AEG vs Katherine Jackson and the Jacksons

ParisHoney wrote:I honestly never understood the point of this except the fact that people are still trying to drag Michael under the bus and put their hands in his pockets. There's classified information that AEG (and even the Jackson family) refuses to talk about, and I think it's something extreme. A user on Twitter and I were talking a bit about this, and it seems like Conrad Murray is making a bit of a profit off of this lawsuit, too.

What are your thoughts and do you know anything about this court case?

ParisHoney wrote:I honestly never understood the point of this except the fact that people are still trying to drag Michael under the bus and put their hands in his pockets. There's classified information that AEG (and even the Jackson family) refuses to talk about, and I think it's something extreme. A user on Twitter and I were talking a bit about this, and it seems like Conrad Murray is making a bit of a profit off of this lawsuit, too.

What are your thoughts and do you know anything about this court case?

SellingOutSouls wrote:

ParisHoney wrote:I honestly never understood the point of this except the fact that people are still trying to drag Michael under the bus and put their hands in his pockets. There's classified information that AEG (and even the Jackson family) refuses to talk about, and I think it's something extreme. A user on Twitter and I were talking a bit about this, and it seems like Conrad Murray is making a bit of a profit off of this lawsuit, too.

What are your thoughts and do you know anything about this court case?

Actually let me clarify. When Conrad Murray was found guilty of the involuntary manslaughter of Michael's death, the prosecution David Walgren(now an honorable judge) informed Judge Pastor of his intentions to seek 'restitution' on behalf of Michael's children, Prince, Paris, and Blanket.

Briefly speaking restitution in short: is a monetary payment sometimes ordered to be made as part
of a judgment in negligence and/or contracts cases to restore a loss. In
criminal cases, it may be one of the penalties imposed and may require
return of stolen goods to the victim or payment to the victim for harm
caused.

At the time, David Walgren planned on seeking $100M in restitution. Given how substantially in debt Murray was its probable he wouldn't have been able to pay this amount in any substantial lump sum, but had a judged ordered restitution it would've meant all of Murray's future earnings would go directly to PP&B which in turn could've discouraged Murray from attempting to even profit from Michael's death.

That restitution was WAIVED by Katherine to go after AEG instead. Doing so has now left the door wide open for Murray to profit from killing Michael.

In California, there is no 'Son of Sam' law that prohibits criminals from profiting off of their heinous crimes at the expense of their victims.

ParisHoney wrote:

SellingOutSouls wrote:

ParisHoney wrote:I honestly never understood the point of this except the fact that people are still trying to drag Michael under the bus and put their hands in his pockets. There's classified information that AEG (and even the Jackson family) refuses to talk about, and I think it's something extreme. A user on Twitter and I were talking a bit about this, and it seems like Conrad Murray is making a bit of a profit off of this lawsuit, too.

What are your thoughts and do you know anything about this court case?

Actually let me clarify. When Conrad Murray was found guilty of the involuntary manslaughter of Michael's death, the prosecution David Walgren(now an honorable judge) informed Judge Pastor of his intentions to seek 'restitution' on behalf of Michael's children, Prince, Paris, and Blanket.

Briefly speaking restitution in short: is a monetary payment sometimes ordered to be made as part
of a judgment in negligence and/or contracts cases to restore a loss. In
criminal cases, it may be one of the penalties imposed and may require
return of stolen goods to the victim or payment to the victim for harm
caused.

At the time, David Walgren planned on seeking $100M in restitution. Given how substantially in debt Murray was its probable he wouldn't have been able to pay this amount in any substantial lump sum, but had a judged ordered restitution it would've meant all of Murray's future earnings would go directly to PP&B which in turn could've discouraged Murray from attempting to even profit from Michael's death.

That restitution was WAIVED by Katherine to go after AEG instead. Doing so has now left the door wide open for Murray to profit from killing Michael.

In California, there is no 'Son of Sam' law that prohibits criminals from profiting off of their heinous crimes at the expense of their victims.

Good God Damn! Thanks for posting this. How do you think Murray would profit off of MJ? Writing a book or something o.o (That's the only part I don't understand).

ParisHoney wrote:So basically Little MJs and Paris don't have any pocket money for adulthood? And he's already profiting? K.

I honestly thought they would leave Michael alone now that he's gone, but I thought wrong.

ParisHoney wrote:*sigh* You think KJ will win?

SellingOutSouls wrote: Not only that but before becoming Michael's doctor, Murray had an
impeccable standing as a doctor...no infractions or disciplinary actions
against him prior to Michael.

