AEG-Jackson trial Days 18 and 24. The “INTERVENTION” and MYSTERY OF MICHAEL JACKSON’S CONTRACT
Shawn Trell, AEG’s General Counsel and lawyer Kathy Jorrie drafted the contract between AEG and Michael Jackson
To be able to move further we need to look into the contracts and various papers made by AEG with Michael and his so-called managers – Tohme and Frank Dileo. These matters were discussed in detail with Shawn Trell, AEG’s Senior Vice-President, their General Counsel (top lawyer) assigned by AEG to represent the company as the person most knowledgeable about everything connected with the projected tour.
His job was to talk to everyone and review all documents related to it. But the problem the trial revealed was that his memory was extremely selective – he, for example, did not remember anything about the chain of emails captioned “Trouble at the front” which kept other AEG bosses sleepless half the night on June 20th, but on the other hand he remembered perfectly well that hired personnel like Karen Faye and Alif Sankey whom he hardly met did not approach any of the AEG bosses with complaints about Michael’s health – over here his memory was clear and he is absolutely sure they did not (they simply could not due to the chain of command and by the way, Karen Faye did speak to Phillips in the hall).
So whenever we see Shawn Trell’s answers we should take them with a grain of salt remembering the strange peculiarities of his memory.
As regards Michael Jackson’s contract Trell remembers that he drafted it together with Kathy (Kathy Jorrie) and that it was signed either on January 26 or on January 28 (yeeess, on either of these two dates).
The drafting of the contract was described by Trell as a big process – the drafts were many, everyone who was to take part did take part and was duly present at its signing. In short everything was fine:
Ms. Stebbins: Is it fair to say you drafted part of the agreement?
A Yes. I mean, involved in the negotiation and drafting of the terms and conditions that ended up in that document, yes.
Q. Who else besides yourself was involved in the negotiation of the tour agreement?
A Well, principally it was myself, Kathy and Randy Phillips was involved in those negotiations.
Q. And “Kathy,” do you mean Ms. Jorrie?
A Kathy Jorrie, sorry.
Q. And is that –who on the Mr. Jackson side?
A On the Jackson side of it, the people that were involved in drafting and negotiating that document were Dr. Tohme Tohme, his manager at the time, Dennis Hawk, his attorney at the time. There was another lawyer present when we signed the contract, another lawyer for Mr. Jackson, named Peter Lopez. I don’t know what his involvement was with Michael and/or Dennis. I didn’t have any direct negotiations with him about the matter, but he’s -he’s now passed away, but he was a well-known entertainment lawyer. He was present when we signed, and had worked with Michael in the past, so –those would be the people I would say, yes.
Q. So who was Dennis hawk?
A He was Mr. Jackson’s lawyer.
Q. And I think you said Dr. Tohme was his manager at the time.
A Correct.
Q. Mr. Hawk’s manager or Mr. Jackson’s?
A Mr. Jackson’s manager.
Q. Sorry.
A Yes. Sorry.
Q. And how long did negotiations for the tour last?
A They lasted a couple of months.
Q. And did Mr. Hawk and Dr. Tohme provide comments and edits to the draft agreements?
A They did; and we had meetings, you know, where different aspects of the agreement were discussed and gone over, negotiated. There were drafts of that agreement, multiple drafts of that agreement that were exchanged.
Q. So sounds like it was quite a process.
A Sure.
Q. Is that about the typical length of time it takes to come up with a tour agreement for a tour of this type, or was it longer and more complicated?
A Well, some have taken shorter, some have taken longer. I don’t think a couple of months is out of the ordinary, yeah.
At this point we learn that Michael Jackson had a similar offer from AEG’s competitor Live Nation and exactly at the same time, only the way Shawn Trell describes it, it seems that Michael Jackson was not even informed about its existence as all negotiations were conducted with Tohme Tohme and his lawyer Dennis Hawk, and the meeting in Trell’s description looks more like a briefing on how to beat the competitor:
Q. Now, do you know whether Mr. Jackson, at the time he was negotiating with AEG. Live for the “This Is It” tour, was considering any other companies to promote his concerts?
A It’s my understanding they were also talking to or at least receiving offers from a competitor of ours called Live Nation.
Q. And what’s your basis for that understanding?
A My basis for that understanding is we were at a meeting in mid-December at one juncture, “we” being myself, Randy Phillips, John Meglen –I think Paul Gongaware was on a –on the phone –on speakerphone –Dennis Hawk and Dr. Tohme. I was seated next to Dennis Hawk, and he had a document next to him that had three columns in it. One column was –it was various terms of the agreement, and then each of the other two columns were what we had offered and what Live Nation had offered.
Q. So there was a column for Live Nation on this document you saw?
A On the document I saw, yes.
In the book by Sullivan Tohme Tohme indeed said that it was him who had a meeting with Live Nation, they left him unimpressed as he didn’t like those guys:
“Lopez first set up a meeting with Live Nation that left Tohme unimpressed. “I don’t like those guys,” he recalled telling Lopez, who then suggested AEG. Tohme claimed to be unaware of Michael’s previous meeting with Randy Phillips, who had never entirely given up on signing Michael to an AEG Live contract.”
Ms. Stebbins Bina showed Shawn Trell a copy of the AEG agreement with Michael Jackson and Trell said that he saw Michael Jackson signing it:
Q. And is this a Tour agreement ultimately entered between AEG Live and Mr. Jackson?
A Yes, it is.
Q. What were you checking for there?
A The signatures.
Q. Make sure it was the final agreement?
A Right.
Q. And did Mr. Jackson sign this agreement?
A Yes, he did.
Q. Were you present when Mr. Jackson signed it?
A Yes, I was.
Q. Can you tell me about that?
A About — the signing itself?
Q. Yes.
A Yes. I went to the home on Carolwood, I walked in –security lets you behind the –the big gates, and then they let you in the front door. I walked in the front door, and I guess I had an experience I’ll probably never forget –I’ll certainly never forget. I mean, Michael Jackson doesn’t know me from a hole in the wall, doesn’t know my name, but got up from where he was seated, walked over, and said, “Hi, welcome. I’m Michael,” which I thought was pretty funny, because he’s a very distinctive-looking guy, obviously.
And we shook hands; and he had a good, firm handshake; and his voice was not like most people, I think, associate his voice. Those are the things I remember from first walking in. We were in the room immediately to the left as you walked in, and seated there was Michael at the head of a long coffee table. Next to him was Paul Gongaware –to his left, Paul Gongaware, Randy Phillips, myself; and then to his right was Dr. Tohme, Dennis Hawk, and Peter Lopez.
Let me intervene for a second and quote the same point from Randy Phillips’s testimony which surprised me by Mr. Panish’s question whether he was sure that Peter Lopez was present:
Q. Well, who was involved in the drafting for Michael Jackson on his side of this?
A. Dennis hawk and Peter Lopez
Q. Are you sure about that?
A. Oh, yes
Indeed the point about Peter Lopez’s presence is difficult to check up now. Out of those present three people were from AEG, Tohme and his lawyer Dennis Hawk were definitely not on Michael’s side and the only person we could really trust was Peter Lopez, but he unfortunately shot himself under strange circumstances and cannot testify. Michael is not alive either.
From Shawn Trell we also learn that he as the top AEG lawyer did not interact with Michael’s lawyer Peter Lopez during the two months of negotiating the deal.
Trell repeats again that he met Michael only once. The picture he paints of Michael flipping through every page of their contract is impressive:
Q. And Peter Lopez was another of Mr. Jackson’s attorneys, to your knowledge?
A To –that’s my understanding, yes.
Q. But you –if I understood you correctly a minute ago, you hadn’t interacted with him during the negotiation of the deal?
A No, I had not.
Q. What was your impression –had you met Mr. Jackson before this meeting?
A No. This was the only time that I ever met him.
Q. Had you ever been to his house before?
A No.
Q. What was your impression of Mr. Jackson?
A Well, like I said, I mean, he popped up, came over, introduced himself, was very cordial. There was a real –a real positive energy and vibe in the room. He seemed genuinely enthused, and we sat there for some time and he had the -the contract out in front of him, he said he had read every page, he was flipping through it, he was -again, it just felt –he just seemed so enthused by the whole thing. We went through the process of signing it, and then we stayed for some period thereafter.
And, again, you know, his excitement was showing through, he was talking about the various production elements and things that he wanted in the -in the show. I specifically remember –he was really keen on the 3d stuff, and there was going to be this really huge L.E.D. screen that was going to be the backdrop of the stage, and he was talking about the different 3d things that he was hoping to be able to produce, these vignettes and other things that you’ve probably heard referred to.
He was already well down the road in his mind with what that was going to look like. Those are my recollections from –from being there. I was probably there for something close to an hour.
Q. That’s about –that’s what I was going to ask, was how long did this last?
A Ok. Yeah, I would say it was just a little less than an hour, probably, and –and then I left, and that was it. That was the only time I ever met him.
MICHAEL’S CONTRACT REVISITED
The opening page of the AEG “letter agreement” is dated January 26 and is addressed to “Dear Dr. Tohme”
Initially I thought that Ms. Stebbins and Shawn Trell were talking of the version of the contract different from ours but when she asked Shawn Trell why it started with “Dear Dr. Tohme” it was a huge relief to realize that we are looking into one and the same strange paper:
Q. Let’s look at the first paragraph. Explain to me why it starts off “dear Dr. Tohme.”
A. Well, he was handling the negotiations, principally, as Michael’s manager on behalf of the Michael Jackson company; and this document, this -this particular tour agreement was in the form of a letter agreement.
No, I will not go into the specifics of that letter agreement as almost everything said about that “contract” before fully applies to it now. The only thing I will do now is make a short comment on the advances and production costs and render a little help to Shawn Trell in recalling how they were to divide profit between Michael Jackson and AEG. At some point this top AEG lawyer got so confused when explaining things to Ms. Stebbins that will really need our help.
But the beginning of his explanations is rather clear – even initially the deal with Michael Jackson was bettter for AEG than similar deals with other superstars:
Q. Under this agreement, how was Mr. Jackson to be compensated?
A. Under this agreement, this –the transaction was –I’ll refer to it as a 90/10 split.
Q. And what does that mean?
A That means that the artist receives 90 percent of what’s defined as contingent compensation, and the promoter would receive 10 percent of what’s defined as contingent compensation.
I said that the terms with MJ were better for AEG than usual because Randy Phillips himself admitted that their usual split with superstars is 95/5 while with Michael Jackson it was 90/10. I wish he could explain why for Michael Jackson they set the terms worse than for other stars though in his particular case the promotion efforts for which they charged 10% were practically non-existent – the tickets were selling themselves:
Phillips declines to release terms of the deal with Jackson, but he says it was better for AEG than the 95%-5% split most superstars receive.
http://www.thisisrnb.com/2009/07/aegs-ceo-randy-phillips-talks-michael-jackson-fallout/
Ms. Stebbins continues:
Q. And looking at this paragraph 4.1, it talks about the contingent compensation. Let me try to find what I’m looking for so I can have pam highlight it. Here we go. Pam, in the middle of that paragraph, “within five business days.” what’s it mean, “subject to promoter’s right to recoup advances”?
A That means that the promoter recoups any artist advances that are –that were previously made prior to the calculation of the 90/10 split.
Q. And in this document, this tour agreement, I see things referred to as artist advances and things referred to as production advances. Can you tell me what the difference in between those?
A Right. Well, the artist advances were the specific –specifically delineated advances that we made. You’ve heard about the –the rent for the Carolwood house, there was another $5 million advance. There was the need to pay off a Settlement agreement that Mr. Jackson had with some sheik or something over in a London court. There was a piece of litigation they had - they had entered into, a settlement agreement, and the reason that was necessary to be paid off is because the underlying dispute there covered Mr. Jackson’s live performance rights, so the sheik or whoever that party was there –it’s called “Two Sea’s records.” They had rights to Mr. Jackson’s live performances. So they had whatever dispute they had, they entered into whatever settlement agreement they entered into, and there was a $3 million payment contemplated there that needed to be made. So that was part of the advances. Those rights needed to be freed up. Mr. Jackson represents in this agreement that he’s has the authority and the power to enter into this; so having those rights freed was, you know, part and parcel of that.
Q. So artist advances were advances that didn’t necessarily relate to the tour, but you were giving to Mr. Jackson?
A Right And then the production costs are those costs associated with mounting the tour, as I described.
Q. And are both artist advances and production advances –are they both loans to Mr. Jackson?
A Yes.
Note: The advances paid to Michael Jackson were not just another $5 million. This was the only advance paid, out of which $3mln went into settling the claim by the “Two Seas records” and the remaining two million went to the account of the Michael Jackson Company to which Tohme had full access via his power of attorney. The $1,2mln for the Carolwood house was not cash money – it was frozen in the bank and was to be paid to the owner of the house directly. Michael had no access to that money.
And “advances” and “production advances” are not the same things, but are absolutely different. The repayment of the $5mln advance was thoroughly secured by a special Promissory note requiring all Michael’s assets in case he didn’t repay the money, and each new advance requested by MJ was to have a similar separate promissory note. Michael’s accountant Kane asked for only $1 mln to be added to the initial $5mln, but Randy Phillips refused him claiming that Michael was in breach of the contract “due to non-attendance of rehearsals”, and over here all their talk about more advances to Michael ended.
As for production expenses AEG spent them freely and did not have a single document from Michael proving that it was his obligation to cover them and he agreed to repay those sums. This is actually what the whole dispute is all about and the reason why AEG is trying so hard to mix real advances and “production advances” together and present them as one, so that nobody is able to see the huge difference between them:
Q. And under this agreement, does Mr. Jackson have to pay back both artist advances and production advances?
A Yes, he does.
Q. Now –it may be a question better asked for someone in the finance department, but Ms. Hollander testified I think on Friday, or it might have been on Monday –yesterday about if the show was not going forward, Mr. Jackson would owe back100 percent of the production advances; and if it did go forward, he would owe back 95 percent of the production advances. Can you explain what that means?
A Well, she’s –what she’s referring to there is the –the 5 percent producer fee at the point In time in which that producer fee is calculated.
Q. Can you explain that a little bit?
A Well, the artist advance –the contingent compensation, you have all the revenues associated with the tour, and all of the expenses associated with the tour, you have –you get a –a Net –a Net number there. Right? From that net number, all the artist advances are recouped, and you get down to another number; and from that number, the production costs are –from that number, the production costs are -are then recouped and –wait a Minute. I got to do the tree.
Artist advances are recouped, there’s then the 90/10 split, we then recoup the production advances. And I’m sorry. Now I’ve lost track of what the question was.
Note: Trell hopelessly mixed everything up so let me explain. 90/10 split means that as soon as all the money was collected AEG was to deduct 10% from the gross sum. This is the fee they got as the promoters. The biggest obligation of the promoters was to sell tickets which, as you remember was done within minutes. When the ticket selling was over AEG was to get its hard-earned 10%.
This left Michael with the remaining gross 90%, but not quite. Out of that sum AEG wanted to recoup its $34 million spent on production and all advances they gave to the artist. A certain sum would be left after that. Out of that net sum AEG was to get another 5% as a producer’s fee, the Artist was to receive only 90% again (if there is anything left there of course) and the remaining 5% was unaccounted for.
