Katherine Jackson v. AEG Live Q & A Discussion Thread

[Admin]

First topic message reminder :

This case is sparking up and reminding all of many aspects of the CM trial as well as what is happening now regarding this civil case. Many of our members (and guests of course) have knowledge and expertise in specific areas such as law and medicine that is helpful now in clarification of certain topics.

There will be much more in the Conrad Murray Trial forum in the next few days which will be helpful in answering many questions. However there is so much to put on the site that I thought I could load the info onto the site as questions are asked to speed up the learning curve so to speak.

Please feel free to pose questions and to answer as well as this thread begins to build up. Thanks everyone.

(You do need to be a member to post on the site)

[WorldTour]

According to this article the judge has not ruled the motion from CNN:

Jackson lawsuit against AEG expected to take over 4 months
The family blames the entertainment entity for the pop singer's death. Jury selection could take several weeks.

By Jeff Gottlieb, Los Angeles Times

April 8, 2013

The lawsuit filed by Michael Jackson's mother and children blaming entertainment giant AEG for the singer's death is expected to take more than four months to try, the judge said last week.

The length of the trial was the court's first concern as jury selection began April 2 in a downtown courtroom where Jackson's towering legacy will be pitted against a business enterprise that has had a profound influence on the entertainment scene in Los Angeles.

Thirty-five potential jurors were brought into Superior Court Judge Yvette M. Palazuelos' courtroom and given a questionnaire to see who could take that much time from their personal and work lives. A second panel of 35 was scheduled to be given the same questionnaire.

Groups of jurors will continue to be brought in each day until a pool of 80 to 100 people has been chosen. From that group, attorneys will select 12 jurors and five alternates who will decide the case.

Attorneys estimate that jury selection alone could take two to three weeks.

More than 60 news organizations from countries including Japan, France, Germany and Australia have asked for seats to cover the trial, according to Pat Kelly, a court spokeswoman. There is space for roughly 10 reporters in the courtroom.

Last week, Palazuelos heard a motion from CNN asking that the cable network be allowed to broadcast the trial live. The judge has not ruled on the motion.

The suit filed by Katherine Jackson, Michael Joseph Jackson Jr., Paris-Michael Katherine Jackson and Prince Michael Jackson II, alleges that AEG negligently hired and supervised Dr. Conrad Murray, who — in an attempt to help the singer sleep — gave him a fatal dose of the anesthetic propofol. They say that AEG pushed Jackson to prepare for a tour that he was not physically up to.

AEG says that it was Jackson's decision to hire Murray and that the company recommended a British doctor.

Jackson died in 2009, two weeks before his "This Is It" tour was scheduled to begin in London.

Murray was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in 2011.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[midangerous]

So the judge really didn't make a about having a camera decision yet???

[Admin]

Yes the judge denied ABC and NBC TV coverage - it was reported by the journalist from ABC in LA in a tweet (and many news stories all over the world) that CNN was also denied. Now today it has changed to this news about CNN. We need to find more info on this IMO.

[WorldTour]

Here's an article about a decision made on Monday April 8, an interesting fact is also that this one is reporting a claim of 40 million $ not 40 billion,

Judge: Media Has No Right To Record Jackson Civil Trial

LOS ANGELES (CBSLA.com) — A Los Angeles judge said Monday she will not allow trial proceedings in Katherine Jackson’s $40 million lawsuit against AEG to be televised.

KNX 1070′s Margaret Carrero reports while recognizing the First Amendment right to access civil trials and their proceedings, Judge Yvette Palazuelos wrote the media does not have a constitutional right to electronically record them.

Palazuelos’ decision effectively denies several media requests to have their cameras inside her courtroom when the Jackson family trial gets underway.

Katherine Jackson places blame on AEG Live for her son’s death because she claims the company hired Conrad Murray, who remains jailed for involuntary manslaughter.

AEG denies the allegations, claiming that Michael Jackson is the one who put Murray on the payroll.

The trial may not actually start for another week or more while both sides try to put together a jury that can stick around for several months.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[Admin]

Whoever wrote this piece made several mistakes. Terrible reporting. It is very obvious that either this writer never covered legal proceedings before and just can't read facts or is just lame and lazy and is incapable of reporting correctly!

