ok, so Mike had to take a medical examination to get an insurance that would benefit AEG, he passes this as a NASA-astronaut, yet he was heavily on RX and had a bad health.
Who let the rats out? <!-- s --><!-- s -->
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."
This really points to AEG being the bad rats in all of this.....
They threatened both MJ and Murray....do it our way, or the highway.
So MJ had no choice...if his health was really at risk, he would have died by doing all the 50 shows, or he would have been ruined if he didn't..
I see all the reasons clearly now, for having to fake his death, and I still believe Murray morally did the right thing and warned Michael about the risks of continuing this grueling regimen...it would have killed him anyway....That's why we need Murray to testify against AEG....soon and very soon we will see the king. <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) --> <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
This really points to AEG being the bad rats in all of this.....
They threatened both MJ and Murray....do it our way, or the highway.
So MJ had no choice...if his health was really at risk, he would have died by doing all the 50 shows, or he would have been ruined if he didn't..
I see all the reasons clearly now, for having to fake his death, and I still believe Murray morally did the right thing and warned Michael about the risks of continuing this grueling regimen...it would have killed him anyway....That's why we need Murray to testify against AEG....soon and very soon we will see the king. <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) --> <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
You are forgetting something pretty important... Randy Philips and Kenny Ortega, who both are in up to their necks.
"Thank you for taking me this far, I can take it from here."
No, there is somthing else up with it, need to think about it. If Murray is BS, if the death is BS, we can safely say that AEG being the bad guy is BS as well.
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."
<!-- s:o -->:o<!-- s:o --> <!-- s:shock: -->:shock:<!-- s:shock: --> Interesting that Kenny drove the Memorial and with the support of family, or am I wrong? <!-- s:roll: -->:roll:<!-- s:roll: -->
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
Is this the will that we have been seeing>? <!-- s:shock: -->:shock:<!-- s:shock: --> I know I know I am still in my straight jacket. I mean I was thinking about the will that Randy told CNN the names were misspelled.
ok, so Mike had to take a medical examination to get an insurance that would benefit AEG, he passes this as a NASA-astronaut, yet he was heavily on RX and had a bad health.
Who let the rats out? <!-- s --><!-- s -->
Unless the doctor who did the exam was payed by AEG to give him a clean bill to set everything in motion. I smell some dirty goings on here.
And why would the family file a wrongful death if this is a hoax, something is really wrong here folks,
Although I dont' recall the source, I do recall reading that the health exam was partially completed & for some reason I believe I read it was to be either completed or updated when he arrived in london.
I also recall reading that the health exam was a paid off deal i.e Michael was not in the health as listed on the report.
I believe that Murray is doing exactly what he said in the beginning in his statement that the truth will come out.
It seems to me that AEG will be the biggest to take the fall for this & of course as seen, whomever was contracted with them. The nature of the beast of the legal system, so I'm not surprised to read any of this.
The issue I do disagree with is that if Murray insisted he need vital equipment in order to take care of Michael & he was obviously not supplied with same, then why continue? The only answers are IMO is money & perhaps Michael didn't realize the grave danger his life was in at that point?
Although I dont' recall the source, I do recall reading that the health exam was partially completed & for some reason I believe I read it was to be either completed or updated when he arrived in london.
I also recall reading that the health exam was a paid off deal i.e Michael was not in the health as listed on the report.
I believe that Murray is doing exactly what he said in the beginning in his statement that the truth will come out.
It seems to me that AEG will be the biggest to take the fall for this & of course as seen, whomever was contracted with them. The nature of the beast of the legal system, so I'm not surprised to read any of this.
The issue I do disagree with is that if Murray insisted he need vital equipment in order to take care of Michael & he was obviously not supplied with same, then why continue? The only answers are IMO is money & perhaps Michael didn't realize the grave danger his life was in at that point?
I really do not understand how a cardiologist who does not carry with him a device so essential, low cost, small size and therefore easy to carry. <!-- s:roll: -->:roll:<!-- s:roll: --> <!-- s:?: -->:?:<!-- s:?: -->
This really points to AEG being the bad rats in all of this.....
They threatened both MJ and Murray....do it our way, or the highway.
So MJ had no choice...if his health was really at risk, he would have died by doing all the 50 shows, or he would have been ruined if he didn't..
I see all the reasons clearly now, for having to fake his death, and I still believe Murray morally did the right thing and warned Michael about the risks of continuing this grueling regimen...it would have killed him anyway....That's why we need Murray to testify against AEG....soon and very soon we will see the king. <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) --> <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
You are forgetting something pretty important... Randy Philips and Kenny Ortega, who both are in up to their necks.
