Skip to content

AEG in Karen Faye’s text messages: HE LOSES EVERYTHING, PROBABLY EVEN HIS KIDS

November 1, 2013

IT’S TIME TO WIPE AWAY TEARS AND DO SOMETHING AT LAST

This is not the right time to stay in limbo. The time for complaining about the injustice of the verdict and feeling sorry – mostly for ourselves – has passed. It is time to do something at last and stop waiting for someone to come and save us.

No one will save us unless we save ourselves, Michael and the truth.

How much longer are we going to let them lie in our faces and obediently swallow what they are feeding us and think that we can’t do anything about it?

Can’t do anything? Really?

And what about opening the September 9 transcript of AEG court proceedings, reading Karen Faye’s iphone messages about the way AEG and Ortega bullied Michael and just posting them everywhere we can?

There is no need to even comment on them that much. Just place them as they are on the internet to balance the lies told by AEG about their “huge love for Jackson then, now and at all times”, and let the people decide for themselves.

Just give the people a chance to see the other side of the story and that’s it.

Speaking of the need to read out Karen Faye’s text messages to the jury Ms. Chang of the Plaintiffs emphasized that the jurors were entitled to hear evidence from both sides: 

Ms. Chang: … there’s two different conflicting pictures of how Michael Jackson was treated by defendants shortly before he died.  The defendants have all stated on this day of love, affection, total support, no pressure inflicted on Michael Jackson whatsoever. Plaintiffs, however, know that there’s an entirely different scenario where they kept bringing up they were funding his entire life, including his house, his food, his kids, and they threatened to pull the plug, put everything he had at risk, including his kids, if he did not, and I’m quoting, “get his shit together,” end quote. And we state, based on the case law, that in search for the truth in the case, the jury’s entitled to hear evidence from both sides.

Yes, the jury was entitled to hear evidence from both sides. But though this sounds as an indisputable maxim the AEG lawyers did not agree with it.  They resorted to every means at their disposal not to allow Karen Faye’s text messages to be even read out in court.

Did the jurors hear all the evidence as a result? No, they did not. Did the general public have a chance to read those messages in every newspaper, hear them on every TV channel or at least learn of their existence from anyone at all? No, far from it.

The truth about those messages was stifled, supressed and hushed up making us suspect  that it is the most shameful of AEG’s sins which no one was ever supposed to ever know.

Is this freedom of information?

Well, it is freedom but only for some type of information.

Do you remember how many times we heard of the $40 bln figure allegedly demanded by Katherine Jackson of AEG though it was mentioned by the Plaintiffs’ lawyers in some preliminary document which Katherine Jackson never signed and never even saw?

Oh, but this “news” was screamed about by every media outlet, it was stuffed into every internet corner and AEG collaborators diligently worked on every fan forum to make sure that everyone knows about this figure though no one has ever seen it – except the Plaintiffs attorneys preparing the draft and the AEG side of course.

But what the AEG side has seen today so will the puppet media trumpet all over the world tomorrow, and so the subject of the never-ending discussion among Michael’s fans  will be, thanks to AEG collaborators who are always there to explain, interpret and rub it in.

And how often have you heard the same media reporting the news about the text messages sent by Karen Faye to her boyfriend about the way AEG bullied Michael?

NEVER?

And after that you still doubt that AEG uses the media as their own vast backyard lawn regularly mown by their lawn-mowers?

But what makes the whole thing even worse is that for the past two months the evidence about Karen Faye’s messages was readily available in the transcripts of the AEG trial proceedings purchased by the heroic TeamMichaelJackson and all we needed to do was just look and make it available to everyone else – fans, the general public and the media after all.

Did we do it? No, we didn’t. Why not? Because we think that someone else should come and do it for us, or that the truth will triumph all by itself, or that we are not bright enough to sort it out in the face of all those formidable lawyers – all of which are just pretexts lulling us into inactivity and reducing ourselves into the state of limbo we are in.

No one will come and save us, and we will have to do all of it by ourselves. And the truth will not triumph on its own – it needs to be worked for. And we are no less brainy than these “formidable” lawyers – these matters are well within the bounds of usual common sense all of us possess and this is what the jury principle is actually based on.

All the truth needs of us is working for it.

However it is only the AEG agents and their puppet media who tirelessly work brainwashing the public and fans, while Michael Jackson’s supporters are waiting for something while all the way having by their side the original documents procured for them by others (at much sacrifice for themselves too) and sometimes don’t even bother to look what’s inside.

What a shame and what a disappointment. And we have the cheek to call ourselves Michael’s soldiers of love?

MESSAGES FROM AN OLD IPHONE

The messages from Karen Faye’s iphone, published almost two months ago and so shamefully missed by all of us, are telling in real time what AEG did and said to Michael at some ‘intervention’ meeting arranged for him by Randy Phillips, Kenny Ortega and Conrad Murray sometime prior to June 18th 2009.

Kenny Ortega was mad about Michael coming late to a rehearsal that day and in his anger retold Karen the gist of their demands made to Michael during the “intervention”.

After listening to what Ortega had to say that evening Karen arrived home at 2:30 at night and first thing in the morning June 19th repeated Ortega’s words to her boyfriend, apparently still being in a state of a shock.

Did those messages say much? Not very much –  they are actually as short as any iphone messages should be, but the news they contain is still ground-breaking.

They say that Kenny Ortega and AEG threatened Michael that unless “he got his shit together” (loosely translated by me as “unless he attended every rehearsal”) they would “pull the plug” on the show and this would put at risk everything Michael had (yes, the catalog too) including his kids.

So they warned him that he might lose his kids if he didn’t attend those damned rehearsals!

Need I tell you that threatening Michael with these words was the worst thing they could ever say to him?

The kids were the most precious Michael had, the reason for his whole existence and a threat like that was the most devastating and deadly blow he could ever receive.

It was much worse than a “freak”, a slap and all the rest of the bullying and harassment they subjected him to during the several months of their wonderful collaboration. It was a lethal blow which surely sent Michael into a couple of sleepless and tormenting nights all of which led to the disastrous June 19th rehearsal which was a clear signal of the future catastrophe.

That day his body temperature was ice-cold to the touch, he was rambling and obsessing and saying that God was talking to him, he begged Ortega as a “lost boy” not to leave him and produced the overall impression of a man who needed a psychiatrist or at least urgent medical help.

Not only couldn’t he get on the stage but he could barely function as a human being that night, and this is when Kenny Ortega got really frightened for what they had done to him several days earlier.

Up till now all information about one more meeting prior to June 20th was supressed and this is why Ortega’s message to Randy Phillips sent at 2 in the morning after the June 19th rehearsal was somewhat of a mystery to us. It mentioned the details which up till now have never surfaced anywhere before and it is only now that its every little detail is beginning to fit into the general picture:

 Randy Sat, June 20, 2009 at 2.04 am

I will do whatever I can to help with this situation. If you need me to come to the house just give me a call in the morning. My concern is, now that we’ve brought the Doctor into the fold and have played the tough love, now or never card is that the Artist may be unable to rise to the occasion due to real, emotional stuff. He appeared quite weak and fatigued this evening. He had a visible case of the chills, was trembling, rambling and obsessing. Everything in me says that he should be psychologically evaluated. If we have any chance at all to get him back in the light, it’s going to take a strong Therapist to help him through this as well as immediate physical nurturing. I was told by our Choreographer that during the Artist’s costume fitting with his Designer tonight they noticed he’s lost more weight. As far as I can tell there is no one taking responsibility (caring for) him on a daily basis. Where was his assistant tonight? Tonight I was feeding him, wrapping him in blankets to warm his chills, massaging his feet to calm him and calling his doctor. There were four security guards outside his door, but no one offering him a cup of hot tea. Finally, it is important for everyone to know, I believe he really wants this. It would shatter him, break his heart if we pulled the plug. He’s terribly frightened it’s all going to go away. He asked me repeatedly tonight if I was going to leave him. He was practically begging for my confidence. It broke my heart. He was like a lost boy. There still may be a chance he can rise to the occasion if we get him the help he needs.

Sincerely,

Kenny

I hope I needn’t remind you that Ortega’s worries had no effect on the steely Randy Phillips who called this and other Ortega’s emails “hysteria” and basically told everyone to shut up (“It is critical now not to be amateur physicians and psychiatrists”).

What I ask you to do is put Kenny Ortega’s email side by side with Karen Faye’s text messages referring to the ‘intervention” meeting prior to those events, and you will see how the two pieces perfectly fit and complement each other. One is the cause and the other is the consequence arising from it.

Here is the full of Karen Faye’s messages. Ms. Chang read them to the judge on September 9, 2013:

Ms. Chang. It’s actually — it goes four pages. And I can read it for the record. It basically says: “MJ has not shown up yet. His call was 4:00.” this is at almost — its 7:55 p.m. “his fear is big. He needs a 24/7 therapist.” and then the next one, it goes: “Kenny was mad.”

Ms. Bina. The fact that there’s an in-between text is relevant.

Ms. Chang. Okay. Well, I’ll read the whole thing. I’m sorry.

Mr. Panish. I just gave —

Ms. Chang. “Can you bring that suitcase with clothes to London for Michael’s clothes?” “She will pay excess baggage charges?” “Of course.” “He needs a few extra days to complete some items. This gives him the time he needs.” “Okay. Thanks, my love. I will tell him.”

“Didn’t get home until 2:30. KENNY WAS MAD,” all in caps.

“He and Randy Phillips and the doctor held a sort of intervention. MJ didn’t show till 9:30 p.m. Kenny told me AEG, (Randy Phillips) is funding his entire life right now. His house, food, kids, school, everything.  They told him they will,” all capitals, “PULL THE PLUG IF HE DOESN’T GET HIS SHIT TOGETHER. IF HE DOESN’T DO THIS, HE LOSES EVERYTHING, PROBABLY EVEN HIS KIDS.”

Her boyfriend texts, “I hope he doesn’t.”

She writes back, “He came in ‘very serious’ last night. Any ‘hand holding’ has been removed. He has to be forced to face his fears.”

That’s the texts.

So they did tell him that he would probably lose his kids if he didn’t follow their orders… I doubt they ever could and the threat was actually absurd, but it did strike at Michael’s vulnerable most and must have instilled in him the fear nothing else was comparable with.

Hearing the voices of doubt from the throng of people brainwashed by AEG into thinking that the messages are ‘”fake”, let me note that according to the transcript of the September 9 court proceedings the same conversation and same details are also basically contained in Alif Sankey’s declaration.

This declaration was part of the evidence AEG had to attach to their so-called “motion for summary judgment” made with a view to throw out Katherine’s case against AEG as “nonsuit” at the very final stage of the trial prior to the jury deliberations.

None of us have ever heard of Alif Sankey’s declaration either as those who took it upon themselves to explain every little detail of that AEG’s motion and the declarations accompanying it never bothered to mention this document and the crucial information it contained. I specially checked it up – Randy Phillips’, Gongaware’s, Tim Lieweke’s and Kathie Jorrie’s declarations are all there, but Alif Sankey’s is not.

However Ms.Chang did refer to that document and said that it described the same type of conversation Karen Faye’s messages were all about:

  • Ms. Chang: “.. the jury has only heard one side, and that’s AEG’s pure love, pure support, no pressure whatsoever, Kumbaya, holding hands, and “he hugged me the last day he saw me.” okay.  That’s the story the jury has. And we all know from a whole variety of sources — and Ms. Jessica Stebbins Bina knows, because there’s other people, not only Ms. Faye, but other people who have — Alif Sankey, other people who have alleged to the pressure that’s being inflicted.
  • ms. Chang:  We all know from what was already submitted — and we talked about it in the sidebar ad Nauseum — that a pivotal conversation occurred between Kenny Ortega and Karen Faye in which the intervention meeting was held and discussed in considerable detail. And interestingly, Alif Sankey, in her declaration to — that was submitted as part of the motion for summary judgment evidence, also states the same type of conversation and the same type of detail. And the discussion was upsetting and remarkable enough to Karen Faye, because of the specific pressure being inflicted on Michael Jackson, what she saw, that within hours of the conversation, she was writing texts to her boyfriend on her iPhone about the issue. Now, before we even knew about the iPhone texts, we had all discussed the fact that we wanted to elicit from her just the testimony. And your honor stated correctly, the easiest way to do this is get Kenny Ortega here, see what he says about it —

There will be another time and another opportunity to see what Kenny Ortega says or doesn’t say about it (he actually denies most of it).

What is important now is to lose no time on secondary matters and tell the truth to everyone on this planet that AEG and Kenny Ortega threatened Michael with a risk of losing his kids if he didn’t attend those damned rehearsals.

As a side note let me say that Michael wasn’t even obligated by his contract to attend the rehearsals and it was only AEG’s opinion that he should. Their John Meglen shared with us exclusive information that Celin Dion also barely attended rehearsals and her director was mad too, only no one dared make any threats to Celin Dion and all was fine in the end.

And AEG’s General Counsel Shawn Trell also testified that it is never an Artist’s duty to attend rehearsals and that the Artist can do as he pleases and it is even an insult to an Artist to demand attendance of rehearsals from him.

However all these rules are non-existent for Randy Phillips who thought that Michael “was not working as hard as he should” quoting his exact words from an interview given back in 2009 soon after Michael’s death. And not only did Randy Phillips force Michael to come, but now we know that he also threatened him that he would lose everything including his kids if he didn’t abide.

By the way doesn’t all of it make it clear why Michael Jackson hired a lawyer on June 18th which must have taken place almost immediately after that intervention meeting? The immediate reason for it must have been shielding himself from the danger of everything being taken away from him – his kids, his catalog,his dreams…

See how one missing link – lost and found now – can put all the events in the right perspective?

THEY MADE MICHAEL PAY FOR THEIR MISTAKES

The AEG people will tell you a lot of different lies to explain what they can explain and hide from public view what they can’t explain even by means of lies.

One of their big lies is that it was due to Michael’s perfectionism that the show became technically very complex and they were short of time due to the enormity of the project – and this is how all that pressure arose.

The MJ "contract" with AEG   said that the tour was to start on JULY 26 ONLY. When AEG set the first concert on July 8 they shortened the period of rehearsals THEMSELVES

The MJ “contract” with AEG said that the tour was to start on JULY 26. So when AEG set the first concert on July 8 they shortened the period of rehearsals THEMSELVES

However while saying one thing they forget to mention another thing.

They forget to tell you that their own contract with Michael initially said that the shows were to begin only on July 26.

It was AEG who dramatically shortened the period of rehearsals by setting the first concert on July 8 which was almost three weeks earlier than the date stated in the contract.

And this was most probably due to their unlimited greed and desire to grab more money in March 2009 when they expanded 10 shows into 30 and then to 50 – the period provided for by the contract did not allow to fit that much and the date of starting the tour had to be moved to an earlier date.

The almost three weeks they added to the actual shows at the expense of rehearsal time were exactly the three weeks they were short of in June 2009, and it’s no use making Michael a fall guy now for their own incorrect timing and poor production skills.

You can even see it with a naked eye that the two and a half months for producing a show of this scale was too little time for it, so the problem of a mad race with rehearsals they created for the whole company was the problem of AEG’s own doing.

They wanted to correct their mistakes at the expense of the artist, namely Michael Jackson, and demanded that he should attend every day of their crazy rehearsal schedule 6 days a week. And this despite the fact that he was not obligated to attend any of them.  And when he wanted some time off for himself they threatened to take his kids away from him…

SMEARING KAREN FAYE 

AEG doesn’t like the fact that Karen Faye’s text messages are the irrefutable proof that AEG bullied Michael. Therefore they fill the media and fans forums now with nasty innuendoes that Karen Faye allegedly faked them.

The alleged forgery is what the AEG lawyers  tried very hard to impress on the judge during those September 9, 2013 hearings. The innuendoes were made in a sophisticated manner typical of these lawyers the essence of which is “we are not really saying it, but you can easily guess it yourselves”.

What is interesting though is that when it came to discussing a forensic analysis of the messages suggested by Karen Faye herself, the AEG lawyers were the first to reject it:

Ms. Bina:Then turning to the last issue, your honor, which is the forensic examination of the text. Since I don’t think there’s any basis to admit the texts, I don’t think there’s any need to go through forensically examining them. But there is a concern here. Ms. Faye was subpoenaed in two different cases. She came — she brought documents to her depositions, including documents that, you know, showed that she was concerned about Mr. Jackson that she sent to Mr. Dileo saying he was thin, and he was sabotaging himself, and so on and so forth. She didn’t bring the texts. She didn’t bring the texts in at all. She didn’t bring them when she first testified at trial. She instead brought them on her second or third appearance and said, “oh, I’ve suddenly found the texts.” well, again, your honor, we’d ask the opportunity to examine, if your honor was inclined to admit the texts, because it’s suspicious when they were discovered. It’s also very, very easy to fake. You only have the printout of the texts. And as your honor will recall, we went away at lunch and figured out exactly how easy it is to change the dates on an iPhone conversation, and it’s super, super easy. Takes two minutes. So we’d like the opportunity to prove that hadn’t been done. And, again, there is some reason to doubt Ms. Faye’s —

Mr. Putnam: Veracity.

The same dirt about Karen Faye was picked up by AEG collaborators immediately after the trial and some unsuspecting fans swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

When asked whose testimony struck him as the least honest ones, a certain juror #27 residing on MJJC now took it upon himself to to speak on behalf of the majority of the jurors and said that Karen Faye’s testimony looked to them as the most “off-putting”:

  • Karen Faye’s testimony and demeanor was off-putting to a lot of the jury. I think I’ll leave it at that.

