Katherine Jackson Sues AEG Over Michael's Death

[lovemj4everandever]

Here's another one with the headline "sues AEG for fraud."  

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login  

And now this one...

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

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.

[2good2btrue]

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

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.

[Serenitys_Dream]

Here's another one with the headline "sues AEG for fraud."  

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login  

And now this one...

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

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.

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.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

[lovemj4everandever]

If I'm not mistaken only the "victim" of fraud can sue for fraud but the "victim" is ya' know dead.   :lol:  :lol:  :lol:   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.  

We love you, Mike!  And YES!  We will be there!    

[*Mo*]

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.

[Serenitys_Dream]

[attachment=0:2eig326r]AEG KJ suit.jpg[/attachment:2eig326r]

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.

Sources say AEG is drawing a hard line. They will not pay Murray a penny.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

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...

[Serenitys_Dream]

If I'm not mistaken only the "victim" of fraud can sue for fraud but the "victim" is ya' know dead.   :lol:  :lol:  :lol:   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.  

A wrongful death suit has to have a basis and in this suit the basis is fraud. This suit is saying that AEG had a contract with Murray to provide medical care so Murray is an employee and a representative of AEG. AEG knowingly did not provide the proper medical care as agreed to because they knew that Michael wasn't in good health, did not provide Murray with the proper equipment to care for Michael, and that AEG was more concerned about profits than Michael's health thereby putting him at risk and ultimately causing his death through their actions and inactions.

The victims are also those who depended on Michael; those he supported, his mother and children. His "death" would have caused them financial hardship and emotional harm.

Now this may be true but only if Michael is not alive...

[darkchild]

"The purpose of this lawsuit is to prove to the world the truth about what happened to Michael Jackson, once and for all."

 :shock:  8-)

Amen 8-) ! The Music Industry wanted MJ Live
We wanted MJ Alive.  We want the Truth!
God bless you all!  MJ Lives! I love you, Daddy! xxxxxxxx

[ER911]

If I'm not mistaken only the "victim" of fraud can sue for fraud but the "victim" is ya' know dead.   :lol:  :lol:  :lol:   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.  

A wrongful death suit has to have a basis and in this suit the basis is fraud. This suit is saying that AEG had a contract with Murray to provide medical care so Murray is an employee and a representative of AEG. AEG knowingly did not provide the proper medical care as agreed to because they knew that Michael wasn't in good health, did not provide Murray with the proper equipment to care for Michael, and that AEG was more concerned about profits than Michael's health thereby putting him at risk and ultimately causing his death through their actions and inactions.

The victims are also those who depended on Michael; those he supported, his mother and children. His "death" would have caused them financial hardship and emotional harm.

Now this may be true but only if Michael is not alive...

I'm not sure it's going to be a fraud case. AEG does have a contract with Dr. Murray as the assigned doctor. However in the initial contract AEG never agreed to supply the doctor with any equipment.

Instead they insisted that Michael not be permitted to receive medications from any other doctors(I'm fairly sure)other than Murray. This makes sense because AEG would not want to be responsible for a complex case in the event of a death.

In addition, when Murray sent the emails docs requesting the equipment, he only signed those the day before the death. AEG was still working out that portion of the contract 2 wks prior to the incident.

IMO the only way out for Murray is for his attorney to prove that Murray was forced to attend Michael without the medical necessities. Even then IMO Murray is guilty of misuse of corporate medications.

Murray and any other doctor that performs such acts must be held accountable dispite a contract. There is a moral obligation on the part of all doctors to first do no harm.

[*Mo*]

ORLY..?  Hmmmmmm.....?

[BambiMJ]

A question:
Believed that a mother would have carried this business in front of the courts if his son had not really died??

[*Mo*]

A question:
Believed that a mother would have carried this business in front of the courts if his son had not really died??

Yes, absolutely.  If any outcome of this whole shit will be accepted by the general public, it will be by a court ruling.  I elaborated about the need of a court case several times before.

[sunrise]

ORLY..?  Hmmmmmm.....?

what do you mean?? Randy Phillip signed too..

[*Mo*]

ORLY..?  Hmmmmmm.....?

what do you mean?? Randy Phillip signed too..

You didn't notice that according to the contract, "Michael Jackson" signed twice, and with two totally different signatures...?

[sunrise]

ORLY..?  Hmmmmmm.....?

what do you mean?? Randy Phillip signed too..

You didn't notice that according to the contract, "Michael Jackson" signed twice, and with two totally different signatures...?

yes I noticed that but you underlined "..was signed by randy Phillip and Michael Jackson..". I'm sorry that I didn't get what you meant..