0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Subject: RE: London Insurers Accuse MJ & AEG of FraudMJ SONY, AEG etcposted by mjmtc on Thursday, August 18th 2011 @ 1:18 AM--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Reading this article was like the line from Michael's song "Breaking News":"Just when you thought he was done, he comes to give it again"As so many times before in this hoax, whenever you think something is going in one particular direction, it is as if Michael jumps in and does the spin and everyone is left utterly confused. Generally speaking Michael's genius has that advantage that he can outthink anyone and take them all by surprise and we are all left with a feeling of "Huh? What is going on now?" As I see it this article has two issues. The Estate has a habit of announcing a certain issue and then sneak in their real agenda underneath. Like with the Tribute Concert in Cardiff. They complained about Kiss, but they needed to make the statement that they have claims to Michael's name etc. The apparent issue in this article is the insurance thing. Now it is not an issue between Lloyd's of London and AEG, but between Lloyd's of London and the Estate.The Michael Jackson estate is tired of waiting for Lloyd's of London to pay out on the $17.5 million "This Is it" insurance policy -- so they're going after Lloyd's in court ... demanding they pay up, stat.Lloyd's of London originally issued the policy to cover potential losses for MJ's 2009 "This Is It" concerts -- but earlier this year, the company asked an L.A. court to declare the policy null and void ... claiming MJ lied about his medical history and drug addiction.Lloyd's insists the policy "was restricted to losses resulting from accident only" -- pointing out Michael's official cause of death was "homicide."The other matter in this article which I think is the main issue here is the word "homicide". Homicide means "killing of a human being" ("homi"~ human, "cide"~ kill) and we are back to all the definitions of homicide and manslaughter and which charge Murray should be charged with. Homicide doesnt have to be a crime. Non-criminal homicide is for instance in matters of selfdefense, defense of others, preventing a crime, in war etc) When Lloyd insists that the policy "was restricted to losses resulting from accident only" -- pointing out Michael's official cause of death was "homicide" they are saying it was no accident but a deliberate act. Someone wanted Michael dead, it was a willful act, no accident.This means that if Murray (or someone else on the room) administered the overdose, he did not do so by accident but with the intent to kill and it doesnt fall under the non-criminal definition of homicide either (noone else was in immidiate danger if the homicide hadnt been carried out).One out of two "people" could want Michael dead, either himself or someone else.But the estate is now on the offensive -- filing a cross-complaint, claiming MJ never intended to die, whether by homicide or not, so his death still qualifies as an accident.This sounds like a very complicated statement MJ never intended to die, whether by homicide or not meaning I guess that Michael didnt want anyone to kill him and didnt kill himself, but it is a weird way of phrasing this. Anyway the Estate is saying that Michael didnt kill himself, that he didnt want anyone to kill him, so therefor it is an accident. They totally disregard the possibility that SOMEONE ELSE wanted to kill him or have him killed. Maybe they are phrasing it this way because they can not insinuate that someone planned to kill Michael; that would get them in trouble. First of all because they cant go around making such accusations, but also because some media is interpreting LaToyas statements about the Estate and about conspiracy to kill Michael that she is hinting the Estate was involved. Maybe they are phrasing it this way because this lawsuit seems to be meddling with the dispute between AEG and Lloyd's, which wasnt about a life insurance, but cancellation of concerts. There are some things not said out loud in this hoax and the possibility of AEG being guilty of wanting Michael dead is one of them. It is talked about mainly among hoaxers. It certainly isnt smt the Estate would say out loud and at first glance this statement about "accident" seems to indicate that the Estate wants to say that neither AEG, the Estate, Michael nor anyone else wanted Michael dead. But I think there is more to it than that. The last thing I want to point out is that if you look at this sentence with hoax eyes MJ never intended to die, whether by homicide or not, so his death still qualifies as an accident it sounds like: It wasnt Michael's intention to die. He had no wish to die, but he had to fake his death. It is not a criminal homicide. If Michael felt his life was in danger, he had to "kill himself" by faking his death. And if you "kill" someone in order to safe your own life it is self defense and not a criminal homicide. If Michael would be charged with "killing himself" as in "hoaxing his death" would that qualify as a "Non-criminal homicide" and therefore not be a criminal act?
Subject: RE: London Insurers Accuse MJ & AEG of FraudMJ SONY, AEG etcposted by mjmtc on Thursday, August 18th 2011 @ 2:24 AM--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Then there is this one:But the estate isn't just settling for the original $17.5 million -- they also want punitive damages. FYI, suing for punitive damages often scares the crap out of insurance companies.Punitive damages means:Punitive damages or exemplary damages are damages intended to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit. Although the purpose of punitive damages is not to compensate the plaintiff, the plaintiff will in fact receive all or some portion of the punitive damage award.Meaning: Lloyd claimed that Michael had a drug abuse and therefore was to blame for his demise) and used it as excuse not to pay the insurance.I read this as: "We are defending Michael's name. Do not make any accusations that he had a major drug abuse nor that he was to blame for what happened"LLoyd would not just be stopped in making future claims and allegations like that but they would also have to pay the Estate, meaning Michael's beneficiaries a compensation for making such allegations (damaging Michael's name and reputation).Interesting if such a punitive damage claim could be made against the people so eager to say Michael was a drug addict and that he killed himself, either by actually administering the drugs to himself or by longlife drug abuse. We know that the defense in Murrays case is using this as defense strategy. Lets say there is a trial and Murray walks free. There are several ways this could happen. If the court states that Michael had a longlife drug abuse or even that he gave himself the Propofol, then Murray would walk free, probably with a slap on the wrist for not monitoring his patient as he should.If the court states that there is no grounds to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, Murray would also walk free.If the evidence isnt substantial enough (like dried-up syringes) or the testimonies keep contradicting themselves, Murray could also walk free.Now if we see this as Murray not being guilty, it is obvious that smt will happen that makes it impossible to convict him. But my point is, even IF Murray walks free, it doesnt have to be because the defense would prove that Michael had a drug addiction and was to blame for his own demise. And IF Michael is cleared of all such charges and allegations, would it then be possible for the Estate to sue for "punitive damages" (or an equivalent to this) in the Murray case?Michael was found not guilty of all charges in his own trial but NOONE was ever charged with falsifying evidence (Tom Sneddon, Ronen, Auchincloss etc) and no media was ever charged with damaging Michael's reputation. Is the "punitive damage" claim scary not just to Lloyd, who might wish they never accused Michael of lying about drug abuse, but also to other people claiming Michael was a drug addict? Both bad stuff said about him now and in his own trial (in Michael's trial he wasnt only charged with sexually molesting boys but also "intoxicating them" making them easier to manipulate and they tried to portray him as this evil pedophile who would get drunk and get his victims drunk).In general terms...Punitive damages are often awarded where compensatory damages are deemed an inadequate remedy. The court may impose them to prevent under-compensation of plaintiffs, to allow redress for undetectable torts and taking some strain away from the criminal justice systemmeaning that punitive damages would be given to the Estate because any payment for compensatory damages wasnt enough, meaning that even if Lloyd pays up on the insurance that would only be payment of the insurance and damaging Michael's name wouldnt be included in this payment. "To allow redress for undetectable torts". "Undetectable torts" would be all the ways the slander of Michael's name would have damaged him.In this hoax we are often surprised that he "allows" this allegation that he was a drug addict to be so much in focus, but maybe it has the very special purpose of showing the vast magnitude "undetectable torts" had on Michael all his life with the accusations about him being weird and of course his own trial. "To allow redress" means to make up for something and here applies to making up for the damages caused by badmouthing Michael (Lloyd and their claim he was a drug addict and cause of his own demise)Because they are usually paid in excess of the plaintiff's provable injuries, punitive damages are awarded only in special cases, usually under tort law, where the defendant's conduct was egregiously insidious."egregiously insidious" means deliberate evil intent and in this case it means that Lloyd would have to pay punitive damages if it can be established that they had evil intent when badmouthing Michael.Punitive damages cannot generally be awarded in contract disputes.So normally you cant ask for punitive damages in any contract, but...The main exception is in insurance bad faith cases in the United States, where the insurer's breach of contract is alleged to be so egregious as to amount to a breach of the "implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing," and is therefore considered to be a tort cause of action eligible for punitive damages (in excess of the value of the insurance policy)meaning that in the United States, the claim of punitive damages can be awarded if the insurance has had evil intent. This comes from the fact that insurance policies are made on this "implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing" meaning both parties agree to act in good faith and fair dealing. Lloyds has claimed that Michael didnt act in good faith because he was "hiding" from them that he was a drug addict. But the good faith and fair dealing goes both ways and if it can be proven that the claims that Michael was a drug addict and cause of his own demise can be debunked, then Lloyds is suddenly left with allegations based on hearsay (because the medical tests Michael went through actually DID show he was healthy). Lloyds claim that Michael didnt act in good faith could backfire big time and hit them right in their face as they didnt act from good faith either, listening to hearsay instead of facts and judging Michael.This is what I think TMZ means when saying they fear the "punitive damages". It requires an insight into the law to fully unwrap the meanings of these terms, but then again... TMZ was the one to break this story... and Harvey Levin knows the law. He has a B.A. in political science from the university of California, Santa Barbara, a J.D.(professional doctorate and first professional graduate degree in law) from the University of Chicago and passed the bar exam in 1975 and taught at Whittier Law School from 1977 to 1996.
Subject: RE: London Insurers Accuse MJ & AEG of FraudMJ SONY, AEG etcposted by Nimue on Thursday, August 18th 2011 @ 2:32 AM--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Now I am starting to understand. I am not going to look under the hoax eyes, but plain at it is.One word is the key: "cross-complaint", hoax or not MJ Estate had to do it.Cross-ComplaintIt refers to a written complain by the defendant against the plaintiff whoch had filed an original complaint against the defendant, is known as cross complaint. The defendant can file a complain against a third party also and all the parties are liable for the action. Defendant in this case is known as cross complainant and the the party against which he/she complains is cross defendant.You are not allowed to view links. Register or Loginafter a complaint has been filed against a defendant for damages or other orders of the court, the defendant may file a written complaint against the party suing him/her or against a third party as long as the subject matter is related to the original complaint. The defendant's filing of a complaint is called a cross-complaint, and the defendant is then called a cross-complainant and the party he/she sues is called a cross-defendant. The defendant must still file an answer or other response to the original complaint. If the cross-complaint is against the original plaintiff (original suer) then it can be served on the plaintiff's attorney by mail, but a third party must be served in person with the cross-complaint and a new summons issued by the clerk of the court. The cross-defendants must then file answers or other responses. These are called pleadings and must be carefully drafted (usually by an attorney) to properly state the factual as well as legal basis for the claim and contain a prayer for damages or other relief.You are not allowed to view links. Register or LoginSo, MJJ Productions and MJ were accused on the original lawsuit, so they are the defendent in the original complaint, so they have to answer anyway. In the original complaint LLoyd accused Michael of being a liar and the MJJ productions didn't give them the info they asked.So MJJ Productions and MJ must write a cross-complaint. If Michael was around, it would be done by his lawyer and MJJ Production lawyers, but since he is not around, MJ Estate has to do it.I really would like to see the documents, to see if there is anything about the THIRD party.
Subject: RE: London Insurers Accuse MJ & AEG of FraudMJ SONY, AEG etcposted by Nimue on Thursday, August 18th 2011 @ 4:44 AM--------------------------------------------------------------------------------As I said before, the MJ Estate had to file the cross-complaint, if MJJ Productions or Michael was not named in Lloyd's lawsuit they didn't have to do. The Estate has also to be careful because the defense team may use any other lawsuit in their "benefits".Quote from mjmtc on Thursday, August 18th 2011 @ 2:24 AMLloyd claimed that Michael had a drug abuse and therefore was to blame for his demise) and used it as excuse not to pay the insurance.Quote from mjmtc on Thursday, August 18th 2011 @ 2:24 AMI read this as: "We are defending Michael's name. Do not make any accusations that he had a major drug abuse nor that he was to blame for what happened"Quote from mjmtc on Thursday, August 18th 2011 @ 2:24 AMLLoyd would not just be stopped in making future claims and allegations like that but they would also have to pay the Estate, meaning Michael's beneficiaries a compensation for making such allegations (damaging Michael's name and reputation).Quote from mjmtc on Thursday, August 18th 2011 @ 2:24 AMInteresting if such a punitive damage claim could be made against the people so eager to say Michael was a drug addict and that he killed himself, either by actually administering the drugs to himself or by longlife drug abuse. Quote from mjmtc on Thursday, August 18th 2011 @ 2:24 AMWe know that the defense in Murrays case is using this as defense strategy. Lets say there is a trial and Murray walks free. There are several ways this could happen. Lloyd's claims in the lawsuit is that Michael "was" a drug addicted and that he lied about it and he didn't go through the physical as required. This implies Michael and MJJ productions would be involved in a insurance scam, so MJ Estate had to take a stand. I agree, part of it is to defend Michael's name but I think there is something else, as to put "someone" on the spotlight in wrong doing.I was posting at "hearing and contradictions" thread and something interesting in one of the paramedics testimony seems to be related to this lawsuit too:Martin Blount testimony:Murray's says: "The patient had a physical an week before the episode" ,which shows the "person" had done what was required by Lloyd (Michael had 2 physicals, one February/March and one one week before Jun 25) and nothing was wrong.I also think MJ Estate had to ask for "punitive damage" in this cross-complaint, since it implies that Michael could be involved in a scam.
I'm sorry, due to language barrier, I do not understand it... :oops: Does it mean that MJ is really dead and the Estate wants to cash in the insurance?
Like the entire This is it project - [blink]pay time has finally come for all![/blink]
You are not allowed to view links. Register or LoginI'm sorry, due to language barrier, I do not understand it... :oops: Does it mean that MJ is really dead and the Estate wants to cash in the insurance? This can mean that Estate does not know that Michael is alive and trying to rip off insurance co. Lloyds has 2 very good reasons NOT to pay and I think they will not. (If I could review policy documents, I would be more sure). But as much as I can get from controversal information coming from media, Llyods does not have to pay because: 1. accidental death of key person and/or event cancellation provisions apply to the location-which supposed to be London, not Los Angeles where MJ 'died"; 2. to be able to get insurance for the event, insurance broker submitted false document to the Lloyds as if MJ undergone medical exam. The broker got document from New York doctor for some reason instead of CA doc. That is what Llyods' argument submitted to court. Plus, there is a key person's name that NOT Michael Jackson. So, very bizarre story with that policy. Lloyds has a very good chance to void that policy.Shortly, again, it still does not mean that Michael is dead.