Simultaneously the heart of juror #27 heart went out to Kenny Ortega as the one whose love for Michael was most true, genuine and in every way unsurpassable. This contradicts Karen Faye’s messages reflecting Ortega’s real attitude to Michael at that time, but the agenda of juror #27 demands that he turns everything exactly upside down:

  • I thought Kenny Ortega was the most forthright out of everyone, and his testimony was a refreshing change because there was no dodging of questions or anything like that. His emails expressed sincere care and concern for MJ and his testimony in person just solidified and strengthened that feeling. He very obviously cared for and loved MJ.

And if you haven’t yet realized whose interests juror #27 is actively promoting among MJ’s fans here is his impression of the innocent AEG CEOs and the justification of their terrible lapses in memory:

  • When they were direct examined by plaintiffs, they were painted into all kinds of corners with loaded questions and asked about 4 year old emails and conversations. So there was definitely a lot of squirming by those guys but I believe also that it is reasonable to not remember specific emails from 4 years ago. Especially considering the volume of emails these guys were exchanging daily. Hundreds of emails a day.

And all this is said in full seriousness and in defiance of everything we know about (for example) Gongaware’s lies, who didn’t remember even his email about reminding Murray that it was AEG who was paying him salary and not Michael Jackson! As if he sends this type of emails about doctors attending to stars of Michael’s calibre every day!

The "freak" email was sent on January 28 which was the only time when Shawn Trell was in Michael's house. How could he attend the signing the contract on January 26 then?

The “freak” email was sent on January 28 which was the only time when Shawn Trell was in Michael’s house. How could he attend the signing the contract on January 26 then?

Shawn Trell also blatantly lied when he made two mutually exclusive statements as to when Michael Jackson signed his contract – on January 26 when Tohme/AEG and MJ/AEG agreements were allegedly signed and when Trell was in Michael’s home just once, or on January 28 as their email about meeting the “freak” actually said.

And as to Randy Phillips he is not even familiar with the expression “pull the plug” though this is what he himself threatened to do to Michael at that intervention meeting.

So all those AEG CEOs of different ranks with their never-ending “I don’t remember a thing”  looked more trustworthy to juror #27 and his supporters than Karen Faye’s messages found on her old iphone, readily offered by her for forensic analysis and confirmed by Alif Sankey’s declaration at that?

Doesn’t it tell you more than you ever wanted to know about this mysterious juror #27 and those who are embracing him with their open arms?

Sad as it is but AEG people are everywhere you look and they work real hard – much harder than Michael Jackson’s supporters do, who seem to be still waiting for the manna from heaven to fall upon their heads.

Or do they wait for the time when AEG lies fully overwhelm the public? But if it is hard to fight their lies now, how much harder will it be when these lies take root and leave much bigger debries to sort out?

Don’t wait. Go and fight for each grain of truth NOW and simply do the most of what you can.

HOW KAREN FAYE RETRIEVED HER MESSAGES

Ms. Chang asked Karen Faye to show her the way she retrieved those messages and said that it was a tedious process of rolling the messages back into the past to the year 2009. The process could take the whole day, so no wonder Karen Faye found those messages at so late a time.

Below is an excerpt from the transcript where Ms. Chang is explaining the process of retrieving the messages to the judge. Incidentally we also learn that when it came to questioning Karen Faye about those texts in the presence of the jury the Plaintiffs were interrupted and were not allowed to discuss them until they first “laid the foundation” for it.

On September 9, 2013 they did lay the foundation for it and did not  even ask for admitting the messages into evidence but only for a chance to have the messages read out in court, however the judge found the situation “marginal” and as a result the messages never made it to the jury.

Ms. Chang. I’m so sorry, your honor. The thing about Karen Faye on the texts, we don’t know until we lay the foundation. We were interrupted, we didn’t do it, so we just don’t know.

The second thing, I just want to state this for Karen Faye because I think a lot of bad things have been said on the record. As an officer of the court, I went to get the phone from her. I asked her, “can you show me how you went and retrieved all this?” it was the most tedious thing. She had to go back all the way to 2009 and scroll down. There was no fabrication of any evidence there. I saw — it must have taken her days to go back that far. And so with respect to that, I feel — especially since she so gladly went over and said, “do any forensic analysis that you want to do.” but it is degrading, it’s humiliating.

But with that said, why don’t we all powwow, take a break, see where we are. I think we all agree that she’s entitled to do something. We can lay foundation for other things, and then we can all discuss how marginal or helpful it would be over lunch.….

Ms. Bina. And there’s another e-mail in that same time period, your honor, where she says, “I’m very protective of Michael Jackson’s image, and I’ll do anything to protect it.” so she’s a witness who has a motive not — she has, frankly, a motive to fabricate something. I’m not saying she did it, but I’m saying, before we put it to a jury, I’d like an opportunity to examine that, particularly when she didn’t produce it in response to discovery, and she’s been selective in what she’s produced. But I don’t think we need to deal with any of that, because the only two statements at issue aren’t directly contradicted by the texts, so I don’t think there are any grounds for ever getting to the texts. The only issue is whether Ms. Faye can come in and testify against Mr. Ortega as to the two statements he actually said “no” to. And that may be, but I think at that point, your honor, it’s pretty irrelevant as to whether kenny ortega ever told her —

Judge. It’s pretty marginal.

Mr. Putnam. So marginal, your honor.

Judge. Benefit is pretty marginal.

Ms. Bina. Very marginal.

Ms. Chang. But it’s our —

Judge. I know it’s your case. I think even if you get that, it’s so marginal —

Ms. Chang. Do we want to leave the impression it’s all hugs and kisses from AEG?

Judge. We have enough of that impression.

Mr. Putnam. And, your honor, that’s why —

Mr. Panish. Are we coming back at 1:30?

Judge. One thing, and then I have to let the staff go.

Ms. Chang did her absolute best and fought for Karen Faye’s messages like a lioness would – to the very end of the debate, ending it with a desperate question: “Do we want to leave the impression it’s all hugs and kisses from AEG?”

And I want to address the same question to all Michael’s supporters:

DO YOU WANT TO LEAVE THE IMPRESSION THAT IT WAS ALL HUGS AND KISSES FROM AEG?

And if you don’t then wipe away your tears and do what is expected of you to do – tell the truth about the real way Michael Jackson was treated by AEG and that fine gentleman Kenny Ortega who was even applauded to at the AEG trial.

All you need to do to spread the truth is quote Ortega’s words to Karen Faye and tell everyone that they threatened to make Michael lose his kids in case he didn’t attend the rehearsals which he was not even supposed to attend:

  • Kenny told me AEG, (Randy Phillips) is funding his entire life right now. His house, food, kids, school, everything.  They told him they will PULL THE PLUG IF HE DOESN’T GET HIS SHIT TOGETHER. IF HE DOESN’T DO THIS, HE LOSES EVERYTHING, PROBABLY EVEN HIS KIDS…

SUPPLEMENT:

Below is the part of the transcript of the September 9, 2013 court proceedings devoted to the discussion and rejection of Karen Faye’s evidence.  The transcript was provided by TeamMichaelJackson: http://teammichaeljackson.com/archives/9751

The arguments of the AEG lawyers were purely technical and struck me as the worst demagogy I ever heard. However they worked.

The judge opened the discussiong which was discouraging from the very start of it – she said that they were going to talk about “why don’t we do Faye”:

Judge. No. Okay. The next thing we were going to talk about, why don’t we do Faye.

Ms. Bina. Okay.

Judge. Okay. This was, I think, plaintiffs’ motion.

Ms. Chang. Yes, your honor.

Judge. Plaintiffs’ motion to admit text messages in Faye’s phone that were from Kenny Ortega.

Ms. Chang. Actually, our reply, your honor —

Ms. Bina. Not from Kenny Ortega. They were from Karen Faye to her boyfriend. She quoted —

Mr. Boyle. I can — I’m sorry. It’s my motion. I can state what it is, because that’s not exactly correct. Page 16, our reply, lines 20 through 24, specifically lays out exactly what we are asking for: “and the following evidence should be admitted: Kenny Ortega’s testimony specifically on prior inconsistent statements.” and then the texts as past recollection recorded.

And the texts as prior consistent statements. So there’s three different theories, and three different things that we are doing. And basically, your honor, in this motion, what we are alleging is, there’s two different conflicting pictures of how Michael Jackson was treated by defendants shortly before he died.

The defendants have all stated on this day of love, affection, total support, no pressure inflicted on Michael Jackson whatsoever. Plaintiffs, however, know that there’s an entirely different scenario where they kept bringing up they were funding his entire life, including his house, his food, his kids, and they threatened to pull the plug, put everything he had at risk, including his kids, if he did not, and I’m quoting, “get his shit together,” end quote. And we state, based on the case law, that in search for the truth in the case, the jury’s entitled to hear evidence from both sides.

We all know from what was already submitted — and we talked about it in the sidebar ad Nauseum — that a pivotal conversation occurred between Kenny Ortega and Karen Faye in which the intervention meeting was held and discussed in considerable detail. And interestingly, Alif Sankey, in her declaration to — that was submitted as part of the motion for summary judgment evidence, also states the same type of conversation and the same type of detail. And the discussion was upsetting and remarkable enough to Karen Faye, because of the specific pressure being inflicted on Michael Jackson, what she saw, that within hours of the conversation, she was writing texts to her boyfriend on her iPhone about the issue. Now, before we even knew about the iPhone texts, we had all discussed the fact that we wanted to elicit from her just the testimony. And your honor stated correctly, the easiest way to do this is get Kenny Ortega here, see what he says about it —

Judge. Right. And see if he denies.

Ms. Chang. Exactly. And in fact, that’s what we did. And in fact, he did deny some; he admitted some; and he said, “I don’t remember” to some. And I listed and attached the transcripts, so there would be no confusion, as to what he did say of answers to some issues. So with respect to the ones that he flat-out denied saying, that’s a prior consistent statement. And that’s on page 3. For example: “do you recall if you told Karen Faye that AEG was funding?” “no.” “have you ever” — “did you ever tell them that?” “no.” “that AEG told Michael if he doesn’t do this, he loses everything?” “no.” so that’s prior inconsistent statements. Now, the issue becomes after that —

Judge. And — okay. So you need to call Karen Faye to —

Ms. Chang. Correct. To talk about that as we discussed before, and that renders it non-hearsay on the Kenny Ortega level because of the prior inconsistent statement. Then we came to the issue where, unbeknownst to both sides, she has these texts that records everything dutifully on her iPhone. The issue then is, did the iPhone texts help her when she didn’t remember certain aspects of that conversation? And if they did, then they can be read out loud to the jury. Now, defendants claim, and they cite from her testimony, where she says, “I specifically remember” — I’m going to get the exact quote here. Hold on.

Judge. Well, remind me. Did she — did you ask her about the prior inconsistent statements yet, or you have to call her back?

Ms. Chang. We have to call her back. We were right in the middle of asking her questions —

Judge. Okay.

Ms. Chang. — And defendants kept objecting, and the court stated, “how much more do you have on this examination?” in other words, can you come back to this, and can you finish what you have? And Mr. Panish responded, “I can go to some other things, sure.” in other words, we all knew this fight was coming, this day was coming, so why waste — they kept objecting every five seconds. So, basically, what we — what they allege, too, is they claim that Ms. Faye testified that she remembers, quote, “specifically everything that happened about what occurred on June 18th.” but this testimony refers to the events that happened, such as when he came late to rehearsals, everything. And we were trying to elicit from her — because she did state she was trying to remember what happened in the conversation. So we have to get that out of her, and we were stopped right in the course of the conversations. And if we can’t get it out of her, if Ms. Bina is correct, and she says, “oh, no, I remember everything absolutely,” then I would agree then she can’t read the text out loud, because if she remembers it completely, she can just say what is inconsistent with Kenny Ortega. However, if it does — if she —

Judge. Right, that would be the next step.

Ms. Chang. The next step is, then, she can read them. They are not admitted into evidence.

Judge. No. The next step — refreshing recollection, would be the first step. If she doesn’t remember what Kenny Ortega told her, okay, would looking at a copy of these texts —

Ms. Chang. Actually, 1237 allows her to read the prior — the past recorded —

Mr. Panish. Past recollection recorded.

Ms. Chang. The past recollection recorded statements into the record. They’re not admitted, but what she wrote is — can be read.

Judge. I think you’re jumping ahead a little bit.

Ms. Chang. Okay.

Judge. First try the refreshing recollection, because it’s very short; right?

Ms. Chang. Well, they’re very detailed. I have them right here. Well, I guess. I mean, compared to, like, the “emancipation proclamation,” yes. I guess everything is relative. Yeah, I’ll agree with you, your honor, they’re fairly short.

Judge. Okay. The first thing you do is you try to refresh recollection with her text messages.

Ms. Chang. Okay.

Judge. And if she remembers, after reading them, then she can testify as to what Kenny Ortega’s statements were.

Ms. Chang. Okay.

Judge. Now, the past recollection recorded —

Ms. Chang. States: “evidence of a statement previously made by a witness is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule” —

Judge. Right.

Ms. Chang. — “if the statement would have been admissible if made by him while testifying, the statement concerns a matter as to which the witness has insufficient present recollection to enable him to testify fully and accurately, and the statement is contained in a writing which: “was made at a time when the fact recorded in the writing actually occurred or was fresh in the witness’s memory; “was made by the witness herself; “is offered after the witness testifies that the statement she made was a true statement of such fact; “and is offered after the writing is authenticated as an accurate record of the statement. “The writing may be read into evidence, but the writing itself may not be received into evidence unless offered by an adverse party.”

Ms. Bina. Right.

Ms. Chang. So therefore we have to —

Judge. Usually, the way —

Ms. Bina. You refresh first, your honor. You’re absolutely right. And when it’s my turn, I’ll go.

Ms. Chang. Would you please not?

Judge. Usually, the way that past recollections are admitted is, there are usually long lists of things that people just can’t remember. I don’t know. For example, I don’t know, a long list of addresses. 20 addresses. And I might ask somebody, “What addresses did you refer this person to?” “I don’t remember, but I wrote a memo.” “Okay. Would looking at it refresh your recollection?” “Well, sure.” you look at it. “Can you tell us what addresses?” “Well, no, because there’s 20 of them. I can’t recite them by memory.” “Okay. Did you prepare a memo?” “Yes, I did.” then you lay the foundation for the memo, and then she can read from the memo and the 20 locations. That’s usually how it comes up. But if there’s a text, it doesn’t seem to me that’s in the typical nature of past recollection recorded.

Ms. Chang. Well, a lot of people — I think it will come up more, because texts has really changed a lot of people. But many people don’t sit down and say, “oh, my god. Let me write down this thing.” some people do. We had that in Cuthbertson, Stephanie — the first witness, Stephanie Chan, wrote — she went home and was so upset by what she saw, she went to her computer and typed out the entire statement, which was in fact read to the entire jury.

Judge. It was a long statement.

Ms. Chang. Yes. It was a long statement.

Judge. It wasn’t something —

Ms. Chang. Correct.

Judge. — She could just recite by looking at it and refreshing —

Ms. Chang. My heart. Exactly. And I think that a lot of people do not take the time to write out, like when Mr. Panish tells me things, I don’t sit down and write and record it all. But if it was something shocking, I might in an e-mail. And I think that’s the point. Because if something — if you take the time, like Ms. Chan did, or whatever, to record something, then there is some level of inherent truthfulness associated with it —

Judge. Yes.

Ms. Chang. — Because you’re doing it when it’s fresh, you’re doing it for the purpose of remembering it. And I think what she did is it struck Ms. Faye, because she cared very deeply about Mr. Jackson, that she was extra vocal, like, “you would not believe what happened. Here’s all the things” —

Judge. How long was it?

Ms. Chang. Here’s the texts right here, your honor. I can show it to you. It’s very — it’s attached here. Here’s exhibit 1. You can see the iPhone bubbles.

Judge. I can’t. My eyes —

Mr. Putnam. I can’t from here.

Ms. Chang. It’s actually — it goes four pages. And I can read it for the record. It basically says: “MJ has not shown up yet. His call was 4:00.” this is at almost — its 7:55 p.m. “his fear is big. He needs a 24/7 therapist.” and then the next one, it goes: “Kenny was mad.”

Ms. Bina. The fact that there’s an in-between text is relevant.

Ms. Chang. Okay. Well, I’ll read the whole thing. I’m sorry.

Mr. Panish. I just gave —

Ms. Chang. “Can you bring that suitcase with clothes to London for Michael’s clothes?” “She will pay excess baggage charges?” “Of course.” “He needs a few extra days to complete some items. This gives him the time he needs.” “Okay. Thanks, my love. I will tell him.” “Didn’t get home until 2:30. Kenny was mad,” all in caps. “He and Randy Phillips and the doctor held a sort of intervention. MJ didn’t show till 9:30 p.m. Kenny told me AEG, (Randy Phillips) is funding his entire life right now. His house, food, kids, school, everything. They told him they will,” all capitals, “pull the plug if he doesn’t get his shit together. If he doesn’t do this, he loses everything, probably even his kids.” her boyfriend texts, “I hope he doesn’t.” she writes back, “He came in ‘very serious’ last night. Any ‘hand holding’ has been removed. He has to be forced to face his fears.” that’s the texts.

Judge. Okay. And so not all of this was denied by Kenny Ortega; right?

Ms. Bina. Well, when we get to that, your honor, I don’t think any of that was, but we’ll get to that when it’s my turn.

Ms. Chang. Well, your honor —

Judge. What part are you, plaintiffs, are claiming were not remembered? I think by your —

Ms. Chang. Let me turn to it here. I’m sorry, your honor. I’ll have it here. The fact — the part that he denied was that they were funding Jackson’s entire life and that they threatened to pull the plug so that he would lose everything.

Judge. Okay. “Kenny told me AEG”? Okay.

Ms. Chang. And we could just turn to Mr. Ortega’s testimony here that we attached here.

Judge. And the question to Kenny Ortega that he denied was what?

Ms. Bina. Your honor, there’s several. (JUDGE SHOULD HAVE TOLD BINA TO BE QUIET LONG AGO)

Ms. Chang. Well okay. I think she’s asking me. I’m looking it up right here, your honor. I’m sorry.