Now Shawn Trell says that this 5% is what would have been the cost of production to be covered by AEG. It sounds like a big and generous present they were making to Michael Jackson:
Q. I think maybe this is a better question to ask of one of the financial folks; but I guess the idea is if the tour is a success, and you take the producer fee as well as the promoter fee, is the –that 5 percent of production costs accounted for in some way in terms of how AEG. Live collects its producer fee?
A Right. Effectively we end up paying 5 percent of the –of those costs if the tour is a success.
Q. So as part of the producer fee, you basically give a discount on production costs –on the production advances payback rate?
A Right. That’s right.
Q. I’m probably over simplifying, I’m just trying to make it make sense.
A Right.
Q. But either way, production costs – production advances and artist advances are both advances?
A Yes.
Q. And they’re both things that Mr. Jackson is borrowing from AEG. Live and has to pay back?
A That’s correct.
Note: I wish they could show us a point in the contract which says an outrageous thing like that. The $5mln advance – YES, the production advances up to $7,5 mln – YES (these were to be paid back) but as to the rest of the expenses – NO.
First of all, these were to be requested by the Artist’s company and second, all those excess expenses were to be agreed upon in writing. Otherwise AEG could spend, spend and spend, and Michael would have to pay, pay and pay.
So the answer is NO – first he was to agree to cover them and only then he was obliged to pay. However the big problem for AEG is that these written approvals from Michael to cover the sums exceeding the initial $7,5mln. were missing.
Q. I’d like to turn to paragraph 8.2, which is on page dash 157.
A 8-2.
Q. Yes, 8.2. This is a Provision you were asked about yesterday about this $7.5 million cap. And I think, if I recall correctly, you testified yesterday that when this agreement was drafted, it contemplated that production costs would only go up to 7.5 million –or production advances would only go up to 7.5 million; is that right?
A Right.
Q. And then can you go down to the — sentence about two-thirds of the way down on the right-hand side, starts “artistco’s shall be responsible.” yes, that one, pam. She’s highlighted the full sentence. Mr. Trell, what’s this sentence about?
A This means that anything that may be over and above that 7 and a half million, Artistco is obligated to reimburse us for that. They’re defined as excess production costs.
Q. And these are the production costs that Mr. Jackson requested be added on top of the 8.5 million –7.5 million?
A Well, the entire –again, what you see on the stage if you’re there at the concert, it’s the artist’s show. So, you know, the production elements and what you see is all something the artist either, you know, has wanted to see come to fruition, you know, or that they’ve developed, and there’s costs associated with that. This particular project, you know, was very fluid. Michael Jackson was known to have very elaborate productions –production –what’s called production values. There was a lot on the stage. ..
Q. Now, you testified yesterday, if I recall correctly, that the production costs for the “This Is It” tour –the production advances, I should say, exceeded 7.5 million ultimately?
A Right.
Q. And I believe you also testified that you weren’t really familiar with the process by how Mr. Jackson was kept in the loop and how he approved these additional expenses; is that right?
A I’m not, no.
Q. But do you have any reason to believe that Mr. Jackson did not approve the additional advances?
Mr. Panish: there’s no foundation.
Judge: overruled.
A. No, I have no –I have no reason, you know, to believe that. It’s my understanding he was –I’m not even going to use the word “very,” I’m going to use the word “intimately” involved in the production process.
Q. in your experience, when AEG. Live is producing a Tour or concert tour or something along those lines, does AEG. Live normally just advance money without the artist requesting it?
A No.
Q. Would that be uncommon, in your experience?
A Yes.
Q. So would it be your assumption, at least, that if additional funds are advanced for the production of the tour, it’s usually because someone in the artist’s camp or the artist himself has requested that?
Mr. Panish: objection; leading and suggestive of the answer.
Judge: overruled.
Q. Yes, absolutely.
Dear reader, now that you know that those excess production costs were to be paid only in case Michael requsted them and requested them in writing, will you ever believe that AEG naively paid all that money just because Michael nodded his head and gave his verbal approval to it?
Does AEG produce on you the impression of people who will rush to fulfil every Michael’s whim just as soon as he expressed it? No, they don’t? Then what are we talking about here? Of course they did not spend a single stingy dollar without having some sort of a guarantee that their spending would be fully recovered – in this or that way.
One of those ways could be getting Michael’s assets and in this case the more they spent the better it was, because the more difficult it would be for Michael to repay the costs. If he could not pay in money he would have to pay in assets.
Another way could actually have the same goal but only be done in a different manner – those written approvals could be made by someone in Michael’s “camp” in order to deepen Michael Jackson’s financial troubles and take advantage of them for their own needs.
Why have all of us turned our heads towards Dr. Tohme at this point? Is it because he is just the right kind of person for it and was holding two general powers of attorney from Michael? Yes, he was quite capable of a covert operation like that, however let us remember that by the time his powers of attorney were annulled (some time in April), AEG could not have spent all those $34 mln yet. They had hardly started production by that moment, and this is probably why Michael was in a hurry to terminate Tohme – he knew Tohme’s fraudulent ways and was trying to safeguard himself against this person.
However even after Tohme’s dismissal the formal absence of the necessary credentials and lack of a legal basis for his activities did not stop AEG or Tohme from making the respective papers which shifted all that excess production cost onto Michael (after his death) and this is how the Estate ended up paying those sums.
TOHME NOT THE REAL McCoy
![A fragment from Tohme's agreement with AEG: he was to perform the tasks reasonably requested by the promoter [AEG]](https://vindicatemj.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/tohmes-services-under-his-contract-with-aeg.jpg)
Tohme’s agreement with AEG: he was to perform the tasks reasonably requested by promoter [AEG]
When signing an agreement with Michael Jackson and a separate agreement with Tohme (which said that he was rendering services to the promoter, i.e. AEG) Shawn Trell as the top lawyer of AEG Live knew perfectly well what kind of a guy they were entering into an agreement with.
An independent lawyer whom they hired for drafting all those agreements, Kathy Jorrie was warning them that Tohme was most probably not the real McCoy.
She sent an email dated January 22, 2009 or approximately a week before signing a contract with Michael Jackson saying she understood that AEG had checked Tohme out (!) but she still had reservations about this person and suggested hiring a private investigator to check up on him:
Q. And Ms. Jorrie is saying to you: while I understand you have checked up on the credentials and authenticity of Dr. Tohme through personal sources … Did I read that right, Sir?
A. You read that correctly, yes.
Q. So Mr. Phillips went out and checked … Or you. Was it you or Mr. Phillips that checked out Dr. Tohme through personal sources, credentials and authenticity? Was that you or Mr. Phillips that did that, Sir?
A. It was not me. I don’t know to whom she’s referring.
…Q. Ok, so let’s see what she told you about this Mr. … Dr. Tohme. Let’s look at the next sentence. I nonetheless have reservations about whether or not he is the real mccoy. Have you ever heard that, the real mccoy? You ever heard of that saying?
A. I’ve heard it, yes.
Q. That means whether someone is legit, not a fraud or a fake; right?
A. Right. The real thing.
Q. …Let’s look at the next sentence: when I checked a couple online search engines for Dr. Tohme to see if I could find references to him, the only thing I found were recent quotes from Dr. Tohme of Michael Jackson’s, quote, unquote, publicist, and some reference to him in various blogs by people who referred to him as a mystery man who claims to represent Michael Jackson. Did I read that right, Sir?
Q. And then it says: I found nothing else on him, almost like he never existed until he met Michael Jackson. It’s possible there are references to him on the internet in Arabic rather than English, which I didn’t check because I don’t read Arabic
Q. Did I read that right? Correct. Nonetheless, I recommend that a background check be performed through a private investigator or, at a minimum, that someone at AEG Live meet with Michael Jackson to make sure he understands that we are entering into a tour agreement with him that will require him to perform a worldwide tour. Did I read that right, Sir? That’s what it says. So she was telling you one thing to do is get a private investigator; right?
A. She says that, yes.
Q. You didn’t do that, did you?
A. No.
The above message from Kathy Jorrie is also remarkable by her saying that 6 days before signing the contract with Michael Jackson she wants to make sure that he understands that they “are entering into a tour agreement with him that will require him to perform a worldwide tour.” This strange reminder makes me think that AEG was doing business mostly with Tohme, and therefore Kathy Jorrie is not sure that Michael Jackson knows of the scope of his responsibilities under the documents they are making for him.
In fact Shawn Trell did earlier testify that all business was discussed solely between Randy Phillips and Tohme, and Tohme also confirmed it in his numerous media interviews – he was not interfering with what Michael was doing and Michael was not supposed to interfere withwhat Tohme was doing.
Trell says they never checked on Tohme, and the fact that Michael could not be aware of the full terms of their agreement was probably even for the better. AEG liked Tohme so much that they signed with him a production management agreement. In what capacity Tohme was acting Shawn Trell cannot explain now – what he knows is that Tohme was neither an interdependent contractor, nor an employee.
According to that contract Tohme was to receive $100,000 for the services asked of him by the producer, however it did not prevent AEG from making Michael responsible for Tohme’s salary.
Trell says that Michael approved all that as their agreement with Tohme was signed on the same day as the contract with Michael Jackson and he saw Michael putting his signature under Tohme’s contract.
However all is not as clear on this horizon as it seems at first sight. The dates of signing those contracts are shrouded in a big mystery and from Mr. Panish’s questions it seems that he knows more than he is saying. The dates are indeed slippery and elusive as everything else in this strange business.
THE MYSTERY OF TWO DATES FOR ONE CONTRACT
First Shawn Trell says that Michael Jackson’s contract was signed on January 26th:
Q No. Well, are you sure about that? Because you testified about it 11 times so far. Were you just estimating that, or did you say — and counsel asked you in the questions, “and it was January 26th when you signed, and it was January 26th –” you’re absolutely sure about that, aren’t you, sir?
A that’s my understanding
Trell says that Tohme’s contract was signed on the same day and he actually saw Michael signing it. The other two signatures were those of Tohme and Randy Phillips:
Q. …I want to ask about another agreement that was entered at the same time as the tour agreement on January 26th, 2009.
A Ok.
Q. And that’s an agreement involving Dr. Tohme Tohme.
A Ok. …This agreement was entered into on, you know, the date of the –well, it was actually signed on the 26th. It’s dated January 24th.
Q. Could we turn to the second page or the third page of this agreement? And there are three signatures here, Mr. Trell?
A Right.
Q. Whose signatures are they?
A It’s Randy Phillips on behalf of AEG. Live, it’s Dr. Tohme Tohme on behalf of T.T. International, and it’s Michael Jackson on behalf of Michael Jackson.
Q. And did you see Mr. Jackson sign this document?
A It was signed on the date that I described earlier when the tour agreement was signed.
Q. So is that “yes”?
A “Yes.” I’m sorry. “yes.”
Q. No worries. So Mr. Jackson signed this agreement?
A Yes, he did.
But then we recall the email where Shawn Trell called Michael a “freak”. It was dated January 28 and said that Trell was going to the signing procedure on January 28th, 2009:
A Okay it was on the 28th
Q So as sure as you were, just like all your other testimony you were wrong about that weren’t you sir?
A I was wrong about the signing date yes
Q But you told us that 12 times under oath, didn’t you, sir?
A I don’t recall how many times I referenced the 26th, but I referenced the date we signed the contract.
Q ok and then it said… Well, you referenced it quite a bit today sir… And you just did when I questioned you. So let’s talk about that January 28th, not the 26th right?
A ok
Q do you want to change your testimony under oath now about that, sir?
A I didn’t have the date, necessarily, in my calendar. It appears from the e-mails it was the 28th.[…] There was a document signing at the home. It was on Wednesday the 28th, not Monday the 26th.
But on still another occasion when Trell speaks of Tohme’s agreement he says it was signed on January 26 adding it was the same day as the agreement with Michael Jackson, so the agreement with Michael again seems to be on January 26th.
The judge asks him about Tohme’s agreement:
Judge: remind me when it was signed?
Trell: It’s dated the 24th. It was signed on the 26th of January.
Judge: okay. I guess what I’m asking is, once they — assuming they got the insurance, would Tohme’s payment, assuming you would get paid, be all the way back to January 26th?
Trell: Right. I understand the question.
Judge: all right.
Trell: (reading docs)
Mr. Panish: What date — I’m sorry? it was signed? on 26th?
Trell: The date when the tour agreement was signed, the 26th.
Mr. Panish: 26th. Okay. Thank you.
Even from how long they are discussing it we understand that the point is of utmost importance:
Q And you told us all about your meeting with Michael Jackson yesterday didn’t you, sir?
A My meeting at the house when we signed the contract is the only time that I met him, yes
Q Ok so you only met Michael Jackson one time in your whole life right?
A That’s right
Q And the one time that you met Michael Jackson, I’ve heard it today at least ten times, was on January 26th, 2009, when the contract was signed… Isn’t that true sir?
A Yes
Q And you’re as sure about that as all the testimony we heard for the last six hours from you, right?
A I’m sure the contract signing is the only time I met Michael Jackson
Q No sir, you told us ten times, and counsel had it in her questions, that on January 26th, 2009, you met Michael Jackson, and he signed all of those agreements. You told us all about that, didn’t you, sir?
A That’s my recollection yes
Q And you told us you’re sure because you’ll never forget that moment right?
A I won’t forget meeting Michael Jackson
Q No. On January 26th, 2009, at the 100 Carolwood address in Beverly hills, California, correct?
A That’s where the meeting took place, yes
Q And you’re as sure about that, it occurred on January 26th, the day the contract was signed, as all the testimony you’ve given under oath in this court, isn’t that true sir?
A That’s the date I believe we signed the contract
Q No. Well, are you sure about that? Because you testified about it 11 times so far. Were you just estimating that, or did you say — and counsel asked you in the questions, “and it was January 26th when you signed, and it was January 26th –” you’re absolutely sure about that, aren’t you, sir?
A That’s my understanding
Q Okay. Just as you are about everything else you’ve said in this case, right?
A Yes.
I don’t want to steal the big surprise Brian Panish is preparing for the jury but will still say it as this is what I was actually suspecting for several years by now. It seems that not only Tohme wasn’t the real McCoy, but all the papers AEG had with Tohme and Michael Jackson in the first place are not the real McCoy either.
Let us put two and two together. Only recently Shawn Trell told us in that freakish email dated January 28th that he was on his way to meet Michael Jackson for signing the contract, so this makes the date of signing it January 28. This is when he saw Michael the first and the last time.
On the other hand the agreement with Tohme was signed on January 26th and he saw Michael signing it too. And this is again the first and the last time he saw Michael Jackson.
So Shawn Trell saw Michael only once but on two different occasions and each time signing important documents – on January 26 he saw him signing Tohme’s contract and on January 28 he saw him signing his own contract. And both of them were supposedly on one day as he met Michael Jackson only once. And he is absolutely sure of it.
Who is the freak here I wonder? All right, let us reserve the ridicule for some other time and try to explain what it means instead. Indeed, how all this can be explained?
Easily. Trell is simply lying. But what is he trying to cover up?
What most probably happened is that Michael did not sign the papers on January 28 and that his meeting with the AEG bosses ended in an overall talk and a decision to sign the contract later when everything was settled and agreed upon. This never happened for some reason and in order to have at least something AEG used the two Michael’s signatures obtained from Michael on January 26th.
