз.
Поблагодарили: 13664 раз.

Re: Кэтрин Джексон против AEG Live

#1070  Сообщение Liberian Girl » 13 окт 2013, 03:50

EXCLUSIVE: Jackson Family Attorney Considering Appealing AEG Verdict due to Confusing Jury Instructions

Liberian Girl писал(а):

After a five-month long trial where attorneys questioned 58 witnesses, jurors in the Jackson v. AEG trial concluded 12-0 that the concert promoter was not liable for the death of superstar Michael Jackson. Now, the attorney who represented the Jackson family in the case says he is considering all options, including appealing the verdict because the wording of one of the questions posed to jurors may have cost them the case.

“In talking to the jurors, it appears they were confused by one of the questions on the verdict form,” said Jackson family attorney Brian Panish in an exclusive interview with hosts Mari Fagel and Eboni K. Williams on Black Hollywood Live’s Justice is Served.

The first question on the verdict form was, “did AEG hire Dr. Conrad Murray?” to which jurors unanimously responded, “Yes.” The second question read, “was Dr. Conrad Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?” to which jurors unanimously responded, “No.”

Panish says jurors misinterpreted the question by focusing on whether Dr. Murray was competent when he was first hired by AEG in May 2009 rather than correctly focusing on whether he was competent throughout the span of his employment up until Jackson’s death on June 25th, 2009.

“Jurors thought that they only had to determine whether he was fit and competent at the time he was hired. He was hired to be a general physician, for which he was licensed and qualified as a doctor. But our claim really thrust upon the deterioration of Michael’s condition over 60 days and the lack of anything being done and the warnings AEG had and ignored.”

Jurors did not ask any questions clarifying the instruction during deliberations. Panish says when preparing the jury instructions with the judge, he had requested the question be phrased, was Dr. Conrad Murray fit and competent to perform the work for which he was hired “at any time.” However, he says the judge denied the request and ruled that the question would be phrased, was Dr. Conrad Murray fit and competent to perform the work for which he was hired “at the time of hiring.”

“There is no question that Dr. Murray was unfit and incompetent for what he did to Michael and I think the jurors all agreed with it,” Panish said. “It was the way the question was phrased, was he fit and competent ‘when hired’ to be a general practice doctor. He was a licensed physician and had he followed his Hippocratic oath, he would have been competent at that time. But it’s really deeper than that. As AEG continued on to rehearse and get ready for the This Is It show, Dr. Murray’s incompetence began to show more and more.”

In his closing arguments, Panish suggested to jurors that Jackson’s share of blame for his own death was 20%, but the rest of the blame was on AEG, urging jurors to award the family between $1 billion and $2 billion in damages for what he called AEG Live’s share of liability in Jackson’s death. Panish says he stands by that argument.

“I believe it was a case of shared responsibility. Michael paid the price with his life, Dr. Murray paid the price by going to jail and AEG walked away. AEG made a bunch of money off of the documentary This is It and merchandise of Michael and they continue to move forward. I don’t think this is a case where one side or the other is to blame. I think this was the shared responsibility of numerous things coming together creating the synergy for what happened.”

Panish is also urging Dr. Murray to stop denying his own responsibility for Jackson’s death.

“Dr. Murray claimed this verdict was a vindication of him. That’s not what it was at all. I think Dr. Murray should come forward, tell the truth and admit what he has done,” Panish said. “Michael died from the overdose of Propofol given to him by a physician that shouldn’t have done it. Michael was a person that trusted doctors, and he believed doctors, and he believed they would do no harm. Unfortunately Dr. Murray sacrificed that for money and fame.”

Panish says after having interviewed all of the jurors in the case, he is in talks with appellate lawyers to decide how to proceed. He says he will look into all options in order to provide the Jackson family with the justice they deserve, shooting down allegations that Jackson’s family pursued the case solely to continue to profit off of Michael’s death.

“This case was a search for the truth, to find some answers,” Panish said. “What did AEG know and what did they do? By uncovering a lot of the internal emails and the actions of AEG, we were able to expose what really happened to Michael, what his condition was like, and what AEG failed to do to help Michael. AEG wanted to get the show on the road at any cost and they overrode Michael and unfortunately Michael was desperate and took measures a normal person wouldn’t take had he not been in such a desperate situation, being pressured.”

Я готова верить, но надо знать во что!

Показать ссылки поста

За это сообщение автора Liberian Girl поблагодарили (всего 4):
Admin (15 окт 2013, 15:34) • franklin5569 (15 окт 2013, 07:31) • Lina (14 окт 2013, 07:20) • MagicalLove (13 окт 2013, 15:53)
Рейтинг: 36.36%
Аватара пользователя

Liberian Girl
Благодарил (а): 2485 раз.
Поблагодарили: 13664 раз.


Вернуться в СУД / COURT