"Thank you for taking me this far, I can take it from here."
No, there is somthing else up with it, need to think about it. If Murray is BS, if the death is BS, we can safely say that AEG being the bad guy is BS as well.
Yeah but, we don't know that MJ actually said this. We only know that Randy Phillips said that MJ said this. Do we have anyone else stating that these words were actually spoken by Michael?
I think this lawsuit document is a classic example of RBTL as with many of the documents we have seen throughout the past 15 months...here is just a few examples. I am sure there are LOTS more contained in it:
On June 18th 2009 Michael Jackson did not appear at rehearsals
But "somebody" must have turned up because later the suit says this:
Page 8:
When Jackson got to the rehearsal at the Forum .........on June 18 2009 at 9.30pm a few hours after the "Riot Act" meeting he was visibly shaken.............................and he was in no condition to say no to AEG. Witnesses present at that rehearsal confirm that Michael was not himself that day
Ohhh really...not himself???? ...so who was "he" then? if "Michael Jackson" did not turn up on June 18th 2009 for rehearsals as stated earlier.....someone did turn up at 9.30pm and perhaps the real Michael was already on that plane out of LA? Brings back memories of Jermaine's classic line: "Michael was not with us way before he went to the airport...umm..... hospital" . So how many number of days constitutes "way before" I wonder.......
Page 7, lines 40 and 41 are also interesting...the date of the "Riot Act" 18 June 2009 and the time 1:11pm AEG sent the letter to Dr Murray ...but then line 41 goes on to state that 1:11pm is the time Dr Murray received the letter.
111 from the Autograph code???
Funny they call it "Riot Act" in this suit. A "riot" of course can also mean something extremely funny and "act".. ..well of course acting!!!!
Initial thoughts: this is a big stink of a show about an artist being worked to death by the industry. The part about the catalog being at risk I don't believe at all. No way do I believe Michael would let his catalog be at stake over a silly concert performance series, nor do I believe his lawyers would let that slip by either.
He didn't NEED to do this thing. He could have just released an album... or 6. Or a DVD. Or done a few paid interviews, documentaries, roll out the freak show, it's what they want to see. They'll pay for it. If he even needed money, which I don't believe either.
I'll sooner believe he died because he anesthetized himself to sleep every night then believe he put up the catalog as collateral to the likes of AEG... Not an option.
So this is a show. The media has condemned Murray and completely ignored the music industry's exploitation of entertainers, but the Jackson's won't let that happen without a fight.
Katherine Jackson Sues AEG Over Michael's Death 26 minutes ago by TMZ Staff
...Here's what's interesting ... the lawsuit mistakenly lists Katherine Jackson as a Guardian ad Litem for Michael's 3 kids. Katherine is not a Guardian ad Litem -- i.e. the legal representative. Katherine is the guardian of the children. This mistake, along with the fact that Katherine's reps know nothing about the lawsuit suggests she is not actively involved in this case.
A Los Angeles judge has appointed a Guardian ad Litem to represent the interests of Michael Jackson's three young children.
Judge Mitchell Beckloff has named attorney Margaret Lodise of the firm of Sacks, Glazier, Franklin & Lodise, LLP, as the Guardian ad Litem for "Prince" Michael, Paris, and Prince "Blanket." According to the court, the children's grandmother, Katherine Jackson, will remain the Guardian of the Person for the children.
Did you notice "Randy Phillips" real name is Brandon......
That reminds me of Marlons speech....Mike, I want you to give my twin brother "Brandon" a big hug from me...
But seriously, Brandon Phillips has been donating money to the American Candidates.. Brandon Phillips
Political Campaign Contributions
2008 Election Cycle
One website messed up! <!-- s --><!-- s --> <!-- s --><!-- s --> <!-- s --><!-- s --> Or is this the only website that got it RIGHT! <!-- s --><!-- s --> <!-- s --><!-- s -->
LOS ANGELES - Michael Jackson's mother sues concert promoter AEG Live for fraud over singer's death
I think this lawsuit document is a classic example of RBTL as with many of the documents we have seen throughout the past 15 months...here is just a few examples. I am sure there are LOTS more contained in it:
On June 18th 2009 Michael Jackson did not appear at rehearsals
But "somebody" must have turned up because later the suit says this:
Page 8:
When Jackson got to the rehearsal at the Forum .........on June 18 2009 at 9.30pm a few hours after the "Riot Act" meeting he was visibly shaken.............................and he was in no condition to say no to AEG. Witnesses present at that rehearsal confirm that Michael was not himself that day
Ohhh really...not himself???? ...so who was "he" then? if "Michael Jackson" did not turn up on June 18th 2009 for rehearsals as stated earlier.....someone did turn up at 9.30pm and perhaps the real Michael was already on that plane out of LA? Brings back memories of Jermaine's classic line: "Michael was not with us way before he went to the airport...umm..... hospital" . So how many number of days constitutes "way before" I wonder.......