The interesting part though is that the judge claims the the media has no constitutional right to the information gleaned during the proceedings. Did this judge forget about the FOIA and the fact that the whole planet has entered the 21st century which is ELECTRONIC? Her saying this is saying the reporting needs to be thrown back to the dark ages of sketch artists and handwritten reporting! What is this judge's problem really!!

She needs to really be careful as those kinds of comments will only rev up the opposition against her and she already has lost a lot of respect due to her cowardice by denying coverage.

Regarding this reporter and the mistakes: The trial HAS started for one thing. It doesn't start AFTER jury selection for Pete's sake and the $40M figure is a typo. I wouldn't pay any credence to that part of the piece at all IMO.

[midangerous]

I think the judge is going too far here!

[Admin]

The judge called in sick today. Who calls in sick when all that is happening is the mundane jury selection process? How is she going to handle full blown battles in the courtroom? Her rep is that she is often late and appears like a mess at times. How the hell did she get assigned to this case? And after she was assigned-why did she not recuze herself?

[Capricious Anomaly]

I guess it remains to be seen whether this judge holds this hard line attitude. She isn't doing herself or anyone else any favors, especially with her rep as it is! This attitude will only cause problems IMO.

I want to mention: Thanks admin and MJ Mod for the great trial thread INDEX! It is very comprehensive and I will use it everyday-what a terrific idea!

[midangerous]

I wonder why couldn't a judge like Judge Pastor take this case?

[WorldTour]

Could anybody explain me how the type implant works MJ is suposed to have had in his body? Thank you

[Admin]

Pray for the babes to be held in God's good graces during this trial~

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

[midangerous]

I most certainly will!

[Admin]

Here are a couple tweets from the courtroom today on Day 9:

ABC7 Court News ‏@ABC7Courts 39m Judge rescheduled the hearing regarding sealing of the docs and protective order to Tuesday. Estate attorney to be present as well.

ABC7 Court News ‏@ABC7Courts 41m Judge said she's inclined to unseal all the docs, expect medical records, and lift the protective order, since info will be used in trial
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Finally this judge makes a decent call here-hope she follows through and does not seal the docs from being entered into evidence!

AND: The breaking news--MJ Estate attorney to be present in court next week on Tuesday! YES!!

[midangerous]

Great news!

[Admin]

Something we can all try to do is to find legal analysts posting their opinions about this case. We need to augment our knowledge about what will be leaked out and what insiders will be privy to during the course of the proceedings since that judge is such a coward and will not allow anything to be recorded in this trial. IMO it is outragious that she (Palazuelos) is STILL denying coverage. Let's try to search out knowledgable professionals who published info online who can add insight OK?

I am not talking about other MJ fansites and their opinions-I am referring to lawyers and legal sites who are posting opinions and analysis.

[Capricious Anomaly]

This is a good idea, I will try to find something too.

[Admin]

The attorney for The Jackson's wants medical records sealed. Palazuelos said the high burden to make their point is on them (Jacksons) as to why these should be sealed. My statement and question here is this: I have all the medical records from the Murray trial, including all the Klein documents from MJ's dermatology visits for his botox and restylane injections etc.. (the demerol administered WAS NOT out of the ordinary btw -I am saying as a med expert in all pain meds) --- I have the toxicology reports and everything else that was entered into evidence in the CM trial - that is all public record once these are entered into evidence. So I wonder WHAT other medical records The Jackson's do not want entered into evidence making it public record?

[midangerous]

Yeah I wonder about that too Admin.

[midangerous]

Is there any way for this judge to step aside from the AEG case?

[Admin]

The Jackson Family attorneys can file a grievance against her rulings. I'll look up the law on that. When I get a chance-or someone else can?

[Capricious Anomaly]

That judge needs to definitely be removed from this case for her biases IMO!

[ijustcan'tstoplovinguMJ]

i agree capricious!

[Admin]

Can someone look up the law for how a LA County Superior Court civil trial judge be removed for bias or unfairness? Find the criteria or rules or something pertaining to this?