Ms. Bina. They’re in our opposition brief.

Ms. Chang. We have listed his testimony. And, basically, he denies that he said that if he doesn’t do this, he loses everything; he admits that maybe he told her about something like, any hand holding of Michael had been removed. He denies that he told Karen Faye that he had to face his fears.

Judge. I don’t know why he would deny that. I think he said something like that in an e-mail, but —

Ms. Chang. He said: “do you recall whether you ever told Karen Faye that AEG had told Michael that they’ll pull the plug if he doesn’t get it together?” “Maybe in some capacity to that.” that’s what he says. And then specifically: “did you tell Karen Faye that he was funding Michael’s entire life right now? His food, his kids, everything?” “no.” “Did you ever tell Karen Faye that AEG told Michael that if he doesn’t do this, he loses everything?” “no.” other things, he specifically stated, “I don’t remember.” let me —

Judge. So right now, it looks like the only thing he really denied was that — the statement “Kenny told me AEG (Randy Phillips) is funding his entire life right now. His house, food, kids, school, everything.”

Ms. Chang. “and that he could lose everything.”

Ms. Bina. And actually, your honor, on that first one, he didn’t deny making that statement. He was only asked if he recalled making the statement, and he said, “no.” the second one he denied making the statement, but the text doesn’t attribute it to him. Anyway, I’ll let Ms. Chang – (HERE SHE GOES AGAIN, AND SHE ACKNOWLEDGES SHES DOING WRONG)

Ms. Chang. Well, the good thing is Kenny Ortega is coming back on Monday, according to the defense.

Judge. Oh, no.

Ms. Bina. Depending on your honor’s ruling in terms of the “This Is It” movie and this issue and any number of issues. We’re trying to avoid bringing him back.

Ms. Chang. Is the only issue if the whole movie is in?

Mr. Putnam. Your honor, it’s more than what Kenny Ortega has. And in fact, Faye was called —

Judge. It is just not unique to you.

Mr. Putnam. I will tell you, I heard precisely what you said, which is why we’ve narrowed it to something very precise, which is — we may not have to do it if they agree that the movie is actually entered into evidence entirely at this point.

Mr. Panish. So Marvin — can I ask Mr. Putnam a question? I know it’s not —

Judge. Sure. Go ahead.

Mr. Panish. Are you saying that the reason that you may need to call Mr. Ortega back is because there’s a potential issue regarding whether “This Is It” is in or not? Is that what you’re saying?

Mr. Putnam. That’s what I’m saying.

Ms. Chang. They think the whole movie should be in.

Mr. Putnam. I think the whole movie is in.

Mr. Panish. I just want to understand your position, is all. Did I say that?

Mr. Putnam. No. I understand you called him and told him, “you can argue before the court that he’s not necessary as cumulative.”

Mr. Panish. I haven’t talked to Mr. Ortega.

Mr. Putnam. I know. Mr. Boyle did. They called and let me know that argument was made.

Mr. Panish. We didn’t talk to Mr. Ortega.

Mr. Putnam. I’m glad you could know that. I believe there are reasons we can put that in.

Mr. Panish. Your honor, we’ve never spoken to Mr. Ortega.

Ms. Bina. Mr. Ortega’s counsel.

Mr. Putnam. His counsel.

Mr. Panish. No. So all I wanted to do, I was just trying to understand, and was I correct in understanding —

Ms. Chang. Yes, you’re correct.

Mr. Panish. That’s all I’m asking. I’m not here to argue.

Ms. Bina. The biggest issue is the film. And the texts —

Mr. Panish. Well, he already testified about the texts.

Ms. Bina. Well, I’m not going to call Kenny Ortega about your videos. But, yes, the issue is the “This Is It” movie.

Ms. Chang. What we’re saying is what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Mr. Putnam. Karen Faye, I agree.

Mr. Panish. Do I get an answer?

Ms. Chang. Yes, he answered you.

Mr. Panish. They said, “Among other things.”

Mr. Putnam. I did answer.

Mr. Panish. She just said among — okay. You said, “Yes.” thank you. But she said, “yes, among other things,” so —

Ms. Bina. Your honor, I’d like a chance to respond about Karen Faye before lunch.

Ms. Chang. I wasn’t finished. Can I suggest this, your honor?

Judge. All right.

Ms. Chang. I have in the — between the motion and reply and the opposition, the entirety of Mr. Ortega’s testimony relevant to these texts are in. I propose that we make — specifically know which ones he said, “no” to, which ones he said, “I don’t know” to, and to finish up my argument, we submit case law that says in the context of saying, “I don’t know,” an “I don’t know” is sufficient to be a denial to allow her to come back and address them as prior inconsistent statements. So it is — and then that raises the issue of whether or not they should be allowed to do a forensic examination of the phone. And what they allege as grounds for that is because, during her deposition, or before the deposition, they subpoenaed her and asked her to bring all her e-mails, and she didn’t. And she didn’t provide these texts. She explained how she found these texts and the number of hours it took. You’re only required to submit what you have at the time of the deposition. She’s not a party, didn’t pursue it with her. Secondly, they alleged that the Frank Dileo e-mails, she didn’t submit an e-mail that she wrote to Frank Dileo that said, “yippee” on the last day. She’s thrilled at how much better he did. It’s not inconsistent. But I will also point out that this is the time period where they represented Frank Dileo and did not produce those documents to us.

Ms. Bina. We didn’t have them.

Mr. Putnam. We didn’t have them.

Ms. Chang. So in any event — nor do we know if she had them, either. We didn’t know if she had all her e-mails or didn’t have her e-mails or checked her e-mails or she has e-mails that are discarded or whatever. So, basically, I don’t think that — under California case law, and what’s required to lay these foundations, had they submitted enough proof to show, “oh, we can call her a liar and say that she made up and fabricated evidence, and now we get a forensic examination”? I, as an officer of the court, pursuant to our discussion, took the phone, put it in a little bag. It’s all been locked and secluded and everything. I mean, we could have done the same thing to Mr. Trell, I guess, and Mr. Gongaware and Mr. Phillips on their iPhones and their phones and did analysis if they erased everything, too. But I believe that it does nothing but raise the costs of an already expensive case. It is not required. Well, we would have to do a counter one. And it also delays, and we’re all trying to finish this case and get it to the jury. We have always, always tried, from the very beginning, to get our story across. We’ve been lambasted by — I think at one count there was like 68 objections during her examination. And I think that we tried very hard to get everything in, and we followed the court’s suggestion with Mr. Ortega. I think it’s very clear that there are certain things that she’s entitled to come back for to say what Mr. Ortega said, the things that he says “no” to, specifically. And then we lay the foundation to see if we meet the burden of evidence code —

Judge. Well, I could see if maybe this —

Ms. Chang. — 1235. I’m sorry. I was just finishing the evidence code.

Judge. — Statement said, “Kenny told me AEG told him that they are funding his entire life right now,” I can see why you would want that. But this is just Kenny saying, “AEG is funding his life right now.” in other words, that’s Kenny’s opinion, really. I mean, I don’t know how much that really adds to your case.

Mr. Putnam. Can we respond?

Judge. “Kenny said he thinks AEG Is funding his life.” it isn’t a recitation of Kenny saying that “AEG told him that they’re funding.” I can see why that would be valuable.

Ms. Chang. Well, she can go into detail about what the conversation was. That’s the whole point.

Ms. Bina. If she had the memory, your honor, there’s no basis to admit the texts. So, I think, briefly — and I’m going to try not to take too much time, but there’s two — three issues here: one, did Kenny Ortega testify inconsistently? Because if not, no hearsay statements come in at all; two, if Kenny Ortega testified inconsistently, he can be impeached by Ms. Faye’s testimony, not by intrinsic evidence that is hearsay; and then three, is there any exception that gets the text in; and four, should there be a forensic examination of the text?

So starting with — as a normal lawyer, I mean, you don’t get to bolster your testimony through hearsay. For instance, Mr. Phillips has witnesses he spoke to back in the spring of 2009 who can come in and testify that he told them, “Michael is wanting us to have this doctor. I don’t want him. He’s really expensive.” and it could bolster his own credibility that way, but you don’t get to bolter your credibility through hearsay, you get to testify, which is what Ms. Faye has done.

She’s discussed the events of June 18th in detail repeatedly, when asked by her counsel — if you recall, they put the texts in front of her, and, you know, he said, “do you remember what happened on June 18th?” and your honor said, “without looking at the texts.” and she says, “yes. I remember specifically everything that happened.

The only thing I used the text for was to refresh my memory as to dates. So there’s no evidence at this point that she needs the text or is unable to remember them independently. In fact, many times in deposition she described in detail the conversations she contends took place that night. So setting that aside, the first thing your honor must decide is, is there any inconsistent testimony of Mr. Ortega? Because otherwise, none of this is dealt with. So Mr. Ortega was asked a couple of different questions. He was asked: “do you recall whether you told Karen Faye that Dr. Murray and Randy Phillips had had some sort of intervention?” and he says, “I don’t recall that.” so he was only asked, “do you recall,” not did he ever say it. So, “do you recall?” “I don’t recall that.” “do you recall whether you told Karen Faye that AEG was funding Michael’s entire life right now? His food, kids and everything?” he said, “no.” again, the question was, “do you recall.” they never asked the follow-up question of, “well, do you deny you said it? Is it possible you might have said it?” none of those things.

Judge. “Did you ever tell Karen Faye?”

Ms. Bina. Right. “do you recall whether you ever told Karen Faye that AEG has told Michael that they’re going to pull the plug if he doesn’t get it together?” answer: “maybe in some capacity to that.” and then, “did you ever tell Karen Faye that any hand holding is removed?” and he said, again, “we may have had a conversation about something like that.” those four, he said, “I don’t recall” to two of them, and he specifically admitted the other two. What remains is, “did you tell Karen Faye that Michael — if Michael doesn’t do this, he’ll lose everything, including his kids?” he did say “no” to that, but the text doesn’t attribute that statement to him. Now, Ms. Faye —

Judge. Doesn’t attribute it to?

Ms. Bina. To Kenny Ortega. Doesn’t attribute it to anyone. The last thing she says, “if he doesn’t do this, he loses everything, probably even his kids,” it’s not clear that that’s a statement in the text attributed to Mr. Ortega. Now, Ms. Faye might testify that Mr. Ortega told her that. She might testify, but it’s not in the text. And if she testifies, I would argue, it’s a pretty collateral matter, whether Kenny Ortega ever told Karen Faye, Michael might lose his kids if he doesn’t do this, has no bearing on any position of the case. So that’s the only time, your honor —

Judge. So are you telling me that you’re trying to impeach Kenny Ortega?

Ms. Bina. Yes, your honor.

Judge. Is that what you’re trying to do? To show a prior inconsistent statement? Because that’s —

Ms. Chang. Well, your honor, here’s how it all started. I’ll remind your honor how it all started. We’re trying to give the two pictures of what happened before Mr. Jackson died. We allege correctly I believe the record will show and will later be determined, if necessary, is that we were correct in our initial arguments to your honor that all of this is non-hearsay because it goes to Mr. Jackson’s state of mind, because it shows why he was pressured to do things; that they were pressuring him so badly, he was up against the wall, he had no capacity to make decisions for his own.

And we reminded your honor, there was a long argument on sidebar that they are alleging negligence on the part of Michael Jackson and that all of this goes to all of these issues, and they even alleged punitive aspects against Mr. Jackson. We argued all of this, and your honor said — was not persuaded by any of those, because we believe we have the right to tell both sides of the story. So the jury has only heard one side, and that’s AEG’s pure love, pure support, no pressure whatsoever, Kumbaya, holding hands, and “he hugged me the last day he saw me.” okay.

That’s the story the jury has. And we all know from a whole variety of sources — and Ms. Jessica Stebbins Bina knows, because there’s other people, not only Ms. Faye, but other people who have — Alif Sankey, other people who have alleged to the pressure that’s being inflicted.

However, after that argument failed, then we vehemently argued about, in sidebar, how — other hearsay exceptions, and your honor finally said, “the easiest way to do this is get Kenny Ortega here. It’s clean and dry, it’s a prior inconsistent statement.” and we agreed with that. So we all waited for Kenny Ortega.

So then the questions here now, it’s unclear, like a lot of things in this trial, he never came out, flat out, either the question was unclear at some point, or the answers weren’t clear. But there are some crystal-clear questions, and I’ll read one from page 13,567 of the transcript: “did you ever tell Karen Faye that AEG had told Michael that if he doesn’t do this, he loses everything?” “no.” and this is right after, “do you ever recall” — you know, whether they’d pull the plug if he doesn’t get it together. “did you ever tell Karen Faye that Michael had to face his fears?” “no.” so all of that — that is clear —

Judge. It’s kind of interesting that —

Ms. Bina. Your honor —

Judge. — If he didn’t remember, then why didn’t you refresh him? Well, you know, showed him something, and even if it was these texts, you could have shown it to him.

Ms. Chang. Actually, we did show those texts.

Judge. To Kenny Ortega?

Mr. Putnam. No. The answer is “no,” your honor. The reason is because it’s not inconsistent.

Mr. Panish. We actually did give it to his lawyer who showed it to him, and he denied it.

Ms. Chang. And he said, “I would never have this conversation with Karen Faye.”

Ms. Bina. Your honor, again, it was not done on the witness stand, which is where it should be done. The only way you get a prior inconsistent statement is you ask the witness, and he denies making the statement. Now, there are times when the witness is being evasive, and only when the witness is being evasive, and they say, “I don’t know,” it can be construed as a denial.

Judge. That’s true.

Ms. Bina. That’s not the situation here. He admitted some of the statements. He didn’t recall others. He denied two, but those two are not actually attributed to him in the texts. “any hand holding has been removed” and the statement about — sorry — the statement about “he has to be forced to face his fears,” and “if he doesn’t do this, he loses everything, even his kids” in the texts, are not attributed to Mr. Ortega or AEG now, it’s possible the witness has a memory that impeaches Mr. Ortega on those two statements, but that’s not grounds for getting the texts in. And the other four statements were never denied, so there’s no inconsistency there. Again, they had the opportunity to ask Mr. Ortega, “did you make those statements” —

Judge. To Ms. Faye.

Ms. Bina. — “To Ms. Faye?” to have him get squirrely and say, “I don’t recall,” have him deny it —

Ms. Chang. There’s a firm denial.

Ms. Bina. The standard follow-up answer, your honor, is — to “do you recall making the statement?” is, “well, are you saying you didn’t make the statement?” and they never asked that.

Judge. Or “if I showed you a text, would it help you refresh” —

Ms. Bina. “Would it refresh your recollection?” they could have, and all of that —

Ms. Chang. That’s not what —

Ms. Bina. Can I please finish?

Ms. Chang. Your honor stated, “Get him to say whether he said it or not.” there’s no rule —

Judge. But you didn’t do that.

Ms. Chang. Yeah. How — “did you ever tell Karen Faye that AEG had told Michael that if he doesn’t do this, he loses everything?” “no.” “Did you ever tell Karen Faye that Michael had to face his fears?” “no.” we don’t have to refresh his recollection.

Ms. Bina. Those were clear denials, your honor. We’re not disputing that.

Ms. Chang. Okay.

Ms. Bina. But they’re also not attributed to Mr. Ortega in the texts. So, again, it’s possible that they can bring in Ms. Faye, and she has an independent recollection that would impeach Mr. Ortega as to those two statements.

Judge. And she’ll say that, yes that information came from Mr. Ortega.

Ms. Bina. Right. At that point —

Judge. She hasn’t said that yet.

Ms. Bina. Right. So it’s possible — she said that at deposition, your honor, so there’s reason to believe that she will say that. Again, that’s not grounds for getting the texts in. It might be grounds for getting her testimony in.

Ms. Chang. I think we’re fighting —

Ms. Bina. Can I finish please, Ms. Chang?

Judge. Ms. Chang, let her finish. (HERE WE GO, JUDGE DID SPEAK UP BUT FOR BINA)

Ms. Chang. This helps her. We’re not trying to get the texts into evidence. I think she thinks we are.

Judge. I thought you were, too.

Ms. Chang. No, no, no, no, no. The code doesn’t allow us to get the texts in, it allows us to read from it.

Judge. If it’s past recollection recorded, you haven’t gotten that analysis yet.

Ms. Bina. Which is what I’m getting to. They’re not allowed to get in the texts or read from the texts. Ms. Faye, conceivably, could impeach Mr. Ortega as to the two statements he specifically denied. I would argue, your honor, that at that point, the testimony is cumulative and collateral because Ms. Faye repeatedly said on the stand, said Mr. Ortega was pressuring Mr. Jackson —

Ms. Chang. No, she was not.

Ms. Bina. She actually did say that. She was allowed to testify considerably to this. She wasn’t allowed to give any hearsay testimony.

Ms. Chang. No.

Ms. Bina. But as to those two statements, your honor, if Ms. Faye has a recollection that impeaches Mr. Ortega, they would not be hearsay. The remaining four statements are hearsay with no exception, because Mr. Ortega never denied them, and plaintiffs never asked the questions that would lay the foundation for prior inconsistent statements. So we’re only dealing with the two statements, not the six. So then we talked about the two statements —

Judge. The two statements where there was negative responses?

Mr. Putnam. Yes, your honor.

Ms. Bina. With a negative response.

Judge. It wasn’t a “do you recall,” it was a direct “yes.”

Ms. Bina. It was a direct “yes” or “no,” which is “he has to be forced to face his fears” and if —

Judge. Loses.

Ms. Chang. “Loses everything.”