Page 7, lines 40 and 41 are also interesting...the date of the "Riot Act" 18 June 2009 and the time 1:11pm AEG sent the letter to Dr Murray ...but then line 41 goes on to state that 1:11pm is the time Dr Murray received the letter.
111 from the Autograph code???
Funny they call it "Riot Act" in this suit. A "riot" of course can also mean something extremely funny and "act".. ..well of course acting!!!!
<!-- s8-) -->8-)<!-- s8-) -->
Great work here! I haven't had a chance to really look at it yet, but the children's names and Katherine as the Guardian Ad Litem are dead giveaways. Great, great work!
Oh goodness - google "AEG Live fraud" and look - hundreds of articles come up with the headline Katherine sues AEG Live for fraud. Of course, we've known this for months. <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
LOS ANGELES -- Michael Jackson's mother sued a concert promoter Wednesday, alleging the company failed to provide life-saving equipment and oversee a doctor who was hired to look out for the pop star's well-being as he prepared for what were intended to be his comeback concerts.
Katherine Jackson's lawsuit was filed against AEG Live in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages.
The suit contends AEG and its agents told Michael Jackson the company would provide the equipment and hire Dr. Conrad Murray to care for him so he could perform at the concerts in London.
"AEG's representations to Jackson were false because in reality AEG was merely doing whatever it took to make sure that Michael Jackson could make it to rehearsals and shows and AEG did not provide a doctor who was truly looking out for Jackson's well-being and did not provide equipment," the lawsuit stated.
AEG spokesman Michael Roth said the company has not seen the lawsuit and had no immediate comment.
AEG Live President and CEO Randy Phillips said after Jackson's June 2009 death that Murray was enlisted to act as Jackson's personal physician and was to be paid $150,000 a month by AEG Live as the singer prepared for the concerts.
Jackson, however, died before signing the agreement. As a result, Phillips said it was not binding.
The suit also said AEG Live was responsible for the actions of Murray in the care of Jackson. Murray, however, was not named as a defendant in the lawsuit.
"At the time of his death, Michael Jackson was under the immediate care of a doctor selected by, hired by, and controlled by AEG; indeed AEG demanded and required that Michael Jackson be treated by this particular doctor to ensure that Michael Jackson would attend all rehearsals and shows on the tour," the complaint stated.
Murray has pleaded not guilty to involuntary manslaughter in Jackson's death at age 50. Police said Murray gave Jackson an overdose of the anesthetic propofol.
Katherine Jackson, who is the guardian of the singer's three children, also sued on their behalf. Her lawsuit claimed Jackson's eldest son, Prince, suffered great trauma and severe emotional distress because he witnessed his father's final moments.
The lawsuit alleged that Jackson's agreement with AEG put him under immense pressure to complete the London concerts. The suit claims AEG would have taken over Jackson's share in a lucrative music catalog that includes songs by The Beatles, Aretha Franklin, Jackson and the Jackson 5, which was one of the singer's best assets after years of accumulating debt.
Oh goodness - google "AEG Live fraud" and look - hundreds of articles come up with the headline Katherine sues AEG Live for fraud. Of course, we've known this for months. <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
A Fraud Lawsuit Under California Law
The various ways a victim can be defrauded are as limitless as the bounds of human ingenuity. But under California law, wrongful actions are generally characterized as civil "fraud" only under one of the following legal theories:
1. Intentional Misrepresentation. Probably the most common type of fraud is a false statement. But not every false statement is fraudulent. The elements of a claim for intentional misrepresentation are:
a. An intentionally or recklessly false statement of fact. Not every false statement is a false statement of "fact." Statements of opinion generally are not actionable. Sales talk, or "puffing" ("This is the best location in the county!"), is generally not actionable. However, if the defendant claims to be an expert or there are other reasons to expect that the victim would rely upon the defendant’s opinion as a statement of "fact," an opinion may be treated by the court as a statement of fact. Also, a statement need not be made directly to the victim. For instance, if the defendant made the false statement to a third person with the expectation that the statement would be repeated to the victim, the victim may have a valid claim for fraudulent misrepresentation.