In which way were they obtained? Well, Tohme could easily ask Michael to sign a preliminary letter of intent sent to him (Tohme) which Michael and the AEG bosses was most probably to discuss on January 28. It was absolutely not definitive but they wanted to fix at least some of their preliminary agreements reached by that time.
Shawn Trell says that he and Kathy simply forgot to cross out part of the closing sentence which says that the final contract is still to be made
Do you remember the phrase with which that letter of January 26th was closing? It said:
· “By signing below each party acknowledges its agreement be foregoing and agrees to negotiate the definitive agreement expeditiously and in good faith”.
Now this page is what the so-called final agreement with Michael Jackson is closing with.
Will you be interested to hear how the top lawyer of AEG is explaining why their final agreement is closing with this strange phrase? Here it is – Ms. Stebbins Bina is asking Trell about this discrepancy and this is the incredible answer he gives:
Q. why don’t you read it.
A ok ….By signing below, each party acknowledges its agreement to the foregoing and agrees to negotiate the definitive agreement expeditiously and in good faith.
Q was there another agreement that was going to be negotiated after this agreement between AEG live and Mr. Jackson?
A No this is another example of a holdover from a form, the last portion of that referencing a definitive agreement
Panish I’m going to again object and move to strike as nonresponsive to this question, which was is this a definitive agreement, not what he said
Bina Your honor, I think the question was there an intention to do another agreement.
Panish That wasn’t the question
Court Let’s strike the answer, go back and ask your question
Bina Sure
Q Mr. Trell was there going to be another agreement? A definitive agreement after this one?
A No this agreement was the definitive agreement between the parties
Q Do you have an explanation for why this language would be here?
A Yes this started out as a smaller form summarizing terms and conditions this last language is in that form where a separate, separately negotiated document is contemplated the original form just got expanded upon into the letter agreement format that this tour agreement ended up being in. And Kathy and myself, umm you know, didn’t catch that holdover language
Q You said holdover language?
A Yes, holdover language from the form from which the agreement started
Q Is this language supposed to be here?
Panish objection leading suggestive
Court overruled
A The sentence at top should just end after the word foregoing
Q So the rest of it?
A The balance of it is the holdover language that I would refer to.
So now the top AEG Live lawyer is telling us that the sentence was to be finished at the word “foregoing” and the rest was to be crossed out, but it was not done because he and Kathy “did not catch it”? Two top lawyers were reviewing the main document laying the basis for their cooperation with Michael Jackson and did not notice the crucial fact that it was not final? And they hope that we will believe this ridiculous explanation?
What is actually standing behind all this nonsense is that due to lack of the final contract with Michael Jackson AEG decided to meddle with the papers.
In fact Shawn Trell is describing the method himself – they started with a smaller letter form summarizing the terms and conditions, then a separate document was ‘contemplated’, then they added this separate document to the original small summary keeping the “letter agreement format” and then they forgot to strike out the final sentence about the agreement being indefinite because ‘he and Kathy did not catch it’.
All of it is exactly what we expected it to be – it was a cut-and-paste job where they took the first and last pages of a letter of intent addressed to Dear Dr. Tohme which were absolutely priceless to them as they carried the date (January 26th) and signatures of Michael Jackson.
Then they took away the inside pages and inserted instead a separate document which they ‘contemplated’ later and this combination of papers was passed by them for the final contract with Michael Jackson.
When that separate document was added only God knows – it could be two days later when Trell went to Michael’s home or most probably many months later, when Michael died and they made this cut and paste job before submitting it to the Estate for their scrutiny.
Why the Estate did not notice it or chose not to notice it is another matter which will surely be clarified during this trial. It would be indeed be interesting to know why.
WHO WAS TO PAY TOHME?
Under the agreement with Tohme he was to be paid $100,000 a month. Who was to pay is unclear as Michael’s contract said that Michael was not responsible for Tohme’s salary and the expenses on Tohme were to be included in production costs. This in its turn made us (and Michael) think that production costs were not his responsibility.
Clause 6.8 of Michael Jackson’s contract says that Michael is to pay fees to his own management with the exception of Tohme’s salary as it will be part of production costs:
With the exception of the monthly fee owing under the terms of a separate agreement with TT International, LLC for the services of Dr. Tohme Tohme (not to exceed $100,000 per month), which shall be included in Production Costs, Artistco shall be solely responsible for and shall pay all costs associated with management and agency commissions of fees and legal fees of Artist and/or Artistco, if any;
As you know now AEG considers all production costs Michael’s responsibility and this makes Michael responsible for payment to Tohme too. Trell explains the mess with who was to pay whom in Tohme’s case by another of their mistakes. He and Kathy evidently “did not catch it” again.
Well, whatever it was Tohme was not paid. There was a certain condition for payment to Tohme (he was to earn his money to get it from AEG, you know),and the condition was that AEG would pay to Tohme only after he obtained a non-appearance insurance for them.
And it so happened that Michael Jackson submitted to the medical test, and passed it with flying colors as they say, but the problems with the records for 5 years was still unresolved and then they increased the number from 10 to 50 shows and this demanded doubling the sum of the insurance and the insurers suddenly asked for the second, very thorough medical examination in London – in short a partial and unfinished non-appearance insurance policy was more or less ready by the end of April only with the rest of it to be finalized in London, but by end of April Tohme had already been fired by Michael and this left our poor old Tohme unpaid. Serves his right by the way – he shouldn’t have increased the number of shows to 50, this only delayed the receipt of the insurance policy.
One of the many conclusions we can derive from the above is that Tohme was interested in presenting Michael as a very healthy man – obtaining the insurance was directly connected with the public statements he was making to the press and this is what the insurers were very much listening to.
Another conclusion is that all this time AEG most probably kept Tohme as a bulldog beside Michael to look at “what he was doing”. They suspected him of abusing substances and were most probably thinking of Demerol or other narcotics (which were absolutely not found in MJ’s system). It remains to be seen whether they knew of propofol but as regards narcotics they were surely on the minds of the AEG people.
INTERVENTION & REHEARSALS
The example of what was on Randy Phillips’s mind is his reaction to the email sent by Kenny Ortega on June 14th.
Ortega asked Randy Phillips if he was “aware that MJ’s doctor didn’t permit him to attend rehearsals yesterday?” And you know what Randy Phillips did in reply to that? You will never believe it – he wrote to the already fired Tohme an email about an “intervention”.
This intervention indeed took place on June 16th. Now Phillips calls it a simple meeting about some “protein shakes” and similar innocent things.
Brian Panish produced the respective email for Phillips approaching Tohme:
Q. Well, sir, there was an intervention with Michael Jackson in June of 2009, wasn’t there, sir?
A. An intervention? There was a meeting that I called an intervention, yes
Q. Sir, was there an intervention with Michael Jackson in June of 2009?
A. Yes; and it wasn’t drug related.
Q. Is that a “yes,” sir?
A. That’s a “yes,” sir.
Q. OK. Now, sir, let me show you exhibit 274. Did you write that e-mail, sir?
A. Yes.Q. Do you remember writing it, sir?
A. Somewhat, yes.
Q. So let’s put it up. And who are you writing this e-mail to?
A. This is to Dr. Tohme.
Q. OK. Was Dr. Tohme at the intervention?
A. At the meeting, no.
Q. OK. Well, did you call this a meeting or an intervention?
A. Well, I called it I mean, I, obviously, misspelled it; but I called it an intervention.
You might have already guessed that the reason why Randy Phillips was summoning (?) Tohme was not his worries about Michael’s health – all he wanted of Tohme was to force Michael to attend the rehearsals and make him “more focused” on them.
By the way if you still have any questions as to whether AEG had any right to force Michael into rehearsals here is Shawn Trell’s clear answer to it – NO, THEY DID NOT.
This was extensively discussed by Shawn Trell with Mr. Panish and Ms. Stebbins and over here the General Counsel of AEG surprised us by giving a clear and definitive reply. He said that how the artist is to prepare and whether he is to prepare at all is only the artist’s business and an artist rehearses only when an artist desires to rehearse:
Shawn Trell, General Counsel of AEG Live: “An artist rehearses only when an artist desires to rehearse. There is no reference to rehearsals in a tour agreement. How to prepare and whether to prepare, that’s up to them”
Ms. Stebbins: Does this agreement anywhere obligate Mr. Jackson to attend rehearsals to prepare for the show?
A No, no, no. There’s no reference to rehearsals in a -in a Tour agreement. I mean, the –even the notion -the notion of something like that would be offensive to an artist. I mean, it’s their craft, it’s what they do. They’re the artist, it’s their show, it’s their talent. No tour promoter or tour producer is dictating when somebody shows up. Of course, people associated with the show want to make sure it’s, you know, ready, and all of that; but there’s never a Provision in a Tour agreement dealing with rehearsal attendance.
Q. So an artist would be foolish not to rehearse, but they’re not contractually obligated to rehearse? Is that what you’re saying?
A Well, I mean, the artist’s reputation is at issue with its performance. You know, whether it’s an individual or a Group, it’s always their name and reputation at issue; so they always, you know, want to put on a First-class performance. How they prepare and whether they prepare, you know, that’s –that’s up to them.
Panish: Now, I want to now ask you about the rehearsals you can take that down that you talked about yesterday. You said that AEG Live could not make Michael Jackson go to rehearsals; right?
A. Yeah. I said that generally with respect to any artist; that an artist rehearses when an artist desires to rehearse.
Q. Is that a Yes, Sir?
A. Yes.
All this is very nice only the top lawyer of AEG Live totally overlooked that the CEO of the company was violating this beautiful principle right under his nose. Randy Phillips went as far as nominate himself and Dr.Murray responsible for Michael’s rehearsals and keeping to the Attendance Schedule, and Trell did not know a thing about it:
Q. Do you know whether Randy Phillips ever demanded that Dr. Murray be present at certain rehearsals?
A I don’t recall if I’m aware of that.
Q. Do you know whether Randy Phillips ever demanded that Dr. Murray be in charge of getting Michael Jackson to rehearsal?
A I don’t recall.
Q. Let’s put that up, Sir. Now, we just talked about rehearsals, and let’s see what Mr. Woolley, your authorized representative, was telling to the person trying to secure the insurance from Lloyds of London. And could you read for us, Sir… [..]
A. Changes are structural only. Kenny Ortega has responsibility only for the show content and structure, in consultation with MJ. Randy Phillips and Dr. Murray are responsible for MJ rehearsal and Attendance schedule.
Q. So Mr. Woolley is telling the insurance man that it’s Mr. Phillips and Dr. Murray that are going to be responsible for making sure MJ is at rehearsal and his attendance schedule; correct?
AEG Objection:. Misstates the document.
The Judge: overruled.
A. Can I have the question again,
Q. Let me … I’ll ask it again. Mr. Woolley, who is your authorized representative, formerly the C.F.O. of your company; right?
A. Correct.
Q.Telling the insurance man, who is a long-time friend of his; right?
A. Correct.
Q.That Mr. Ortega has responsibility for the show only; right?
A. Correct.
Q.And that Randy Phillips and Dr. Murray are responsible for rehearsal and attendance schedule for Michael Jackson; correct?
A. That’s what Timm Woolley says, yes.
Q.Ok, and did Mr. Woolley ever tell you that,
A.No.
Q.When you were investigating the relationship between Dr. Murray and AEG Live, did you ask Mr. Murray about Mr. Phillips or Dr. Murray being responsible to get MJ to rehearsal?
A. There was no need to. Mr. Woolley’s statement is inaccurate.
Q.Sir… The question is simple. Did you ever ask Mr. Woolley about that statement? Yes or no?
A. No.
Q.That would be another mistake by AEG; right?
A. Timm Woolley’s statement, in my opinion, is not accurate, Sir.
Q.But you never talked to him about it; right?
A. Right.
This is exactly what’s so bad about it – the top AEG Live lawyer never talked to any of them though he should have. Talking about it now is useless – it was then, when they were exploiting Michael and pushing him about that all these clear-cut statements were needed.
Q.Let’s go to the next sentence. Let me read that for you, Sir: looks like there might have been issue of KO. That’s Kenny Ortega; right?
A. That’s Kenny Ortega, yes.
Q.Not being demanding enough of MJ’s attendance or causing concern with the schedule he was imposing. Did I read it right; Sir?
A. Right. He being Kenny Ortega was imposing.
Q. Right. And he wasn’t being demanding enough on MJ; right?
A. Meaning MJ showed up whenever MJ wanted to show up.
Q.Sir. You’ve never seen this before, have you, Sir?
A. This email?
Q.Yeah.
A. No. I just testified that I had never seen it before.
Q.Right. And you never talked to Mr. Woolley or Mr. Taylor about what they were talking about; right?
A. Correct.
Q.And then it says: either way, there are others designated to ensure MJ is front and center for rehearsal. And those others, according to Mr. Woolley, were Randy Phillips, the C.E.O, and Dr. Conrad Murray; correct?
A. I don’t know who he’s referring to by the use of the word others. It would seem odd to be using it there, when the people are referenced in that incorrect statement in the preceding sentence, so …
Q.Well, Sir… He refers to Kenny Ortega being limited, because he’s not doing enough demanding; right? And either way, others … And the only others mentioned in that email are Phillips and Murray; right?
A. You’re asking me what I think he means by that. It would read awkwardly that he would be referring to the same people he’s referring to in the preceding sentence, so I don’t think that’s who he is referring to by that reference.
Q.Ok, fine.
All this evasive talk means only one thing – they were already playing tough love on Jackson by demanding that he should attend every rehearsal and not just sit there but perform, dance and sing and preferably going full out on his sing and dance routines.
Now Randy Phillips explains that this was needed for production and says he was so insistent due to Ortega’s complaints, but the above e-mail speak to the opposite – Ortega was not demanding enough by the AEG standards, they were dissatisfied with him and had a reserve variant – Randy Phillips and Conrad Murray, both of whom forced Michael to do what was not his obligation and only wasted his energy even before the show started.
Randy Phillips, Chief Executive officer of AEG
Randy Phillips is an exceptionally hard-nosed, insolent and arrogant guy. Despite the overwhelming evidence about the opposite he still insists that Michael was obliged to rehearse. What’s interesting is that he says that he did not even read the contract and was familiar only with the summary of it. This I don’t believe for a second, but if it is true, it makes things only worse – he didn’t know what the contract was saying about MJ’s no need to rehearse, did not bother to look it up but he nevertheless demanded of Michael things he had no right to demand?
Now he is shifting most of the blame for all that insistence to Ortega. Panish is helping Randy Phillips to outline his official position on this point:
Q: As it got to June, it was extremely important that rehearsals are attended and done well by all individuals involved, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. That doesn’t exclude Michael Jackson, does it?
A. Well, no, it shouldn’t.
Q. All individuals are to be involved in rehearsals as it gets close to the time for the show to start. That’s extremely important, isn’t it, sir?
A. That is correct.
Q. And, sir, you started to see pressure in Mr. Ortega in June, didn’t you, sir?
A. When you say “pressure,” please define that for me.
Q. The pressure on Kenny Ortega and the entire production rises as you get closer to the show. Would you agree with that, sir?