Ms. Bina. “He loses everything, including his kids.” and, again, actually, that one is not actually an inconsistent statement, if you go by what the text says. The text says — doesn’t attribute an author to that. Mr. Ortega was asked, “did you ever tell Karen Faye that AEG said that?” it’s possible that Mr. Ortega said it to Karen Faye without it being from AEG. They didn’t ask that question. So in any event, Ms. Faye might have an independent recollection that impeaches on those two statements alone. The other four, there’s no basis for admission whatsoever. Then we get to the second question of, well, can she read from the texts as to those two statements? And the law is very clear that that is not permissible; that past recollection recorded, two things have to happen first: first, the witness can have no independent recollection. Ms. Faye has testified under oath that she remembers specifically everything that happened.

Judge. Did she say that in trial or in the depo?

Ms. Bina. She said that in the trial.

Mr. Putnam. In trial.

Ms. Bina. She had the text in front of her, and she said, “I remember. I don’t need the texts. I remember specifically what happened on June 18th.” now, it’s possible they’ll bring her back in, and she’ll magically forget all that. But she testified to all that repeatedly under oath at her deposition and elsewhere.

[AFTER SHE SAW HER MESSAGES SHE RECALLED IT]

Mr. Putnam. At trial.

Ms. Bina. So I don’t have any reason to believe she will suddenly have a lapse of memory, requiring her to read these two texts. So first the witness has to have no recollection at all. Then —

Judge. And if she doesn’t, you refresh.

Ms. Bina. Then you refresh. Exactly, your honor. And the law is very, very clear, and we cited the authorities in our opposition papers, that if the witness is refreshed and then can testify, then you don’t get it in as a past recollection recorded.

Judge. Right.

Ms. Bina. Only if, after attempting to refresh, the witness still has no memory of what happened, then you can read from the document.

Judge. And that’s usually only in the case where it’s such a lengthy document, such a lengthy list of something, that nobody can possibly retain it just by reading it on the stand. That’s usually how it happens.

Mr. Putnam. And how we’ve done it in this trial.

Ms. Bina. Right. The problem here, your honor, is that reading from the document as to those two statements wouldn’t actually impeach Mr. Ortega, because the document doesn’t attribute them to Mr. Ortega. So we have this sort of convoluted situation here where there’s text messages that they’re basically trying to get in to bolster Ms. Faye’s credibility, which they can’t do unless it’s challenged. And there’s no grounds for admitting at least four of the six statements in question. Again, Ms. Faye might have a recollection that might contradict Mr. Ortega’s denial on two specific statements, and they could potentially bring her in, ask her those two questions. She can testify as to her recollection. If we then challenged it, then she might get it in, in part, as an inconsistent statement. But that’s the only way the text would ever come in.

Mr. Panish. Clearly comes in —

Ms. Bina. Not past recollection recorded unless she can’t remember it. And even, after being refreshed on it, can’t remember it actually happening, at which point then I suppose you could read it in, but it would have to be actually inconsistent, and it’s not. So that’s —

Judge. I would be surprised, because it’s one sentence, how you would not remember. How could you not be refreshed?

Ms. Bina. Particularly since she said it multiple times, including under oath, and testified a month ago that she could remember specifically everything, and the text only clarified the dates for her. Then turning to the last issue, your honor, which is the forensic examination of the text. Since I don’t think there’s any basis to admit the texts, I don’t think there’s any need to go through forensically examining them. But there is a concern here. Ms. Faye was subpoenaed in two different cases. She came — she brought documents to her depositions, including documents that, you know, showed that she was concerned about Mr. Jackson that she sent to Mr. Dileo saying he was thin, and he was sabotaging himself, and so on and so forth. She didn’t bring the texts. She didn’t bring the texts in at all. She didn’t bring them when she first testified at trial. She instead brought them on her second or third appearance and said, “oh, I’ve suddenly found the texts.” well, again, your honor, we’d ask the opportunity to examine, if your honor was inclined to admit the texts, because it’s suspicious when they were discovered. It’s also very, very easy to fake. You only have the printout of the texts. And as your honor will recall, we went away at lunch and figured out exactly how easy it is to change the dates on an iPhone conversation, and it’s super, super easy. Takes two minutes. So we’d like the opportunity to prove that hadn’t been done. And, again, there is some reason to doubt Ms. Faye’s —

Mr. Putnam. Veracity.

Ms. Bina. Ms. Faye’s here, because we know at least one instance she was selective in what she produced. She produced an e-mail for the plaintiffs’ version of the case but not defendants, which is when —

Judge. The “yippee”?

Ms. Bina. Yes. “yippee,” “everything’s great.”

Mr. Putnam. Same conversation.

Ms. Bina. And there’s another e-mail in that same time period, your honor, where she says, “I’m very protective of Michael Jackson’s image, and I’ll do anything to protect it.” so she’s a witness who has a motive not — she has, frankly, a motive to fabricate something. I’m not saying she did it, but I’m saying, before we put it to a jury, I’d like an opportunity to examine that, particularly when she didn’t produce it in response to discovery, and she’s been selective in what she’s produced. But I don’t think we need to deal with any of that, because the only two statements at issue aren’t directly contradicted by the texts, so I don’t think there are any grounds for ever getting to the texts. The only issue is whether Ms. Faye can come in and testify against Mr. Ortega as to the two statements he actually said “no” to. And that may be, but I think at that point, your honor, it’s pretty irrelevant as to whether kenny ortega ever told her —

[WHY NOT LET THE JURY DECIDE?]

Judge. It’s pretty marginal.

Mr. Putnam. So marginal, your honor.

Judge. Benefit is pretty marginal.

Ms. Bina. Very marginal.

Ms. Chang. But it’s our —

Judge. I know it’s your case. I think even if you get that, it’s so marginal —

Ms. Chang. Do we want to leave the impression it’s all hugs and kisses from AEG?

Judge. We have enough of that impression.

Mr. Putnam. And, your honor, that’s why —

Mr. Panish. Are we coming back at 1:30?

Judge. One thing, and then I have to let the staff go.

Ms. Chang. I’m so sorry, your honor. The thing about Karen Faye on the texts, we don’t know until we lay the foundation. We were interrupted, we didn’t do it, so we just don’t know. The second thing, I just want to state this for Karen Faye because I think a lot of bad things have been said on the record. As an officer of the court, I went to get the phone from her. I asked her, “can you show me how you went and retrieved all this?” it was the most tedious thing. She had to go back all the way to 2009 and scroll down. There was no fabrication of any evidence there. I saw — it must have taken her days to go back that far. And so with respect to that, I feel — especially since she so gladly went over and said, “do any forensic analysis that you want to do.” but it is degrading, it’s humiliating. But with that said, why don’t we all powwow, take a break, see where we are. I think we all agree that she’s entitled to do something. We can lay foundation for other things, and then we can all discuss how marginal or helpful it would be over lunch.

Judge. That’s what I suggest you do.

Mr. Putnam. Yes, because we don’t agree —

Ms. Bina. But, your honor, I don’t think there’s really any room for debate. There’s only two statements, and Ms. Faye can come in —

Judge. I’m done with the argument. I wanted to focus on the marginality of the benefit.

Ms. Chang. Let me —

Judge. Say this to Mr. Putnam.

Mr. Panish. When — what are we going to work on this afternoon?

Ms. Chang. Statement of damages brief.

Judge. Statement of damages. And I guess to the extent we can finish this —

Ms. Bina. Should be able to.

Ms. Chang. Okay.

Mr. Panish. Okay.

Mr. Putnam. 1:45, your honor?

Judge. Yes. 1:45.

Mr. Panish. Okay. Thank you, your honor.

Ms. Bina. Thank you, your honor.

The same transcript has a long discussion of AEG’s motion asking the judge to dismiss the case personally against Phillips and Gongaware, so please read the whole document provided to us by TeamMichaelJackson. The discussion was even a worse case of demagogy than the one about Karen Faye’s messages:

View this document on Scribd
63 Comments leave one →
  1. December 15, 2013 7:20 pm

    Thank you Nan for the link to the complaints by 4 jurors .The jurors were subjected to groupthink, something that easily happens and particularly if there is a lead as the jury foreman.That has been scientifically proven, the tendency for sc groupthink.They were brave
    making those complaints. That trial was so manipulated in many ways.

    Like

  2. December 14, 2013 9:59 am

    “let me post Alan Duke’s article here again, because it is most important http://edition.cnn.com/2013/12/12/showbiz/michael-jackson-new-trial-motion/index.html?iref=allsearch I hope this will have an impact on the appeal. ” – Susannerb

    Susanne, this is really good news. At least now we know that there were honest and thinking people among the jury.

    So the judge did meddle with that question No.2. Her reaction to it was nowhere in the documents available to us and I almost started believing this woman, but if the jurors say they wanted a different wording and she didn’t allow it, this changes a lot.

    In fact her decision to make Randy Phillips and Paul Gongaware a non-party to the lawsuit just 5 minutes before the deliberations was already a big red flag that spoke to her bias.

    Well, we’ll see.

    I looked up the original article by Alan Duke and found a lot of anti-Jackson comments there a la JayCorey style (“He was a junkie and that’s it”).

    Even if this had been true (which it is not) it still doesn’t answer the question about AEG’s negligence in hiring Murray. One thing simply has nothing to do with the other.

    The 744 comments there all focusing on “him being an addict” remind me of a horde of trolls hired by someone in my country to drag through the mud every person who is courageous enough to oppose the government. Absolutely the same style!

    Like

  3. simba permalink
    December 13, 2013 6:10 pm

    I don’t believe “juror 27” was on the jury at all. His description of the proceedings does not accord with that of the jurors who have sworn affidavits as to what went on. I believe he is an employee of AEG, trying to mess with the heads of the fans. (I said before that my best guess is Ted Fikre of “the freak” fame, and I’m sticking with it.) He might even be working in collusion with an actual juror, but “juror 27” himself is a fictitious character.

    Like

  4. December 13, 2013 5:01 pm

    If juror 27 was a an AEG shill. Don´t be naive and think AEG and their lawyers do not know of such persons and how to get them into the juror pool.Maybe I am becoming paranoid but
    something is odd with this trial and its aftermath.

    Like

  5. December 13, 2013 4:55 pm

    Right after the trial all the jurors were treated to a nice lunch. Everybody relaxed and had a good time.They had listened to Michaels music and the mood was good.I think somekind of group hypnosis took place which assuaged their guilt regarding Michael. They really liked him, but it was not AEG´s fault he died!!?Such things do happen and there are persons who have a gift making these sort of things happen.Even history will teaches us..

    Like

  6. simba permalink
    December 13, 2013 11:57 am

    “What do these affidavits of the 4 jurors tell us about juror #27 on MJJC?”

    They tell us that “juror #27” is a phony, an AEG shill.

    Like

  7. Nan permalink
    December 13, 2013 9:28 am

    I was thinking of that jury foreman too.He seemed to be able to take control of the whole proceedings , which is really weird, and then he was the one that did the interview on television..
    Then the person who was talking on the fan forum,
    Why didnt they get on tv?
    I dont know what they can do about this though…
    these 4 people , still voted with the majority.
    and you only needed 8 to come to a verdict.
    So even without the 4 , they still had a majority
    If all these people felt they were being boxed in , they could have hung the jury , I suppose and they didnt.
    They seem like a bunch of sheep.
    Hardly any debate whatsoever.
    I also dont see how going before the same judge , who I thought, was biased toward AEG, and allowed this question , in the first place, is going to reverse her decision.
    I thought Pannish had agreed to this question in the end.
    It is a vague question anyway , since they didnt say when he got hired.
    If they hired him at the end of MJ life , it was obvious he was incompetent .
    Not only that , but they hired a doctor who was unlicensed, in England , where he was supposed to be hired to treat MJ., in a matter of days oe weeks.
    I think the entertainment business is very powerful out there , and the legal system is manipulated by them

    Like

  8. December 13, 2013 5:40 am

    What do these affidavits of the 4 jurors tell us about juror #27 on MJJC? I wonder how he would explain everything he omitted in his lenghty explanations about the verdict process.
    This makes me think more and more that a big manipulation was taking place.

    Like

  9. December 13, 2013 2:43 am

    Mariam already posted the message on Helena’s latest post, but let me post Alan Duke’s article here again, because it is most important. I hope this will have an impact on the appeal:

    Los Angeles (CNN) — Four jurors in the Michael Jackson wrongful death trial said they feel cheated by the outcome, which they blame on a misleading verdict form.

    The six-month-long trial ended in October with a victory for AEG Live, the concert promoter Jackson’s mother and children had claimed was liable for his death because it hired, retained or supervised the doctor convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the death.

    The jurors, whose sworn statements were attached to a motion for a new trial filed Thursday by Katherine Jackson’s lawyers, said most of the jury wanted to find concert promoter AEG Live liable in Jackson’s 2009 death.

    Along with arguing that the verdict form was faulty, the Jackson lawyers contend the judge erred by refusing to let them pursue a negligence claim independent of the hiring case.

    Jackson died from an overdose of the surgical anesthetic propofol on June 25, 2009, which Dr. Conrad Murray told police he used to treat the pop icon’s insomnia as he prepared for a tour produced by AEG Live.

    They jurors used the words “stunned,” “upset” and “shocked” when they were told they had to stop deliberations after a majority agreed that the answer was “no” to the second question on the verdict form — “Was Dr. Conrad Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?”

    One juror called the question “a trap that prevented us from deliberating on the real issues of the case.”

    “After sitting through almost six months of the trial in this case, I believed that Mrs. Jackson had proven her case against AEG LIve,” another juror said. “Despite this fact, I had no way of voting in favor of the plaintiffs because of the way that the verdict form was worded.”

    Jackson lawyers, in their arguments for a new trial, contend that Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazeulos erred by denying their request to add the words “at any time” to the question.

    The four jurors, whose names were redacted from the documents released by the court, agreed.

    “I would like the judge to know that we did not have the opportunity to deliberate or render a verdict on the plaintiffs claims that Dr Murray did not become unfit or incompetent until after the conflict of interest was created, Dr. Murray’s duties were changed, pressures were mounting, or even after the contract was prepared and signed by Dr. Murray,” one juror said.

    The jury voted “no” only after one member convinced them that the question could have only meant “at the time he was hired,” two of the juror statements said.

    “During our deliberations, I asked to send a question to the judge to explain Question 2, but by then the foreman had already answered ‘no’ and followed the instructions to sign the form,” one said. “I feel so cheated because I sat through five months of trial and listened to a lot of evidence on the ethical conflict created — yet I never got to even deliberate at all on that issue or even review the hundreds of exhibits that had been brought in.”

    Another juror said they decided not to ask the judge for direction on the second question because “we did not want anyone to know where we were in deliberations.”

    “I do not believe that the verdict form was fair or worded correctly, and as phrased, Question 2 was a trap that prevented us from deliberating on the real issues of the case,” a juror said.

    The same juror described the emotional toll it has caused. “Since the jury verdict, I have been very upset, and initially I was unable to eat or even check my e-mails because I was so sorry about the verdict and the fact that justice was not done in this case, because of how question 2 on the verdict form was worded.”

    “I do not think that justice was achieved in this case,” another said.

    The affidavits revealed that one of the 12 jurors refused to stop deliberating despite being told it was over. “He insisted that we continue answering the rest of the questions,” a juror said.

    Judge Palazeulos will hear arguments on the new trial motion on January 3.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2013/12/12/showbiz/michael-jackson-new-trial-motion/index.html?iref=allsearch

    Like

  10. November 25, 2013 6:15 pm

    “At least one of them is out now” – Susanne

    Good news, Susanne. Though AEG Live is doing it for their survival and not because they find Randy Phillips to blame for anything. He is like the fetters on their feet and therefore needs to be discarded.

    On second thought I think that AEG is probably protecting Phillips this way. Brian Panish filed an appeal to reconsider the judge’s decision to exclude Phillips and Gongaware from the case, and if Phillips is no longer an AEG employee he will probably be no longer part of the lawsuit either. The same thing was done to Tim Leiweke.

    POSTED: 11/25/13, 12:26 PM PST | UPDATED: 39 SECS AGO
    LOS ANGELES — Entertainment giant AEG says it has ended its relationship with AEG Live CEO Randy Phillips, who was sued in connection with Michael Jackson’s death and was a witness in the trial of Dr. Conrad Murray.

    Anschutz Entertainment Group announced Monday that Phillips is out after a decade as CEO of AEG Live as it restructures the subsidiary. No reason was given for the move.

    AEG appointed Jay Marciano as AEG Live’s chairman.

    Phillips was a defendant in a lawsuit that said AEG negligently hired Murray, who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in Jackson’s drug overdose death in 2009. Phillips was later dropped from the lawsuit, which AEG won.

    An email seeking comment was sent to Marvin Putnam, who was Phillips’ lawyer in the lawsuit.

    http://www.dailynews.com/business/20131125/aeg-lives-randy-phillips-out-abruptly-in-executive-suite-shakeup

    Like

  11. Mariam permalink
    November 20, 2013 11:24 pm

    Michael Jackson told to his brother RJ that “he was frightened for his life, he was frightened that his kids will be taken away, and he was frightened that his asset will be taken” which is supporting KF text and RJ interview was done way back before AEG trial , so was all true.

    Like

  12. November 14, 2013 3:57 pm

    Helen ,I have ties to e-mail you. But got a message that no mails to your address will go through. Neiter did the “personal” post work. The kaarin 333@gmail does work to US.
    I have some serious health problems.
    ranja

    Like

  13. November 14, 2013 3:35 pm

    Helena, your sentence made me think of something :

    “Peter Lopez never produced any will though he had ample opportunity to do so after Michael’s death.”

    Although I don’t know if we can believe it was suicide or murder of PL, could it be that their was a will in PL possession, but he “lost” it (stolen), or something else happened why he could not present it. And that this made him do what he did ? Perhaps he knew how terrible it would be that JB would be executor, knowing that Michael did not want that. This is only speculation of course. Or can PL have been threatened, and eventually murdered ?

    It is all so strange.