[midangerous]

Found something here:Disqualifying Judges
FOCUS COLUMN

By Frederick R. Bennett

California litigants are allowed to disqualify judges from presiding over their cases both as a matter of right or peremptorily and on a showing of cause, even though exercising such rights may be disruptive or abused. To minimize such abuse and disruption, the California Supreme Court has directed trial-court judges to "be vigilant to enforce the statutory restrictions on the number and timing of motions permitted." Solberg v. Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 182, 198.
Accordingly, litigants' knowledge of the fundamental rules concerning disqualification is essential to successful practice. Bench officers also must be thoroughly familiar with these rules because the "duty of a judge to sit where not disqualified is equally as strong as the duty not to sit when disqualified." UFW of Am. v. Superior Court (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 97, 100.
The objective of this article and self-study test is to review the basic rules concerning disqualification of judges in California. By reading the article and taking the test, lawyers and bench officers will learn important time limits and rulings that will bar the filing of peremptory challenges to judges (Code of Civ. Proc., section 170.6), as well as critical procedural issues regarding challenges to judges for cause (Code of Civ. Proc., section 170.1). Although bench officers may apply to their presiding judges for self-study credit, this self-study test has not been approved by CJER for judicial ethics credit under the state-provided CJP insurance program.

Peremptory Challenges
Timeliness is the touchstone for motions to disqualify judges on a peremptory basis under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6. Assuming the motion is timely, the judge must disqualify himself or herself. If the motion is untimely, the motion should be denied. The rules in this area of law with respect to both civil and criminal cases are substantially the same. See McClenny v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 677, 685.
All that is required for a peremptory challenge is a declaration under oath that the judge is "prejudiced against the party (or his or her attorney) or the interest of the party (or his or her attorney) so that affiant cannot or believes that he or she cannot have a fair and impartial trial or hearing before the judge." Code of Civ. Proc., section 170.6(a)(5). So long as a timely declaration is made substantially stating the quoted language above, the judge has no recourse but to disqualify himself or herself.
The only exception to this rule is if it can be shown that the peremptory challenge was filed because the judge is a member of a cognizable group. This is the same as the principle that forbids a party from exercising a peremptory challenge against a potential juror during jury selection because of membership in a cognizable class. Akin to jury Batson/Wheeler challenges, the opposing party has the burden of establishing a prima facie case that the challenge was exercised because of group bias; if a prima facie case is proved, the burden shifts to the party that made the challenge to prove that noncognizable group reasons supported the challenge. See People v. Superior Court (Williams) (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 688, 708-709.

Timeliness Issues
The general rule concerning timeliness is that a section 170.6 challenge will be timely so long as it is filed at any time before the start of the hearing toward which it is directed and none of the exceptions to this rule apply. Augustyn v. Superior Court (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 1221, 1226. The four primary exceptions are listed in section 170.6(2): (1) The Master Calendar exception (applies if case is sent to start trial from "master calendar court"); (2) The 10-day/5-day exception (if the judge is known at least 10 days before start of hearing, the section 170.6 challenge must be filed at least 5 days before the hearing starts); (3) The All Purpose Assignment exception (if a case is assigned to a judge "for all purposes," then the section 170.6 challenge must be filed within 10 days of notice of such an assignment; 15 days if the assignment is by court rule. Gov. Code section 68616(i)); and (4) The Ruling on the Merits exception (a section 170.6 challenge cannot be filed after a judge has made a "ruling on the merits" of the case). (A concise explanation of these exceptions can be found in People v. Superior Court (Lavi) (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1164, 1177-1183.)
For purposes of the exceptions, the substitution of counsel does not begin new time periods. See People v. Superior Court (Smith) (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 427. Further, a party may not continue a case deliberately to gain time to file an otherwise untimely challenge. People v. Richard (1978) 85 Cal.App.3d 292. Only one peremptory challenge is permitted per side unless substantially adverse interests between multiple parties are established. Avital v. Superior Court (1981) 114 Cal.App.3d 297, 301.
Regarding the exception for when a judge has made a "ruling on the merits," appellate cases have set forth several rulings in criminal cases that are on the merits that will bar a section 170.6 disqualification, including a motion to suppress evidence under the Fourth Amendment (In re Abdul Y. (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 847), the acceptance of a plea bargain (Lyons v. Superior Court (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 625), and a trial, for example when a mistrial results (People v. Richard (1978) 85 Cal.App.3d 292). Note, however, that if a case is reversed by an appellate court, a section 170.6 may be timely regarding the retrial if made within 60 days after assignment to the same judge. Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6(2). This rule does not apply to pretrial decisions that do not result in a judgment, such as motions in limine or pretrial conflict-of-laws motions. State Farm v. Superior Court (2004) 20 Cal.Rptr.3d 850.
Rulings in criminal cases that have been held not to be on the merits include a motion to set aside an information under Penal Code section 995 (Kohn v. Superior Court (1966) 239 Cal.App.2d 428), the discussion of a possible plea bargain where the bargain is not accepted by the parties (People v. Montalvo (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 790), and the ruling on a demurrer (Fraijo v. Superior Court (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 222).
In civil cases, rulings that are on the merits that will bar a section 170.6 disqualification include ruling on an injunction (Astourian v. Superior Court (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 720), summary adjudication involving complex questions of law (Cal. Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Superior Court (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 267), and appointment of a conservator (Conservatorship of Durham (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 548).
Rulings in civil cases held not to bar a section 170.6 include ruling on a temporary restraining order (Landmark Holding Group Inc. v. Superior Court (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 525), ruling on a summary judgment motion (Bambula v. Superior Court (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 653), and ruling on a motion to transfer and for continuance (Los Angeles County Dept. of Pub. Soc. Servs. v. Superior Court (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 407).

Challenges for Cause
A section 170.1 challenge can be filed at any stage of the proceedings. However, the challenge can be waived if it is not asserted "at the earliest practicable opportunity after discovery of the disqualifying facts." Code of Civ. Proc., section 170.6(2). Although no specific time period is stated, the time period is short. A party cannot wait to see what happens or until the matter comes up on calendar. In re Steven O. (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 46.
No formal "motion" is needed to disqualify a judge either peremptorily or for cause. However, it must be in a form sufficient to give the judge clear notice. McCartney v. Superior Court (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1334, 1340. Although a one-page affidavit is sufficient for a peremptory challenge, a challenge for cause must be formal and in writing. A mere request that a judge disqualify himself or herself is insufficient. People v. Kirk (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 687, 693.
The motion must be based on facts, not opinion or conclusion. Code of Civ. Proc., section 170.3(c)(1); Urias v. Harris Farms, Inc. (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 415, 426. It cannot be based on information and belief, hearsay or other inadmissible evidence. Anastos v Lee (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1314, 1319. A "trial court's numerous rulings against a party - even when erroneous - do not establish a charge of judicial bias, especially when they are subject to review." People v. Guerra (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1067, 1112.
There are two general grounds for a section 170.1 challenge for cause. One group consists of judges' ties to the parties or actions, such as when the judge has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts, or when the judge or his kin are related to the parties, or when the judge has a financial interest in the proceedings. Code of Civil Proc. section 170.1(a)(1)-(5), (7), (. The other group is when the judge believes he or she cannot be fair, when the judge is actually biased against a party, or when a person might reasonably entertain a doubt regarding the judge's ability to be fair. Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1(a)(6).
Most of the grounds for disqualification for cause are very straightforward: A judge either is or is not related to a party. The more subjective ones, such as whether the judge is biased, are much more difficult to prove. The party seeking disqualification has the burden of proof. Betz v. Pankow (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 919, 926.

Procedures After Filing
After the challenge for cause is filed, without conceding disqualification, the judge can consent that the matter be heard by another judge. Code of Civil Procedure section 170.3(c)(2). If the judge does not strike the disqualification statement or file a verified answer within 10 days of service, the judge is deemed to be disqualified. Code of Civ. Proc. section 170.3(c)(4); Urias v. Harris Farms, Inc. (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 415, 419. There must be personal service on the judge or on the judge's clerk while the judge is in the courthouse to start the 10-day period. Code of Civ. Prod., section 170.3(c)(1).
A judge may strike a disqualification statement that is untimely or demonstrates on its face no legal grounds for disqualification. Code of Civ. Proc. section 170.4(b). The latter typically include statements based on rulings, opinion, speculation or inadmissible evidence. A strike order may and often does include an alternative answer to be on file in the event that a reviewing court finds that the statement was improperly stricken. See PBA, LLC v. KPOD, LTD (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 965, 972.
If a verified answer is filed, the matter is referred to another judge to determine the question of disqualification. Although the statute permits referral to a judge stipulated to by the parties, there is normally no such stipulation, and the referral is to a judge from another county by the Chief Justice. Code of Civil Procedure section 170.3(c)(5).

Appellate Review
The exclusive means of seeking appellate review of the denial of a peremptory challenge or of a statutory ground for disqualification for cause is an appellate writ taken within 10 days of the disqualification determination, whether by denial, striking or decision. The issue is not normally preserved for an appeal. Code of Civ. Proc. section 170.3(d); People v. Hull (1991) 1 Cal.4th 266.
Since a defendant has the constitutional right to be tried before an unbiased judge, nonstatutory grounds for disqualification might be preserved on appeal. People v. Brown (1993) 6 Cal.4th 322, 334-335. However, a defendant may, and should, try to resolve such issues by statutory means, because the negligent failure to do so may constitute a forfeiture of the constitutional claim. Id.

Frederick R. Bennett is court counsel for the Los Angeles County Superior Court.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[Admin]

OH EXCELLANT WORK!! Thanks very much midangerous! I especially like the 'Challenges for Cause' section.

[midangerous]

Yeah me too Admin!

[WorldTour]

Can anybody tell me what HIPPA privacy laws are about?
I found it in this article.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[Admin]

Sure WorldTour: "HIPAA" stands for Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. As a medical professional in CA (it is a federal law which covers all states) we all abide by this patient's medical records and information privacy law. Basically it means NOBODY has the right to a patient's PRIVATE med records without THAT patient's WRITTEN permission and all med pros on the pt's case MUST not share with anyone that is not directly involved with patient's treatment plan. The patient's insurer is held to same standards. No sharing with anyone not directly involved (hands on) with the case, meaning they can't speak about anything over a phone or online without the patient's consents in place and signed off and on file at the insurer's office. No charts or records are allowed to be left laying out where anyone can read - all must be in locked file cabinets and all online records are encripted. The fine for breaking this law can be $100,000 fine and 10 years in prison. We all take this privacy act extremely seriously, needless to say!

It protects people from all sorts of discrimination as well - such as: Employers cannot get an employees MR's for obvious reasons.

Here is a pdf file summary: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[WorldTour]

I have another question regarding the medical records. I can't see my previous question but I guess the article stated the medical are still sealed. My question is could one or both parties already have access to the records? They were both refering to the medical history yesterday.

[Admin]

Here is the hearing info from the LASC website:

04/15/2013 Motion (THIRD PARTY THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL JACKSON AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO SEAL DOCUMENTS FILED PROVISSIONALLY UNDER SEAL IN CONNECTION WITH MOTIONS IN LIMIN)
Filed by Attorney for Real Pty in Interest

FYI NOTE-DEFINITION:
THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL JACKSON - Real Party in Interest
WEITZMAN HOWARD ESQ. - Attorney for Real Pty in Interest


04/25/2013 at 09:00 am in Department 28, Yvette M. Palazuelos, Presiding
Oral Argument (1) unsealing medical records2) Mtn to exclude Pltfs expertGordon Matheson3) re: technical equipment) - Completed


04/29/2013 Order (re defts sealing request file on 4-15-13 ) (NOTE: we need to see this)
Filed by Judge


04/29/2013 Motion (THIRD PARTY ESTATE OF MICHAEL JACKSON'S SECOND AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO SEAL DOCUMENTS FILED PROVISSIONALLY UNDER SEALED IN CONNECTION WITH MOTIONS IN LIMINE)
Filed by Attorney for Real Pty in Interest

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On the matter of the appeal filed on 4/26/13:

04/26/2013 Notice of Appeal
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

04/29/2013 Ntc to Atty re Notice of Appeal
Filed by Clerk

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

04/29/2013 List of Exhibits (amended )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That is a list that would be of interest IMO to see (the legal docs)

Let me see what followup I can do here.

[Sponsored content]