b. Intention to defraud. If a representation of fact was intentionally false and a material part of the transaction (e.g., "this house does not have flooding problems"), it is likely the false promise was made with the intention to defraud the victim.
c. Reasonable reliance upon the false statement. The victim must have actually relied upon the statement to change his or her position (e.g., the victim would not have purchased the house if he or she knew the truth). The false statement need not be the only reason the victim changed his or her position, but it must be at least part of the reason. Also, the victim’s reliance on the false statement must be reasonable. If the victim knew or should have known the statement was false, the victim did not reasonably rely. The sophistication of the victim will play a role in determining whether his or her reliance on the statement was reasonable; e.g., a sophisticated real estate investor’s reliance on a representation about the qualities of a house may not be reasonable while an unsophisticated buyer’s reliance may be. Even an unsophisticated victim, however, "may not put faith in representations which are preposterous, or which are shown by facts within his observation to be so patently and obviously false that he must have closed his eyes to avoid discovery of the truth." Seeger v. Odell (1941) 18 Cal. 2d 409.
d. Resulting in damages. There must be measurable damages that were caused by the fraud. It is not enough that the victim was told a lie (e.g., "A famous movie star once slept in this house"); the victim must also be able to prove some type of damage resulted from the lie.
2. Negligent Misrepresentation. A claim for negligent misrepresentation is generally the same as a claim for intentional misrepresentation, except the victim must only prove the defendant did not have "a reasonable basis" to believe its statement of fact was true (as opposed to proving the defendant knew its statement was false). If the defendant’s false statement was both honestly made and based upon reasonable grounds, however, there is no claim. Punitive damages are not available for negligent misrepresentations.
3. Concealment. A claim for fraud may also arise if the defendant concealed or failed to disclose a material fact during a transaction, causing damage to the victim. The elements of a claim for fraudulent concealment are:
a. The defendant failed to disclose or concealed a material fact with an intent to defraud the victim.
b. The defendant had a duty to disclose. There is not always a duty to disclose facts during a transaction. If there is a duty, it generally arises in one of four different circumstances: (i) The defendant is in a "fiduciary relationship" (such as being a partner) with the victim; or (ii) The defendant took steps to hide important information from the victim (as opposed to simply failing to tell the victim); or (iii) The defendant disclosed some information to the victim, but the disclosed information is misleading unless more information is given; or (iv) The defendant is aware of key information and knows the victim is unlikely to discover that information. In addition, California laws may create a duty to disclose in certain transactions. For example, sellers of residential property in California generally are required to make written disclosures about the condition of the house.
c. The victim must have been unaware of the fact and would not have acted as he or she did if he or she knew of the fact.
d. The victim sustained damages as a result of the concealment.
4. False Promise. A claim of fraud may arise if a defendant entered into a contract and made promises that it never intended to perform. The elements of a false promise claim are:
a. The defendant made a promise.
b. The promise was important to the transaction.
c. At the time he or she made the promise, the defendant did not intend to perform it.
d. The defendant intended the victim to rely upon the promise.
e. The victim reasonably relied upon the promise.
f. The defendant did not perform the promise.
g. The victim was harmed as a result of defendant not carrying out his or her promise.
h. The victim’s reliance on the defendant’s promise was a substantial factor in causing the victim’s harm.
It is important to understand that a broken promise, alone, is not a sufficient basis for a fraud claim. More than a mere broken promise is required. The victim must also prove that the defendant did not intend to perform the promise at the time the promise was made. In practice, it is usually difficult to tell the difference between a broken promise and a promise made without an intention to perform. Courts generally look for circumstantial evidence to support a false promise claim (as opposed to a broken promise claim), such as the defendant broke its promise immediately after making it.
Characterization of a claim as fraud has many advantages to a victim; primarily, the victim may be able to recover punitive damages in addition to actual damages. Also, the measure of damages is generally more liberal under fraud and other "tort" theories, allowing victims a more complete recovery. But even if a wrongful action does not fall under the definition of "fraud," it still may lead to a valid legal claim. For instance, a broken promise - while not necessarily fraudulently - may still constitute a valid breach of contract claim. While punitive damages and emotional distress damages are generally not available for breach of contract in California, the victim still should be able to recover his or her monetary damages. http://www.articlecity.com/articles/legal/article_1041.shtml
If I'm not mistaken only the "victim" of fraud can sue for fraud but the "victim" is ya' know dead. <!-- s --><!-- s --> <!-- s --><!-- s --> <!-- s --><!-- s --> Randy tweeted today that it was a "wrongful death" suit.
