Posts by Korgnex

Also in den USA gibt es 2 Formen des Appeals. Zum Einen den "appeal on the record", der unserer Berufung in etwa entspricht. Dann müssten aber dringend neue Beweise vorliegen, daher kann man das ausschließen. Das Andere ist der "de novo appeal", der unserer Revision in etwa entspricht. Dort geht es um Fehler bei der Gesetzesanwendung und -auslegung und sonstige formelle oder materielle Fehler, die das Gericht angeblich gemacht hat.

Ich sehe da keine Chance das Urteil zu kippen.

Kein Wunder, dass Prince - wie ja auch viele Fans - das mit "kompetent" (deutlicher: qualifiziert) und "fähig" nicht verstehen. Das, was man umgangssprachlich darunter versteht ist eben nicht dasselbe. Viele führen zB an, dass ein Arzt, der jemanden fahrlässig tötet, "inkompetent" sei. Das würde man umgangssprachlich so auffassen, entspricht aber nicht der gesetzlichen Definition, siehe mein Posting hierzu:

Quote from Korgnex

As you don't understand the term "competent", I'll try to explain it one more time:

By your logic every doctor causing involuntary manslaughter of his patient would be "incompetent" and that's quite untrue!

"Competence" is NOT determined by the end result or unethical choices/negligent actions (in this case: improperly conducted propofol infusion).
To determine "incompetent" it does NOT matter whether the patient is detoriating or dying at all!
Colloquially you'd often say that someone is "incompetent" if he's failing at what he's supposed to do. But that is NOT the legal term "incompetent".

"unfit" means Murray was not skilled for the particular work he was hired (eg technical knowledge)
"incompetent" means Murray was missing a legal prerequisite for the particular work he was hired (a qualification)

Legally, he was fit and competent to provide general medical care (he was not for the propofol infusion).
And all that matters here is the law and its legal terms.

It is actually the term "unfit" that you are arguing about, not "incompetent".

• If a doctor is screwing up his work, does that automatically mean the doctor was not skilled for the work, thus "unfit"?
  
  
  • It does NOT because there are 6 possible scenarios:
    
    
    • a) the doctor was indeed not skilled
    • b) the doctor was skilled but made a crucial mistake for whatever reason (be it some unethical choice/negligent action eg.)
    • c) the doctor screwed up his work intentionally
    • d) the doctor was threatened to screw up his work
    • e) the doctor screwed up his work because he was misled about the specifics of his work
    • f) higher powers (=forces of nature, NOT AEG Live^^) caused the doctor to screw up his work

    
    
    

  • Murray was fit (and competent) to provide general medical care. As we all know he screwed it up, however scenario a) was NOT the cause.

  
  
  

Do you understand it now?

Kenny suspecting the doctor would be relevant for question 3, NOT 2.
And for that question, the jury has to consider that AEG Live can only rely on the following (limited) information:
There were people that claimed to have seen him deteriorate and complained.
There were people that talked to the person in question (=Michael) plus his doctor (=Murray) and both of them affirmed everything was fine.

Only with constantly recurring complaints or some actual proof they could evaluate that both Michael and Murray weren't speaking the truth.

Display More

Ist zwar noch nicht offiziell, aber ich rechne auch mit einem Appeal, die Mutter und die Anwälte machen sich falsche Hoffnungen.

Es gibt jetzt einen eigenen Thread mit allen Postings von "Juror #27" im MJJC:

For easy reference: Juror #27's answers to fans' questions (No Discussion)

Quote from Juror#27

I have sent pics of the last two months of service certificates to ivy.

I really wish I had held off posting initially until later. I didn't mean to drop a post and not be around to respond, but since it had to be approved and I didn't know how long that might take I posted right before I went to bed. Then had plans for all day today. So I apologize for my delay in responding.

The problem I have with what our foreman said and the question you are asking is that it mixes up the timelines. If the word unethical was included in question 2, we would still have to assess whether AEG knew that at the time they hired Conrad Murray.

The most the plaintiffs could say in that area was that Murray asked for $5million initially and that should have sent up red flags. Asking for that amount would definitely catch my attention and maybe raise an eyebrow, but it still doesn't qualify in my mind as unethical. Asking for a lot of money doesn't mean one is unethical in my estimation (and I hope the irony of repeatedly implying that in court was not lost on the plaintiffs ). Also that Murray was being foreclosed on and had a lot of owed child support. Again, being in debt or being foreclosed on doesn't in itself cross an ethical boundary in my mind.

So no, I don't think we would have answered differently if the question asked whether he was ethical because we didn't see any evidence that showed that AEG knew Murray was going to act unethically.

Absolutely. I can't stress enough how much we all liked him by the end of the trial. So many witnesses and so much heartfelt testimony. Lots of pure love and affection for Michael poured out over these months and it left an incredible impression on all of us.

This hits the nail on the head. Throughout all the testimony and witnesses, that was one of the strongest recurring themes -- MJ was a wonderful father and person.

You are right on the money in my opinion.

The conflict of interest idea was countered by the defense saying that in actuality all 3 interests were aligned. It was clearly in everyone's best interest for Michael to be healthy and to do the shows and I see no way to dispute this. MJ being healthy and performing was good for everyone involved. And even if one wants to view this as a conflict of interest, I don't see how the existence of it in and of itself renders Murray unfit or incompetent. We were told over and over that conflicts of interest arise all the time in medicine and are the responsibility of the doctor to mitigate.

So even if a conflict of interest was in place, it was on Murray's shoulders to mitigate it since he was the one providing medical care to MJ.

As for question 1, our first vote had 3 answers.

Hired him.
Didn't hire him.
Unsure.

After first vote it was 6 votes unsure, 4 votes no and 2 votes yes. I initially voted no.

But we then looked at the jury instructions which said that contracts can be written, oral, or partly written and partly oral. It said that oral contracts are just as valid as written contracts, and that implied-in-fact contracts could be valid through the parties' conduct.

So we looked at AEG's behavior in dealing with Conrad Murray, and we felt that between the drawn up contracts, the fact that they backdated his starting date from June 1 to May 1 in one of the drafts, the Gongaware emails about who was paying Murray's salary, that Randy Phillips and Murray were in charge of getting MJ to rehearsals, it was all enough conduct to say that they "hired" him.

It is late here and I'm off to sleep, will answer more posts tomorrow.

Display More

Quelle: http://www.mjjcommunity.com/fo…36&viewfull=1#post3914436

Auf MJJC hat einer der Juroren gepostet (natürlich anonym):

Quote from Juror#27

I couldn't agree more with the bolded. It's practically an epidemic as far as I'm concerned.

I was on this jury, and of all the places I've seen where this is being talked about, this community seems by far to be the most level-headed and approachable. So many passionate MJ fans rationally discussing the verdict rather than lashing out in anger is very nice to see, and makes me think this is probably the best place for me to make a small statement.

Initially I planned to avoid and ignore all the comments about the verdict after the trial ended. Because as soon as we answered 'no' to question 2 in the jury room, I knew how it would be reported and misunderstood ("DURR STUPID JURY HOW CAN CONRAD MURRAY BE FIT AND COMPETENT WHEN HE IS IN JAIL FOR KILLING MJ??? DURRR"). And sure enough, the very first question asked by the media when we got outside was "How could you find Conrad Murray competent?" And of course a bunch of hardcore MJ supporters outside were yelling, calling us stupid and confused, etc. So I figured rather than getting annoyed at misinformation being spread or seeing us called morons ad nauseam, it'd be better to just ignore it all.

Well that lasted about a day before my curiosity got the better of me, and I had to peek around to see what people were saying. I had to see if that version of us as idiots was the main narrative going on. Thankfully most people commenting on the verdict are actually looking at what we were instructed to consider, and agree with our decision. We knew from day 1 that no matter the outcome we would have people agreeing and disagreeing with the verdict, and I'm thankful that this jury did not concern itself with what people would say or think about us and decided to follow the instructions and base our verdict on the evidence in the case.

Just like our jury foreman, I went into this trial about as neutral as one could be towards Michael Jackson. I was 7 when Thriller came out so I grew up with his music and loved it, but I knew very little about his life other than what I'd seen in the media, and I honestly had no strong feelings about him as a person either way. I walk out of this trial completely understanding why he has so many fans who practically deify him. Who are so strongly attracted to his kind spirit, huge heart, gentle nature, love of his children and mother, etc. I totally get it now.

Every single witness who was questioned about whether they thought MJ was a good father (and almost every one who knew him closely was asked) sang endless praises about his love of his kids. If Prince's testimony is any indication, MJ was definitely a great father. The kid is bright, intelligent, caring, has great character and a great personality, and I truly believe MJ did a phenomenal job raising him in the few years he was able to. Honestly, every single juror came away feeling very positive about Michael Jackson as a person and father.

I know there was concern about MJ's image being hurt because of this trial, and maybe to outside viewers it was because of some of the details that came out. But for us in the jury in that courtroom for all these months, we just grew more and more fond of him during the course of the trial.

I'd like to say thank you to all the people I've seen here supporting us jurors in our decision, it really means a lot. I will be happy to answer anything I can about the trial if you'd like to ask and if I am able.

Display More

Quelle: http://www.mjjcommunity.com/fo…73&viewfull=1#post3914073

http://radaronline.com/exclusi…er-lawyers-owed-millions/

Katherine Jackson’s Contingent Fee Lawyers Lose $484M Payday In Failed Michael Jackson Death Trial

If Katherine Jackson is the biggest loser in the failed wrongful death lawsuit against concert promoter AEG Live, her team of high-powered and high-priced lawyers are a VERY close second.

Brian Panish and Kevin Boyle had hoped to score a whopping 33 percent of the $1.6 billion in damages they’d asked the jury to award the King of Pop’s family, RadarOnline.com is exclusively reporting. That equates to more than $484 million.

“Panish and Boyle had taken on the case on a contingency, meaning, they wouldn’t charge her, but would have taken a third of any award the jury had given Michael’s mother,” a source close to the case told RadarOnline.com. “For the jury to not award one penny to Katherine means her lawyers walk away with nothing. Plus, Katherine does not have to pay her lawyers anything.” Added the legal insider, “It was a huge gamble for Katherine’s lawyers and unfortunately for them, they lost.”

Had the Los Angeles-based lawyers billed the Jackson family matriarch on an hourly basis, the legal bill would have exceeded $15-20 million, the source added. “This case was filed over three years ago and there were hundreds of depositions taken, expert witnesses to be paid, all which came out of the pocket of Katherine’s lawyers,” the source said.

It’s standard practice in California for lawyers that take cases on a contingency basis to take 33% of any settlement or jury award.

While Katherine is coming to terms with the verdict, “she is already being pressured by youngest son, Randy, to appeal the decision,” a Jackson family insider told Radar.

“But Katherine’s lawyers are now heavily in the red on this case, it would seem unlikely they would continue to represent her if she is persuaded to appeal. The fact the decision was unanimous also doesn’t bode well for Katherine’s chances of mounting a successful appeal.”

Oxman on Nancy Gracy:

Out to you, Brian Oxman, you`re a long-time Jackson family friend. Don`t you think that $2 billion was excessive? If I had been on that jury, I would have been so turned off by Katherine Jackson, you know she`s the puppet of Joe Jackson, who abused Michael Jackson his whole childhood, was set to rake in that money $2 billion, Brian?

OXMAN: Nancy, the money was never the issue in this case. I just talked to Randy Jackson about ten minutes ago. And Nancy, he is heartbroken. He cried, I cried. This is not about money, Nancy. These tears are not the product of somebody trying to suck on Michael Jackson or do any of that.

We loved this man. He was someone who was my friend for 25 years. He is someone who I gave up all of my -- literally worldly possessions to try to help -- and when I talked to Randy Jackson, he was devastated. I can feel the pain of his entire family. This was never about money.

Let me correct some misinformation:

Quote from Charles Thomson

According to the AEG jury foreperson's logic, outlined outside the court yesterday, Harold Shipman was also 'fit and competent'. [Thomson is making that analogy]

They said [Murray] was 'fit and competent' because he had a license and went to medical school. That's what the foreman said yesterday.

By that logic, no qualified doctor can ever be unfit or incompetent.

Harold Shipman was a serial killer. Thomson's analogy doesn't work for various reasons:

• A serial killer is mentally ill, thus not being "competent" to work as a doctor.
• The fact that a serial killer might still have a license is irrelevant, it does not reverse his dangerousness.
• A serial killer would not lose his technical knowledge but any legal prerequisites like a license are no longer of any relevance to determine "competence", a serial killer is shut off from society for obvious reasons.

Thomson claims that it would be totally impossible to consider a qualified doctor to be unfit or incompetent. That's utterly wrong:

• qualification is relevant to determine "competence" - as I explained earlier.
• fitness has nothing to do with qualification, fitness is all about having (and being able to conduct) the technical knowledge, eg there are doctors that managed to obtain a certain license but who are lacking the required skill(s) for the work they have been hired for, these doctors are "unfit"
• see above example with Shipman that would still lead to "incompetent"

Thomson isn't understanding the jury's verdict at all:

Quote from Charles Thomson

The juror currently ranting on TV has just proved that the panel had absolutely no idea what this case was even about.

He is ranting that AEG couldn't have known about propofol. That is utterly irrelevant - and jurors were instructed that it was irrelevant.

It was the Jacksons' lawyer who specifically instructed the jurors that the issue this man is ranting about was irrelevant.

No comment.

Jupp, das ist die Spinnerin.

Ganz schön ruhig hier. Vielleicht macht ihr das auch gleich im Main-Bereich als Sticky solange wir noch auf das endgültige Endurteil warten, dann melden sich vielleicht mehr von den alten Haudegen hier zu Wort.

Quote from Been Told

Ich finde, wir sollten auch die ersten 5 Fragen hier in einer Umfrage beantworten und gucken, was dabei rauskommt.

Machst du ne Umfrage auf? Oder soll ich? Meinst du als Multiple-Choice? Kann man da einrichten, dass man Frage 2 zB nur beantworten kann, wenn man zuvor Frage 1 mit JA beantwortet hat? Ich wüsste nicht, wie das geht.

Wie im MJJC interessiert es mich, mit welchem endgültigen Urteil (soll heißen, nach zu erwartendem Appeal [~Revision mit Möglichkeit der Zurückverweisung]) ihr rechnet:

Wird AEG im endgültigen Urteil für haftbar befunden? (an Michael's Tod durch Fahrlässigkeit beim Einstellen, bei der Beaufsichtigung oder beim Beauftragen von Conrad Murray)

Hier die Fragen, die die Geschworenen beantworten müssen.
Die ersten 5 Fragen müssen alle nacheinander mit JA beantwortet werden um eine Haftung für AEG Live zu begründen. Wird eine Frage mit NEIN beantwortet ist Schluss.
Es wird kein einstimmiges Votum benötigt, sondern 9 von 12 Geschworenen müssen die ersten 5 Fragen alle mit JA beantworten (oder anders gesagt: wenn 4 Geschworene dies nicht tun, ist keine Haftung für AEG Live begründet).

• Frage 1:
  Hat AEG Live Murray eingestellt?
• Frage 2:
  War Murray nicht qualifiziert oder unfähig die Arbeitsleistung zu erbringen, für die er eingestellt wurde?
• Frage 3:
  Hatte AEG Live Kenntnis oder hätte AEG Live Kenntnis davon haben müssen, dass Murray nicht qualifiziert oder unfähig war und dass die fehlende Qualifikation oder Unfähigkeit eine spezielle Gefahr für Andere schuf?
• Frage 4:
  Hat Murray's fehlende Qualifikation oder Unfähigkeit Michael Jackson und den Jackson-Klägern Schaden zugefügt?
• Frage 5:
  War AEG Live's Fahrlässigkeit beim Einstellen, bei der Beaufsichtigung oder beim Beauftragen von Murray ein wesentlicher Faktor, durch welchen Michael Jackson und den Jackson-Klägern Schaden zugefügt worden ist?

Fragen 6-13 widmen sich dem wirtschaftlichen und nicht-wirtschaftlichen Schaden (Schmerzensgeld), den seine Mutter und Kinder dadurch erleiden.

Fragen 14-16 wiederum ermöglichen eine erhebliche Reduzierung des von den Geschworenen zuvor ermittelten Schadensersatzanspruchs, indem die Geschworenen entscheiden, ob und falls ja, wie groß Michael Jackson's eigene Fahrlässigkeit ein Faktor war, der zu seinem Tod führte.

Um das mal grade bei TheMJAP zu demonstrieren:

Quote from TheMJAP

@FukDaPress Why do all of the most intelligent, articulate, professional people support Katherine Jackson? And only degenerates support AEG?

The proof is in the pudding. Just look at the quality of people who support Katherine and the kids. Then look at the trolls.

Anyone who smears the family of the victim is a complete degenerate as far as I'm concerned. #morallybankrupt

Eine arme Persönlichkeit.

TheMJAP auf Twitter (http://twitter.com/themjap) ist auch so ein Spinner, der mir gerade einfällt. Ich lese dem sein tägliches Genörgele wegen "Estate/AEG-sponsored fans, Estate/AEG-sponsored bashing of the wonderful Jackson family dynasty" regelmäßig als vergnügliche Lektüre.
Ist wegen dem laufenden AEG-Prozess und der verqueren Logik mancher Fans, die in Michael's Familie eine Art Ersatzliebe gefunden haben ("ach, diese armen Schwarzen, sie werden ja nur aus rassistischen Gründen schlechtgeredet, diese liebe wunderbare Familie, die Michael hatte") immer ganz interessant.
Ganz besonders köstlich ist immer der Formfehler bei Michael's Testament. Diese Randy Jackson-Nummer ist bei denen der Hit. Statt mal bei Anwälten oder an der Universität was darüber zu lernen, wie das Gericht sicherstellt, dass der Fehler dem Testament bzw. dessen Authentizität nicht schadet, bleiben die lieber weiter dumm und machen's wie im Kindergarten: Rumschreien und um sich schlagen wie kleine Quälbengel!

Quote from Been Told

Kann man mal knapp zusammenfassen, wer das ist?

Ich hab mich mit dieser Spinnerin nie groß beschäftigt, aber sie hat diese gestörte Website namens "teammichaeljackson.com" (allein die Namenswahl spricht schon Bände) und nach Michael's tragischem Tod hat sie immer von Mord gesprochen. Halt jemand, der die Realität nicht mehr checkt und sich im Internet mit anderen eine virtuelle Realität erschaffen hat und gegen jeden aneckt, der diese "heilige Gemeinschaft" mit anderen Gedanken gefährdet.

Sie ist natürlich
-anti-Estate
-anti-Sony
-anti-Branca
-anti-Cascio
-anti-MJJC (xD)
-pro-Jacksons
-pro-Birchey (xD)
usw.

Quote from Damien Shields

I’ve just gone back over my notes and he definitely said this song was done after Invincible. Either way, it’s a beautiful demo.

Also hat Michael Durham Prince nur gesagt, dass es nach INVINCIBLE aufgenommen worden sei, was mMn falsch ist.
Die 2003 hat er also mal eben bei Joe Vogel abgeschrieben, die Zitate sind wohl auch aus dessen "interview archives". Wahrscheinlich wars Joe Vogel egal, da er keinen Blog betreibt. Die 2 passen ja bestens zusammen, denn Joe Vogel hat viele Zitate für sein Buch "Man in the Music" auch aus dem Gearslutz-Forum.

In diesem Fall wohl teilweise von Joe Vogel, der auf "archive interviews" und 2003 Stunden zuvor hindeutete. Irgendwie wirkt der Artikel zusammengestückelt. In knappen 12 Stunden eine Antwort vom sonst immer schweigsamen Michael Durham Prince und Brad Buxer? Kommt mir zumindest Spanisch vor.

Themawechsel bitte.

Ich bezweifle doch sehr stark, dass das mit 2003 so stimmt. Die Tracks, die Brad Buxer an den Estate geschickt hat, waren alle aus der selben Zeitspanne (1998/1999).