TMZ

Our TV Shows

Got a Tip?

Call TMZ at (888) 847-9869 or Click Here

AEG to Murray: Go Pound Sand

11/17/2009 10:02 PM PST BY TMZ STAFF

AEG will not pay Michael Jackson's troubled doctor a penny, sources tell TMZ.

AEG to Murray: Go Pound Sand

As we first reported, Dr. Conrad Murray may sue AEG for $300,000 -- the money he claims he's entitled to under a contract he signed with AEG to provide MJ with medical services. But sources connected with AEG tell TMZ the contract was never signed.

We're told a contract was drafted but it required three signatures -- AEG, Michael Jackson and Dr. Conrad Murray. Sources say Dr. Murray signed the contract and sent it to AEG but neither AEG nor MJ ever signed it.

The contract, we're told, also said it expressly hinged on Jackson signing.

Sources say AEG is drawing a hard line. They will not pay Murray a penny.

257 COMMENTS

No Avatar
76.

get it right    

MJ went to trial found not guilty so he is INNOCENT. I suggest you practice what you preach!!!

Posted at 6:33PM on Nov 17th 2009 by This is it


Jury Decision Based Entirely On Evidence
(Media's Declarations of Innocence Inaccurate)


Juries never find defendants innocent. They cannot. Not only is it not their job, it is not within their power. They can only find them "not guilty."



Posted at 7:05PM on Nov 17th 2009 by get it right



A verdict of "not guilty" can mean two entirely different things. It can, of course, mean that you believe the defendant is innocent However, it can mean something entirely different. A verdict of "not guilty" can mean a verdict of "not proven." Even if you are very sure the defendant is guilty, but the state has not proven it "beyond a reasonable doubt," then it is your sworn duty to return a verdict of "not guilty."


Posted at 7:10PM on Nov 17th 2009 by get it right



1800 days ago
77.

Tinka    

Evan Chandler is dead!

1800 days ago
78.

The Teacher    

# 81 debbie

Thanks for the link....some will see and not belive, but others may be curious enough to open their minds.

And there will always be people who spread the truth.

As fans, we owe it to MJ to speak the truth-- a small payment for what he gave to all of us...and I'm not a "rabid" fan

Yes, Karma is a bitch, the great equalizer!

1800 days ago
79.

Marnie    

EVAN CHANDLER COMMITTED SUICIDE! WHAT A COWARD!

1800 days ago
80.

nan    

Posted at 7:22PM on Nov 17th 2009 by muscles

Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2009/11/17/aeg-to-dr-conrad-murray-lawsuit-michael-jackson-london-concerts/7#comments#ixzz0XAN8UhuS

if that is true muscles that would mean that your reputation can be forever tainted regardless of if did not commit the crime and people are still free to speculate ? ..seems once your brought in to court yur reputation is shot

1800 days ago
81.

Anna    

THAT'S HORRIBLE....I don't mind money... but if Murray didn't have a formal contract with AEG.. why did he keep working for MiCHAEL??
Why did not aeg tell aeg that the contract was not signed yet?????

Michael has died in the hands of a doctor whose work was not overseeing by anybody.. and now Michael is dead!!!!

WHy did aeg let MURRAY work for Michael if they hadn't signed a contract?????? so it means they didn't want that Murray worked with michael... so why did they let happen???

IT'S REALLY SAD!!

Murray is the first guilty..but also AEG... both are guilty!!!

and now Murray's patient and AEG'S client is dead!!!

1800 days ago
82.

muscles    

The Dr. has only so far admitted to giving MJ certain medications/injections, but he has not admitted those injections in fact killed MJ, or that such injections of such medications amounted to criminal recklessness. And that would be the whole crux of a criminal homicide action. (Not all homicides are criminally actionable, if it is deemed there is no criminal intent or actions rising to that level.)