A. Absolutely, yes.
Q. You’ve testified to that under oath, didn’t you, sir?
A. I’m sure I did.
…Q. OK. And the pressure you started seeing the pressure in Mr. Ortega in June, didn’t you, sir?
A. Towards the middle of June, yes.
Q. And Mr. Ortega’s main concern was that Michael Jackson was not showing up at rehearsals,correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. And that Michael Jackson was not focused in mid to late June on the rehearsals, correct?
A. Correct. Just to correct your previous thing, Michael Jackson was showing up to rehearsals, just not enough of them, in Kenny’s opinion.
Q. Was Kenny Ortega having concerns about Michael Jackson’s performance and him showing up to rehearsals, yes or no?
A. Yes, he was.
Let me interrupt here and remind everyone that according to Travis Payne’s testimony Michael Jackson missed 5 rehearsals at the most, so all that fuss over rehearsals was making a mountain out of a mole-hill.
Q. OK. And, sir, isn’t it true that you had a phone call with Michael Amir about Mr. Jackson not coming to practice?
A. That is correct.
Q. And isn’t it true that you told Michael Amir it’s really critical that Michael show up for rehearsals because the show he is the fulcrum of the production and it really involves around him?
A. That is correct.
Q. Did you tell him that it’s not in his contract that he doesn’t need to go to rehearsal?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever tell anyone that Michael Jackson doesn’t need to go to rehearsal?
A. No.
Q. Did you tell Michael Amir so even though he, Michael Jackson, might know these dance moves, you know, intimately, and he’s just reinterpreting what he has done during his whole career, the entire show is a massive production, it really needs Michael’s presence because people have to key off him and they have to build the cues that affects everything off of Michael?
A. Yes, I ..I made that call at the behest of Kenny Ortega.
Q. Did you say those things
A. Yes.
Q. Kenny Ortega was very concerned that Michael Jackson was not coming to the rehearsal; and when he was coming to rehearsal, his performance was not good, correct?
A. Some of the rehearsals, yes.
Q. Now, sir, when Mr. Ortega brought this to your attention, you called Dr. Murray, didn’t you,sir?
A. Dr. I believe Dr. Murray called me, and I believe at the behest of Frank Dileo. I don’t – I don’t think I called him, he called me.
Q. OK. Well, let’s see what you testified to at the criminal trial, page 88 I’m sorry 8255, line26, to 8256, line 11. Did you tell the truth at the criminal trial, sir?
A. I always tell the truth.
Let me intervene again. This call was overlooked by us at Murray’s criminal trial, but now it seems that after Ortega’s email to Phillips on June 14th “Were you aware that MJ’s doctor didn’t permit him to attend rehearsals yesterday?” Phillips called Murray and spoke to him for about half an hour most probably explaining to him what he thought of Murray’s behavior.
This was when AEG began to exert pressure not only on Michael but on Murray too and this point is extremely important for understanding this terrible case. Up till June 14th Murray allowed himself frivolities like giving Michael a sick leave (just once) and allowing him not to rehearse (on June 13th), but after that it seems that he was wholly at AEG’s disposal.
From Panish’s questions we understand that after the news of Michael’s sick leave reached Phillips he called Murray not just once but several times. Now Phillips says that he does not remember the series of those calls and says he called Murray only on June 20th. Discussing it was quite a battle:
Q. Let me ask you this. Did you have a call with Dr. Murray?
A. Yes.
Q. And how long was that call?
A. I know where you’re going with this. When I was asked at the deposition, I remembered it being shorter; but it was actually about 22 minutes.
Mr. Panish: your honor, could I ask that the witness please answer the question and not make comments like, “I know where you’re going with this, my answer before was this”? My question is asked here, “how long was the call with Dr. Murray.”
Judge: I’ve asked you to focus on the question. I’m sure you’re doing your best, but I think it’s important to try to focus. That way you’re answering the question that’s asked.
A. I understand.
…Q. Sir, how long was the call with Dr. Murray?
A. Probably around 25 minutes.
Q. You testified different to that under oath, didn’t you, sir?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. OK. And, sir, how many phone calls did you have with Dr. Murray?
A. Well, that was the one I remember having. I May have had one or two others. I don’t remember.
Q. So the answer to the question of how many calls you had with Dr. Murray is, “I don’t remember”?
A. Well, you actually subpoenaed my phone records; so you would know better than I would.
Mr. Panish: could he please answer the question, your honor?
Judge: I don’t I’ve asked him to focus.
Mr. Panish: well, you can instruct him to answer the question.
Judge: I know.
Mr. Panish: you are the judge.
Ms. Stebbins: your honor, I think the witness is trying to answer the question.
Mr. Panish: oh, come on. Your honor, it’s pretty simple.
Q. How many calls did you have with Dr. Murray? One? Two? 1,000? “I don’t remember”?
A. The only one I remember is the one when he called me on June 20th; and it lasted about 20,25 minutes.
Q. OK. First of all, sir, how do you where do you get that information, that we subpoenaed your phone records?
A. In the deposition. You guys showed me you showed me, when Mr. your co-counsel
Q. That was the Los Angeles police department that subpoenaed the phone records, wasn’t it, sir?
A. I have no idea. I thought you guys did.
Q. Well, no, no. You just said you didn’t say “I thought,” you just said I would know because I subpoenaed your phone records. Did you just testify to that?
A. It’s an assumption.
Q. OK. So you again testified to something that’s not true, correct?
A. Well, it’s better than you calling me a liar, so correct.
Q. OK. So now let’s go back to the question, sir. Was it one call only that you remember with Dr.Murray?
A. That’s the one I remember, yes.
We don’t know how many times Phillips called Murray after that sick leave but we do know that all AEG forces were thrown into making Michael come to rehearsals irrespective of the state of his health. One of the main tools of pressurizing Michael was “bringing Murray into the fold”. How did they do it?
Well, look at the timeline.
THE TIMELINE OF REPRESSION
First Kenny Ortega sent an email to AEG “Were you aware that MJ’s doctor didn’t permit him to attend rehearsals yesterday?” ( June 14th) and the next email “He is not in great physical shape, I believe he is hurting, he has been slow at grabbing hold of the work,” (June 15th).
Randy Phillips’s reaction to them was a series of calls to Murray. We can only guess what he said to him over the phone.
Gongaware’s reaction was a message sent on June 14th saying that “he and Frank discussed it” (so Frank Dileo was in it too?) and they “wanted to remind Murray that it was AEG and not MJ who was paying his salary and wanted him to understand what was expected of him”.
Randy Phillips gave three different answers as to seeing this Gongaware’s email. First he said he didn’t receive it, then he didn’t remember it and then he said he got it. He also does not remember whether he took part in a meeting (intervention) arranged immediately after that – on June 16th.
Here is an excerpt from Phillips’ deposition:
Q. OK. Were you getting reports as of June 14, 2009, that Mr. Jackson was not performing well at rehearsals?
A. No. I just the e-mail you’ve given me was the first time I was told that.
Q. Your first meeting with Dr. Murray, was that before June 14th, 2009?
A. Yes.
…Q. OK. Mr. when Mr. Ortega writes here “he is not in great physical shape, I believe he is hurting, he has been slow at grabbing hold of the work,”as of June 15, 2009, did you get that same information?
A. I don’t remember receiving this e-mail.
Q. Well, let me ask you about the the language there that Mr. Gongaware wrote at – on June 14th at 4:11.
“Frank and I have discussed it already, and have requested a face-to-face meeting with the doctor, hopefully Monday.”that would be June 15th, I think, if we do the calendar calculations.“we wanted to remind him that it is AEG, not MJ., who is paying his salary. We want him to understand what is expected of him.”do you see that?
A. Yeah, I see it, yes.
…Q. Did you ever admonish or correct Mr. Gongaware to say that that’s not accurate?
A. No, because I don’t remember seeing it in the first place.
….Q. Sir, first you never got it, “I don’t remember getting it,” “I got it,” right? Did I get that right,your three versions?
A. Correct.
Ms. Stebbins: objection; misstates the deposition testimony.
Judge: overruled.
Q. Is that right, sir?
A. Because I was c.c.’d on an e-mail that Paul forwarded to Frank Dileo.
Q. Did I get it right, the three versions you testified to, sir?
A. Yes, Mr. Panish, you did.
Q. Now, you don’t remember doing anything in response to that e-mail, do you, sir?
A. Frankly, I don’t remember reading Paul’s e-mail. I was more focused on Kenny’s e-mails.
At this point Panish caught Phillips blatantly lying because Phillips could not overlook Gongaware’s message due to “focusing on Kenny’s emails” – the emails he is talking about were sent only 5 days later, in the early hours of June 20th. Why Phillips is trying to fool everyone is because he doesn’t want to admit that after that sick-leave message he involved himself in frantic activity which ended in an “intervention” (a meeting):
Q. Did you participate in a meeting with Dr. Murray after June 14th, 2009, but before the meeting at the forum the next weekend?
A. I don’t remember.
Q. So you may have had a meeting you may have already participated in a meeting with Dr. Murray around June 15th?
A. I may have. I don’t remember.
The information about that meeting was extracted from Phillips by Brian Panish in an exceptionally professional way. Confronted with Panish’s questions Phillips finally had to admit that there was a meeting in the middle of June (the “intervention” one) and he did participate in it. At this point we realize that there were actually three meetings arranged by them for pressurizing Michael.
The meeting on June 16th was the second one out of the three. As we know the person whom Phillips contacted before arranging it was no other but Tohme and this is evidently how and when Tohme reappeared on the scene again. He personally did not take part in the meeting but most probably consulted them on how to deal with Michael.
This meeting was probably the one where the tough love and now-or-never card were played. Murray was reprimanded for his earlier frivolity and was fully “brought into the fold” to ensure that Michael came to every rehearsal. From then on tough love was to be displayed – no more sick leaves and no more sympathy for Michael’s health problems were to be allowed.
In Randy Phillips’ opinion this system of repression against Michael Jackson worked – he said that after that Michael began attending rehearsals.
Indeed Michael came to the rehearsal on June 18th and Karen described Michael on that day as “stoic” (but frightened). On June 19th the situation turned catastrophic which is why Kenny Ortega sent Michael home and this was followed by a series of SOS emails from Bugzee and Kenny Ortega.
So the total number of meetings arranged for Michael by AEG in June 2009 was three and all three of them had a repressive tinge to them.
The first was around June 5th to reprimand him for not attending rehearsals on four days or so after they moved to Forum on June 1st (he had been making videos at the Culvar studios and this was not to AEG’s liking).
Michael came to a rehearsal on June 6th and attended each and every one of them until June 11th. By Friday 12th he was so fatigued that did not come (remember that he wasn’t obliged to waste his energy on rehearsals at all) and on Saturday June 13th Murray gave him a sick leave. The next day Sunday June 14th an uproar started – Phillips kept calling Murray and Gongaware reminded him who was paying his salary. Phillips approached Tohme. On June 15th Michael was at a rehearsal again.
The next meeting was on June 16th which was some kind of an “intervention” evidently meant to explain to Michael that only 20 days were left before the premiere and not a single complaint and missed rehearsal would be tolerated. Murray was turned into an overseer and everyone was told to play tough love and now-or-never card. Somewhere in between those statements the idea of pulling the plug was probably also mentioned.
On June 18th Michael was stoic but looked very frightened according to Karen Faye, and on June 19th he was so weak, cold and shaking that could not even eat.
And the final meeting was on June 20th where Murray famously declared to Ortega to leave Michael’s health to him and not to play amateur psychiatrist or physician there. He behaved in a manner which reminds us of Randy Phillips ways and this makes us think that it was him from whom Murray was drawing his inspiration. In fact Randy Phillips sent an email to Kenny Ortega with exactly the same words reminding him that it was critical not to become amateur doctors for MJ.
All these meetings were initiated by AEG and were pressurizing Michael into rehearsing , forcing him to do as he was told and making him follow the rules set for him by his masters, sorry, partners.
This is how the news about the second meeting was found out:
Q. Sir, I asked you very clearly did you do anything in response to this e-mail [June 14th], and you said, “no, because I was more concerned with Kenny’s e-mail.” do you remember that testimony?
A. Yes, yes.
…Q. So you couldn’t have been concerned about Kenny’s e-mails on the 18th on the 14th, 15th,16th or 17th because he hadn’t even written them yet, correct?
A. Those e-mails, yes.
Q. Did you ever have a meeting where you discussed this e-mail with Dr. Murray?
A. That’s where there’s some confusion, Mr. Panish. There was I believe there was a meeting on June 16th, and but there’s some confusion as to whether the meeting was on the 16th or was earlier.
Q. OK. So now this is another meeting that you didn’t tell me about earlier with Dr. Murray, right?
A. No. That’s the meeting, the first meeting.
Q. OK. The first meeting that you said was in late May or early June is now on the 16th?
A. I said either either early June or mid June.
Q. But in your deposition, you said it was in late May or early June, didn’t you, sir?
A. I made a mistake.
Q. You didn’t correct that, did you, sir?
A. No, no.
Q. And so you’re now saying that the meet- now you remember the specific day of the meeting that was either in late May, early June, mid June now you remember specifically it was June16th; is that right?
A. Only because there were e-mails that make it make it appear that there was a meeting on the16th.
Q. So now is it the truth that you met with Dr. Murray on June 16th?
A. I believe so. I believe so.
Q. Did you put that in any of your changes of your deposition?
A. No.
Q. Did you testify to that in the deposition?
A. No, I ..I a mistake on the period, the week.
Q. I’m sorry. That was another mistake you made?
A. There were a few, yes.
Q. Sir, what’s an intervention?
A. What is an intervention? It depends on what you’re referring to.
Q. OK. What I‘d like to know is what is you your, Randy Phillips’, CEO of AEG Live’s understanding of what an intervention is?
A. In this case, it was to or just in general?
Q. Let’s go in general, sir.
A. OK. An intervention can be when there’s something going wrong in a project, you intervene the parties to figure it out and how to correct it.
Q. OK. So as far as you’re – intervention doesn’t have anything to do with somebody using substances?
A. It has been used in that regard. That’s not how I used it, but it has been used in that regard.
Q. Well, sir, there was an intervention with Michael Jackson in June of 2009, wasn’t there, sir?
A. An intervention? There was a meeting that I called an intervention, yes
Q. Sir, was there an intervention with Michael Jackson in June of 2009?
A. Yes; and it wasn’t drug related.
Q. Is that a “yes,” sir?
A. That’s a “yes,” sir.
Q. OK. Now, sir, let me show you exhibit 274. Did you write that e-mail, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember writing it, sir?
A. Somewhat, yes.
Q. Did you review it in preparation to come testify here today, sir?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. So let’s put it up. And who are you writing this e-mail to?
A. This is to Dr. Tohme.
Q. OK. Was Dr. Tohme at the intervention?
A. At the meeting, no.
Q. OK. Well, did you call this a meeting or an intervention?
A. Well, I called it I mean, I, obviously, misspelled it; but I called it an intervention.
Mr. Panish: I thought you were so careful about grammar and punctuation.
Ms. Stebbins: objection; argumentative.
Judge: sustained.
Mr. Panish: withdraw the question.
Q. Sir, did you call this a meeting or a intervention?
A. I called it an intervention, but it was not drug-related.
Q.“intervenion” is what you called it, right?
A. Yeah, I made a typo.
Q. OK. Typo. And Kenny Ortega, Gongaware, Dileo and Conrad Murray from Vegas were all present at the intervention, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And you were trying to get Michael to focus and come to rehearsals, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And this intervention was on June 16th, right?
A. I believe I believe so, yes, based on these e-mails.
Q. Well, if we’re to believe what you wrote here, it would be June 16th, right?
A. The answer is yes.
Q. And you say, sir well, why don’t you read what I’ve written or what I’ve what’s been yellowed out.
A.“Kenny Ortega, Gongaware, Dileo, his doctor named Conrad from Vegas, and I have an intervention with him to get him to focus and come to rehearsals yesterday. Getting him fully engaged is difficult and the most pressing matter as we are only 20 days out from the first show.”
Q. How many days was that before Michael Jackson died that you had the intervention?
A. The meeting was on the 16th.
Q. Well, you called it an intervention, didn’t you, sir? That’s not my word, that’s yours, isn’t it?
A. No, I understand; but it was a meeting.
Q. Well, sir, Dr. Tohme, are you friends with him?
A. Am I friends with him. I became friendly with him as we progressed in negotiating the deal todo “This Is It.”
Q. Was he ever fired by Mr. Jackson?
A. You’re going to hate this, but it’s just not a yes or no answer, because
Q. Let me ask you this.
A. The answer is yes, but he kept in contact with him.
Q. OK. Well, the answer is was he ever fired? That’s a yes or no, isn’t it? Was he fired or not fired? What is it?
A. For with Michael Jackson, his advisors, you needed a scorecard. But yes, at one point, he was fired; but we received a a letter signed by Michael terminating him.
Q. So, sir, my question was, I thought, simple. Was he ever terminated by Mr. Jackson? Can you answer that yes or no?
Ms. Stebbins: objection; asked and answered.
A. yes.
Judge: overruled.
A. we received a letter terminating him.
Q. is that a “yes”?A. That’s a “yes.”
And this brings us back to Tohme again. For what reason they brought Tohme back into the fold we don’t know yet but the fact that they re-approached him at this stage looks somewhat disturbing. Did they want some special bulldog advice from Tohme on how to handle Michael Jackson? Or did they need him for some other purposes? This will be hopefully clarified later – at this stage we are only learning more and more details about Tohme’s role in the game all these people were playing against Michael Jackson.
TOHME FINAL SERVICES
Tohme when he was still MJ’s “manager”
First of all we find that when Randy Phillips met Tohme to negotiate their deal with Michael Jackson he knew that he was working as a consultant for Colony Capital.
So just as we expected Tohme did work for Colony Capital when he was supposed to work as Michael’s manager and look after his best interests. And he wanted a huge per cent from Michael just for doing the work for Tom Barrack who was paying him anyway?
No, all this is incredible stuff…
Q. OK. And so, sir, you were introduced to Dr. Tohme when?
A. In either probably in September, whenever I had the Colony Capital meeting, it was right after that.
Q. OK. What kind of doctor is this gentleman?
A. Not one I’ve used, so I have no idea.
Q. Is he a doctor?
A. He could be a PHD. I don’t know.
Q. Do you know if he’s anything, or he just uses that title?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Did you ever ask him if he was a doctor?
A. No.
Q. How many times have you met with Dr. Tohme?
A. Probably, over the course of the “This Is It” project probably met with him 25 times.
…Q. Well, now, sir, the way that you came about meeting Mr… Dr…., whatever, Tohme was through this Mr. Nanula, who Dr. Tohme had worked with at Colony Capital as a longtime consultant, correct?
A. That is my understanding, yes.
Q. And did you know anything about Dr. Tohme before you before the Michael Jackson agreement was signed?
A. Before January 28th?
Q. Y es.
A. Did I know anything about him?
Q. Yes.
A. Not nothing other than he was a consultant to Colony Capital, and he also represented Michael Jackson.
Q. And you learned that at this meeting at Colony Capital, right?
A. That’s correct.
From Shawn Trell we also learn that after Michael’s death they had a special role for Tohme to play – he was to make a certain declaration (in addition to the one by Frank Dileo) that Michael agreed to pay all production costs which AEG estimated at $34 million – those with which this post started with.
Though knowing full well that Tohme was no Michael’s representative and could not sign any papers on behalf of the Michael Jackson Company, AEG nevertheless arranged a paper from Tohme which said that he had the right to make all those statements. Shawn Trell pretends that Tohme returned to work for Michael in some capacity:
Q your understanding, if I understood your testimony, was that Dr. Murray….Dr. Tohme had been terminated by Mr. Jackson at some point in early May 2009?
A right
Q and did you ever have an understanding as to whether Mr. Jackson and Dr. Tohme’s relationship changed again?
A yes it was my understanding Dr. Tohme came back into representing him in some capacity.
As I understand it after Michael’s death Tohme presented them with some papers saying he was the officer of MJ company (which is impossible as the powers of attorney were revoked and Tohme had long been fired from all posts even if he had them before). These fictional papers were used by AEG to have a document from Tohme consenting on behalf of Michael Jackson company that it was Michael’s ardent desire to pay all those millions for producing the show and maintaining all its tour personnel.
Why wasn’t the resulting paper disputed by the Estate I do not know and think that its attorneys owe us some explanation about it. All that ‘acknowledgement of the expenses’ on the part of the Michael Jackson company from a man who was not its officer for a single day while Michael was alive and suddenly became one after he had died looks to me very strange indeed.
Even the judge said that all those statements from Tohme were only his belief:
Q. Right, just like you had Dr. Tohme sign off on behalf of Mr. Jackson, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And Dr. Tohme approved the payment and submitted it to the estate, right?
A. Yes.
…Q in this document, it says that Dr. Tohme Tohme is an officer of the Michael Jackson company?
A yes
Q did you believe that to be true at the time this document was entered into?
A yes
Q and as you sit here today, do you have any knowledge as to whether it was true or not true, other than what was in the document?
A no I have no knowledge of whether it was true or not true
Q and it says here in paragraph 3 the undersigned, Dr. Tohme Tohme, represents and warrants that he is an officer of artistco; is that right?
A yes
Q did Mr. Tohme sign this document?
A Dr. Tohme signed it on behalf of the Michael Jackson company yes
Q okay. Now, what was the purpose of this — let me ask, were you involved in drafting this document?
A yes
Q and what was its purpose?
A its purpose was to obtain Dr. Tohme’s acknowledgment of the production costs incurred to date as Dr. Tohme for some period of time at the beginning and then there at the end was representing Michael Jackson in some capacity.
Panish move to strike. There’s no foundation about the end.
Court there’s no foundation —
Panish no foundation for this witness.
Bina your honor, I asked why he created the document and what its purpose was.
Panish then it’s nonresponsive.
Court motion denied. That’s his belief
Q did you — was Dr. Tohme the only manager that Mr. Jackson had in this time period?
A no from the time period that we entered into the tour agreements through June 25th, or the — you know, the date of — of this, June 28th, or whenever, there were two people that were there that represented Michael Jackson in some management capacity, Dr. Tohme and frank Dileo.
Q and did AEG live have any similar for this one with Dr. Tohme?
A we did a similar document with Mr. Dileo where he signed a declaration with respect to the same budget production costs that were attached to this document.
Q and do you know what became of these documents? Were they were provided to any of Mr. Jackson’s other representatives?
A they were provided to the estate.
Q and what was the purpose in providing them to the estate, if you know?
A it was just covering the time period at issue through both gentlemen. Ultimately the estate conducted its own audit and investigation of the — and review of the production costs, and confirmed the same.
Q and were the production costs — production advances ultimately approved by Mr. Jackson’s estate?
A yes, they were
How the Estate made their audit and “investigation” of it I don’t know, but as to Frank Dileo it seems that we finally know why he agreed to sign off anything that was submitted to him by AEG. But first a word about what Dileo signed.
FRANK DILEO FINAL SERVICES
Q. Is this the statement of Mr. Dileo that you were talking about?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And you testified earlier that Mr. Jackson had two managers over this time period.
A. Yes, Dr. Tohme Tohme initially…. Mr. Dileo then came into the picture or Michael’s life in some capacity. Then it was my understanding Dr. Tohme Tohme later came back into Michael’s life in some capacity.
Q. And in this first paragraph, does Mr. Dileo represent how long he was engaged as Mr. Jackson’s manager?
A. From approximately march until the date of Mr. Jackson’s death.
Q. And does he say anything in this document about whether or not he was involved with Mr. Jackson in preparing for the This Is it tour?
A. He says a lot of things here; but he says he had regular contact directly with Michael Jackson about matters related to the concerts at the 02 arena and the preparation for such concerts.
Q. Can we go down to paragraph 4, does it say whether Mr. Jackson… whether Mr. Dileo worked with Mr. Jackson to approve the budget?
A. Yes.
Q. The first sentence of that paragraph reads, Michael Jackson not only approved the attached budget of expenses, and he requested AEG Live to incur such costs to produce the type of show that Michael Jackson said he wanted. And is that consistent with your understanding?
A. Absolutely.
Q. Does this paragraph say anything about the retention of Dr. Murray?
A. Yes, it does, about right at the middle of the paragraph, the sentence that starts with, throughout…
Q. What does it say?
A. Mr. Dileo says, throughout the process of producing the show, Michael Jackson had many requests of AEG Live, and he acknowledged that he would be responsible for the costs associated with such requests. For instance, Michael Jackson asked AEG Live, as the producer of the show, to retain the services of Dr. Conrad Murray, who Michael said was his personal physician.
Q. And can you go down to the bottom of that page…did Mr. Dileo sign this document?
A. Mr. Dileo, under a paragraph that reads, I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein, and if required to do so, I would and could testify competently to the same. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California, the United States of America, and any other applicable laws, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 13th day of July, 2009, in Los Angeles, California, Frank Dileo.
Q. Mr. Trell, what was your understanding of Mr. Dileo’s role in this time period?
A. That he was acting in a management capacity with or some capacity in connection with the overall management of Michael Jackson.
Q. Did anyone connected with Mr. Jackson ever tell you, as an officer of AEG Live, that Mr. Jackson had not approved any of the costs for the This Is It tour?
A. No
Well, despite them saying that Michael had two managers at the time the reality was that Michael had none. Tohme working for AEG was fired in April 2009, and Dileo who was working for I don’t who, was most probably shut off from any real decision-making. AEG themselves were complaining that (now that Tohme was gone) there was no one to deal with in Michael’s camp.
Panish produced a respective email from Randy Phillips where he wrote to a certain Jeff Wald that it was a nightmare for poor AEG to work in such conditions – Michael Jackson had no lawyer, no business manager and no real manager:
Q. Mr. Trell, have you ever seen that e-mail before, sir?
A I saw it at my deposition.
Q. Ok. And are you claiming that’s not an AEG document?
A I didn’t claim that. You asked me if I had seen it before. I saw it at my deposition.
Q. I get ya I’m just saying would you agree that’s an AEG document?
A Yes.
Q. And who is Jeff Wald?
A I don’t know.
Q. Who is Phillips?
A That’s Randy Phillips
Q. Ok. And as the person most knowledgeable about the relationship between Mr. Jackson and AEG. Live, does this document discuss whether or not Mr. -Mr. Jackson had a Manager at that time?
Ms. Stebbins: I’m going to object to the use of this document with this witness. I think it lacks foundation. I also don’t believe that was one of the designated person-most-knowledgeable categories.
Judge: I’m confused as to your discussion. What is it discussed –did he discuss it with somebody? Did he –and you’re not talking about the e-mail, you’re just talking about the subject of whether he had a Manager?
Mr. Panish: let me back up.
Judge: rephrase that.
Mr. Panish: I would be happy to, your honor.
Q. So it’s your –you’ve never seen –or strike that. Can you talk about this e-mail, sir?
A I have no idea who Jeff Wald is or the exchange that took place here. I did not have any discussions with anybody about this exchange.
Q. Ok. Did Mr. Phillips, to your knowledge, ever tell anyone that Mr. Jackson had no lawyer, no business manager, and no real manager, and it was a real nightmare for AEG., to your knowledge?
A According to this e-mail here, that’s what he says, yes.
By the way when Randy Phillips was complaining about having no lawyer on MJ’s side he was right – Tohme was gone and Dennis Hawk was gone together with him as he was Tohme’s lawyer, and not Michael’s, and the only other lawyer left was Joel Katz but as regards him there was a conflict of interests – he had been retained by AEG in 2008 and was a long-time friend of Randy Phillips.
Panish spoke to Shawn Trell about it. This only one instance of that talk:
Q. Did you tell us that Mr. Katz was an attorney for Mr. Jackson, Sir?
A. That was my understanding.
Q. Sir… Mr. Katz was on retainer for AEG at this time, wasn’t he?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Would you agree with me there was conflict of interest for an attorney to be hired and on retainer for one person and then represent another person that’s in an adverse business relationship?
A. Yes.
As to Frank Dileo he as Michael’s manager was not taken seriously even by AEG and therefore could not be playing any important role in AEG’s business with Michael Jackson – and this means that he most probably never discussed with Michael (or AEG) any important points about the budget. He preferred not to be involved. We remember that after Michael’s death he gave interviews complaining of his poor health, and the way he nearly lost his eye-sight, and that by the time he joined Michael all decisions had already been taken – actually he was almost openly admitting that he did not really look.
So any papers signed by Frank Dileo are of highly dubious character, especially if we consider the bomb broken by Panish at the very end of Shawn Trell’s testimony – he asked him if he was aware of the $5 mln. payment planned to be made to Frank Dileo.
Trell was devastated. First he “didn’t know” what Panish was talking about, and after being presented with an email addressed to him and telling him that the sum was approved and all they needed was an explanation why it was to be paid, he finally recalled that they did pay to Dileo but only $50,000 and only in connection with the This Is It movie project:
Q. Were you aware that after Michael Jackson died, AEG Live paid Frank Dileo $5 million?
A. No, I’m not aware.
Q. Ok, did you approve Mr. Dileo to get paid money after Michael Jackson died, Sir?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Ok well, let’s take a look, Sir and that’s something you would recall if you were approving sums of money to be paid to Mr. Dileo; isn’t that true, Sir?
A. Sums of money… you’re talking about $5 million?
Q. Let’s start with any money, Sir.
A. Don’t recall any money being…me being involved in approving the payment of any money to Frank Dileo.
Q. Well, let’s first talk about did you know that AEG paid money to Frank Dileo after Michael Jackson died, yes or no?
A. No.
Q. This is an e-mail to you, and this is on the fourth page. Do you see that, Sir?
A. Right here.
Q. Shawn Trell, is that you?
A. Yes, I’m on this string, so…
Q. Ok so, let’s put that up first. Let’s start with that. Actually, it’s a whole long string, let’s start there. Can you read it now?
A. Yes.
Q. Seen that before, is your name on there, Sir… Shawn Trell?
A. On these two.
Q. Let’s put these first two up. Actually, you’re on the first three, at least. Because you’re on this one, too, right? One, two, three … Ok so here’s one that says, forward Frank Dileo expenses revised, right…that’s sent to you?