Six here, half dozen there, it's all bogus anyway as evidenced by the document in and of itself. <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
We love you, Mike! And YES! We will be there! <!-- s:D -->:D<!-- s:D --> <!-- s:D -->:D<!-- s:D -->
The named defendant Paul Gongaware caught my eye. He was Prince's tour promoter for Prince's 21 nights at the O2 in 2007 and was involved in distributing Planet Earth in the UK as a free covermount with The Mail on Sunday national newspaper. Gongaware was also involved with Prince giving free copies of Musicology to all concert goers during the Musicology tour in 2004.
We know that Prince is not an idiot and is not to be pushed around, and despite the media shoving the Michael Jackson/Prince rivalry story down our throats for ages, I'm quite sure Mike and Prince have a good relationship. If Paul Gongaware was not to be trusted, Prince would have warned Mike about him.
The same goes for AEG Live in general. Prince and AEG Live have worked successfully together for the Musicology tour in 2004 & 21 Nights at the O2 on 2007. Had Prince not been satisfied with AEG Live he wouldn't have teamed up with them again, and he would have told Mike to stay away from them.
AEG to Murray: Go Pound Sand
11/17/2009 5:02 PM PST by TMZ Staff
AEG will not pay Michael Jackson's troubled doctor a penny, sources tell TMZ.
As we first reported, Dr. Conrad Murray may sue AEG for $300,000 -- the money he claims he's entitled to under a contract he signed with AEG to provide MJ with medical services. But sources connected with AEG tell TMZ the contract was never signed.
We're told a contract was drafted but it required three signatures -- AEG, Michael Jackson and Dr. Conrad Murray. Sources say Dr. Murray signed the contract and sent it to AEG but neither AEG nor MJ ever signed it.
The contract, we're told, also said it expressly hinged on Jackson signing.
So there is no contract between AEG and Murray as it was never signed by AEG (nor Michael) that means that no contract was ever executed between the parties. All parties in a contract must agree to that contract by signing it; without a signed contract the parties haven't agreed to anything. To further validate that there is no contract between AEG and Murray, AEG never paid Murray anything, he is still owed the 2 months salary of $300,000.
Comments
Who let the rats out? <!-- s
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."They threatened both MJ and Murray....do it our way, or the highway.
So MJ had no choice...if his health was really at risk, he would have died by doing all the 50 shows, or he would have been ruined if he didn't..
I see all the reasons clearly now, for having to fake his death, and I still believe Murray morally did the right thing and warned Michael about the risks of continuing this grueling regimen...it would have killed him anyway....That's why we need Murray to testify against AEG....soon and very soon we will see the king. <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) --> <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
You are forgetting something pretty important... Randy Philips and Kenny Ortega, who both are in up to their necks.
"Thank you for taking me this far, I can take it from here."
No, there is somthing else up with it, need to think about it. If Murray is BS, if the death is BS, we can safely say that AEG being the bad guy is BS as well.
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."<!-- s:o -->:o<!-- s:o --> <!-- s:shock: -->:shock:<!-- s:shock: --> Interesting that Kenny drove the Memorial and with the support of family, or am I wrong? <!-- s:roll: -->:roll:<!-- s:roll: -->
Unless the doctor who did the exam was payed by AEG to give him a clean bill to set everything in motion. I smell some dirty goings on here.
And why would the family file a wrongful death if this is a hoax, something is really wrong here folks,
I also recall reading that the health exam was a paid off deal i.e Michael was not in the health as listed on the report.
I believe that Murray is doing exactly what he said in the beginning in his statement that the truth will come out.
It seems to me that AEG will be the biggest to take the fall for this & of course as seen, whomever was contracted with them. The nature of the beast of the legal system, so I'm not surprised to read any of this.
The issue I do disagree with is that if Murray insisted he need vital equipment in order to take care of Michael & he was obviously not supplied with same, then why continue? The only answers are IMO is money & perhaps Michael didn't realize the grave danger his life was in at that point?
I really do not understand how a cardiologist who does not carry with him a device so essential, low cost, small size and therefore easy to carry. <!-- s:roll: -->:roll:<!-- s:roll: --> <!-- s:?: -->:?:<!-- s:?: -->
Yeah but, we don't know that MJ actually said this. We only know that Randy Phillips said that MJ said this. Do we have anyone else stating that these words were actually spoken by Michael?
