MJ~Leben u. Sterben~u das Geschehen danach!

@ghost7777

dabei geht es ja auch nur um die Wahrheit und um Gerechtigkeit für MJ.
Ja das sieht man jetzt ganz deutlich^^ ....es geht den Jacksons nicht ums Geld

^^es geht den Jacksons natürlich nicht um das Geld ... ^^ wer denkt denn bloß so was ???


Ivy hat dazu folgendes gepostet ... Eintrag #12
http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/threads/128770-AEG-Live-goes-to-Court-of-Appeal-to-dismiss-remaining-negligent-hiring-claim

$40 billion is an unbelievable number. MJ Estate averages $150 Million in gross revenues a year if we assumed Michael lived to be 90 years old (40 more years) that would bring his gross income to $6 billion. So I'm wondering on what basis Katherine's experts have came up with that number.

=
frei übersetzt
40.000.000.000 $ ist eine unglaubliche Zahl. Das MJ Estate ermittelte im Durchschnitt $ 150 Millionen Bruttoeinnahmen pro Jahr, wenn man davon ausginge, dass Michael 90 Jahre alt (40 Jahre) werden könnte, wenn er denn noch leben würde, das wären dann bis $ 6 Mrd. EUR seines Bruttoeinkommens, die erzielt worden wären. Also ich frage mich noch, auf welcher Grundlage Katherines Experten auf diese Zahl gekommen sind ... :D

'Give me a P!' Paris Jackson shakes her pom-poms in the air as she settles into life on the cheerleading squad

By Fehintola Betiku

PUBLISHED: 14:11 GMT, 13 March 2013 | UPDATED: 15:18 GMT, 13 March 2013

Her father was one of the most famous singers of all time, so Paris Jackson knows a thing or two about performing.

Taking her spot on the sideline on Tuesday at Birmingham High School in Van Nuys, California, Paris was seen in her full cheerleading uniform as she danced around the gymnasium.

The 14-year-old shook her pom-poms in the air as she encouraged team spirit alongside her fellow members of the Buckley squad.

Scroll down to watch...


'Go team!': Paris Jackson was seen cheering on her school's basketball team on Tuesday at Birmingham High School in Van Nuys, California

Teaming her black and red uniform with a long sleeved back polo neck, Paris completed her look with a pair of white Nike trainers.

Sitting on the bench as her school took on San Gabriel Academy in the basketball match, Paris was seen cheering the players on.

Unfortunately Paris and the other cheerleaders' chants were not enough as Buckley ended up losing the match by just two points.

Once the game was over, Paris was seen holding her gym bag as she chatted with another member of the squad.

She's got the moves: Paris shook her pom-poms as Buckley took on San Gabriel Academy

Taking a break: Short haired Paris looked focused as she watched the game from the bench

t was recently reported that Paris won over the approval of the NFL's Philadelphia Eagles' director of cheerleading, Barbara Zaun.

According to TMZ, after viewing footage of Paris cheering on her Buckley school’s boys basketball team last week, she gushed: 'We think Paris will make a great Eagle cheerleader!'

'We thought that she had a lot of poise, confidence, and enthusiasm in her cheer performance.'

Barbara continued: 'Paris has that "wow factor'"that makes a great cheerleader.'

Das VIDEO: Paris puts on her finest cheer performance of the squad... lässt sich nicht in den Beitrag einbinden > s. website

Getting into the spirit of thing: The 14-year-old teamed her red and black uniform with a black polo neck top

Oh well! Despite all Paris' hardwork Buckley lost the match by two points

However one obstacle does stand in Paris' way - she has to be at least 18-years-old and have a high school diploma in order to be part of the team.

But that doesn't stop Barbara from the early anticipation, with Ms Zaun saying: 'She is already very comfortable in the limelight, so we think she would definitely stand out and impress the judges ... We hope that she will try out for the team and be an Eagles cheerleader!'

The seventh grader's transition to becoming a popular cheerleader comes after Paris last year described herself as an outsider who loves rock and roll.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2292696/Paris-Jackson-settles-life-cheerleading-squad.html#ixzz2NR3G7V6u


Paris cheerleader NEW
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SxdIlM_6KQo

blogsitesi . Veröffentlicht am 13.03.2013

Paris Jacksoη ‏@ParisJackson
i'd actually love to ,, the philadelphia eagles are my favorite football team so..
20:15 - 13. Mär. 2013

der TMZ Artikel ist wieder da !!!! vgl. Eintrag von gestern um 11:15h ... :D :D


Katherine Jackson
TJ Deserves $9k per Month
to Care for MJ's Kids

3/12/2013 1:52 PM PDT



TJ Jackson deserves $9,000 per month to care for Michael Jackson's 3 kids ... this according to MJ's mother Katherine Jackson.

Katherine just filed legal docs ... asking the court to sign off on her request to have the Michael Jackson Estate pay her grandson TJ for his care-giving duties for Paris, Blanket and Prince.

In the docs, Katherine says she originally suggested to TJ that he be paid more than $9k per month, but TJ rejected the deal ... saying it was simply too much money.

In the docs, filed yesterday in L.A. County Superior Court, Katherine claims TJ eventually agreed to $9k -- $108,000 per year -- which is roughly equivalent to the salary earned by the children's full-time nanny.

Katherine says the salary is justified because he spends an average of 300 hours per month caring for the kids -- taking them to various appointments, extracurricular activities (karate, athletics, guitar lessons) and social outings.

Katherine says TJ -- Tito's 34-year-old son -- also helps the kids with their schoolwork and attends all school functions, including back-to-school nights and parent-teacher conferences.

A judge has yet to rule.

http://www.tmz.com/2013/03/12/katherine-jackson-tj-jackson-kids-salary-9000-paris-michael-jackson-prince-blanket/

zu dem Beitrag von heute um 03:26h habe ich nun auch die teilweise Übersetzung aus dem anderen MJ Forum übernommen
es sind die Einträge # 193/194 . User: LenaLena aus dem MJJackson-Forever Forum
http://www.mjjackson-forever.com/index.php?page=Thread&threadID=2324&pageNo=10


AEG ist vor das Berufungsgericht gegangen. Übrigens kennen wir jetzt die Schadensersatzforderung der Jacksons. 40 Milliarden

Court of appeals webpage

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=2&doc_id=2039633&doc_no=B247338

Court of appeals info

Date Description Notes
03/07/2013 Filed petition for writ of: Mandate/Stay Requested by AEG Live et al.

03/07/2013 Exhibits filed in support of: 13 Volumes of exhibits by Petr. AEG Live et al.

03/07/2013 Filed document entitled: Unredacted Petition for Writ of Mandate by Petr. AEG Live et al.

03/07/2013 Filed document entitled: Unredacted Exhibits in support of Petition for Writ of Mandate (13 Volumes) by Petr. AEG Live et al.

03/08/2013 Order filed. denying petitioner's request for immediate stay

03/11/2013 Order filed. re: Sealed Documents

03/12/2013 Order filed. Petitioners ordered by noon March 14 to file complete set of unredacted copies of exhibits and petition which only redact matters which are subject to respondent court's February 23 2013 sealing order. At present the exhibits and petition redact matters which exceed respondent court's February 27 2013 sealing order.

-----------------------------------------

Court of appeal filing document : http://amradaronline.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/jackson-doc.pdf (Archiv-Version vom 30.09.2014)

-----------------------------------------

Summary

The documents starts with saying Jacksons seek $40 billion damages from AEG Live.

AEG is stating that the Superior Court had made an error because it didn't explain how AEG should have foresee Murray would administer Michael fatal Propofol given that Murray "may" compromise his oath due to his debt and Michael had addiction to painkillers years ago. AEG states that the law requires a more direct relationship.

AEG sagt, dass der Oberste Gerichtshof einen Fehler gemacht hat, weil es nicht erklärt, wie AEG hätte voraussehen können, dass Murray Michael das tödliche Propofol gegeben hat, dass Murray seinen Eid wegen seiner Schulden brechen würde und welche Verbindung dazu besteht dass Michael vor 16 Jahren schmerzmittelabhänig war. AEG sagt, dass das Gesetz eine direktere Beziehung erfordert.


AEG's lawyer also states this ruling is also creates the notion that people in debt are morally suspect and unfit for positions of responsibility even if they have taken oaths and do not have history of wrongful conduct. It also creates legal negligence to hire licenses professional with personal debts. AEG states this is a problem for California employers and workers.

AEG Anwalt stellt auch fest, dass dieses Urteil die Vorstellung schafft, dass Menschen mit Schulden moralisch verdächtig sind und ungeeignet für verantwortungsvolle Positionen sind, auch wenn sie Eide gegeben haben und keine Geschichte über Fehlverhalten haben. Es würde dann besagen es ist rechtlich fahrlässigkeit Personen mit professionellen Lizenzen anzustellen, die persönliche Schulden haben. AEG sagt dies ist ein Problem für Californ. Arbeitgeber und Arbeitnehmer..


Some background

As we know AEG and Michael have agreed to do a tour. Salaries of tour personnel were being advanced by AEG but later will be recouped from Michael's share of profits.

In late March early April 2009 Murray moves to LA and starts to treat Michael 3 times a week. Late April early may 2009 Michael told AEG he intended to bring Murray with him to London. AEG started negotiations with Murray, they were going to advance Murray's salary from Michael's share. When Michael died no contract were signed. Drafts of the contract said Murray was an independent contractor, it required Michael's signature, it said the parties have no rights or obligations to each other until the contract was signed. Michael's signature block clearly said he wanted Murray and was paying him from his own share of profits. The contract also required Murray to administer services "professionally and with greatest degree of care expected". It required Murray to have licenses in US and UK and maintain malpractice insurance.

Michael died of Propofol overdose. DA charged Murray with manslaughter and a criminal court convicted him of manslaughter and gave him the maximum sentence.

Michael's mother and children sued AEG. 2 claims dismissed at demurrer, 3 remained. AEG filed a motion for summary judgement. 2 of the remaining claims dismissed, only negligent hiring claim remained.

AEG argued they could not foresee the risk Murray had because
AEG sagt, dass sie nicht die Risiken bezgl. Murray vorhersehen konnten.

- Murray held licenses in 4 states including CA
Murray besaß eine Lizenz für 4 Staaten incl. Californien
- Murray never been disciplined by medical board.
Murray wurde nie von einem medizin. Board diszipliniert
- Murray has been Michael's personal physician for 3 years.
Murray war Michaels persönl. Arzt für 3 Jahre
- AEG had no knowledge of Murray's confidential medical treatment of Michael.
AEG hatte keine Kentniss über Murrays vertrauliche medinzi. Behandlung von Michael
- Contract required Murray to show "greatest degree of care"
Der Vertrag verlangt von Murray "den größten Grad der Sorgfalt anzuwenden"
- Murray's administration of Propofol strayed so far from expected.
Murrays Verabreichung von Propfol ist jenseits von dem was irgendeiner erwarten kann
- jury in the criminal case ruled that Murray showed "criminal negligence", found him guilty and he was given maximum sentence.
Gericht im Strafporzess entschied, dass Murray kriminälle Fahrlässigkeit beging und fand ihn schuldig mit der max. Bestrafung.

Court mentioned the following when it ruled there was triable issues
- AEG did not conduct a background check on Murray to show he was in debt.
- AEG was told Murray told he closed his practice in LV to go to UK
- Concerts would be Murray's only income.
- Murray did not have a medical practice at LA.
- AEG had general knowledge that doctors sometimes compromise their oaths to administer drugs to artists.
- Other doctors were considered and rejected by parties before Murray.

AEG states that the Superior Court made a mistake by allowing negligent hiring claim and explains


- There's no dispute that Murray was a licensed physician.

- There's no dispute that Murray treated Michael for 3 years with no issues.

- AEG argues Murray's debt or Michael's past painkiller addiction would not make it foreseeable that Murray will commit criminal manslaughter by administering anesthesia to Michael in his bedroom. AEG states CA law requires a direct relationship between the "warning sign" and the harm suffered.

- AEG states there's no direct connection between Michael's 2009 anesthesia overdose and Murray's debt and Michael's past painkiller addiction.

- Courts ruling creates a legal inference that people with debt are morally suspect and unfit for positions of responsibility even if they have taken oaths and have no history of wrong conduct. This will be problematic for workers and organizations.

- AEG states CA law states a person has no duty to protect a person from a third party's actions, especially these are criminal conduct. Negligent hiring is a small exception but it requires knowing the employee causes a particular risk and that particular harm happening.

AEG states that Jacksons did not present any counter evidence to AEG's claims. Jacksons showed
- an extensive credit and judicial records would show that Murray was in debt
- Murray was not board certified
- this part is redacted but it's apparent that they are talking about Gongaware being aware of Michael's 1993 painkiller addiction
- Gongaware had a general understanding that physicians inappropriately prescribe drugs to musicians.

- Jacksons argue that as AEG knew Michael's 1993 painkiller addiction, they should have undertaken a through investigation into Murray, run a credit check / financial background check, or hire a private investigator.

- Jacksons argue that Murray closing his practice might make him act unethical. Therefore they arguee that AEG should have refused Michael's insistence to bring his own doctor to UK.

- AEG argues that Superior Court was wrong in saying Michael's 1993 painkiller addiction required AEG to run a investigate Murray's finances and AEG might be negligent in hiring Murray without knowing his financial condition.

- AEG says according to law what AEG knew about Michael is irrelevant. The negligent hiring claim is about the agent hired and caused harm. So the only relevant issue what AEG knew or should have known about Murray. AEG states they knew nothing that would put them on notice that Murray might overdose Michael with surgical anesthesia in his bedroom.

- AEG says there's no law that evaluates a physicians competence based on pressure their patients could assert. AEG states it's wrong to question credentials of doctors because they treated former addicts or famous people. AEG says if this is the case no doctor would treat former addicts or famous people.

- AEG states law says that a doctors competence is determined by licenses unless there's specific evidence of incompetence.

- AEG states Superior Court also made a mistake in saying Murray's debt could be a factor in determining his competence.

- AEG states personal debts do not make a person professionally incompetent. There was no reason to think Murray's debt would cause him perform poorly or commit manslaughter.

- AEG states there's no direct connection between the alleged warning (debts) and the actual harm (criminal manslaughter due to anesthesia overdose). There's no relationship between debt and medical malpractice.


- AEG says even though they have invaded Murray's financial privacy and did a credit check on him and uncovered his debts, they couldn't have anticipated that Murray would overdose Michael with anesthesia in his bedroom.
AEG sagt, auch wenn sie Murrays pers. finanzielle Situation untersucht hätten und seine Schulden enteckt hätten, hätten sie nicht vorhersehen können das Murray Michael mit Betäubungsmitteln in seinem Schlafzimmer töten würde.

- AEG states that Jacksons claim they should have known Murray was not board certified and this should show that Murray was unfit to deal with Michael's sleep and dependency issues. AEG states Jacksons could not show that AEG knew Michael's sleep issues, they were able to demonstrate Gongaware knew Michael's 1993 painkiller addiction issues, Jacksons did not show any evidence that AEG knew Michael had dependency issues 16 years later in 2009.
AEG sagt, dass die Jacksons behapten würden sie hätten wisssen müssen, dass Murray nicht Board-certifiziert war und das er unfähig sein würde mit Michaels Abhänigkeits- und Schlafproblemen umzugehen. AEG sagt, dass die Jacksons nicht zeigen konnten, dass AEG von Michaels Schlafproblemen Kenntnis hatte, sie waren in der Lage zu zeigen, dass Gongoware Michaels 1993er Schmerzmittelabhänigkeit kannte, aber die *****ns zeigten keine Beweise das AEG wusste, dass Michael Abhäniglkeitsprobleme 16 Jahre später hatte.

- AEG states board certifications is voluntary, there are a lot of doctors that aren't board certified but more than capable.
AEG sagt eine Board-Zertifzierung ist freiwillig, es gibt eine Menge Ärzte die keine haben, aber sehr fähig sind.



Public policy

- AEG states the two factors - Michael's 1993 addiction and potential for bad ethics in entertainment industry - would mean they could not hire any doctor in connection with the tour.

AEG sagt, dass ide beiden Faktoren - Michaels Abhänigekeit von 1993 und das Potenzial für schlechte Ethik in der Entertainment-Industrie - bedeuten würde, sie könnten keinen Arzt mehr im Zusammenhang mit einer Tour beschäftien.


-AEG states this would create an impossible situation for concert promoters to never work with anyone that has a history of drug abuse.
AEG sagt, dies schafft eine unmögliche Situation für einen Konzert-Promotor, man könne nie mehr mit jemanden zusammenarbeiten der in der Vergangenheit Drogen missbraucht hat.

- AEG also states courts ruling mean that people with debt should never be hired as they can compromise ethics. AEG states this will make the current employment system fall.
AEG sagt, dass Urteil bedeutet das Leute mit Schulden nicht mehr angestellt werden können, da sie ethische Probleme verursachen. AEG sagt dies bringt das derzeitige Angestelltenverhältnis zu Fall.

- AEG mentions recent laws that bars employers run financial credit checks or request credit reports on employees except exceptional situations. This law was amended because people who lost their jobs had no income to pay their debts would not be able to get jobs due to low credit scores.
AEG erwähnt die jüngsten Gesetze, dass Arbeitgebern verlangten finanzielle Bonitätsprüfungen oder Anfrage von Kredit-Berichte von Mitarbeitern Dieses Gesetz wurde geändert, weil die Menschen, die ihren Arbeitsplatz verloren hatten kein Einkommen hatten ihre Schulden zu zahlen , und keine Arbeitsplätze fanden aufgrund der niedrigen Kredit-Scores zu bekommen.


- AEG goes on hypothetical and asks should they refuse Michael's long term physician and force him to see someone he didn't know, how much debt is too much debt, should they not hire a recent graduate with substantial student loans, should they only hire doctors with no debts, but wouldn't any doctor closing their practice to go on tour with Michael wouldn't be subject to financial pressure,

AEG geht auf Hypothesen ein und fragt: Sollten sie Michael seinen pers. Langzeitarzt verweigern und ihn zwingen einen zu nehmen, den er nicht kennt, wie viel Schulden sind zu viel Schulden, sollen sie nicht jemand anstellen, der gerade graduiert hat mit substanziellen Studienschulden, sollen sie nur Ärzte ohne Schulden anstellen, würde nicht jeder Arzt der seine Praxis schließt um mit Michael auf Tour zu gehen Sujekt von finanziellem Druck sein ?


Requests
Anfragen

- AEG wants the court of appeal to stay the court proceedings.
AEG möchte das das Berufungsgericht beim Gerichtsverfahren bleibt

- Grant AEG's summary judgment - meaning dismiss the remaining negligent hiring claim
Möchte, dass es AEGs Summary Judgment bestätigt- somit den verbleibenden fahrlässigen Anstellungsklagepunkt ebenfalls abweist

- or make the superior court explain their cause as Why it did not dismiss the claim
oder das das Obere Gericht erklärt warum sie diesen Klagepunkt nicht abgewiesen haben

@FaIrIeFlOwEr
Boah 40 Milliarden Dollar wollen die haben? Wofür, für ausgefallene Erträge?
Ich sage ja auch, der Michael hätte wahrscheinlich nicht an seine früheren Erfolge anknüpfen können, den Hype gab es ja, weil er gestorben ist. Leider.
Also 40 Milliarden hätte er sicherlich nicht verdient im Rest seines Lebens, wovon träumen die?
Allerdings werden die Forderungen immer bedeutend höher angesetzt, damit dann die tatsächliche Schadensersatzsumme mit den Vorstellungen übereinstimmt. Aber hatten die Jacksons nicht gesagt, sie tun das nicht fürs Geld sondern für die Gerechtigkeit??????
Da bekommt dann doch jeder einen falschen Eindruck oder doch den richtigen? Genau den, für den sie die ganzen Jahre schon angegriffen werden?
Michael hat für die alle vom 5. Lebensjahr an das Geld verdient!!! Er war denen ihre Geldmaschine. Wieso ist ein Kind, ein kleines Kind dazu verpflichtet, für die Eltern den Lebensunterhalt zu verdienen? Warum äußern die Jacksons sich nie dazu, wie sie Michael ausgebeutet haben?

Was passiert, wenn der Murray vielleicht aussagt, daß er von AEG gemaßregelt wurde, den Michael auf die Beine zu bekommen??? Vielleicht gibt es eine Absprache zwischen den Jacksons und dem Murray. Spekulation von mir. Er kriegt dann noch ein Milliönchen von denen bezahlt für Gefälligkeit. Ich traue denen alles zu.
Umsonst haben die ja nicht ihre Klage gegen den Murray zurückgezogen. Jaja, ich weiß, von dem war eh nichts zu holen, aber man hätte ihm auch sein restliches Leben vermiesen können und ihn daran hindern können, Geld zu verdienen auf Michaels Kosten.
Ich denke, es gibt eine Absprache zwischen denen.

Meiner Meinung nach wird aber gezielt daran gearbeitet die Jacksons in einem
schlechten Licht erscheinen zu lassen. Ich frage mich, warum eigentlich? Was hat man
davon? Selbst wenn es nur um einen Dollar gehen würde, hätten sie nie eine Chance
zu gewinnen.
In Amerika gethe es immer um enorme Summen, wenn es um Schadenersatzklagen geht.

Ich finde das alles immer wieder sehr seltsam.

@Sylvina

Sylvina schrieb:Boah 40 Milliarden Dollar wollen die haben? Wofür, für ausgefallene Erträge?
Ich sage ja auch, der Michael hätte wahrscheinlich nicht an seine früheren Erfolge anknüpfen können, den Hype gab es ja, weil er gestorben ist. Leider.
Also 40 Milliarden hätte er sicherlich nicht verdient im Rest seines Lebens, wovon träumen die?
Allerdings werden die Forderungen immer bedeutend höher angesetzt, damit dann die tatsächliche Schadensersatzsumme mit den Vorstellungen übereinstimmt. Aber hatten die Jacksons nicht gesagt, sie tun das nicht fürs Geld sondern für die Gerechtigkeit??????
Da bekommt dann doch jeder einen falschen Eindruck oder doch den richtigen? Genau den, für den sie die ganzen Jahre schon angegriffen werden?
Michael hat für die alle vom 5. Lebensjahr an das Geld verdient!!! Er war denen ihre Geldmaschine. Wieso ist ein Kind, ein kleines Kind dazu verpflichtet, für die Eltern den Lebensunterhalt zu verdienen? Warum äußern die Jacksons sich nie dazu, wie sie Michael ausgebeutet haben?

ja, eine gewaltige Summe ... wie die Jacksons den Schadensersatz ermittelt haben, ist wohl unbekannt ...
Ivy hatte ja Vermutungen angestellt ...
aus dem Eintrag von gestern um 10:35
Original anzeigen (0,2 MB)

ansonsten stimme ich dir zu ... als MJ noch lebte, gab es doch Auktionen, mit dem "Krempel" der Jackson5, also auch von MJ ... und den wollte kaum einer haben ... wahre Schnäppchen für wenige ... ja, erst als MJ gestorben ist, begann der Hype auf/um alles ... aber so ein Phänomen ist ja durchaus bekannt ... :D

Wozu sollen sich denn die Jacksons äußern, ich denke mal, sie sehen es gar nicht so, dass sie MJ ausgebeutet haben ... zu dem "Lebensverlauf", der Jackson Family, scheinen sie eine andere Wahrnehmung oder Sichtweise zu haben ... :)

@Brigitte58

Brigitte58 schrieb:Meiner Meinung nach wird aber gezielt daran gearbeitet die Jacksons in einem
schlechten Licht erscheinen zu lassen. Ich frage mich, warum eigentlich? Was hat man
davon? Selbst wenn es nur um einen Dollar gehen würde, hätten sie nie eine Chance
zu gewinnen.
In Amerika gethe es immer um enorme Summen, wenn es um Schadenersatzklagen geht.

Ich finde das alles immer wieder sehr seltsam.

Sind es die anderen, die daran arbeiten, dass die Jacksons in einem "schlechten Licht" erscheinen ???
ich meine, das tun die Jacksons doch schon ganz allein, da braucht keiner mehr nachzuhelfen ...

gut, Amerika ist ja bekannt für seine "spektakulären" Schadensersatzklagen, bei denen die Summen fast schon utopisch anmuten ... aber auch die dann "erzielten" Schadensersatzansprüche, sind mit denen nach deutscher Rechtsgrundlage, kaum vergleichbar ...

ich gehe eigentlich auch davon aus, dass KJ und die Kids keine Chance haben, den Prozess
zu gewinnen ... bis auf einen Punkt, wurden ja bisher alle Klagepunkte vom Gericht abgewiesen ... und ob man in diesem Punkt "2. Negligent hiring, training, supervision = 2. Fahrlässige Einstellung, Schulung, Aufsicht/Überwachung/Kontrolle" ausreichende Argumente hat, die Beklagten zu verurteilen, bezweifle ich ... es heißt mal wieder, abwarten ist angesagt ... :D

Anschutz: AEG steht nicht mehr zum Verkauf!!!!




LOS ANGELES (AP) — Billionaire Philip Anschutz says he is pulling AEG off the market and the company that owns the Los Angeles Kings and the Staples Center is no longer for sale.

Anschutz said in a statement Thursday that he had made clear that he wouldn't sell the company unless the right buyer came forward. He says he will resume a more active role in the company and Tim Leiweke, who has served as president and CEO, is leaving.

The sports and entertainment company was expected to fetch billions of dollars.

AEG's holdings also include the Los Angeles Galaxy, part-ownership of the NBA's Los Angeles Lakers, and major entertainment and real estate holdings in Los Angeles.

AEG also is spearheading a stadium proposal to bring back a professional football team to Los Angeles.

http://omg.yahoo.com/news/anschutz-aeg-no-longer-sale-173626519--finance.html

Bilder von Paris von LSA "übernommen" ...


beim Friseur Nick Chavez ... http://www.nickchavezbeverlyhills.com/about-us

Paris nach dem "Auftritt" als Cheerleader ... und auch mal wieder "Zunge raus" ...

s. a. http://www.starfeine.com/photos-paris-jackson-cheers-at-final-game-her-response-to-nfl-cheerleading-offer/

und sollte hier Paris die Hände im Spiel haben ????

Ivy ‏@Ivy_4MJ
My feelings about Katherine Jackson - AEG trial. I rarely post something that's (cont) http://tl.gd/lacnq3
4:11 AM - 15 Mär 13

(cont) http://www.twitlonger.com/show/lacnq3

My feelings about Katherine Jackson - AEG trial. I rarely post something that's about emotions and personal. Given the latest heated discussions among the fans I decided to write this.

For me the criminal trial of Conrad Murray was about justice but it wasn't easy on any of us. I remember being physically ill the first night of the trial after seeing Michael's hospital photo. I remember at the end feeling spent and emotionally lost. I only later during MJJC Q&A found peace and closure when Dr. Shafer multiple times assured us that Michael did not suffer. It was also his encouragement to set Michael's death aside and celebrate him, made me want to start the healing process.

This is why I'm so emotionally dreading the upcoming Katherine - AEG trial. It's just the rehash of the same stuff. I can't help myself to ask "at what cost?" and "to achieve what?".

For some people a civil trial that can only end in monetary payments will be considered justice. I'm not in that group. To me money doesn't equal justice - not $1 and not even $100 Trillion.

Some people want this trial because they want to find answers to Michael's "murder". What they don't know is that this is now just a contract lawsuit. In this lawsuit Katherine claims Michael died due to Murray's negligence and AEG shares responsibility because they hired Murray. That's it.

Fraud claim is dismissed because there was no evidence. Conspiracy claim is dismissed because there was no evidence. Judge ruled there's nothing wrong in AEG wanting Michael to show up to rehearsals. Judge ruled financial pressure doesn't mean AEG controlled Michael. Even Katherine admitted that Michael was an intelligent adult that is capable of entering into contracts. Judge ruled that there's no evidence that AEG ordered or controlled Michael's medical care as he was freely seeing other doctors.

If Katherine wins this case it would only mean that AEG did not do a good job in background checks when hiring Murray. That's it. It won't prove "murder", it won't prove intent and it won't prove AEG was involved.

So that makes me ask "at what cost?". Is it really worth to go through a trial that would not only paint Michael as "raging addict" (as media recently called him) but also will trash his family? Some fans have quickly forgotten how angry they were when AEG at depositions asking Jacksons about their financial dependence on Michael or when AEG was sending questions to Michael's kids about their father's "addiction". This trial won't be pretty. I can't help but think this is a heavy price to pay just for a verdict that would at best mean "AEG should have run a credit check on Murray".

Also honestly Jackson's dropping restitution is a sore spot for me personally. No it's not about money, it's about how it would mean that Murray could never profit from his crime. I can't help but think about Goldman family at O.J. Simpson trial. How they used restitution to get control over the book O.J. wrote, how they got every cent from the TV interviews. They never let O.J to make a dime from their son, they never allowed anyone even try to deflect blame from O.J. But in our situation without restitution, there's nothing that would stop Murray from trashing Michael and profiting from Michael. This is something that I'm having a hard time with.

Finally also the $40 billion damages amount makes me question if this is really about "truth" and "justice" or if it is about money. The ridiculously high 5 times the value of AEG amount, the leaking of emails by Katherine's partner Mann, the Jackson sources talking to media about $1 billion and $500 Million settlements, make it sound like this is unfortunately all about money. Sure AEG has all the incentive in the world to settle and make this go away but if Jacksons accept a settlement then it would bring the question if this was about getting the truth out or getting the money.

Not everyone will agree with me and that's completely fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. It's also apparent that this is a heated subject among the fans. Please remember something. Trials are fought and won in a courtroom. The decisions are made by judges and jury. Just remember that the fans expressing their opinions - whether you agree or not- have absolutely NO effect on the outcome of this trial. There's no reason to attack or hate a fan if they don't agree with you on this subject.

andjustice4MJ ‏@andjustice4some
Both Sides of the Coin: Jacksons v. AEG http://mjandjustice4some.blogspot.com/2013/03/both-sides-of-coin-jacksons-v-aeg.html …
2:15 AM - 15 Mär 13

Kläger müssen noch erforderliche eidesstattliche Aussagen zur weiteren Rechtfertigung bis zum 18. März beim Gericht einreichen ... :)

Ivy ‏@Ivy_4MJ
Petitioner's still required to file under oath statement justifying the continued sealing of documents by March 18.
11:42 PM - 14 Mär 13

zu dem vorherigen Tweet .... mit dem fängt das Zwitschern an ... :)

Ivy ‏@Ivy_4MJ
Court of appeals: Order filed.petitioner's application for relief from March 12 order regarding sealed documents granted. (see order) (cont)
11:42 PM - 14 Mär 13