    But the worst is that RP threatened Michael with the children !

    Like

  14. November 11, 2013 3:34 pm

    “John Branca has brought in $000.000 dollars to the Estate.” – Dialdancer

    Dial, I don’t know the other figures, but Leslie blog provides information about the money distributed to companies for Michael’s children as of August last year:

    8/12/2012
    Prince Paris Blanket LLC
    A little tidbit: The funds from The Michael Jackson Estate to the children are distributed to a Delaware company, called “PPB LLC” (as “Prince Paris Blanket LLC”). It has been registered on November 4, 2010. Already over 10 million dollars has been moved to the company’s account.

    Another two entities are registered for the same, or almost the same purpose: PPB II LLC in Delaware (August 15, 2011), and PPB (NV), LLC in Nevada (June 27, 2012).

    If I should speculate, I would say that the Estate will not only distribute funds through these companies, but will move MJ’s (maybe debt free) entities under these new companies/trusts. The multiple names, especially if registered in different states may refer to that.

    http://lesliemjhu.blogspot.ru/2012/08/prince-paris-blanket-llc.html

    Like

  15. TatumMarie permalink
    November 11, 2013 10:46 am

    The denial of the debt is what really sparks the Branca assumptions. For running the estate he was listed as an executor on Michael’s will which the courts have already verified.

    Like

  16. November 10, 2013 12:47 am

    “How much money has he brought into the estate since Michael’s death? This is why he was rehired, is he supposed to work for free?”

    John Branca has brought in $000.000 dollars to the Estate. The people who wish to see & hear Michael finance his Estate. He has sold off or bargained with existing MJ asset which brought in some money, but he has contributed $00000. Where is the proof of his rehiring? No not for free, but not taking 20% of the Estate as of Sept 2013, plus whatever off the top of the deals. Here is the thing, even if Michael had rehired him for TII he did not rehire him or return Branca to Executor of his Estate status and that is what the conversation is about. Not TII, but the MJ Estate.

    Like

  17. Lopsided Man permalink
    November 7, 2013 4:47 pm

    If Branca, Dileo & Katz are to be believed, John Branca’s return was in the works for about a month before June 18, when Michael supposedly signed letter (not a contract) approving of Branca’s plans for his career.

    Make note of the date of the alleged meeting/letter signing, and what else was happening at the time (re: Michael’s health/state of mind).

    Like

  18. November 7, 2013 8:58 am

    @Helena The documents you posted in the comments section are very revealing. What many have always assumed from the misleading information from just about everybody, including the media, is that Branca ‘owned’ 5% of Michael’s share of Sony ATV. This is not true and never was.

    As you have pointed out it was a 5% interest in Michael’s share of earnings from that catalog, but as you must have seen from the other information in those documents, it was not Branca alone who had that 5% interest, it was Branca’s firm of Ziffren Brittenham etc. As those documents also say, the same firm not only had a 5% interest (not an ownership) in Michael’s share of that catalog, they had a 5% interest in the bulk of Michael’s earnings, over and above the catalogs, and then some.

    The documents also say that it was at Michael’s request that Branca and his firm’s 5% interest had to be resolved at that time (2006) because it was a hindrance to Michael’s refinancing. What it boils down to is that Michael had to buy out Ziffren Brittenham’s 5% interest in his life. At that time Michael was finally free of the 5% blanket fee imposed by the firm of Ziffren Brittenham (which apparently continued on after Branca was fired in 2003). Unfortunately, at the same time Michael lost certain rights, which the media was “somehow” aware of and was always very fond of announcing and repeating.

    Whenever anyone wants to consider who made money off of Michael’s back during his lifetime and after, the firm of Ziffren Brittenham must be placed at the top of that list. Due to their “fee agreements” with Michael, that firm could sit back and watch the money rolling in, except for a period between 2006 and 2009 apparently.

    Like

  19. Kris permalink
    November 7, 2013 8:28 am

    I saw this on my Facebook feed this morning, from MJJ 777:
    A message from @StephMartin:

    “Hey MJfam, guess what?! Karen Faye has decided the time is right to do a Q&A with and for you guys! This is something people have asked about for a long time, and now she has decided it is time to go ahead and do it. Karen has chosen to do this herself, though she’s had many requests for interviews, etc. you may ask any questions you’d like – just be smart about it, obviously. Please email your questions to me at steph.martin@gmail.com and I will organize and go through them then pass them on to Karen. These will be her answers, not mine. Also – please promote this! Those of you with MJ groups, please let everyone know. People have been wanting Karen to answer or explain things for ages, here is their chance! Anyone may participate in this. Thanks guys! x”

    Like

  20. Stella permalink
    November 7, 2013 12:44 am

    That my comment below. Have you written about Faye’s email?

    Like

  21. Vogue permalink
    November 7, 2013 12:40 am

    These writings and the trial in general has very little to do with MJ and far more to do with the incessant need to uncover some hidden conspiracy that no one can prove. What on earth does this have to do with the negligent hiring of Murray?

    And why not write an extensive piece in regards to Michael’s retrieved personal notes? Or does it not fit the agenda?

    Like

  22. Stella permalink
    November 7, 2013 12:27 am

    So much speculative drivel. I found myself in awe of the wholehearted belief in the sanctity of Karen Craye’s iPhone messages. I wish this blog would stop being so politicized.

    Like

  23. TatumMarie permalink
    November 6, 2013 9:15 pm

    Those who are hating Branca, do your research and stop believing every conspiracy theory. How much money has he brought into the estate since Michael’s death? This is why he was rehired, is he supposed to work for free?

    Like

  24. simba permalink
    November 6, 2013 8:01 pm

    In Michael Jackson’s story, there is no shortage of villains. It is possible to find AEG and Kenny Ortega detestable and also to be highly skeptical of John Branca. It’s already well-established that Branca did a horrible job drafting the will and the trust plan – many estate planners are aghast at his failure to protect the heirs from millions and millions in estate taxes, failure to fund their trust funds, and leaving their inheritance vulnerable to future claims from a disgruntled ex spouse. At every turn, the estate executors have left it to MJ’s fans to fight for his name and reputation, instead of protecting his brand. However Branca and McClain have managed to collect millions of dollars in fees for themselves for serving as executors.

    AEG’s actions were deplorable, but Branca’s failure to protect MJ’s estate, and his children’s inheritance, is ongoing. That may be why some are still harping on Branca’s involvement.

    Like

  25. November 6, 2013 5:58 pm

    This blog is a wonderful resource for fans and non-fans alike and I admire Helena immensely for all the time and effort she has put in on Michael’s behalf. In particular, her detailed work on exposing AEG’s role in Michael’s life which lead to his death and the subsequent efforts by AEG executives to control the disastrous fallout of that terrible event by lies, deceipt and cover-up has been second to none.

    It is clear to me that Helena’s heart and mind has always been with Michael first and foremost and it is greatly appreciated that different points of view can be seen and discussed here.

    Like

  26. November 6, 2013 4:00 pm

    Well, those MJ fans who selected Branca as their main target because they regard him as Michael’s main enemy will never retreat from their opinion and will always talk about him primarily. They made up their mind, no matter what happens. You can draw their attention to as many other sharks as possible who destroyed Michael, they will always come back to Branca. I have seen it many times during this AEG trial that despite the detestable behavior of the AEG executives towards Michael many still talked first about Branca as the worst devil. They will go on to do this, probably even in case it is proven in years that he did a good job with the Estate and didn’t deceive him and his children.

    I really feel sorry for Helena that they apparently don’t pay as much attention to her hard work and detailed posts about the AEG trial and the conclusions from it as they do to her comments about Branca. They plunge on every word about Branca. You can prove one thing, like Helena found proof that the meeting on June 17 took place, and they will find the next thing to deny. It will go on and on. This seems somehow unreasonable to me. The Branca opponents among MJ fans are the most vocal ones, and sometimes I feel they are blind to other possibilities, the same way the other end of the fanbase is blind to the fault of AEG and defends them.
    During all my researches about Michael I discovered that Branca was/is certainly by far not Michael’s main problem, therefore I don’t understand this vehement hostility towards him, when there are others who proved to be much worse in their betrayal and their treatment and destruction of Michael. It’s beyond comprehension for me and an irrational attitude.

    Like

  27. simba permalink
    November 6, 2013 1:36 pm

    I thought it was pretty well-established that Randy Phillips lied on the stand, and that Kenny Ortega, far from being a good guy, was actually a major instigator in MJ’s distress. Phillips testified that he slapped MJ and yelled at him. If he’d admit to that, it’s no stretch to believe that he would utter the threats that Karen Faye reported.

    I don’t base my doubts about Branca on MJ’s animosity from years ago. I don’t have a copy of Sullivan’s book – imagine that! – but I’m struck by his assertion that Michael Amir Williams never heard MJ mention Branca’s name, and that he never met him. MAW was MJ’s personal business assistant. Surely MJ would have discussed hiring Branca with him. It’s an odd omission. Even odder is the fact that Sullivan disregarded this, yet believed two guys with a conflict of interest.

    Was MJ still angry with Branca? Well we don’t know for sure, but citing David LeGrand’s report that exonerated Branca is not persuasive. It doesn’t matter what LeGrand believed; it matters what MJ believed. MJ continued to avoid Branca, and if you believe the Jacksons, he never had another good word to say about him.

    AEG certainly has nothing to fear from Branca. This is the guy who forked over millions of MJ’s money to them, based on a phony document signed by two crooks. Branca refused to join in the lawsuit against AEG, and even obstructed Katherine Jackson’s efforts. AEG loves this guy.

    If Phillips, Ortega, “Bugzee”, Karen Faye, Alif Sankey, and others are to believed in their descriptions of Michael’s physical and mental state the week before his death, legally he could not have hired Branca, or signed off on a business plan, even if a meeting took place. Under our legal system, a person in that debilitated condition lacks legal capacity to enter into a contract. Are we to believe that ALL of these witnesses were concerned about MJ, but at a meeting that supposedly took place in the middle of all this, Branca never noticed anything? It definitely strains credulity.

    Like

  28. November 6, 2013 12:24 am

    Helena, I understand there were two meetings – one possibly on the 16th which Kai Chase discusses, attended by Phillips, Gongaware, Dileo, Ortega, Murray and Michael and then one on the 18th which Kenny Ortega told Karen Faye about, the subject of the text messages.

    From Karen’s testimony on June 28th:

    Panish: And do you know did Michael come to rehearsal on June 18th?
    Faye: Yes sir, but late.
    Panish: What time did he come?
    Faye: He came in at 9.30, sir.
    Panish: How was Mr…Mr Ortega’s demeanor on that date?
    Faye: Earlier, he was very angry, sir.
    Panish: What did you observe…don’t tell me what he said…in his demeanor?
    Faye: He was very angry that Michael hadn’t been to rehearsal yet.
    Panish: Do you know whether…don’t tell me…just yes or no…whether a meeting occurred with Michael Jackson and anyone else that day?
    Faye: Yes, sir.

    Like

  29. November 5, 2013 6:01 pm

    “And after all that all we talking about Branca?” Branca is a part of the end of Michael’s life, just as AEG was. Phillips is reported as saying he wasn’t initially keen to have Branca on board and then apparently he saw a potential for a conflict of interest and so supported Dileo’s efforts to have Branca brought in. It speaks to Phillips’ control or attempt to control the situation if nothing else but it may also speak to Michael’s state of mind at that crucial time. I’m not saying it did, only that it’s something that should be considered along with everything else.

    Was Michael avoiding a meeting with Branca? And if Branca did meet with Michael on the 17th, was he not at all concerned about Michael? And if Michael signed a document at that time, was he in a good position, healthwise and mentally, to be doing that? These are legitimate questions and AEG is a part of those questions.

    Like

  30. November 5, 2013 5:43 pm

    “@Helena If Michael was forced to make compromises, that compromise (a music attorney) was supposedly made before the threats on the 18th of losing everything, including his children.” – BG

    The threats were made on June 16th during the intervention meeting. On June 18th Kenny Ortega was mad that it did not work.

    Like

  31. November 5, 2013 3:44 pm

    Today I’ve been studying the document called Joe Jackson’s objection [dated November 2009] to appointing Branca the executor of the Estate: http://ru.scribd.com/doc/76898077/Joseph-Jackson-s-Ofjection-to-Appointment-of-John-Branca-and-John-Mcclain-as-Executors-of-the-Estate-of-Michael-Jackson

    I think that he collected all the dirt there was to collect about him. However to my huge surprise the documents provided there only convinced me more than ever that Branca is absolutely not the type of man to deceive Michael. And he is not a profiteer. In short he is the exact opposite of AEG.

    Here is an excerpt from Joe Jackson’s lawsuit. It speaks of the business plan signed by Michael Jackson on June 17 (so Joe doesn’t doubt that it was signed) and states several objections why Branca cannot be an executor of MJ’s estate:

    One of the objections is that Branca had 5% in the ATV/Catalog and was in a conflict of interest situation.

    But the text of Joe’s lawsuit says that in April 2006 Branca sold his 5% to Michael for $15mln. And this means that at the time he was to become the Executor (in 2009) he did not have that 5% any more.

    Another conclusion from the above transaction is that in 2006 Branca sold his 5% to Michael for a fairly moderate figure. Let me correct the previous comment and say that 5% was a fee, a piece of profits to be received from Michael’s share of the catalog (and not a share in the catalog proper). But even here Branca waived (gave up) his right to collect the fee since 1998 to 2005 in order to facilitate Michael’s financial situation:

    Another document attached to Joe Jackson’s lawsuit is the Intefor investigative report everyone is talking about (alleging that Branca used some off-shore accounts to defraud Michael). The report was ordered by lawyer and former prosecutor LeGrand who was hired by Michael to investigate everyone in his team including Evvy. At that time not only Branca but the whole team of Michael’s advisors was fired and everyone was under suspicion:

    3 Q. You voiced those suspicions to Mr. Jackson
    4 about Mr. Konitzer?
    5 A. Yes.
    6 Q. And Mr. Weizner?
    7 A. Yes.
    8 Q. And you were suspicious about Mr. Jackson’s
    9 personal assistant, Evvy?
    10 A. Yes. Primarily because Mr. Konitzer —
    11 Q. There’s no question pending.
    12 A. Oh. Sorry.
    13 Q. And you were suspicious about Mr. Geragos?
    14 A. Yes, I was.
    15 Q. And you were suspicious about Mr. Jackson’s
    16 attorney, Mr. Cochran’s associate, Zia Modabber?
    17 A. Less so, but yes.
    18 Q. Well, you had him investigated?
    19 A. Less so, but yes.

    And as regards Branca and the Interfor report Legrand said that there was no evidence to support it (see his May 13, 2005 testimony):

    13 Q. As far as the John Branca and Tommy Motolla
    14 investigation by Interfor, Interfor never found any
    15 evidence that Mr. Motolla or Mr. Branca were engaged
    16 in any fraud with Mr. Jackson, did they?
    17 A. That’s correct. I had no evidence delivered
    18 with that report to substantiate those claims.

    24 Q. Okay. But you have no reason to believe
    25 that any funds transferred to an offshore account by
    26 Sony, you have no reason to believe that those funds
    27 were somehow defrauding Mr. Jackson?
    28 A. I was given no credible evidence to support
    1 those charges. I would be doing Mr. Branca and Mr.
    2 Motolla a great wrong if I said otherwise.

    But I was mostly impressed by the letter sent to Goldman and Sachs by Branca in answer to their proposal to Michael to sell them half of his share. It is absolutely clear that that transaction was a trap for Michael and Branca saved him from it:


    And there is more to it. If I have a chance I will make a post.

    Like

  32. November 5, 2013 2:53 pm

    When I was providing quotes from some transcripts at the AEG trial I hoped that people would pay attention to lots of proof that Randy Phillips, Gongaware and Shawn Trell were all saying that Michael was under no obligation to attend rehearsals, and when there was an “intervention” Michael actually REPLIED TO PHILLIPS that HE DID NOT HAVE TO REHEARSE.

    But Phillips nevertheless forced Michael to attend rehearsals and THREATENED TO PULL THE PLUG and PUT MICHAEL AT THE RISK OF LOSING HIS KIDS if he did not!

    And after all that all we talking about is Branca?

    Like

  33. November 5, 2013 2:42 pm

    “Although it may seem for some to be a kind of fairy tale ending that Michael had his old, ‘trustworthy’ team of Branca and Dileo around him at the end (as has been reported), it may be just what it seems to be – a fairy tale, and one which AEG, as well as the media and others with much at stake, would have us believe.” – BG

    BG, you are right in respect of a fairy tale about Dileo, but you are absolutely wrong about AEG’s attitude towards Branca. They are doing their best to undermine him.

    Like

  34. November 5, 2013 2:38 pm

    “There is just as much (if not, more) information to suggest Michael did not want Branca around as there is that Branca was re-hired.’ BG

    BG, all this is a huge surprise for me.

    I mean the fact that there is an overwhelming evidence in the quotes I provided about AEG and Kenny Ortega turning Michael’s last days into a nightmare, BUT all people are paying attention to is whether Branca was hired or not.

    This is amazing and shows how extremely easy it is to get distracted from really crucial issues to insignificant ones.

    To show you that these matters are really incomparable in their value I ask all of you to please answer a question:

    What would have changed if Branca had not been hired by Michael?

    My answer is: He would still be the Executor of MJ’s Estate because all four Michael’s wills name him as the Executor.

    Peter Lopez never produced any will though he had ample opportunity to do so after Michael’s death.

    Were there any other candidates for the job? Where are they? Why didn’t anyone else produce a will?

    Like

  35. November 5, 2013 10:29 am

    P.S. The information that says Dileo was representing Michael on a “limited basis” only is partly referred to on p28 of the transcript at the end of Helena’s post here. Ms Chang also says that the same documentation limiting Dileo’s role wasn’t signed either.