ParisHoney wrote:

SellingOutSouls wrote: Not only that but before becoming Michael's doctor, Murray had an
impeccable standing as a doctor...no infractions or disciplinary actions
against him prior to Michael.

This basically confirms everything I have thought about Murray; I think he was mesmerized that he was working for Michael Jackson. Just to be able to rub it in people's faces would be such an ego and moral twist on someone! What probably happened is Conrad was hesitant a few times to administering Propofol in an illegal way, but he soon got over it because he wanted to be the doctor.

SellingOutSouls wrote:I hit send before completing my thoughts about Murray. In short, he was and continues to be a sociopath. He refuses to accept any responsible for his role in Michael's death...no remorse and often depicts himself as the actual victim as evident in his documentary.

ParisHoney wrote:\

You can edit your posts (at least I think mods-members can) and documentary? I'm so out of the loop when it comes to the Jackson family and AEG/Murray issues now. I don't even know where to start due to the serious f***ery.

SellingOutSouls wrote:

ParisHoney wrote:\

You can edit your posts (at least I think mods-members can) and documentary? I'm so out of the loop when it comes to the Jackson family and AEG/Murray issues now. I don't even know where to start due to the serious f***ery.

I know I can edit, but I was too lazy to scroll back up!

Murray's documentary is on youtube...it won't let me post links. LOL

Judge sets rules for suit over Jackson doctor

By LINDA DEUTSCH | Associated Press – 13 hrs ago


Associated Press/Matt Sayles, File - FILE - In this April 27, 2011 file photo,

• Katherine Jackson poses for a portrait in Calabasas, Calif. A Los
  Angeles judge set the stage Thursday, March 21, 2013, for trial …more
  

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A Los Angeles judge set the stage Thursday for trial of a civil suit by Michael Jackson's mother against concert giant AEG Live.

Katherine Jackson claims the company negligently hired the doctor later convicted of involuntary manslaughter
in the singer's death and failed to oversee him. She and the singer's
two eldest children are expected to testify about the singer's last
days.

Legal rulings by Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazuelos anticipated a three-month trial that will revisit events preceding the singer's death from an anesthetic overdose in 2009.

Dr. Conrad Murray, who was convicted of manslaughter for administering the drug propofol, is not named in the lawsuit. But the judge agreed to allow him to be
brought to court from jail to testify outside the jury's presence. He
has said he would invoke his Fifth Amendment right not to testify. But
lawyers said he could possibly talk about non-criminal issues.

The judge said jury selection would begin April 2 and attorneys
estimated the search for a panel could be long and difficult because of
the notoriety of the parties and the estimated length of the trial.

The judge granted several plaintiff's motions and rejected a few.

She refused to bar AEG from raising the subject of child molestation
charges against Jackson from years ago. Lawyers for his mother claim
it's irrelevant because he was acquitted.

Katherine Jackson's attorney, Kevin Boyle, argued that "There is
nothing more prejudicial than dropping that bomb in court, mentioning
child molestation."

But Palazuelos said she would allow testimony that Jackson became despondent and reliant on drugs because of the charges.

She refused to approve inquiry into the finances of Jackson's
siblings and barred any testimony about a claim that Katherine Jackson
was kidnapped by family members and taken to Arizona last year.

She wouldn't permit AEG lawyers to ask questions about possible discord in the marriage of Katherine and Joe Jackson and she barred any inquiry into the identity of the biological parents of Jackson's three children.

Katherine Jackson's suit seeks hundreds of millions of dollars from
AEG including $200 million in non-economic damages, including emotional
distress.

The case centers on whether AEG did an appropriate investigation of
Murray and whether they controlled him while he was preparing Jackson
for a series of concerts in London.

During arguments, the question arose of why Katherine Jackson did not
sue Murray. Attorneys disclosed that Jackson's son Prince and his
daughter, Paris, testified in depositions that they believed Murray was
"a good person" and didn't want him sued. But Katherine Jackson, who
had the decision, testified it was financial, they said.

The judge said AEG could have sued Murray as well.

"The same questions can be asked of you," she told AEG lawyers. "Why didn't you sue him?"

"Because we're not required to," attorney Marvin Putnam said.

The judge called the issue "a side show."

"He has no money and that's why they're not suing him," Putnam said.

AEG Motion to set deposition date for Paris by Ivy

Plaintiffs opposition to Paris Jackson deposition by Ivy

SellingOutSouls wrote:"He has no money and that's why they're not suing him," Putnam said.

ParisHoney wrote:
I think my "impression" of the Jackson family is simply correct in all walks of life: They're not used to not digging in Michael's large pockets.