:thinking smiley:
<!-- m -->http://www.psandb.com/articles/mj-complaint.pdf<!-- m -->
page 6;
But "somebody" must have turned up because later the suit says this:
Page 8:
Ohhh really...not himself???? ...so who was "he" then? if "Michael Jackson" did not turn up on June 18th 2009 for rehearsals as stated earlier.....someone did turn up at 9.30pm and perhaps the real Michael was already on that plane out of LA? Brings back memories of Jermaine's classic line: "Michael was not with us way before he went to the airport...umm..... hospital" . So how many number of days constitutes "way before" I wonder.......
Page 7, lines 40 and 41 are also interesting...the date of the "Riot Act" 18 June 2009 and the time 1:11pm AEG sent the letter to Dr Murray ...but then line 41 goes on to state that 1:11pm is the time Dr Murray received the letter.
111 from the Autograph code???
Funny they call it "Riot Act" in this suit. A "riot" of course can also mean something extremely funny and "act".. ..well of course acting!!!!
<!-- s8-) -->8-)<!-- s8-) -->
He didn't NEED to do this thing. He could have just released an album... or 6. Or a DVD. Or done a few paid interviews, documentaries, roll out the freak show, it's what they want to see. They'll pay for it. If he even needed money, which I don't believe either.
I'll sooner believe he died because he anesthetized himself to sleep every night then believe he put up the catalog as collateral to the likes of AEG... Not an option.
So this is a show. The media has condemned Murray and completely ignored the music industry's exploitation of entertainers, but the Jackson's won't let that happen without a fight.
Posted August 11, 2009 12:16:00 PM
A Los Angeles judge has appointed a Guardian ad Litem to represent the interests of Michael Jackson's three young children.
Judge Mitchell Beckloff has named attorney Margaret Lodise of the firm of Sacks, Glazier, Franklin & Lodise, LLP, as the Guardian ad Litem for "Prince" Michael, Paris, and Prince "Blanket." According to the court, the children's grandmother, Katherine Jackson, will remain the Guardian of the Person for the children.
<!-- m -->http://www.etonline.com/news/2009/08/77431/index.html<!-- m -->
That reminds me of Marlons speech....Mike, I want you to give my twin brother "Brandon" a big hug from me...
But seriously, Brandon Phillips has been donating money to the American Candidates..
Brandon Phillips
Political Campaign Contributions
2008 Election Cycle
<!-- m -->http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/ ... p?cycle=08<!-- m -->
And this is the original contract that was signed by Michael with AEG..
<!-- m -->http://www.radaronline.com/sites/defaul ... ntract.pdf<!-- m -->
ehm <!-- s:| -->:|<!-- s:| -->
<!-- m -->http://www.radaronline.com/sites/defaul ... ntract.pdf<!-- m -->
LOS ANGELES - Michael Jackson's mother sues concert promoter AEG Live for fraud over singer's death
<!-- m -->http://www.startribune.com/politics/nat ... c:_Yyc:aUU<!-- m -->
AND STRANGE! It's listed under the political section. <!-- s
Great work here! I haven't had a chance to really look at it yet, but the children's names and Katherine as the Guardian Ad Litem are dead giveaways. Great, great work!
<!-- m -->http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?secti ... id=7670706<!-- m --> <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
And now this one...
<!-- m -->http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/ ... 0390.shtml<!-- m -->
Oh goodness - google "AEG Live fraud" and look - hundreds of articles come up with the headline Katherine sues AEG Live for fraud. Of course, we've known this for months. <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
This article just says
LOS ANGELES -- Michael Jackson's mother sued a concert promoter Wednesday, alleging the company failed to provide life-saving equipment and oversee a doctor who was hired to look out for the pop star's well-being as he prepared for what were intended to be his comeback concerts.
Katherine Jackson's lawsuit was filed against AEG Live in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages.
The suit contends AEG and its agents told Michael Jackson the company would provide the equipment and hire Dr. Conrad Murray to care for him so he could perform at the concerts in London.
"AEG's representations to Jackson were false because in reality AEG was merely doing whatever it took to make sure that Michael Jackson could make it to rehearsals and shows and AEG did not provide a doctor who was truly looking out for Jackson's well-being and did not provide equipment," the lawsuit stated.
AEG spokesman Michael Roth said the company has not seen the lawsuit and had no immediate comment.