    Like

  36. November 5, 2013 9:14 am

    Regarding the emails between Phillips and Gongaware about whether or not to pay Dileo – perhaps the reason they were hesitant and then came to a decision (Gongaware) without Michael’s approval had something to do with the information presented during the trial which said that Dileo’s representation on behalf of Michael was limited, at Michael’s specific request. I haven’t checked the transcripts again to find where that information is – it may have been in an email from Michael Amir Williams.

    Sorry, but Dileo’s words and actions before, during and after June ’09, including that he signed the AEG budget at AEG’s request, are evidence of his conflicts of interest and this may be a reason why Michael restricted his role in the first place.

    Phillips: “We still have no lawyer, business manager, or, even a real manager in place. It is a nightmare!”

    This statement from Phillips is important for two reasons. It confirms that Michael didn’t have his own representation at that point – no lawyer, no business manager and no “real manager” (therefore Dileo was not a “real manager”) and it points out that this situation was a nightmare…for Phillips!

    That it was convenient for Phillips/AEG that Michael have representation in those areas (one nightmarish problem solved) is reason enough to question those late “appointments”, including Branca, including Kane and also including Dileo being given the title of Michael’s “manager”.

    It is said that Michael signed a business plan, which Dileo had prompted Branca to provide. We have not seen the business plan that Michael signed but a supposedly signed business plan seems be enough for people to accept the idea that Branca was re-hired.

    That it was Kane and Katz who have been named as either seeing or hearing about Michael’s meeting with Branca when they are both, in fact, compromised by their association with AEG and/or Branca and/or Sony, again should raise a conflicts of interest questions.

    There are a few things in Sullivan’s book that suggest Michael did not want Branca around, including that: “Michael Amir Williams (Brother Michael) has been very
    clear about the fact that he never heard Branca’s name or heard about any meetings
    between MJ and Branca or that MJ had rehired Branca as his attorney.” There was even, according to Sullivan (he refers to emails between Phillips’ assistant, Siegel and Michael Amir), an attempt to re-hire Barry Siegel! That would have been super convenient as far as the Will is concerned.

    @Helena If Michael was forced to make compromises, that compromise (a music attorney) was supposedly made before the threats on the 18th of losing everything, including his children.

    Although it may seem for some to be a kind of fairy tale ending that Michael had his old, ‘trustworthy’ team of Branca and Dileo around him at the end (as has been reported), it may be just what it seems to be – a fairy tale, and one which AEG, as well as the media and others with much at stake, would have us believe.

    There is just as much (if not, more) information to suggest Michael did not want Branca around as there is that Branca was re-hired.

    Like

  37. November 5, 2013 6:28 am

    The Branca opponents always base their dislike of him on the notion that MJ fired him and had him investigated in 2003 and that MJ distrusted him and didn’t want him back. While this was true at that time, how do you know if MJ maintained his decision in this serious situation before the concerts in London?
    Why does nobody consider that Michael’s decision to fire Branca in 2003 was based on what Dieter Wiesner, Ronald Konitzer and Mark Shaffel initiated, because THEY didn’t want Branca around. If you read LeGrand’s testimony of 2005 carefully, he was much more suspicious of them than of Branca. They were the ones who implanted in Michael the idea of fraud. And this fraud could never be proved. They could have manipulated Michael as well, so why should I trust THEM?
    I cannot say for sure if Branca is 100% trustworthy, but there is very well the possibility that MJ considered what is best for him in this muddled situation and remembered Branca as the one who could get him out of it or give him some security. So it would make absolutely sense if MJ asked for his help when he realized what AEG was trying to do to him. He could have been desperate enough.
    I admit this is speculative, but it is also speculative to draw conclusions just because nobody of the rehearsal participants told of a meeting they saw. I’m sure at least somebody of the security staff saw Branca there, but they are subject to confidentiality. I never would expect them to talk about this. And it could have been very late in the evening that no film crew was around, certainly not in a meeting room.

    Of course I expected that the statements of Michael Kane and Joel Katz are regarded as problematic by some. But I have no reason to see all of them as liars, including Howard Weitzman, just to corroborate Branca’s lie. I have not seen them doing the kind of things the AEG bosses did.

    Ortega’s memory cannot be relied on, as Helena said, because according to him Michael was almost never at the Forum in June. This was disproved by several other witnesses. That Michael was there on June 18 we know from Karen Faye, as told in this post.. But she also told that he came in very late and that KO was mad because of that. So this is no contradiction because a rehearsal was indeed not possible.

    Like

  38. Simba permalink
    November 4, 2013 10:57 pm

    Helena, if we believe in Sullivan’s research, it was Frank Dileo who brought John Branca in, not MJ, and he did it way back in May of 2009, long before any threats of plug-pulling. According to Sullivan, Dileo did it to protect his interests, not MJ’s. Figures.

    Sullivan says that Branca claims he met with MJ at rehearsal on June 17, 2009. But Kenny Ortega testified that, to the best of his recollection, MJ wasn’t at rehearsal that day. KO might not have seen Branca at the Forum, but he definitely would have noticed if MJ was or wasn’t there – you know, Michael Jackson, the star and ultimate producer of the show, and not incidentally, his boss.

    I’m confused when you say that “June 18th Michael was there for sure”, and yet you quote Sullivan’s book where he writes, “AEG execs were distraught, though, when Jackson failed to show for rehearsal on the evening of June 18.” How do you know MJ was there?

    susannerb, the confirmations of Michael Kane and Joel Katz are problematic for me, and not because of “rumor”. It’s because of conflict of interest. Sullivan writes, “I see no legitimate basis for insulting Mr. Kane and Mr. Katz with the suggestion that they would lie at John Branca’s behest”. I see no legitimate basis for believing them, since no disinterested parties have ever corroborated that this meeting, and MJ’s welcoming Branca back with open arms, ever happened. Considering his justified anger at Branca in previous years, I believe that MJ would have had a very big problem with Branca back in his business. At the least, I would expect him to qualify it by saying something like, “we’ve had problems in the past, but I’ve decided to give him another chance”, etc. But a simple “no problem”, sorry, not buying it. Of course I could be wrong.

    As to “why should there be a photo taken when they met?”, considering the ubiquity of camera phones, and more significantly, the presence of a film crew shooting footage for This Is It, if Branca had been present, he would have had to take great pains not to be caught on film, by somebody, even accidentally. While there are doubtless plenty of areas to meet confidentially in the Forum, the thing is, you have to get to them. Nobody reported MJ leaving rehearsal to go to a meeting room, and I’m certain that if he had done so, someone in the venue – musicians, singers, dancers, Kenny Ortega – would have noticed. Karen Faye definitely would have noticed. This was during a period when she was watching him like a hawk.

    Prince Jackson has testified that he was very much involved in his father’s business dealings, and according to chefs Kai Chase and Douglas Jones, and even Conrad Murray, Prince ran the household. So I believe he would have known if MJ re-hired Branca. Of course I could be wrong.

    From where I sit, I can’t prove or disprove anything. But I can question everything, especially when things make no sense.

    Like

  39. November 4, 2013 6:49 pm

    I have also sent a piece to MJTruth Now, Video Communication against the AEG verdict, ‘ET Tu Brutus? and Justice4MJ, for now!

    Like

  40. November 4, 2013 4:22 pm

    “according to Sulllivan’s book the meeting between Branca and Michael was on June 17.” – Susanne

    Susanne, thanks a lot. We need to reconstruct every day prior to Michael’s death. I supposed it was June 18th because Randy Phillips said so, but June 17th makes sense too because it means that Michael acted like lightning.

    On June 16th they had an “intervention” threatening him that he might lose his kids, and the very next day he dropped all rehearsals and talked to an attorney. He could be at the Forum on June 17th so that Randy Phillips did not find fault with him for not coming, only he wasn’t rehearsing (at least Ortega does not remember it)

    But Ortega’s memory cannot be relied on at all as he does not remember Michael on any of those days, though at least on June 18th Michael was there for sure:

    Panish: Michael didn’t come to practice on the 16th, did he… the rehearsal?
    Ortega: I don’t recall. I don’t believe so.
    Mr. Panish: OK. He didn’t come to rehearsal on the 17th, did he?
    A. Not that I remember.
    Q. Did he come to rehearsal on the 18th?
    A. Not that I recall.

    Sullivan about those days:

    After his visit to Arnold Klein’s offices on June 16, Michael again skipped rehearsal. Frank Dileo already had suggested to a fretting Randy Phillips that they reassemble the “ old team” by inviting John Branca back aboard as Michael’s entertainment attorney. “ I’m pretty sure Dileo wanted to bring Branca in as a way of protecting himself,” said one of the attorneys that was being pushed out the door.

    “ He knew he had some legal exposure here, and not just from the AllGood deal. Dileo was planning to take the entire AEG commission and that was a deal Tohme had done. But if he brought Branca in, he had to figure John would help protect him. I mean, John wasn’t going to be taking an hourly fee. He was going to take his five percent commission and make a big killing. He would owe Frank.”

    Branca’s recollection was that Dileo had phoned him in late May to say, “ Michael wants you to come back. He wants you to give some thought to what you can do for him, what kind of deals.” He spent three weeks drafting an “ agenda” that detailed his plans for a concert movie, books, and assorted merchandising deals, Branca said, then drove to the Forum on the evening of June 17 to present it to Michael during a break in rehearsals.

    … AEG execs were distraught, though, when Jackson failed to show for rehearsal on the evening of June 18. Randy Phillips was furious when he received an e-mail from Kenny Ortega suggesting that if the star of the show wasn’t going to come to rehearsals it might be time they “ pulled the plug.” Phillips drove to the Carolwood chateau for a meeting in which he demanded, in the presence of Dr. Murray, that Michael stop seeing Dr. Klein
    and stop taking any drugs that Klein had provided. It was almost ten p.m. when Michael arrived at the Forum looking “ very shaky,” as one person who was present put it.

    P.S. In his testimony Kenny Ortega admitted that on June 18th he did send an email to Phillips suggesting stopping the show.

    Q. And you and Mr. Phillips had discussions regarding stopping the show or pulling the plug, is that right?
    A. I wrote an e-mail suggesting to stop.

    Like

  41. November 4, 2013 3:51 pm

    Helena, according to Sulllivan’s book the meeting between Branca and Michael was on June 17.

    Simba, sorry, but your conclusions are based on rumors as well.

    It’s not only Branca’s own claim that he met with Michael before his death. Randall Sullivan researched it for his infamous book. He was very sceptic during his researches if the meeting between Michael and Branca really took place because Tohme told him that Michael didn’t want Branca around. In fact, Tohme was the one who didn’t want Branca back, and Sullivan tended to believe everything Tohme told him. But then two other persons confirmed the meeting to him, which convinced him that it took place. One was Michael Kane, who himself participated in a part of the meeting, and the other one was Joel Katz who saw the written business plan for future affairs signed by Michael and Branca and who talked with Michael himself about the meeting shortly afterwards (p. 561). Sullivan also tells in his book that the meeting was on the evening of June 17 at the Forum (p. 410). Sullivan is not a friend of Branca, but he says: “For me, that controversy has been settled in Branca’s favor.”

    And why should there be a photo taken when they met? What for? And why should Karen Faye or anybody of the crew know about it? I’m sure there was a place at the Forum where they could meet confidentially without witnesses.
    And why should Prince Jackson necessarily know about it? You don’t know if Michael told him everything.
    In an interview with Las Vegas Weekly Branca also said that the meeting was on a Wednesday, so this confirms that it was on June 17.

    I just want to say that you don’t have any proof for your perception as well as there might be no or little proof that Branca is telling the truth.

    Like

  42. November 4, 2013 3:39 pm

    I’ve been looking through the ABC and TeamMJ tweets from the AEG trial and made a short collection of statements that caught my attention (the list is far from full, of course):

    Shawn Trell May 23, 2013:

    Panish: You said no one could make MJ go to rehearsals?
    Shawn Trell: Yes, that’s up to the artist.

    Panish: Read us what he said, email from Tim Woolley to Bob Taylor insurance broker 23 June reads…. “Randy Phillips & Conrad Murray are responsible for making sure MJ attends rehearsal”.

    Gongaware June 3, 2013:
    Gongaware explained MJ didn’t have to attend rehearsals, since it was not part of his deal. He said they never required an artist to rehearse
    I didn’t have any expectation, Gongaware said regarding MJ rehearsing. He said that during the HIStory tour, MJ didn’t rehearse, nailed it
    When it was game time, he would show up, Gongaware explained.
    As to the email Gongaware wrote about calling MJ lazy, he said he used unfortunate choices of words, Michael didn’t like to rehearse.
    Putnam: Why weren’t you concerned?
    Gongaware: When the house lights would go up, he would show up

    Gongaware’s email on 5/27/09: The Kid is healthy and rehearsing every day. He was still there at dance rehearsals at 9pm last night when I left.

    Gongaware on 6/5/09 in response to Sunday Mirror Query: We can only make this work, of course, if MJ puts on the best show of his life. I’m here to tell you that be will. I have seen it for myself. Last night [June 4] he ran 9 songs with full band, singers and dancers.

    6/15 “MJ didn’t have a good day Friday [June 12], didn’t show up Saturday [June 13] …” Kenny Ortega to Paul Gongaware. “This was just Kenny wanting MJ to be on top of his show”
    Paul Gongaware says Kenny can be a drama queen sometimes, reads email from Bugzee: “MJ basket case”. Paul Gongaware doesn’t remember getting it
    Michael said “they aren’t going to kill the artist?” [June 19]. NO ONE was there but Kenny Ortega, Putnam suggest Kenny may have over reacted
    Gongaware testified he didn’t recall having any concern about MJ’s health/using painkillers as of Monday 6/15/09, 10 days prior to his death
    Gongaware said on 6/19/09, he was out of town. “This is the day Michael had chills at rehearsal and was apparently sick,” Gongaware recalled
    If the meeting was going to be about what happened that night, the doctor should be there, Gongaware said.
    Gongaware: If his patient is sick and he’s your only patient, doctor should be there!
    Gongaware said he believed MJ wanted to go on tour. He said he doesn’t remember anyone talking about pulling the plug on the shows.

    Email on 3/23/09 from Gongaware to his secretary: Figure it out so it looks like he’s not working so much
    I didn’t want him to think he was working more than he was, Gongaware testified.

    Randy Phillips June 4, 2013:
    On 6/13/08, Phillips sent email to Colony Capital with a summation of plans for MJ for four years.
    Email: I caution you that MJ is not fast and a total perfectionist (needs to be controlled as much as possible).

    Randy Phillips June 5, 2013:

    As to MJ missing rehearsals, Phillips clarified: “MJ was showing up to rehearsal, just not to enough of them, in Kenny’s opinion.”
    Phillips remembers one phone call with Dr. Murray that lasted probably about 25 minutes.
    The only phone call Phillips remembers is the one that Dr. Murray called him on June 20, 2009.

    Panish showed an email dated 6/17/09 from Phillips to Dr. Tohme: 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.
    Phillips said it was not an intervention, but a meeting. He said it had nothing to do with drugs.

    [It seems that I was wrong saying that Ortega had gone away on the day of intervention. Can’t remember now where I read it, probably in someone else’s testimony. Will try to clarify]

    Randy Phillips June 6, 2013:

    On 6/18/09, Gongaware sent an email to Phillips with all of Dr. Murray’s phone numbers.
    Panish: Do you normally carry around all the contact numbers of your artist’s personal physicians?
    Phillips: Absolutely not!

    Within 19 mins of receiving Bugzee’s email on the evening of Jun 19, Phillips forwarded Bugzee’s email adding “We have a real problem here.”
    Bugzee replied back to Phillips that MJ needed a shrink and trainer, deteriorated in front of his eyes for eight weeks.
    Phillips received another email from Bugzee saying MJ was shaking and couldn’t eat, Ortega had to cut his food, feed him.
    Phillips answered the email saying he was not sure what MJ’s problem was, chemical or physiological.

    Phillips testified he never said he was going to pull the plug on the show and never threatened MJ with pulling the plug.

    Michael Kane was MJ’s business manager. On 6/20, he responded to Phillips saying “And I thought it couldn’t get worse.”
    Phillips’ email: It’s impossible to advance any $. He may unfortunately be in anticipitory breach at this point.
    Kane asked for a million dollars to pay for Mr. Jackson’s bills, Phillips testified.
    Panish: You anticipated MJ would breach the contract by not showing up to rehearsal?
    Phillips: Yes

    None of our agreements have artist need to rehearse,Phillips said, but the artists want to perfect their show, he said.

    Phillips said if MJ’s lack of appearance caused production to not complete, show not open in London, MJ could be in breach of his contract.
    Required is a little too strong, I was concerned that if he didn’t go to rehearsal Kenny could not finish the production, Phillips said.

    I felt Michael had that obligation, yes, Phillips said about MJ needing to be at rehearsals.
    If MJ said he didn’t need to go to rehearsals, he could’ve been in breach of this contract, Phillips said.
    Phillips would not advance any more money to MJ on June 20th because Michael may had been in breach of contract already, Phillips [wrote to Kane]

    MJ was not under contract to practice, was he sir? No, but if he didn’t we wouldn’t get the show ready in time.
    So Mr Jackson had a requirement to be at rehearsals? That’s a strong word.
    Panish:”AND MJ COULD SAY I DONT WANT TO GO TO REHEARSAL IT’S NOT MY THING, I DONT HAVE TO REHEARSE?” RP slips up & says “HE DID SAY THAT.”(tweet from TeamMJ)

    Randy Phillips, June 10, 2013

    Panish: Did you have a meeting with MJ where you threatened to pull the plug and take everything he had?
    Phillips: No
    Panish: Did you tell him he would lose everything, including his children, if the show didn’t happen?
    Phillips:That’s ridiculous, no
    Phillips denied ever saying to anyone at the meeting that MJ was on skid row or going to become homeless.
    Panish: Did you ever tell MJ you were paying for his toilet paper?
    Phillips: No

    In the deposition played to the jury, Tim Leiweke said the reference to “mental breakdown” in the email could’ve been Randy Phillips not MJ.
    Panish played depo of Dan Beckerman, in which he said he didn’t recall what prompted him to say Phillips was jittery.
    Panish: Did you think that MJ needed a straight jacket?
    Phillips: It was a generic comment
    Panish: Do you think MJ needed a straight jacket?
    Phillips: No, I don’t think MJ needed a straight jacket.
    I wasn’t jittery, but I was nervous, Phillips described.