The State would have to prove that no other things were a superceding intervening causes of MJ's death and that administering those things that Murray admitted to (and possibly other things as well) amounted to criminally reckless acts. They will also have to follow the statute on what criminal recklessness means, and prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Now that's assuming involuntary manslaughter charges, but none of us are yet privy as to whether they have enough evidence to go for second degree murder.

___________________________

94. Hey 87 if a jurys job is to only find people not guilty the prisons sure are full of a lot of not guilty people.. the fact is what your saying is Irreverent.. it would be that way if Dr.Dummy didn't admit to the cops that he actually gave Michael the injections that killed him.. but he did he put his foot in his mouth.. should have just not said anything. but he admited to it..plain and simple..

Posted at 7:19PM on Nov 17th 2009 by Michelle

1800 days ago
83.

Sherri    

Evan Chandler committed suicide!!!!! The father of MJs 1993 accuser is now deceased.

1800 days ago
84.

paulette    



Jury Decision Based Entirely On Evidence
(Media's Declarations of Innocence Inaccurate)


Juries never find defendants innocent. They cannot. Not only is it not their job, it is not within their power. They can only find them "not guilty."



Posted at 7:05PM on Nov 17th 2009 by get it right

Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2009/11/17/aeg-to-dr-conrad-murray-lawsuit-michael-jackson-london-concerts/7#comments#ixzz0XANBDyBW

Why is it you are considered INNOCENT till proven guilty..However if you go to trial and the Jury finds you NOT GUILTY your not considered innocent?? SEE people are saying MURRAYS INNOCENT cause he has not proven otherwise...But Michael had a trial was found NOT GUILTY and people like you still say he is guilty? I'm just curious to the reasoning to this?? See I think you want to believe Michael is guilty so you don't want to read the facts or admit to the fact the JURY saw the evidence, made a decision and came to the verdict of NOT GUILTY!

1800 days ago
85.

get it right    

Why is it you are considered INNOCENT till proven guilty..However if you go to trial and the Jury finds you NOT GUILTY your not considered innocent?? SEE people are saying MURRAYS INNOCENT cause he has not proven otherwise...But Michael had a trial was found NOT GUILTY and people like you still say he is guilty? I'm just curious to the reasoning to this?? See I think you want to believe Michael is guilty so you don't want to read the facts or admit to the fact the JURY saw the evidence, made a decision and came to the verdict of NOT GUILTY!

Posted at 7:40PM on Nov 17th 2009 by This is it

Jury Decision Based Entirely On Evidence
(Media's Declarations of Innocence Inaccurate)


Juries never find defendants innocent. They cannot. Not only is it not their job, it is not within their power. They can only find them "not guilty."

Posted at 7:05PM on Nov 17th 2009 by get it right

A verdict of "not guilty" can mean two entirely different things. It can, of course, mean that you believe the defendant is innocent However, it can mean something entirely different. A verdict of "not guilty" can mean a verdict of "not proven." Even if you are very sure the defendant is guilty, but the state has not proven it "beyond a reasonable doubt," then it is your sworn duty to return a verdict of "not guilty."


Posted at 7:10PM on Nov 17th 2009 by get it right


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
WHAT DOES THE ABOVE SAY?

1800 days ago
86.

t    

To Luke

You are right, the boy never did admit to being involved in the extortion plot pertaining to Michael Jackson.

However, the "hush, hush" money that you speak of, was not paid by Michael Jackson. The money was paid from an insurance company of which MJ had a policy that would cover liability. The insurance company pays claims according to thier discretion, not of the discretion of the policy holder.

Charges against MJ were filed only AFTER seeking a monetary settlement of 20 mil directly from MJ (for a movie project). Which was subsequently shot down.

If it were true that the child was victimized, why not go to the police directly? Rather than play your hand at a settlement?

In the united states of america, you are innocent until proven guilty. MJ was NOT proven guilty of any crime related to this matter.

If you are alleging the Chandler boy and the other child are alleged victims, you should be fair enough to state the MJ was also a victim of an alleged extortion plot. However, the extortion case was not covered with the same media frenzy as the molestation allegation.