AEG Live President and CEO Randy Phillips said after Jackson's June 2009 death that Murray was enlisted to act as Jackson's personal physician and was to be paid $150,000 a month by AEG Live as the singer prepared for the concerts.
Jackson, however, died before signing the agreement. As a result, Phillips said it was not binding.
The suit also said AEG Live was responsible for the actions of Murray in the care of Jackson. Murray, however, was not named as a defendant in the lawsuit.
"At the time of his death, Michael Jackson was under the immediate care of a doctor selected by, hired by, and controlled by AEG; indeed AEG demanded and required that Michael Jackson be treated by this particular doctor to ensure that Michael Jackson would attend all rehearsals and shows on the tour," the complaint stated.
Murray has pleaded not guilty to involuntary manslaughter in Jackson's death at age 50. Police said Murray gave Jackson an overdose of the anesthetic propofol.
Katherine Jackson, who is the guardian of the singer's three children, also sued on their behalf. Her lawsuit claimed Jackson's eldest son, Prince, suffered great trauma and severe emotional distress because he witnessed his father's final moments.
The lawsuit alleged that Jackson's agreement with AEG put him under immense pressure to complete the London concerts. The suit claims AEG would have taken over Jackson's share in a lucrative music catalog that includes songs by The Beatles, Aretha Franklin, Jackson and the Jackson 5, which was one of the singer's best assets after years of accumulating debt.
The various ways a victim can be defrauded are as limitless as the bounds of human ingenuity. But under California law, wrongful actions are generally characterized as civil "fraud" only under one of the following legal theories:
1. Intentional Misrepresentation. Probably the most common type of fraud is a false statement. But not every false statement is fraudulent. The elements of a claim for intentional misrepresentation are:
a. An intentionally or recklessly false statement of fact. Not every false statement is a false statement of "fact." Statements of opinion generally are not actionable. Sales talk, or "puffing" ("This is the best location in the county!"), is generally not actionable. However, if the defendant claims to be an expert or there are other reasons to expect that the victim would rely upon the defendant’s opinion as a statement of "fact," an opinion may be treated by the court as a statement of fact. Also, a statement need not be made directly to the victim. For instance, if the defendant made the false statement to a third person with the expectation that the statement would be repeated to the victim, the victim may have a valid claim for fraudulent misrepresentation.
b. Intention to defraud. If a representation of fact was intentionally false and a material part of the transaction (e.g., "this house does not have flooding problems"), it is likely the false promise was made with the intention to defraud the victim.
c. Reasonable reliance upon the false statement. The victim must have actually relied upon the statement to change his or her position (e.g., the victim would not have purchased the house if he or she knew the truth). The false statement need not be the only reason the victim changed his or her position, but it must be at least part of the reason. Also, the victim’s reliance on the false statement must be reasonable. If the victim knew or should have known the statement was false, the victim did not reasonably rely. The sophistication of the victim will play a role in determining whether his or her reliance on the statement was reasonable; e.g., a sophisticated real estate investor’s reliance on a representation about the qualities of a house may not be reasonable while an unsophisticated buyer’s reliance may be. Even an unsophisticated victim, however, "may not put faith in representations which are preposterous, or which are shown by facts within his observation to be so patently and obviously false that he must have closed his eyes to avoid discovery of the truth." Seeger v. Odell (1941) 18 Cal. 2d 409.
d. Resulting in damages. There must be measurable damages that were caused by the fraud. It is not enough that the victim was told a lie (e.g., "A famous movie star once slept in this house"); the victim must also be able to prove some type of damage resulted from the lie.
2. Negligent Misrepresentation. A claim for negligent misrepresentation is generally the same as a claim for intentional misrepresentation, except the victim must only prove the defendant did not have "a reasonable basis" to believe its statement of fact was true (as opposed to proving the defendant knew its statement was false). If the defendant’s false statement was both honestly made and based upon reasonable grounds, however, there is no claim. Punitive damages are not available for negligent misrepresentations.
3. Concealment. A claim for fraud may also arise if the defendant concealed or failed to disclose a material fact during a transaction, causing damage to the victim. The elements of a claim for fraudulent concealment are:
a. The defendant failed to disclose or concealed a material fact with an intent to defraud the victim.
b. The defendant had a duty to disclose. There is not always a duty to disclose facts during a transaction. If there is a duty, it generally arises in one of four different circumstances: (i) The defendant is in a "fiduciary relationship" (such as being a partner) with the victim; or (ii) The defendant took steps to hide important information from the victim (as opposed to simply failing to tell the victim); or (iii) The defendant disclosed some information to the victim, but the disclosed information is misleading unless more information is given; or (iv) The defendant is aware of key information and knows the victim is unlikely to discover that information. In addition, California laws may create a duty to disclose in certain transactions. For example, sellers of residential property in California generally are required to make written disclosures about the condition of the house.
c. The victim must have been unaware of the fact and would not have acted as he or she did if he or she knew of the fact.
d. The victim sustained damages as a result of the concealment.
4. False Promise. A claim of fraud may arise if a defendant entered into a contract and made promises that it never intended to perform. The elements of a false promise claim are:
a. The defendant made a promise.
b. The promise was important to the transaction.
c. At the time he or she made the promise, the defendant did not intend to perform it.
d. The defendant intended the victim to rely upon the promise.
e. The victim reasonably relied upon the promise.
f. The defendant did not perform the promise.
g. The victim was harmed as a result of defendant not carrying out his or her promise.
h. The victim’s reliance on the defendant’s promise was a substantial factor in causing the victim’s harm.
It is important to understand that a broken promise, alone, is not a sufficient basis for a fraud claim. More than a mere broken promise is required. The victim must also prove that the defendant did not intend to perform the promise at the time the promise was made. In practice, it is usually difficult to tell the difference between a broken promise and a promise made without an intention to perform. Courts generally look for circumstantial evidence to support a false promise claim (as opposed to a broken promise claim), such as the defendant broke its promise immediately after making it.
Characterization of a claim as fraud has many advantages to a victim; primarily, the victim may be able to recover punitive damages in addition to actual damages. Also, the measure of damages is generally more liberal under fraud and other "tort" theories, allowing victims a more complete recovery. But even if a wrongful action does not fall under the definition of "fraud," it still may lead to a valid legal claim. For instance, a broken promise - while not necessarily fraudulently - may still constitute a valid breach of contract claim. While punitive damages and emotional distress damages are generally not available for breach of contract in California, the victim still should be able to recover his or her monetary damages.
http://www.articlecity.com/articles/legal/article_1041.shtml
Six here, half dozen there, it's all bogus anyway as evidenced by the document in and of itself. <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
We love you, Mike! And YES! We will be there! <!-- s:D -->:D<!-- s:D --> <!-- s:D -->:D<!-- s:D -->
The named defendant Paul Gongaware caught my eye. He was Prince's tour promoter for Prince's 21 nights at the O2 in 2007 and was involved in distributing Planet Earth in the UK as a free covermount with The Mail on Sunday national newspaper. Gongaware was also involved with Prince giving free copies of Musicology to all concert goers during the Musicology tour in 2004.
We know that Prince is not an idiot and is not to be pushed around, and despite the media shoving the Michael Jackson/Prince rivalry story down our throats for ages, I'm quite sure Mike and Prince have a good relationship. If Paul Gongaware was not to be trusted, Prince would have warned Mike about him.
The same goes for AEG Live in general. Prince and AEG Live have worked successfully together for the Musicology tour in 2004 & 21 Nights at the O2 on 2007. Had Prince not been satisfied with AEG Live he wouldn't have teamed up with them again, and he would have told Mike to stay away from them.
11/17/2009 5:02 PM PST by TMZ Staff
AEG will not pay Michael Jackson's troubled doctor a penny, sources tell TMZ.
As we first reported, Dr. Conrad Murray may sue AEG for $300,000 -- the money he claims he's entitled to under a contract he signed with AEG to provide MJ with medical services. But sources connected with AEG tell TMZ the contract was never signed.
We're told a contract was drafted but it required three signatures -- AEG, Michael Jackson and Dr. Conrad Murray. Sources say Dr. Murray signed the contract and sent it to AEG but neither AEG nor MJ ever signed it.
The contract, we're told, also said it expressly hinged on Jackson signing.
Sources say AEG is drawing a hard line. They will not pay Murray a penny.
http://www.tmz.com/2009/11/17/aeg-to-dr-conrad-murray-lawsuit-michael-jackson-london-concerts/
So there is no contract between AEG and Murray as it was never signed by AEG (nor Michael) that means that no contract was ever executed between the parties. All parties in a contract must agree to that contract by signing it; without a signed contract the parties haven't agreed to anything. To further validate that there is no contract between AEG and Murray, AEG never paid Murray anything, he is still owed the 2 months salary of $300,000.
This lawsuit seems to be created to fail...