    Phillips said the email he wrote saying “this guy is trying to concern me” was referring to Kenny Ortega.
    I had two concerns: wanted Kenny to be open minded until the meeting and I didn’t want Kenny to quit, Phillips explained. [no concern about Michael’s health]

    On Jun 23, Michael Kane wrote to DiLeo and Phillips: Where does Arnold Klein stand on the list? (of doctors caring for MJ)
    He scares us to death because he is shooting him up with something, Phillips wrote back.

    Panish: Did you write to Amy Pascal about where Dr. Murray had been during the week before Michael’s death?
    Phillips: To Amy Pascal about where Dr. Murray had been? Yes, there is an email to an Amy Pascal who is the Chairwoman for Sony Pictures, yes.
    Q. And you wrote to her and said Dr. Murray is crazy, right?
    A. That is what I wrote.
    Q. And you said that: “Remind me to tell you about where Conrad had been the nights and the week before Michael’s death when he was supposed to be caring for Michael.” Correct?
    A. When was that email written?
    Q. Did you write that email, sir?
    A. After Michael’s death, yes. After tons of news reports.
    Q. Did you write that email?
    A. Yes, I did.

    [In strip clubs. So Randy Phillips expected Conrad Murray to care for Michael at night?]

    June 11, 2013:
    Phillips said Frank DiLeo asked AEG to advance him $50,000, and he believes MJ approved it.
    Phillips wrote in an email: “I think we need to, but I am not sure how without a contract in place or MJ directing us to via signed letter.”
    We just sign off and pray, Gongaware responded.
    But what we apply it against, Phillips wrote back.

    On 6/2/09, Phillips wrote to Jeff Wald (maker coffee table books):
    Jeff, remember getting MJ to focus is not the easiest thing in the world. We still have no lawyer, business manager, or, even, real manager in place. It is a nightmare!
    Phillips said he didn’t mean to say that Frank DiLeo wasn’t a real manager.

    Putnam: Can AEG Live force an artist to perform on a show?
    Phillips: No, the artist has the ultimate veto power
    Phillips: We live in a free society, they are not my slaves. If the artist doesn’t want to perform, there’s nothing we can do.

    Putnam talked about a meeting at Carolwood with MJ, Dr. Murray, Gongaware, DiLeo, Ortega.
    I was concerned about Michael’s weight, personally. I believe Kenny wanted him to show up at rehearsals more often, Phillips recalled.
    Putnam: Was this an emergency meeting?
    Phillips: No
    Putnam asked if this was an intervention. Phillips said no, he used this term as idea for all to get together, but not related to drugs.

    June 13, 2013:
    Phillips said that he never said nor had any discussions about pulling the plug on the tour.
    Michael’s only obligation was to show up and perform a class act show at opening night, Phillips explained.
    Phillips said he never mentioned a substance abuse could be the problem. John Branca, MJ’s lawyer, inquired if it could be the issue.
    Phillips said he does not remember ever seeing a contract where the artist is required to rehearse.
    The only requirement an artist had is to deliver a class act show, Phillips explained.

    Enrique Iglesias never showed up to rehearsals in the last tour Phillips did, the exec said.
    I thought it was odd, but Enrique Iglesias showed up in Boston, did an amazing show, got great reviews.
    Phillips said he expected MJ to rehearse because he hadn’t been on stage over 12 years.
    Putnam: Did you ever tell MJ or his management team he was in breach of his contract?
    Phillips: No

    One of Randy Phillips’ emails: “Make sure we take out the shots of MJ in that red leather jacket at the sound stage where the mini-movies were being filmed” . “He looks way too thin and skeletal.”

    [So “skeletal” was actually Randy Phillips’ word!]

    Kenny Ortega August 8, 2013
    Putnam: Who did you consider your boss?
    Kenny Ortega: Michael.
    Q. Now, in all the time you were working on this, did you ever feel that AEG Live ever pressured Mr. Jackson in any way? Did you ever see them pressuring him?
    A. No.
    Q. — got involved in scheduling during the week of June 15th. Do you remember speaking about that?
    A. Again, I don’t remember the exact day. But, yes, I do recall discussing Dr. Murray’s involvement in Michael’s portion of the scheduling.
    Q. and were you in the meeting where it came about where Dr. Conrad Murray took on that scheduling role?
    A. No.
    Q. So how did it come to be — did you learn this from somebody else?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Did you learn it from Mr. Jackson?
    A. No.
    Q. Who did you learn that from?
    A. If I’m not mistaken, I learned it from Mr. Phillips.

    Q. Do you know what time Michael Jackson was supposed to be at rehearsal on the 18th?
    A. I’ve seen emails, Mr. Panish; but I don’t recall.
    Q. You were upset that day, though, right?
    A. I believe I was.
    Q. And do you recall whether you told Karen Faye that Dr. Murray and Randy Phillips had held some sort of intervention with Michael?
    A. Do I recall having a conversation with Karen Faye where I told them that Dr. Murray and Randy were having an intervention with Michael?
    Q. Yes.
    A. I don’t recall that.
    Q. You do recall, though — or you did refer to the 6/20 meeting as an intervention? 6/20, I’m talking
    about.
    A. The 6/20, I — if I referred to it as an intervention — I was invited to that meeting. I didn’t call that
    meeting, and I didn’t title that meeting.
    Q. Whether you —
    A. It certainly wasn’t an intervention when I was there.
    Q. But from — the last time you were here, did you testify you felt you would call it an intervention?
    A. I don’t recall saying that, sir; but you can put it in front of me.
    Q. It’s all right. Now, do you recall whether you ever told Karen Faye —
    Q. Do you recall whether you told — told Karen Faye that AEG was funding Michael’s entire life right now; his food, kids and everything?
    A. No.
    Q. Okay. Do you recall whether you ever told Karen Faye that AEG has told Michael that they’ll pull
    the plug if he doesn’t get it together?
    A. Maybe in some capacity to that.
    Q. Okay. How about did you ever tell Karen Faye that AEG had told Michael that if he doesn’t do this, he loses everything?
    A. No.
    Q. Okay. Did you ever tell Karen Faye that any hand-holding of Michael had been removed?
    A. Again, we may have had a conversation about something like that, sir; but those — that wouldn’t have been the way I would have talked to Karen.
    Q. Okay. Fair enough. Did you ever tell Karen Faye that Michael had to face his fears?
    A. No.
    Q. Did you ever tell Alif Sankey that AEG was going to engage in tough love with Michael?
    A. I don’t know if I said it in that capacity, but I have used the word “tough love.”

    Mr. So this is on exhibit 5-3091, and this is a call on June 18th, 2009, from 14:17 to 14:47,approximately 30 minutes. It’s actually a few seconds, some seconds; okay?
    Ortega: Yes.
    Q. And 14:17 is 2:17 in the afternoon? Is that your understanding?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Okay. And rehearsal was scheduled for what time that day? No idea?
    A. No idea.

    A. We probably were in rehearsal, though, if it was 2:00 in the afternoon.Q. Why is that?A. We usually were in rehearsal in the afternoons.
    Q. Well, Michael Jackson, was he in rehearsal on June 18th?
    A. I don’t believe so.
    Q. Would that be one of the reasons why you would call Dr. Murray, to find out what’s going on with Michael Jackson?
    A. That would have been a reason, yes.

    Q. Do you remember testifying that this was around the first day of the new schedule?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And it already wasn’t working, and this was kind of a cry for help?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And Michael had not been coming to rehearsal the week before this, either, had he?
    The witness: This is June 18th?
    Q. Yes, sir.
    A. Yes. He was not coming.
    Q. Okay. And before, there were times when he didn’t come, and — in other words, it wasn’t every day he didn’t come in the month of May; is that right?
    A. Yes.

    Panish: I thought I asked you, sir, whether Mr. Phillips used the term “intervention” to you regarding Mr.Jackson at his home with Dr. Murray present. Do you remember those questions?
    Ortega: Yes, I remember those questions. You asked them earlier today.
    Q. And Mr. Phillips told you, did he not, that there was some type of intervention, his word, with Mr.Jackson?
    A. I remember reading that. I don’t know if I was told that. I remember reading that.
    Q. Where did you read that?
    A. In an email.
    Q. Okay. So you received an email, then, where it was referred?
    A. I’m not sure I received one. I’ve seen one.
    Q. Who showed it to you?
    A. I don’t know. It could have been in court or you sent it to me. I don’t know.
    Q. Well, it hasn’t been since you’ve been here; okay?
    A. No, it hasn’t been since I’ve been here.
    Q. So what other court would it have been shown to you?
    A. It could have been at a deposition or pretrial, or it could have been at a trial.
    Q. All right. Fair enough. But I want to ask about Mr. Phillips’s conversation. Did you learn about ameeting that Mr. Phillips had with Mr. Jackson and Dr. Murray where you were not present?
    A. I don’t know if Michael was there, but I do remember that there was a meeting, yes.
    Q. Between — I’m talking about what Mr. Phillips told you; okay? Did Mr. Phillips tell you that he had gone to Michael’s house and had a meeting with Dr. Murray?
    A. I don’t know if he said it that way. I really don’t.
    Q. How did he say it?
    A. I think I might have read it in an email. I’m not certain he said it to me specifically. I’m just telling you what my truth is here.

    Mr. Panish: OK. And this is an e-mail that we talked about yesterday, and it says: “Kenny’s mea culpa will revolve around MJ and AEG Having to wait for him to work out his scheduling conflict with Paramount pictures on “Footloose,” thereby delaying the start of auditions, rehearsals, set designs, etc. ” you see that?
    Ortega: Yes.
    Mr. Putnam: And, your honor, we objected to this yesterday because he wasn’t on this set of e-mails, and itwasn’t to refresh his…
    Mr. Panish: It was referring, actually, to Mr. Ortega. Actually, he’s on the top.
    Ms. Bina: he’s not copied on it.
    Judge: OK. Then you can only use to it refresh.
    Mr. Panish: OK.
    Mr. Panish: Well, do you see that, sir?
    A. It’s not here. Yes, now it’s here. Yes, I did see it.
    Q. OK. And does that refresh your recollection…
    A. No.

    Mr. Panish: I’m going to ask you, sir: “pull the plug,” is that a phrase that you use?
    Ortega: That I use?
    Q. Yes.
    A. I have.
    Q. Is that a phrase that Mr. Gongaware used with you?
    A. Not that I recall.
    Q. All right. Did you use that regarding Michael Jackson?
    A. I may.
    Q. Did Mr. Phillips…
    A. Not regarding Michael Jackson, regarding the show.
    Q. Did Mr. Phillips tell you or discuss with you anything regarding “pulling the plug”?
    A. Perhaps. Maybe.

    Panish: I don’t know if he used that terminology, but I think we did discuss stopping the show. When was the first time you discussed stopping the show?
    Ortega: I think when Michael was absent from rehearsals.
    Q. And that was in mid June?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Well, he was absent before mid June, but he was continually absent in mid June?
    A. There was a consistent period…
    Q. Like every day?
    A. Yes, sir. As I recall, yes.
    Q. And you and Mr. Phillips had discussions regarding stopping the show or pulling the plug, is that right?
    A. I wrote an e-mail suggesting to stop.
    Q. OK. Well, I’m asking, did you discuss this with Mr. Phillips?
    A. I don’t think we discussed stopping the show. I think we discussed that unless things changed, we might have to.
    Q. Didn’t you say that you and Mr. Phillips had discussions regarding stopping the show or pulling the plug?
    A. As of the 19th, yes.
    Q. OK. But when I asked you when it first was, you said it was when Michael was missing rehearsals continually in mid June.
    A. It was my coming to AEG, me, saying “without Michael, I don’t know how we’re going to be ready. ”
    Q. Did you use “pull the plug,” sir?
    A. I may have. I don’t recall exactly.

    Panish: Well, sir, yesterday remember I asked you about an intervention on June 16th?
    Ortega: Yes.
    Q. You remember those questions?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And you remember going to Michael’s house on that day?
    A. On the 16th?
    Q. Yes.
    A. I don’t recall going to his house on that day. I’m not saying that I didn’t, I just don’t remember it.

    Panish: Michael didn’t come to practice on the 16th, did he… the rehearsal?
    Ortega: I don’t recall. I don’t believe so.
    Mr. Panish: OK. He didn’t come to rehearsal on the 17th, did he?
    A. Not that I remember.
    Q. Did he come to rehearsal on the 18th?
    A. Not that I recall.

    [And after that the jurors applauded Ortega and “juror #27” says it was the most forthright testimony?
    Judging by their own testimonies Michael rehearsed according to Gongaware every day in May, then on June 4, on June 5-11, on June 15, 17, 18, 19, 23 and 24]

    Like

  43. November 4, 2013 1:49 pm

    “I realize that feelings over Branca and his handling of the estate run high. When I first started taking a closer look at the circumstances of MJ’s death, I had no opinion about anyone one way or the other. But I am not going to ignore what my common sense tells me, just because it doesn’t follow the fan party line.” – Simba

    Simba, I thought the “fan party line” was to hate Branca much more than AEG.

    One question: What would have changed if Branca had not been hired and simply showed the will after MJ’s death stating that he was his attorney? All wills said the same thing about Branca, and Peter Lopez never said a thing about having another will.

    What surprises me most is that so much effort goes into vilifying Branca while AEG always stays aside.

    Like

  44. simba permalink
    November 4, 2013 12:55 pm

    Helena, I have no animosity toward John Branca. But I also see zero evidence that Michael turned to him, after years of no contact. I am accustomed to using my own brain to reach conclusions – no other person has persuaded me that something is fishy about Branca’s version of events. At first I bought into the notion that it was miraculously fortuitous that Branca returned to MJ’s side just a week before MJ’s death. But other than his own claim, there’s no proof that that’s what happened. Not one person has mentioned seeing Branca at rehearsal. People could not just wander in – security would have to clear him. Not one photo of the two of them together has materialized. Karen Faye says nothing about him.

    Most tellingly, Prince Jackson has never said anything about Branca being re-hired. MJ included his son in all of his affairs. He would know if Branca was back on board.

    The ‘conspiracy’ between Branca and Dileo was no secret. Dileo had a deal too get paid as a ‘consultant’ to the estate, but he complained about not getting paid before his death. This makes no sense. Why should Dileo have gotten money from MJ years after leaving his employ? He did NOTHING to deserve it. (Dileo’s “get him a bucket of chicken” remark was more offensive to me than the “freak” designation. It bespeaks a total lack of respect toward the man who employed him and paid him generously for years.) The whole thing is very fishy.

    I realize that feelings over Branca and his handling of the estate run high. When I first started taking a closer look at the circumstances of MJ’s death, I had no opinion about anyone one way or the other. But I am not going to ignore what my common sense tells me, just because it doesn’t follow the fan party line.

    Like

  45. November 4, 2013 12:37 pm

    “I believe they were plotting behind Michael’s back, with the collusion of Frank Dileo. Dileo had a side deal with Branca over the Sony/ATV catalog, and he was displeased when it didn’t play out as planned. There is no logical, legitimate reason for Frank Dileo to get paid – he hadn’t worked for Michael in years, and he was virtually retired from the music business, except for the scam he pulled using Michael’s name to ‘book’ phantom concerts in the islands.” – Simba

    Simba, how much was Dileo paid? He wasn’t paid the $5mln promised to him by AEG and it was evidently over that sum that Dileo had a big fall-out with the estate. Shawn Trell said that Dileo was paid $50,000 and if it was the only sum is it worth getting so angry about it?

    Tohme wanted much more – over $3mln as far as I remember, and up till now the Estate has not paid him anything and is actually in litigation with him. So why is everyone so agitated about it?

    “As for Juror 27, in one post, he mentioned that he was seven years old when Thriller came out. That would make him thirty-seven or thirty-eight”

    I don’t believe a single word of what juror 27 said about himself. Not a single word.

    In his desire to look genuine he described the way they voted in a totally different way from what the foreman said. The foreman said they first voted 12:0 about Conrad Murray, and this “juror 27” said he first voted against the decision of the majority (so it must have been at least 11:1). This makes me think that he never took part in the deliberations and is someone from the outside.

    “Juror 27 uses phrases that indicate he wants to come across as a ‘happening guy’ – “trust, bro”, “rustles my jimmies”. Instead it smacks of an Ivy League nerd trying too hard to be ‘down’. Fikre went to Princeton and Stanford Law School. Fikre is an African name, Ethiopian, I think. As a first or second generation African immigrant, Fikre might feel pressure to be accepted in both white and African American society. So he makes appearances at BET events, and curries favor with his AEG bosses by mocking Michael and playing games on the MJJC forum. (All this is armchair psycho-analysis, but I think I’m right on the money – I’ve seen this kind of behavior before.)”

    Over here you know much better than I do, especially in the language analysis. But I also had the impression that as soon as we noticed his “Ivy League” language he intentionally brought it down, because all the rest of it was in a more conversational style.

    “But two facts seal the deal – Juror 27 simply knows too much about the case. He is privy to info only legal counsel would have access to, and he frames his arguments like a law school grad, which of course he is. And most of all, he lied about the origin of the “freak” comment. Twice. He insists that it didn’t resonate that much with the jury because it supposedly originated in the London office. BS! The freak comment originated in LA, with Ted Fikre. Therefore I conclude that Juror 27 is either someone anxious to protect Fikre, or Fikre himself.”