Also, MJ is not "the self proclaimed "King of Pop"" That title was given to him by Elizabeth Taylor in 1989 at the Soul Train Music Awards.

1800 days ago
87.

Michelle    

Actually yes he did admit to giving him the Porofool and a few other things as well.. you are wrong.. Harvey and Mike actually went over it.. and it has been all over the news..check some of the older live strems from when Michael first died.. he did admit to the cops..do a little a little research.. you will find it..and like I said if a jurys job is to only find people not guilty then everyone in jail is there for what fun or because they were convected of something? then scot peterson really didn't kill his wife then? im just useing this as an example.. he was found gulity by a jury..

1800 days ago
88.

paulette    

96. Evan Chandler is dead!

Posted at 7:23PM on Nov 17th 2009 by Tinka

Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2009/11/17/aeg-to-dr-conrad-murray-lawsuit-michael-jackson-london-concerts/7#comments#ixzz0XARjOVQk


Good...One down One to go!!

1800 days ago
89.

muscles    

Unfortunately what you are saying is sometimes true. A jury is not supposed to let their own "beliefs" about guilt or innocence come into play in a verdict. They are supposed to decide only on the evidence in front of them, and by applying the law to the particular set of facts only.

Many things that would damn a defendant are not allowed into U.S. courts due to very strict rules of evidence. That is our justice system's way of ensuring that fewer innocent people are convicted, but it also means many who have committed a crime will also go free.

And it is a chess game, make no mistake - a chess game with people's lives and reputations in the balance. (Our system is often criticized for this, but it is part of our American ethos, as set out by the Founding Fathers.)

Now, as far as people's reputations being ruined, even with a verdict of not guilty - of course, this if often true, because there always has been and will be the court of public opinion, right or wrong. MJ was not the first to suffer from this, and he certainly won't be the last. Just being charged with a crime is enough to destroy someone's reputation, in the eyes of many. And many professional license applications even require you to state any crimes you have been charged with, regardless if you were convicted or not.

Civil court actions are even worse in this regard, because no indictment is necessary to bring an action, and frivolous actions abound. If to frivolous or unfounded in the law and in the facts, the case will be dismissed eventually, but not without damage to the defendant's reputation, and not without much money paid out by the defendant. (And even indigent defendants are not entitled to free defense attorneys in civil actions.) It's just the way it is, and it's far from perfect.

_________________________________________

98. Posted at 7:22PM on Nov 17th 2009 by muscles

Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2009/11/17/aeg-to-dr-conrad-murray-lawsuit-michael-jackson-london-concerts/7#comments#ixzz0XAN8UhuS

if that is true muscles that would mean that your reputation can be forever tainted regardless of if did not commit the crime and people are still free to speculate ? ..seems once your brought in to court yur reputation is shot

Posted at 7:33PM on Nov 17th 2009 by cindy brady


1800 days ago
90.

paulette    

^Juries never find defendants innocent. They cannot. Not only is it not their job, it is not within their power. They can only find them "not guilty."

Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2009/11/17/aeg-to-dr-conrad-murray-lawsuit-michael-jackson-london-concerts/7#comments#ixzz0XAVBqsQV
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
WHAT DOES THE ABOVE SAY?

Posted at 7:45PM on Nov 17th 2009 by you get it right

Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2009/11/17/aeg-to-dr-conrad-murray-lawsuit-michael-jackson-london-concerts/7#comments#ixzz0XATlmm5h

I was responding to the first post because every day there are people on here that claim MJ was guilty! Even though he was found not guilty....However in an earlier post someone was saying Murray is innocent cause he has not been proven otherwise! I found it odd they would stick up for Murray even though he admitted given MJ propoful...But Michael had a trial was found not guilty and he/she still thinks Michael is guilty!! These posts started earlier on the Murray topic....You came in at the end!!

1800 days ago
Previous 15 Comments | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

Around The Web