A. Right, in October.
Q. Two months after Michael Jackson died … Or, actually, four months, right?
A. Four months, yes.
Q. And then it says, approved 5 million bucket, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And then it says, above that, someone needs to generate a check request with a full explanation of what this payment is for. Randy and Shawn can sign off, and it can be charged to additional motion picture expenses.
A. Yes
Q. Do you see that?
A. That’s an e-mail from Rick Webking to me, right.
Let me intervene here for a second. So not only was the sum of $5mln approved for Frank Dileo but after that they also asked for someone to generate a check request explaining this payment!
It means that first AEG agreed to pay and then started thinking how to explain it and under what pretext the money could be charged to the additional motion picture expenses. I think that this request is even more mind-boggling than the sum they were planning to pay!
After seeing that email Trell finally began to recall things:
Q. Did you sign off and approve any expenses for Mr. Dileo to be paid after Mr. Jackson died, yes or no?
A. This looks like a $50,000 payment was made to Frank Dileo in connection with the motion picture.
Q. Ok well, let’s start with that. So after Mr. Dileo signed exhibit … Let’s put that up now … I’m going to be all messed up here, but … What would that be called… after Mr. Jackson died, after you got Mr. Dileo to sign, then AEG paid money to Mr. Dileo, right?
A. Correct
Q. Did you go to Mr. Dileo … AEG Live, and get him to sign this document?
A. Yes
Q. Can we put that up, Sir… I believe Frank volunteered to sign it, and if he didn’t sign, he wouldn’t get paid any money by AEG, would he, Sir?
A. No, I don’t think that’s the case.
Q. Ok Sir, is Mr. Dileo’s money included in what was submitted … Did AEG submit this, Sir?
A. Well, if I have an opportunity to answer this question fully…
Judge: Ok, answer it fully.
A. The $50,000 payment to Frank would have had to do with something, it’s not clear to me, related to the motion picture. And the reference to the $5 million bucket is an agreement as between AEG and the estate regarding additional motion picture expense … Like a contingency. You know, we had a bucket to deal with additional expenses incurred as the film was produced, so that’s … When it says $5 million bucket, it means it’s to be accounted for in that bucket. It does not mean Frank was paid $5 million.
However Randy Phillips said that the sum of $50,000 was paid to Frank Dileo while Michael was still alive, at Michael’s request and sometime at the beginning of May too, so that sum could never have anything to do with making a motion picture which they said they decided to make only after Michael’s death.
If those $5 million were indeed mentioned in connection with Frank Dileo’s name and had to be explained by attaching them to the motion picture expenses (though Dileo had nothing to do with the film) this will be the most incriminating evidence against Frank Dileo that can be onl thought of – but I am still making some reservations about it as we still need to see what information his computer will produce for us.
The other fact which is restraining me from making final conclusions is the fact that Dileo died as a result of a coma which was induced by an accidental double doze of anesthesia and this, coupled with Peter Lopez’s alleged shooting himself with no weapon found near the body is putting some unpleasant ideas into my head.
Though previously Randy Phillips complained about a “nightmare” situation with Michael having no manager, no lawyer, etc. now he is presenting Dileo as the real Michael Jackson’s manager – evidently to give more force to the paper Frank Dileo signed for AEG:
Q. I want to ask you this, sir. Let’s isn’t it true, sir, that when Dr. Murray was hired, there was noone acting as Mr. Jackson’s personal manager?
A. No, that’s not true. Frank Dileo was hired in some capacity. I don’t know if Michael referred to him as his manager or not, but Frank Dileo was representing him.
Q. Did Michael Jackson have a personal manager or not?
A. My understanding is that Frank Dileo was functioning in that role.
Q. OK. And do you have a writing that said, “this is my agent”?
A. Yes.
Q. OK. What did it say?
A. It said it was when we advanced Frank Dileo I believe $50,000 at Michael’s direction.
Q. You gave Mr. Dileo Mr. Dileo, did he have a contract with AEG?
A. No.
Q. Never?
A. Not that I am aware of.
Q. Well, sir, and AEG Gave money to Mr. Dileo; is that right?
A. At Michael Jackson’s direction, yes.
Q. OK. And when was that, sir?
A. Most likely it was sometime in either May or June.
Q. OK. Well, let me show you, sir, exhibit 185, dash, 1.Have you seen that before?
A. I probably have.Q. OK. And when was Mr. Dileo what’s the date of that, sir?A. Monday, May 11th.Q. And did you pay 50,000 to Mr. Dileo after May 11th?
A. Hold on. This letter is dated May 2nd, 2009. The cover letter from Evvy Tavasci to PaulGongaware was on the 11th, and the actual document that Michael signed was on the second.
FINAL WORD ABOUT THE PAPERS
From all the mess with the two managers for Michael Jackson out of which none was a real one, one more thing is also becoming clear – the papers they gave to AEG were to mask the fact that Michael did not give any written approval to spending all that excess money on production. He either did not know that it was his obligation (we remember that the inside papers were inserted into the contract later) or he never agreed to cover those expenses at all.
This is why AEG so desperately needed the services of those two managers. They gave their written consent to covering the production expenses, and they were indeed covered by the Estate on the basis of papers submitted by Tohme and Frank Dileo. Tohme did it on behalf of the Michael Jackson Company though he was never its officer (and AEG knew about it), and Frank Dileo confirmed it as a manager whose credentials even AEG had a difficulty to accept and believe in.
Why were the AEG people so desperate to have those papers? Could they do without them? I doubt they could – their own contract explicitly said that all approvals were to be made in writing, and from Michael Jackson they had absolutely nothing:
Q. Mr. Dileo, who you say was authorized to approve things … You say he was authorized by Michael Jackson to approve things, right?
A. That was my understanding.
Q. And he approved the Dr. Murray expense, didn’t he, Sir?
A. If this was contained in the attachment at this time, that’s what Frank was signing off on behalf of Michael Jackson.
Q. Right, just like you had Dr. Tohme sign off on behalf of Mr. Jackson, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And Dr. Tohme approved the payment and submitted it to the estate, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And, Sir… under Mr. Jackson’s contract, which I hate to do this … Let me just try to do it without showing it. Ok now, in this part of the contract, it says all notices … Does it say … Does it say some notices, ones that are verbal, does it ever say that, Sir?
A. No, it doesn’t.
Q. All notices, approvals and consent required or permitted to be given hereunder or which are given with respect to this agreement shall be in writing, did I read that correctly, Sir?
A. Yes.
Q. And Mr. Jackson, he was the sole officer of the Michael Jackson Company, correct?
A. That was my understanding as of the date this agreement was entered into.
Q. And you told us that there was a verbal agreement to extend it to 50 shows, right?
A. Yes, there was a mutual understanding to go to 50, yes.
Q. And the contract requires any notice or approvals or consents to be in writing, correct?
A. That’s what this provision says, yes.
Q. And, Sir… for Mr. Jackson’s expenses and production, you had Mr. Tohme and Mr. Dileo sign after Mr. Jackson was dead, right?
A. Right.
Q. And you had no signature before Mr. Jackson was dead, did you?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And, Sir … So AEG took the position that somebody could sign that was authorized by Mr. Jackson after the fact, correct?
A. We took the position that his management could sign on his behalf in that regard, all of it rendered moot by the estate ultimately signing off on it anyway. The estate is Michael Jackson, so I’m not sure I understand your question.
Q. Because you don’t want to answer it. I know… let me say it again.
A. I am answering it.
Q. Isn’t it true that AEG took the position to satisfy the contract that Dileo and Tohme could sign after Mr. Jackson was dead, yes or no?
A. Yes, they signed off on it.
Q. And isn’t it true that Tohme and Dileo signed off on Dr. Murray after Mr. Jackson was dead?
A. It was included in that version of the expenses at that time, yes.
Q. And they got paid, Dileo and Tohme, after they signed to submit the … The documents, correct?
A. I’m not aware of any payments to Dr. Tohme; and I’m only aware of this $50,000 payment to Frank in connection with the film, as I just described.
So from Michael Jackson himself AEG had no papers – neither for 50 shows, nor for covering the production expenses. In fact I am not even sure that AEG had a proper contract with Michael Jackson at all as the dates of its “signing” are indeed raising too many red flags.
By the way when Ms. Stebbins asked the top lawyer of AEG whether there would be an agreement with Michael Jackson if he walked away from the room without signing it and the top AEG lawyer answered that there would be no contract with him, she was probably right.
Most probably Michael did indeed walk out of that room without signing, and all the fuss AEG arranged with the papers with Tohme and Frank Dileo was meant to close the huge gaps they were having after doing all their cut-and-paste job and reshuffling the only papers they had.
The fact that neither of the AEG people can properly explain a simple thing like when their contract with Michael Jackson was signed probably means that Michael did not sign it – and if he did not sign, it means that there was no contract as Shawn Trell himself explained it to his lawyer.
It would be over-simplifying things but AEG lawyers are doing it too, so I really like Ms.Stebbins’ idea:
Ms. Stebbins. When did you have a contract with Mr. Jackson?
A. As of January 28th
Q. And if Mr. Jackson had walked into the room on January 28th, 2009, and said, you know what, I changed my mind. I’m not signing this…would you have had an agreement?
A. No
* * *
The transcripts used for this post are as follows:
Shawn Trell-2: http://teammichaeljackson.com/archives/8632
Shawn Trell- 4: http://teammichaeljackson.com/archives/8643
Also Randy Phillips-2: http://teammichaeljackson.com/archives/8709
Guys, please don’t hesitate to donate to TeamMichaelJackson for buying the transcripts: http://teammichaeljackson.com/archives/8530
Nothing can be dearer than the truth.
Vindicating Michael 
She’s also a black woman. Phillips might’ve mistaken her for Grace.
LikeLike
“I believe the makeup artist/hairstylist for the This Is It press conference was the same one he had in 2007-2009; She worked on the Ebony Magazine photo shoot. I think it’s Linda…something.” – Lopsided man
But Randy Phillips said that she was also a nanny to the children:
LikeLike
“Helena, several media outlets reported that Grace visited Paris in hospital. I don’t know if it’s true, perhaps someone else can provide more information. But there was also a new photo of her on FB, so I wondered why she couldn’t be found, she apparently is around.’ – Susanne
Oh, that’s good. But I clearly remember that sometime ago the Jacksons’ attorneys were saying that they could not find her anywhere. People don’t say things like that just for nothing. My personal opinion that it is a good protective measure.
LikeLike
I believe the makeup artist/hairstylist for the This Is It press conference was the same one he had in 2007-2009; She worked on the Ebony Magazine photo shoot. I think it’s Linda…something.
LikeLike
Helena, several media outlets reported that Grace visited Paris in hospital.
I don’t know if it’s true, perhaps someone else can provide more information.
But there was also a new photo of her on FB, so I wondered why she couldn’t be found, she apparently is around.
LikeLike
Guys, from further reading of Randy Phillips’s testimony I gathered that the make-up woman who was present at that terrible scene of slapping Michael was NOT Karen Faye. Phillips says it was a make-up woman who was also a nanny to the children. She was the one who travelled with Michael and the children to the UK for a press-conference. Phillips says he does not remember her name.
Well, if it was Grace Rwaramba (though I don’t know whether she ever did Michael’s make up) then this might be the reason why Paul Gongaware fired her as we learned from one of their emails. In this respect she may become one of the key witnesses to what really happened, and the fact that they cannot find her looks disturbing.
Does anyone know whether they have found her? And was it Grace that Phillips is talking about? Could there be any other nanny travelling with Michael and the children to the UK?
Well, the children should know. And this, I am afraid, makes them the key witnesses too.
LikeLike
“if one person views that now and changes their mind then I will be happy.” – Jan
Exactly. If at least one person changes their mind after we leave a comment I would also be happy. We are here to change the world and not sit in the corner and wait until it collapses.
LikeLike
the sun actually posted the you tube that I put up if one person views that now and changes their mind then I will be happy.
LikeLike
AEG’s lawyer did not represent Dileo but during some hearings (don’t know when and where) Putnam testified on behalf of Dileo as regards “production of documents from his computer”. Why AEG’s lawyer should testify regarding that computer and on behalf of Dileo too I really don’t know – all of it sounds funny to say the least:
Mr. Panish: And your lawyers also represented the estate of Frank Dileo regarding production of documents from Mr. Dileo’s computer; correct?
A. I don’t know anything about their representation of frank Dileo’s estate or otherwise.
Ms. Stebbins: your honor, I’m going to object to beyond the scope of cross.
The Judge: sustained. Sustained.
Mr. Panish: well, I’m getting into the conflict of interest.
I think it’s wrong to say that. The non-appearance insurance had two beneficiaries – AEG and Michael’s company. AEG was the first to get compensation and if there was anything left the rest was to go Michael’s company (which is a fallacy of course – the insurance sum was even less than the production costs, so nothing could be left, even in theory).
But from the terms of the insurance and the contract with Michael it seems that if AEG was not suffering losses (for example after the Estate paid them), AEG had no right to the insurance money while Michael’s estate had – it is them who suffered losses and if Lloyds finds that they may be covered by the insurance they may be entitled to a compensation. That is why they are still in a dispute with Lloyds, as far as I understand.
From Lloyds’s letter we know of their suspicions that the Estate and AEG had an agreement between themselves that in case AEG won their case against Lloyds they would split the money got by AEG – it would cover part of the Estate’s losses. Whether they had or didn’t have such an agreement we don’t know, but this could be a reason why Weisman was more or less supporting AEG’s claim.
What’s interesting here is that AEG wanted both – a compensation from the Estate and the insurance money too. When Lloyds found that AEG had not suffered any losses and was asking for a sum on top of what they received from the Estate, AEG had to drop their claim. The claim from the Estate is still there.
What does the Law say about cases when witnesses discuss their testimony between themselves and evidently agree on who will say what? Randy Phillips was caught talking with Tohme about the trial.
No one is squeaky clean in this dirty business around Michael. It is only the measure of dirt on all those people which may be different.
LikeLike
“I am curious to know at what point Tohme and the MJE executors ended up suing each other. He seemed very cooperative, signing off for AEG, handing in 5 mln to the MJE , money he said he had kept for Michael to buy a house.” – Sina
Oh, I think it is important to differentiate between AEG’s interests and the interests of the Estate. When Tohme was signing off for AEG it was increasing the burden on the Estate, so their interests are exactly the opposite. Why they accepted those statements from AEG is another matter, which will surely be looked into at this trial, but Tohme’s and Dileo’s declarations about the need to cover the additional $20mln from Michael’s pocket were absolutely not in the interests of the Estate. Over here they are not sitting in one boat.
Why did Tohme return $5mln? It was not of his free will. I remember reading at that time that the money was recovered from him. Evidently the Estate managed to prove that the money was not Tohme’s.
“He did not get paid for his ‘management’ because he failed to get Michael an insurance. But Dileo, as far as I know, didn’t provide an insurance either, yet he got paid. Was it because he was working on different terms from Tohme’s?”
Absolutely different. AEG says there was no agreement between AEG and Dileo, while with Tohme there was, and obtaining the insurance was the main condition for paying to him.
LikeLike
“Shouldn’t AEGs contract with Michael have been under probate like any other creditor? When someone dies every representation stops. Whatever contract , obligations, debts , assets etc he has, becomes subject to probate court. They will only be paid after the court acknowledges the will to give it legal effect and executors are granted representation rights. That happened around mid july 09. And if the court acknowledged AEG as a legit creditor, there was no need for Tohme and Dileo to sign off anything. “– Sina
So every representation stops when someone dies? Oh, it is very interesting! I am no lawyer and did not know. The way it looks to me the probate court did acknowledge AEG as a legit creditor, but it was the sum of how much Michael owed that was disputed. Michael owed them $5mln as advance payment covered by that promissory note, and $7,5mln of production costs that could also be attributed to Michael according to their papers. But for all the rest of the expenses they needed Michael’s written approval and this they did not have.
AEG says they had Michael’s verbal approval, but I doubt they would be spending millions on the basis of promises alone. No, most probably those excess expenses were never Michael’s responsibility – at all. Production expenses in this AEG deal are exceptionally muddy waters.
“Unless there was something wrong with the contract that made it not eligible for a creditors claim and in order to make it pass they needed wittnesses to testify of its validity, which Tohme and Dileo did, in their own interest.”
Panish pointed it out several times – all approvals (including those of excessive production costs) were to be made in writing, but AEG didn’t have any.
LikeLike
“What to me is still a mystery is with what authority and in what capacity Tohme and Dileo signed off for the MJE executors after Michael passed, to compensate AEG. When exactly did that happen?” – Sina
Tohme’s capacity? Panish spent half a day asking Shawn Trell about it and Trell had to admit that on January 14th, 2009 (two weeks before “signing” that contract with MJ) he had written proof that Tohme was no officer of Michael Jackson Company – Michael Jackson was listed there as the only one officer of the company, and Panish said that this information is open to all and is easy to check.
And Putnam showed an agreement with Tohme where he said he was authorized to represent it. He said so and AEG believed him. Of course Tohme had Michael’s power of attorney but it is not the same as being a representative of his company:
The above makes it clear that after Michael’s death AEG needed Tohme and Frank only for signing declarations confirming that Michael had agreed to cover all production costs. Frank Dileo signed his declaration on July 13th, 2009:
LikeLike
We know that Peter Lopez was involved as he himself spoke about it on many occasions, but we don’t know at what point he was brushed aside. Tohme was building a fence around Michael and Randy Phillips himself says that all his negotiations were only with Tohme.
Shawn Trell, the one who drafted the agreement with Michael testified that he had never met Peter Lopez until that meeting on January 28, 2009 and this looks strange to me. If Trell was the one who drafted the contract and Lopez reviewed it they should have discussed it before its “signing” but they didn’t. Even if Peter Lopez was Michael’s lawyer it seems that at some point he was simply ousted. By the way Randy Phillips specially noted in reply to one of Panish’s questions that Michael had different lawyers for different things. In short Peter Lopez was there but not for this deal.
As to the creditor’s claim I’ve checked up the Estate’s report and it does include a creditor’s claim from Kleinberg Lopez Lange Cuddy & Klein where Peter Lopez was a partner. It was for $628,713. As of February 2011 the Estate’s report said that “no action was taken”.
Michael was no doubt savvy in business matters, but he could not see all the traps AEG set for him in those papers. One of the reasons for it is a very strong probability that he didn’t see the papers we see now at all. These papers were most probably compiled later as all that mess with the dates suggests.
LikeLike
“Sina permalink
June 16, 2013 4:14 pm
@Jan. Ignoring is not the answer. But its got to be something more effective than comments on a message board. Isnt it strange that UNICEF has a program to protect children in 3th world countries from exploitation and violation and in western countries media exploitation of children is not even questioned. And there is still no repercussion on verbal and emotional violence (bullying)against children on social media. I will gladly join a campaign to change the law in that respect. “
This question was recently put to a group. It was due to the Media reports and claims of stalking of Paris by some of the very same groups which we have dealt with in the past.
To the best of my knowledge children who attain fame of any kind become acceptable targets. There is even a rule once you hire a Manage or press agent you are fair game. Garbage I know, but we have seen others even those who are working, traveling with parents treated the same.
LikeLike
Where did the $ 5.5 mln Thome had which he said Michael gave to him for safe keeping come from. And yes I am going to go there, because we are dealing with people are telling on themselves. They lie, cheat and steal. What if there was more, but not reported? (rhetorical question)
“tangerinechick: “So all the family can see are dollar signs and sod how these revelations may destroy a vulnerable young girl. If they weren’t so intent on making money out of his death she would never have had to know this or only found out about it if and when she was older and more able to deal with it”. “
That is the very same BULLSHIT reason used to excuse Wade’s allegations.
” If they had not gone there, then it would not be necessary to have done this.”
Have we become so fricking stupid that we do not hear what is being said? That we condone it said? So lead by the nose we will parrot the current hate mantra? Because it makes us one of the crowd and too steeped in stupid to know any damn better.
No wonder the men of companies like AEG, men like Sneddon, my Congress and Senate get away with what they do.
LikeLike
@Jan. Ignoring is not the answer. But its got to be something more effective than comments on a message board. Isnt it strange that UNICEF has a program to protect children in 3th world countries from exploitation and violation and in western countries media exploitation of children is not even questioned. And there is still no repercussion on verbal and emotional violence (bullying)against children on social media. I will gladly join a campaign to change the law in that respect.
About AEG and Michaels legal representation.
If Lopez represented Michael in negotiating the contract, he was either paid by Michael through AEG, under the artists advance or he sent a creditors claim to the MJ estate, which should not be hard to find. If none of that is found, than AEG is again lying through their teeth and Michael did not have independent legal advice on the contract. Michael could go through the contract all he wanted but he lacked the knowledge to know the ramifications of a contract that took months to negotiate. I cannot imagine a legal advisor agree with the AEG contract Tohme had Michael sign.
What to me is still a mystery is with what authority and in what capacity Tohme and Dileo signed off for the MJE executors after Michael passed , to compensate AEG.
When exactly did that happen?
Shouldn’t AEGs contract with Michael have been under probate like any other creditor? When someone dies every representation stops. Whatever contract , obligations, debts , assets etc he has, becomes subject to probate court. They will only be paid after the court acknowledges the will to give it legal effect and executors are granted representation rights . That happened around mid july 09. And if the court acknowledged AEG as a legit creditor , there was no need for Tohme and Dileo to sign off anything .
Unless there was something wrong with the contract that made it not eligible for a creditors claim and in order to make it pass they needed wittnesses to testify of its validity, which Tohme and Dileo did, in their own interest.
I am curious to know at what point Tohme and the MJE executors ended up suing each other . He seemed very cooperative, signing off for AEG, handing in 5 mln to the MJE , money he said he had kept for Michael to buy a house.
He did not get paid for his ‘management’ because he failed to get Michael an insurance.
But Dileo, as far as I know, didn’t provide an insurance either, yet he got paid. Was it because he was working on different terms from Tohme s?
I also see a lot of unclear business alliances and interests which made the whole deal very muddy and a source for conflict.
Its unclear who represented and advised Michael legally. AEGs lawyer represented Dileo, so who was Dileo working for? Weizman represented AEG vs Lloyds in their insurance claim.
AEGs lawyer advising Murrays lawyer ( V.Wass) and AEG lawyer alledgedly instructing Tohme in their recent meeting in May, together with RP. Which is a travesty because they are all witnesses in a trial.
By the way Dileo was not as squeaky clean as some may think . He had made concert deals on Michaels behalf that I am sure Michael knew nothing of. Not only with All good but also with others who had advanced him money which he had to pay back and was sued for.
LikeLike
“Not to be rude, but what service do we do the children by quoting , discussing and rehashing tabloid crap on fan blogs and sites? The tabloids are unscrupulously milking a young girls struggle and do not care about the seriousness of the situation.”
Sina, I couldn’t agree more. We already know what these people are about. Do we really need to have every detail of every ugly tabloid story posted here? Especially when it’s rehashed tabloid trash like this latest bs. It serves NO PURPOSE but distract us and the general public from the real issues brought up in the trial.
LikeLike
Speaking about the media do you remember the nasty “news” published not long ago that Michael’s bedroom was a mess, there were piles of clothes everywhere, etc? Recently some new photos were released and I saw nothing of the kind – this is how they shamelessly lie:
http://metro.co.uk/2013/06/12/gallery-lapd-release-pictures-of-michael-jacksons-bedroom-3837860/
LikeLike
“What does it help to tell idiots the obvious? It only gets worse.” – Sina
It shows them and others that they are not the only ones in the world.
No, if you challenge them even on their ground it does not get worse. It gets better – but only as long as you are allowed to challenge them. Jan is writing that they are not posting his comment and this is where the real problem is. If these tabloids are only for the chosen few and each comment is censored than there is indeed no reason to go.
Previously I also tried to register with some British tabloid and my first comment went through, the second waited to be posted for hours and then I was denied access altogether. Well, it taught me much about the British press and even this negative result was helpful as it helped to understand a few things.
LikeLike
sina
we have to know what we are dealing with and to try to correct it. Sitting back ain’t going to get us anywhere. I have tried to rebut it but they ain’t posting it.
Ignoring this crap is not the answer either, I wish it was!
LikeLike
Helena the media are perverted to make a profit of a childs problems, while they are the ones who helped create it. You would think they would take a pause on a serious situation like this, concerning a child. If not out of compassion, then at least out of some sort of professional integrity. But its exactly the opposite.
.
‘On the other hand it wouldn’t be bad to go and leave a comment there.’
What does it help to tell idiots the obvious ?
That is exactly what they want you to do because your comment is their lifeline.
This is why and how they exist and why they can continue to fabricate crap.
It only gets worse.
LikeLike
“Not to be rude, but what service do we do the children by quoting , discussing and rehashing tabloid crap on fan blogs and sites?” – Sina
Let me put in a word. I think we should know what they are doing and what new low they have hit. I reposted the article so that we do know but don’t give the tabloid the attention it does not deserve.
On the other hand it wouldn’t be bad to go and leave a comment there. Not about whether “Paris is or isn’t Michael’s daughter” (she is his daughter in all cases!) but about the shame of discussing it at all. I am happy to see people saying this:
But comments like the one below are detestable – so if it were not for that lawsuit poor AEG would not have to ‘defend’ itself with this totally irrelevant and unnecessary intrusion into the children’s life, and now it is the family who is to blame for AEG’s deeds? I am not always happy with the family, but saying things like that is turning everything upside down:
LikeLike
@Jan
Not to be rude, but what service do we do the children by quoting , discussing and rehashing tabloid crap on fan blogs and sites?
The tabloids are unscrupulously milking a young girls struggle and do not care about the seriousness of the situation.
The best thing fans or any adult could do for the children is exercise self-restraint and not fuel the fire.
LikeLike
This is awful: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/4970541/paris-jackson-suicide-attempt-over-biological-dad.html – Jan
This is absolutely disgusting. The last time I checked it was considered reprehensible if some “well-wishers” came up to a child in the street and said “Do you know dear, that your father is not a real father to you?”. And over here a newspaper with millions of readers is doing the same and all of them still consider themselves decent people.
Who is spreading this news? AEG? Then we know about these monsters all we need to know.
By the way, Paris could not attempt a suicide if she learned that Prince was her half-brother only, so the story is BS from beginning to end. AEG or whoever is standing behind it are simply trying to tear Prince and Paris apart.
Her suicide attempt is the result of her facing the ugly reality from which her father was protecting her all her life. Rare adults can cope with so much media and public ugliness, not to mention children.
LikeLike
let them watch this: http://youtu.be/KIsMqTG0B88
LikeLike
This is awful:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/4970541/paris-jackson-suicide-attempt-over-biological-dad.html
LikeLike
“Were you aware that after Michael Jackson died, AEG Live paid Frank Dileo $5 million?”
My Question: I thought Frank said he did not get paid. How much was he supposed to get if that $ 5 mil wasn’t enough or all?” – Dialdancer
It seems that Frank Dileo was not paid $5mln and Panish was talking of the intentions only. So his question is technically not correct. But the intentions are also tale-telling, and this is what Panish implied. Or he was probably trying to extract more information from Shawn Trell this way.
“My Question: Was Peter Lopez there? I think critically important. The fact he no longer around and none of his papers on MJ have surfaced is to my way of thinking most significant.”
Yes, it is critically important to know whether Peter Lopez was there. I think he was, and this is what probably cost him his life. If he were alive he could tell us now what took place at the negotiations on January 28th. And if the contract was NOT signed on that day and they were discussing only the preliminary letter of intent sent two days prior to that (on January 26th) then it would be a bomb that would ruin the whole system of lies that has been constructed by now.
Finding Peter Lopez’s computer and seeing what’s there is essential.
There is a comment about how often Michael changed staff. Given what we have found out just from this trial and testimony in 05 do you blame him?
Absolutely not. Given the amount of ugliness taking place around Michael I wouldn’t blame him for anything at all. He was clutching at straws and Frank Dileo was that kind of a straw. Frank supported him during the 2005 trial though he had been long fired by then and Michael was absolutely not used to his kind of loyalty – most of the others were much worse. I think for that episode alone Michael considered Frank a friend (and he probably was, I still do not rule it out).
Frank’s death is also very strange – same as Peter Lopez’s “suicide”. He went to hospital for a fairly routine bypass heart surgery, but as the niece said had a cardiac arrest after the surgery, was given double anesthesia and continued sleeping for several days even after the operation was over. This was at the end of March 2011. She said it was just sleep and not a coma:
A week or so later, on April 4, 2011 the niece wrote that he came to himself and they were overwhelmed with joy:
On April 15, 2011 he was moved from the Intensive Care Unit to another ward. The always knowledgeable Ivy of MJJCommunity informed:
All these tweets are found here: http://www.lipstickalley.com/f227/frank-dileo-hospitalized-fighting-his-life-292447/index5.html
And then no news of him came until August 24, 2011 when he died. A year later Roger Friedman wrote an article where he said that Frank Dileo died without regaining consciousness after the operation:
Then we find that his computer disappeared. Then we find that his lawyer made copies of his emails and is ready to submit them for the AEG trial. Then we hear nothing of the new developments in this respect. Well… hopefully we will.
LikeLike
“If Michael walked away without signing the contract. Would the reported 5 day promissory still been in effect?” – Dialdancer
I think yes, it would still be in effect. It is a separate paper carrying Michael’s signature and if there was no tour he would have had to pay back the advance given to him. I did not specifically look but think that the time of repayment could be postponed – but the decision wholly depended on AEG and their goodwill (which they certainly lack).
Since $3mln went to the Bahranian prince, I doubt Michael could have paid it back within the 5 days period required. If he did not pay the acquisition of his assets scenario could start.
LikeLike
Thnaks Helena. You’re right, it all looks even uglier than we first thought.
BTW, it looks like Tohme Tohme, and someone named, Wendy Tohme purchase a home for $5.8 million at 696 Stone Canyon Road in Los Angeles on July 14, 2009.
LikeLike
“Q. Were you aware that after Michael Jackson died, AEG Live paid Frank Dileo $5 million?”
My Question: I thought Frank said he did not get paid. How much was he supposed to get if that $ 5 mil wasn’t enough or all?
“A. There was another lawyer present when we signed the contract, another lawyer for Mr. Jackson, named Peter Lopez. I don’t know what his involvement was with Michael and/or Dennis”
My Question: Was Peter Lopez there? I think critically important. The fact he no longer around and none of his papers on MJ have surfaced is to my way of thinking most significant.
There is a comment about how often Michael changed staff. Given what we have found out just from this trial and testimony in 05 do you blame him? If I found out people were stealing I’d fire them as well. I would fire my Manager If I found out he/she had ties to people I absolutely do not wish to do business with and was figuratively in bed with them;
LikeLike
“Ms. Stebbins. When did you have a contract with Mr. Jackson?
A. As of January 28th
Q. And if Mr. Jackson had walked into the room on January 28th, 2009, and said, you know what, I changed my mind. I’m not signing this…would you have had an agreement?
A. No”
If Michael walked away without signing the contract. Would the reported 5 day promissory still been in effect?
I’ve speculated as to whether Michael had Mr. Lopez working on something which would have required a more reasonable deal with AEG. The first being the return to the originally discussed number of concerts (10) and rescheduling of dates.
However, if the contract had been legal I am at a loss to see how all the costumes and scenery were to be completed in time to ship with this very large program & cast, be set up and ready to roll on the first date?
LikeLike
“Thank you for this. Your “demo” is more than anyone else is offering. Taking this weekend to read through all.” – Dialdancer
Dial, thank you. Trying to do my best. I thought that the demo version was more or less finished but now see that it is not. Now I am reading Randy Phillips’ testimony and see that the order of the events is slightly different from the impression we got earlier.
On June 20, 2009 Murray called Phillips at noontime – at his home number, they talked for about half an hour (Phillips does not remember what they discussed for so long), and then Phillips emailed Kenny Ortega and said that it was “critical not to become an amateur psychiatrist” etc. This was before the meeting and should be amended in this post.
At this moment it is not yet clear whose initially these words were – Murray said it and Phillips repeated them, or the other way about, but it is clear that they were in so close contact that Murray had Phillips’ home number.
I continue reading Phillips’ testimony and will try to make a summary of the past week a little later.
P.S. At the moment I am reading an absolutely incredible email from Phillips to the chairperson at Sony which he sent after Michael’s death saying: “Remind me to tell you about where Murray had been the nights and the week before Michael’s death”. So does it mean that Murray was not with Michael at all for a week before his death?
But it might be some gossip as Phillips says he learned it from Fox news or CNN. Still reading…
It is here: http://ru.scribd.com/doc/147720440/JACKSON-V-AEGLive-June-10th-Brandon-Randy-Phillips-CEO-OF-AEGLIVE
LikeLike
Helena,
Thank you for this. Your “demo” is more than anyone else is offering. Taking this weekend to read through all. Making a list of questions & comments to post later. Testimony is here to read and you have given any who care to look a lot to think about.
LikeLike
“Why else get cameras, a few nights before that at the last minute, when they had such real doubts? And why make MJ work so hard to do a couple of numbers dancing around? All this stuff is very very disturbing.” – Nan
Yes, it is disturbing but the AEG motive may again be their greed. The events prior to those two rehearsals most probably convinced them that Michael was in a very bad shape, there would be no concerts, so they should have at least the footage which they would sell for millions. So at the last moment (on June 23d) they brought two high-definition cameras and shot whatever there was to shoot. It is a big luck that had two very good rehearsals.
But what is really disturbing is that all this footage was made instead of rendering Michael any help. After the June 19th incident they should have sent him to hospital or invited some independent doctors to evaluate him – by then they could see very well that Murray was not coping with the situation.
Instead they decided to silence the problem. Phillips even told everyone that it was “critical” not to play amateur doctors on Michael. Thus they cut off any possibility to help Michael and simply squeezed out of him all the energy left. They wanted the footage as this was a thing they could sell. They were worrying about their production costs, and were probably not sure that the insurance would pay, so at the last minute someone probably had a brilliant idea – let us make him rehearse full out and shoot him, and if (when) he dies we will have something to sell at a good price.
Michael was looking at all those preparations and their meaning could not be lost on him. It looked like they were getting ready for his funeral. On June 19th he (I think it was Michael) even asked Kenny Ortega – You don’t want to kill the artist, do you?
LikeLike
“none of this is transparent to me..” – Nan
But it is getting more and more transparent with each new testimony. Hopefully by the end of the trial (if we have all the transcripts) we will know most of the truth, and if they are any gaps left we will try to deduce the rest and connect the dots.
As to Tohme not being on Sony/ATV board and Dileo mentioning it, it is probably because in another interview he said that Tohme was on that board but when he was fired by Michael he had to go. And Dileo made it a point that he didn’t want to talk about Tohme. Anything and anyone except Tohme.
LikeLike
looking at this old interview with Raffles and Frank…..Im not saying Frank is being dishonest , I just cant tell, but when Raffles asked about Thomme, Frank goes off topic to Murray, Raffles tries to correct him regarding who the question is about, and Frank remains on Murray, making sure for some reason , that he includes MJ hired Murray.., NOT AEG..Not even sure if people were talking about who hired Murray back in Nov of 2009..
Strikes me as so strange looking back on this interview, then late in the interview , Raffles is asking about sony/atv board and for some reason Frank mentions Thome NOT being on the board..
When you look back on this , maybe Frank didnt know what was being said in emails or whatever , but it seems to me, people make a point of leaving Thomes name out of the equation.
Even when Frank says, the day MJ died….. he, was having an early lunch at around 11:30 and his sandwich had just come..( I guess it could have been as late as noon time or so, when his food came….) and he called Phillips…and they ended up meeting at the hospital..
BUT then even in Murrays trial , Randy Phillips had to be corrected on the time frame because he made it earlier , then when he should have received the initial info that MJ was sick and an ambulance was called…………..
..Didnt Randy arrive with Thome and it was Thome in charge of getting Jermaine to make the announcement of MJ passing..NOBODY ever talks about this guy being front and center…
none of this is transparent to me..
LikeLike
I am thinking about what this articlesays about Delio and Thome signing off on production costs and them finding a way to fit it into the “bucket” for “This is It” movie and I believe both of them are listed on the credits , so I was just going through Raffles old interview with Delio and Delio says some people were concerned because MJ had lost a few pounds, but the part I thought was interesting is Delio says MJ usually had camera crews on his tours and he couldnt afford it , this time so at the LAST minute Gongaware went out and for around 6 grand bought some cameras, and after mj died, they were looking at the footage and thought, “wouldnt it be great , if the fans could see this stuff”
That doesnt make sense to me given the emails talking about “trouble at the front” etc..
If MJ was only really good the last couple of days, and they were looking to back out of this thing , or expecting MJ to renege on his contract, why the cameras at the last minute?
Could it be they thought they would have the most valuable footage of MJ , if he was to pass on ?
The last footage of MJ performing , because it wouldnt seem anyone really thought this was going to happen.
Even the last night of MJ life……….when supposedly MJ said it was all going to work out, and things would be okay..Why else get cameras, a few nights before that at the last minute, when they had such real doubts?
And why make MJ work so hard to do a couple of numbers dancing around?
All this stuff is very very disturbing.
As far as 2005 trial and Gavin tape of him talking to the police, we know in retrospect ,that it had the opposite effect on the jury because he seemed to be acting and the reason Mesaereau didnt bring Gavin and family back was so Sneddon couldnt rehabilitate their previous testimony..THis was the ace in the hole that Sneddon , was hoping for, and Mesereau didnt give it to him.
LikeLike
Thank you VMJ for the great job above. I am still on a library computer and therefore pressed for time.The saddest thing:”It is sad to say(:re the brothers working for AEG and other artists too),what are then their options,stop performing?” It shouldn´t be like this. Unfortunately more and more power and money ends up in fewer and fewer hands.This is not only so for the music industry. These people are not elected officials (by the public as ideally in democracy). But their power will affect general politics and not to it´s benefit.I hope artists would get together and see if there is anything that can be done.Many things we don´t yet understand are happening in the world.Too bad this trial is not on video,I am sure it will be discussed for a long time whatever the outcome
Nina, I do know the young Jacksons were a dynasty. I was referring to a program by some brothers made just a year or few ago, after Michaels death.It really was not worth much,maybe you did not catch it. No art, just sort of exhibiting themself as world travellers making expensive purchases. For some reason the program was called the Jackson Dynasty.
Still I hope for the best ,esp. for Michael´s children whatever they chose to do in the future..
LikeLike
Down To Wire In Jackson Case
Andrew Cohen
Imagine yourself in a small boat on the ocean, bobbing up and down between the swells. One minute you are up on a crest. The next minute you are down in a trough. One minute you can see the horizon. The next you see nothing but a wall of water. That\’s what it\’s like covering the Michael Jackson molestation and conspiracy trial as it nears its dramatic conclusion.
Jackson is up. He is down. He is certain to be acquitted of all but the least serious charges. He is a cinch to be led out of the courtroom in handcuffs. Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon did a solid job of presenting evidence against Jackson. Sneddon is the biggest boob to grace a California courtroom since Marcia Clark.
Like music or art or wine or movies, where this case now stands – what Jackson\’s fate is likely to be – is entirely in the eye of the beholder.
For example, after months of relentless doubt about the strength of Sneddon\’s case, the buzz here in lovely Santa Maria is that Jackson now is in big trouble. Why? Because last Friday jurors saw a videotape of an interview between the police and the alleged victim in the case, a video that in the eyes of most court watchers here cast a completely new and entirely positive light upon the credibility of Jackson\’s accuser. Whereas the young man was surly and contentious and not a little unbelievable on the witness stand a few months ago, he was sad and not a little sympathetic on the videotape.
Compounding this \”evolving\” impression of the state of the case is the fact that Jackson\’s attorneys chose not to respond to the introduction of the videotape into the trial. They had threatened last week to call back to the witness stand their client\’s accuser to try to offset the damage done by the videotape. But then they changed their minds and simply rested the case with the videotaped testimony left unanswered by Team Jackson. The defense is off-balance! the spinsters breathlessly declared. Reeling! A body blow!
Conventional wisdom, whatever that means, now sees the videotape as a \”game-changer\” that may have saved the prosecution\’s case. This is from the same folks who weeks ago were laughing about how badly prosecutors were being routed by the defense. I\’m throwing stones at myself, too. I am one of the bloviators and I have spoken and written things during the course of this trial that, in retrospect, seem relatively quaint. Mostly that\’s because trying to evaluate which side is \”winning\” and which side is \”losing\” during the course of a trial is like trying to gauge who is winning a chess match without being able to see the board or talk to the players.
I don\’t think journalists are alone in feeling this way about this trial. I suspect that the jurors themselves have been seesawing back and forth from witness to witness, or theory to theory. It\’s only natural and, frankly, a healthy sign of the kind of open-mindedness you want to see from a group of people determining a man\’s fate. Besides, the judge here admonished the panel to reserve its final judgments until all the evidence was introduced and all the arguments made. If there were momentum shifts among the jurors, individually or collectively, we likely will never know when they occurred or how much they impacted the jury\’s final decisions.
The problem for the defense, of course, is that prosecutors have the momentum going into closing arguments, and there ought to be a real fear in the Jackson camp that this momentum will carry over into deliberations. That\’s why Thursday\’s closing arguments may be more important for the defense than they are for prosecutors. Not only do Jackson\’s attorneys have to remind jurors about all the good evidence their side presented during the trial, they also have to try to grab momentum back and that is very difficult to do when only a lawyer, and not an important witness, is talking to the panel.
So the endgame, finally, is here. Before the end of the week, the jury will have the case. After months of listening, they\’ll finally have their chance to speak.
—
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/01/…ain699048.shtml
I’ve seen gavin’s videotape in larry nimmers documentary and if it does anything it makes thw whole case look stupid and this is coming from a survivor herself
LikeLike
Michael THEORY
By KATE SHEEHY
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/47462.htm
May 31, 2005 — Accused child molester Michael Jackson thinks he\’ll be convicted — thanks to a massive conspiracy by ex-Sony honcho Tommy Mottola aimed at nabbing his multimillion-dollar Beatles music catalog, a shocking new article claims.
\”He believes the judge, the DA and the Sony guys are [in] a conspiracy to take over his money,\” said Gordon Novel, a private eye who claims Jackson hired him to give advice amid his sensational child-molestation trial.
In the heat of the Los Angeles trial, Jackson \”acted like he was scared silly,\” Novel says in an explosive interview with Vanity Fair set to hit city newsstands next week.
\”He kept asking me what prison was like. Can he watch TV and movies there? He wanted me to stop the show.\”
\”I want this trial stopped,\” a pouty Jackson demanded, spouting cries of conspiracy as the pair tooled around the star\’s Neverland ranch March 17 in a beat-up pickup truck, with Jackson at the wheel, according to Novel.
\”I told him, \’Get rid of this weird persona,\’ \” Novel says in the interview with VF scribe Maureen Orth.
\” \’You look like the weird pedophile. I\’m talking about the hair, lipstick, eyebrows. Just be yourself and say why you\’re doing it. Say that\’s your showbiz personality. It\’s just what you do to sell LPs.\’
\”He said, \’No, I just want to be me.\’
\”He didn\’t want to go with girls, do the romantic thing, either,\” the private eye added.
\”I said, \’Why didn\’t you stop fooling around with kids?\’ He said, \’I didn\’t want to.\’ \”
Novel, who once worked for famed former New Orleans DA Jim Garrison on Garrison\’s Kennedy-assassination conspiracy case, said Jackson believes he is the tragic victim of a nefarious scheme at least partly masterminded by longtime foe Mottola.
At stake is the linchpin of Jackson\’s financial empire: ownership of half the rights to the Beatles music catalogue, estimated as worth more than $200 million. Sony owns the other half.
As the theory goes, if a disgraced, convicted Jackson was forced to default on his mortgaged share, Sony has dibs on buying it.
Neither reps for Mottola nor Jackson immediately responded to requests for comment.
Novel said he came forward with his tale now because Jackson stiffed him on a $5,000 consulting fee.
In another scandal, the magazine also said an unnamed prosecution witness has told authorities that renegade Jackson lawyer Brian Oxman once promised the singer\’s 1993 accuser \”he could write his own check if he would refuse to testify\” in the current case.
That young man had already settled a sex-fueled civil suit against Jackson, reportedly for millions.
The man wound up not testifying. Oxman said a gag order barred him from responding to the charge.
Stacy Brown, the author of a Jackson book, also told the mag that Jackson siblings Janet, Tito, Rebbie and Randy flew to New York to stage an emergency intervention for their bizarro bro in 2001.
\”He told them to leave him alone,\” she said. \”He said, \’Look, I\’ll be dead in a year anyway.\’ \”
i read this ridiculous article on MJEOL and first thing first after mcmanus francia and nl5 he wont be saying these things to a paid employee and that to during the trial even if he felt that way
LikeLike
Thank you Helena..This is incredible.
LikeLike
thank you Helena
LikeLike
Guys, this is a preliminary version of the post. It is so big that I could hardly cope with it. Now I am in no condition to edit it, and will do it in half a day only. But I still wanted you to see the conclusions I came to, even though the post is not fully edited yet. Let us consider it a demo version only.
LikeLike