    You are right in every word of it, and the main thing here is that this “someone” is anxious to protect AEG. This is all that matters here. Another interesting point is that this person was greeted on the MJJC forum with open arms.

    Like

  46. November 4, 2013 12:11 pm

    “Helena, if Michael wanted to bring in yet another attorney, isn’t it more likely that he would have called someone he had worked with recently, like Peter Lopez, not Branca? He hadn’t spoken to Branca in years, and their last interactions were not cordial.” – Simba

    Simba, to be frank there is too much animosity towards Branca among MJ’s fans which is not supported by documents or his actions. Since I more or less closely followed the AEG trial I cannot understand why Branca is coming out as a ‘villain’ here. There is simply nothing to support it.

    Whatever he did or said is incomparable to what was done by AEG, and it is this thunderstorm that is coming from Michael’s fans towards him (but is bypassing AEG) which makes me wonder. To me it looks artificial, whipped up by someone else.

    As to Michael not bringing in Peter Lopez we actually know that he didn’t bring him in, because Peter Lopez himself never said a word about it. And he never mentioned the will either. And he lived long enough after Michael’s death to be able to say all these things to the public. Thinking that he had something to say but did not (for fear, for example) would be a conspiracy theory based on nothing.

    Any conspiracy theory should be based at least on something – logical conclusions and preferably facts, but on nothing? Just because we don’t like the man?

    So the question is not about Peter Lopez who was not hired, but is about whether Michael hired any lawyer at all.

    And here comes a logical conclusion arising from several facts. The threat that he might lose his children was the worst thing he could ever hear, and it was not in Michael’s character to leave the matter at that. Moreover several days after that – on June 23d and 24th he was in good spirits, while on June 18th he looked very frightened.

    What happened in those 4 or 5 days in between? It must have been something that assured Michael that no one could ever take the children away from him. Who could convince him of it well enough to make his whole being transformed?

    Please try to find an answer to this question and if you find someone else besides the lawyer Branca I will agree with you.

    Like

  47. November 4, 2013 9:14 am

    I have posted the most important points to a few blogs so far. All For Love, Inner Michael, Facebook Call for Love, the UK Loves MJ.

    Like

  48. simba permalink
    November 2, 2013 8:04 pm

    Helena, if Michael wanted to bring in yet another attorney, isn’t it more likely that he would have called someone he had worked with recently, like Peter Lopez, not Branca? He hadn’t spoken to Branca in years, and there last interactions were not cordial. And if secrecy was important, why was Branca sending emails marked “confidential” to Phillips, Gongaware, and Leiweke? Phillips may very well have had a meeting with Branca, but I believe Michael was unaware of it. I may as well “swing for the fences” and say I believe they were plotting behind Michael’s back, with the collusion of Frank Dileo. Dileo had a side deal with Branca over the Sony/ATV catalog, and he was displeased when it didn’t play out as planned. There is no logical, legitimate reason for Frank Dileo to get paid – he hadn’t worked for Michael in years, and he was virtually retired from the music business, except for the scam he pulled using Michael’s name to ‘book’ phantom concerts in the islands.

    As for Juror 27, in one post, he mentioned that he was seven years old when Thriller came out. That would make him thirty-seven or thirty-eight, which is Ted Fikre’s age. Later he realizes he’s revealed too much, so he emphasizes that he’s exactly the same age as Taj Jackson. Taj is forty, but that fact is of no importance to anyone, except Juror 27, who’s trying to throw fans off his trail. (Too late, baby!)

    Juror 27 uses phrases that indicate he wants to come across as a ‘happening guy’ – “trust, bro”, “rustles my jimmies”. Instead it smacks of an Ivy League nerd trying too hard to be ‘down’. Fikre went to Princeton and Stanford Law School. Fikre is an African name, Ethiopian, I think. As a first or second generation African immigrant, Fikre might feel pressure to be accepted in both white and African American society. So he makes appearances at BET events, and curries favor with his AEG bosses by mocking Michael and playing games on the MJJC forum. (All this is armchair psycho-analysis, but I think I’m right on the money – I’ve seen this kind of behavior before.)

    But two facts seal the deal – Juror 27 simply knows too much about the case. He is privy to info only legal counsel would have access to, and he frames his arguments like a law school grad, which of course he is. And most of all, he lied about the origin of the “freak” comment. Twice. He insists that it didn’t resonate that much with the jury because it supposedly originated in the London office. BS! The freak comment originated in LA, with Ted Fikre. Therefore I conclude that Juror 27 is either someone anxious to protect Fikre, or Fikre himself. I’m betting on Fikre. (I also think he’s got a little something going with Jessica Stebbins Bina, but that’s neither here nor there.) If someone disagrees or has another theory, I’d be interested in hearing it.

    Like

  49. November 2, 2013 12:30 pm

    I was wondering why these rehearsals were so important for AEG. Especially KO should have known how Michael was capable of going on stage with a minimum of “collective” rehearsals. He surely rehearsed at home, and did so for maybe a couple of years already, while he was in Vegas (see body guards). But no, they wanted him there. Obvious, I think they already pulled the plug, and focused now everything on the movie “TII”, and for that they needed Michael desperately to come to rehearsals. As soon as they had enough footage, Michael disappeared….
    Big question : was it intentional ???

    I willl always remember that in the TII credits RP said : we would put everything on a boat… a boat ???? I did some research at the time, and it would have taken minimum 18 days on sea, without packing, loading, custom checks, transport to London, set up. And then they still had to have time to dress rehearse ??? Impossible. I think the already left the idea of London earlier….

    Thank you Helena for all the work you do.
    What I noticed is that the general public is not interested in what happened to Michael Jackson. Most of them have fixed (tabloid) ideas about MJ, and they don’t want to pay any attention to the truth. Very sad, even my family is indifferent. Grrr……
    That makes me only stronger defending him….always.

    Like

  50. November 2, 2013 9:58 am

    “dont be too harsh on others for not seeing right away what you see”- Sina

    Sina, I don’t intend to be “harsh” on anyone unless I feel that people are telling intentional lies. We are still at a stage when there are many factors still unknown to us. All my posts are about documents and pure facts of which I am sure. But in the comments I sometimes make suppositions which still need a good deal of verification. By writing about these things I am only telling you in which direction my thoughts are taking me.

    In short some of my comments are the process of thinking and not the result. And sometimes what people say or the facts they mention take my thoughts in a different direction. Actually I am grateful to people for the various ideas they express.

    “If anyone wants to know what Michael must have thought inside about RP and KOs threats that he might lose his children, but could not express other than with a strong physical reaction, because he was trapped and locked. Here is what a man who never ever cursed in public had to say about Gloria Allred when she was calling for investigation by Childrens Services during the 2005 trial.”

    Yes, he answered her very well – go to hell. In the case with what Randy Phillips said to Michael his reaction seemed to be different – it was that of fear (at least at some point). Karen Faye testified that Michael came to a rehearsal on June 18th looking very frightened.

    So we can imagine what terrible things they said to him during that “intervention”.

    Like

  51. Sina permalink
    November 2, 2013 7:46 am

    Helena thank you for taking the time to put the time line together so to get things in the right perspective. (and dont be too harsh on others for not seeing right away what you see)
    Also big thanks to Team Michael for providing us with the information and a special thanks to Karen Faye, who I would never ever have the faintest doubt that she did all that was in her power to do.
    Unlike AEG and Kenny Ortega who were in charge of everything and could have put the shows on hold, she was not in that position. It was like a train at full speed and she also got run over.

    If anyone wants to know what Michael must have thought inside about RP and KOs threats that he might lose his children, but could not express other than with a strong physical reaction, because he was trapped and locked.
    Here is what a man who never ever cursed in public had to say about Gloria Allred when she was calling for investigation by Childrens Services during the 2005 trial.

    Like

  52. November 2, 2013 6:27 am

    thank you Helena

    Like

  53. November 2, 2013 5:30 am

    “However, for AEG and Phillips, it’s clear that person has been of great benefit.” – BG

    BG, it depends on how you look at it. If Michael’s assignment was to take care of his children in the first place and at all costs too there would have to be compromises made. And this is actually what we see.

    Like

  54. November 2, 2013 5:23 am

    “one thing missing, in Karen Faye’s account, Alif Sankey’s account, even Kenny Ortega’s amnesiac re-telling of the events of June18-20, is any mention of MJ calling in an attorney. Supposedly on one of those days, MJ met with and re-hired John Branca. Yet every witness present reports that MJ was doing poorly and barely able to function. Nobody mentioned Branca being there. Nobody.” – simba

    Simba, this is very interesting and needs a further look. If you ask me I’d say that secrecy is very logical here. If Michael wanted to protect himself and his children he would have arranged it without any noise. At least if I had been in his place I would have spent the two days between the intervention meeting and June 18 on hiring a good lawyer. And I would have tried not to let my bullies know about it.

    As far as I know Branca said that first Michael gave him a certain assignment and a couple of days later they met and he laid out all his plans to him. And as far as I remember Randy Phillips said that the meeting was even in his presence. This amazed me infinetely when I first read about it because I could not understand why a third party should be present at a meeting involving personal issues like someone’s legal representation.

    If my supposition is correct that meeting could be the facade Michael wanted to show to Randy Phillips – “See, I have a lawyer now who will take care of some of my projects”. However the real goal for hiring a lawyer was protection and protection of his children’s interests in the first place.

    AEG threatened him that he would lose everything (he would be ruined) and even his children (they would go begging in the street). In a situation like that it would be absolutely logical for Michael to hire a lawyer who would take care of his children’s well-being, especially in case something happened to him.

    Of course it is not clear when and where Michael had that conversation with Branca. I think they met on some neutral territory or most probably spoke over the telephone where the real issues were discussed. According to Phillips the meeting at the Forum took place sometime on June 18 and was about ‘creative projects’. All this is very nice but I doubt that this was the first thing on Michael’s mind at that moment. Though on the other hand taking care of his children’s future did depend on the projects to revive his finances.

    Why did no one see Branca except Randy Phillips? I don’t know. Probably there was extra security. Probably something else. And has everyone been asked about it, I wonder?

    “BTW, in my opinion, it’s pretty clear that “Juror 27″ is AEG counsel Ted Fikre – you know, the one who called MJ a “freak”.”

    Interesting again. Why do you think it is him? Actually I thought that it was a woman.

    Like

  55. November 2, 2013 5:00 am

    “The horrible irony, Michael has to die for the world to know he was a good parent” – Dialdancer

    But this is how the Heavens teach us as otherwise we unfortunately don’t understand. This is the whole idea of sacrificing a lamb which was totally lost on us.

    Like

  56. November 2, 2013 2:17 am

    “Exactly, Helena, this intervention directly before June 19 is what we were missing to understand Ortega’s email in full. Now it’s definitely clear what happened. They DID threaten him with pulling the plug, as we always said. The AEG guys were always very vague in their testimonies about all the meetings that took place.” – Susanne

    Susanne, yes, it confirms the way we understood the situation. A couple of things are unclear to me though and need further clarification.

    First of all, it is the exact date of the “intervention” meeting. I looks like it was not on June 18, but slightly earlier – most probably on June 16th as this date was mentioned in Randy Phillips’ testimony.

    The second thing is that it is quite possible that Kenny Ortega was not present at that intervention. I remember reading in his testimony that he claimed he didn’t know about it as on that day he allegedly flew away to do another project (just for one day). It amazed me very much – flying away for one day to work on another project, exactly on the day of intervention and in the midst of their tight schedule for TII?

    That journey looked to me like a sort of an ultimatum, a demonstration of power to Michael and AEG – “If you don’t get this shit together” you can count me out. I have another job to do.

    After making that ultimatum he defiantly left This is it project on a weekday (!) – June 16th was Tuesday – leaving AEG to do all the dirty job for him.

    If all of the above is correct it means that when Kenny Ortega returned Randy Phillips retold to him what happened at the intervention meeting – threats to pull the plug, losing kids and all the rest of it surely accompanied by a lot of yelling. Phillips was afraid to lose Ortega as he even replied in an email to Michael Kane who said something like “And I thought it couldn’t be worse” – “It could, if Ortega left”.

    The intervention meeting must have pacified Ortega for some time, but when on June 18th Michael came to the rehearsal at 9:30 pm he was mad again. Despite the intervention meeting everything was as it had been before! This is when he told Karen Faye (and Alif Sankey) about pulling the plug – he knew that they were sympathizing with Michael and wanted to tell them this way “See what happens to your favourite guy if you continue to forgive him his sins?”

    “Sins” was not their word. I used it because it reflects the general attitude to Michael by AEG and Kanny Ortega who impressed on everyone else in the company that Michael was “doing drugs” (Demerol). It never occurred to any of them that Michael could be REALLY ILL and that he was missing rehearsals because his sleeplessness was catching up with him and he was on the verge of death.

    He came so late to the June 18th rehearsal most probably because the nights of June 16 and 17 after the intervention he DID NOT SLEEP AT ALL. And then on June 18th he didn’t sleep either which made him icy-cold to the touch on June 19th. So dramatic a drop in the body temperature is what happens to those sleep-deprived rats just prior to their death.

    By the way those sleepless nights make me think that Murray could be describing to police one of those nights and not the one on June 24th. On June 24th he gave Michael a very big doze of propofol and the story about 25mg only absolutely doesn’t belong there.

    Returning to Ortega let me say that Brian Panish most probably knows about Ortega’s role but he decided to narrow the circle down to AEG only for getting a guilty verdict easier (similarly Walgren took away AEG out of his charges against Murray). But to me it looks like a mistake. This terrible story should unfolded in its every detail, as a full canvas and not as a piece of this and that.

    All of them were responsible for what they did to Michael. To see the role of each and everyone their testimonies will have to be fully reread and thoroughly analyzed.

    Like

  57. November 1, 2013 11:49 pm

    @Helena Thank you. It is disgusting to know that the court allowed this crucial information to be kept from the jurors. Grateful that the arguments about it was/is available to be read in the transcripts.

    While I’m sure Michael wanted/needed to retain an attorney, I’m not convinced the one simba mentioned was it, for Michael at least. However, for AEG and Phillips, it’s clear that person has been of great benefit.

    Like

  58. simba permalink
    November 1, 2013 10:50 pm

    Pardon me if I digress, but one thing missing, in Karen Faye’s account, Alif Sankey’s account, even Kenny Ortega’s amnesiac re-telling of the events of June18-20, is any mention of MJ calling in an attorney. Supposedly on one of those days, MJ met with and re-hired John Branca. Yet every witness present reports that MJ was doing poorly and barely able to function. Nobody mentioned Branca being there. Nobody.

    BTW, in my opinion, it’s pretty clear that “Juror 27” is AEG counsel Ted Fikre – you know, the one who called MJ a “freak”.

    This thing is so much bigger than we thought a couple of years ago.

    Like

  59. November 1, 2013 10:22 pm

    “PROBABLY EVEN HIS KIDS”

    There are plenty in the Media who will tip there hat to Michael for his parenting skills…NOW,….. but four, five, ten or fifteen years ago would have done everything they could to make that happen. Used every bit of askew, mish mash and fabicated incident to have helped this happen. An Alred or the like standing at his door with DCFS and Sheriffs salivating at the photo op about to happen. Their vindication, that THEY knew he was not fit, that THEY who probably spent less time caring for their own children was right to do what would have been done.

    The horrible irony, Michael has to die for the world to know he was a good parent and the events that led to his death for all its reporting is still told wrong.

    Like

  60. November 1, 2013 5:51 pm

    Exactly, Helena, this intervention directly before June 19 is what we were missing to understand Ortega’s email in full. Now it’s definitely clear what happened. They DID threaten him with pulling the plug, as we always said.
    The AEG guys were always very vague in their testimonies about all the meetings that took place. They couldn’t remember most meetings, when they were and about what they were. As if they were totally unimportant. How ridiculous is that when we know exactly how important it was for them to get Michael on that damned rehearsal stage and how heavy the tensions were and how loaded the atmosphere was? How can you not remember that? No, it’s clear they wanted to keep these meetings and interventions secret, especially this one where they threatened Michael the most.

    Right, LunaJo, Michael must have had the same desperate feelings like in 2005 about losing his kids. Seeing himself in the same situation again must have brought him in a state of despair.

    Like

  61. November 1, 2013 5:30 pm

    Thank you, LunaJo.

    You don’t even know what a great help you gave all of us by making a video about Randy Phillips and collecting there his early interviews. I’m talking of this video:

    This is the video where Randy Phillips says at 3:55: “My problem with him is that he didn’t like to work as hard as I thought he needed to work” – which is exactly the subject of this post.

    And at 10:40 he makes another ground-breaking revelation: “We spent a lot of money to take Dr. Murray out of his practice”. At that point you can even see the look of doubt on his face meaning something like “Am I right in disclosing this?”

    I think that Randy Phillips made a tremendous mistake by saying a thing like that. Indeed, what did Randy Phiillips mean by saying that they spent a lot of money to take Dr. Murray out of his practice? Did they pay him?

    What did they spend a lot of money on?

    Like

  62. LunaJo (Jo) permalink
    November 1, 2013 3:46 pm

    I shared it in my Facebook group! Thank you so much! This makes sense and I do believe this is how it happened. The only thing that would make Michael feel pressured would have been if they touched upon his kids being taken from him. For someone like Michael, being betrayed before, only four years after that horrific trial, I guess he didn’t who to believe or trust.
    Karen Faye’s text messages show that! And I wish she could and would have done more to save him, but I wasn’t there. Therefore it’s hard to judge the situation. Maybe Michael rejected it because he was in constant fear of losing his kids. It was the same in 2005, when he also stopped eating and sleeping because of the same fears. But then he was saved; now alone at Carolwood he has no back-up team to do that.
    Thanks again! I’ll spread this where ever I can!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: