Interesting development regarding AEG

Full credit for this goes to DS. I am just posting on her behalf

Ok so it has just come to light that Pepsi are a founding partner of The Staples Centre which is owned by non other than AEG!

Why else was the footage from the Pepsi incident released? I mean think about it. If AEG wanted to play on the rumours that Michael was indeed a drug addict and if there was a clause in their insurance that stated they were to be paid out on Michael's "death", this would be the perfect way to start rumours on how he became addicted to painkillers.

We have yet to hear an officall statement from anyone at Lloyds Of London (as far as I am aware) stating that this is not the case.

I think this is huge news guys. What do you think?

http://www.staplescenter.com/doublecol.php?section=about&page=foundingpartners

Wow, this is huge. Great!

Giving it more ascentive to Cash out the $3 Million Dollar Insurance Policy with Evidence to Prove that Michael was a "Addict".

This is Great News so far for me .....

Great news! It does make sense being how AEG would benefit from the rumors of Michael being a drug addict. How convenient that Pepsi being sponsoring partners are the ones who have the footage with the fire accident. And how it was mysteriously leaked to the media! Igniting more fire onto the whole drug garbage rumor! Thanks for posting Rachel and good work Ds

Great work Rachel,
The pieces to the puzzle are coming together. Keep the Faith!

I don't get the good news...so how is it good news if AEG can cash in on the insurance which would mean he is dead, or would be commiting fraud if alive?

Perhaps I'm sleep deprived and not understanding the good news part of it??

I was wondering that too how is this good news

I don't think it's good news as much as interesting.

I think it goes to shows that the release of the Pepsi footage holds more to this then meets the eye.

Yah its deffo interesting how that pepsi footage got released, why after michaels death and not before, seeing as michaels the one who had it, so who could have released it besides him

the flipside is that it could have been released so we are more sympathetic to MJ, in that he had to endure such as horrible accident and how he still donated the settlement to charity.

Back in the 80's they held it back because of his image and didn't want people to know he lost all that hair. I remember him being asked if his hair was real and that was a big thing with him stating it was real...I don't think at the time he wanted people to know about what happened and perhaps with the settlement some details had to be kept hush.

SeeingClues wrote:the flipside is that it could have been released so we are more sympathetic to MJ, in that he had to endure such as horrible accident and how he still donated the settlement to charity.

Back in the 80's they held it back because of his image and didn't want people to know he lost all that hair. I remember him being asked if his hair was real and that was a big thing with him stating it was real...I don't think at the time he wanted people to know about what happened and perhaps with the settlement some details had to be kept hush.

Yah thats also another way of looking at it,
poor michael what he went through he never wanted to do that pepsi ad

bec wrote:The insurance through Lords of London is not a "life" insurance policy, it is a non-performance policy, meaning it will cover non-performance.

I get what you're saying but would it still cover non performance if Michael died? This is what I want to know because if so it would be plausable for them to want to push the fact that Michael was a drug abuser.

Okay! Smoothcriminal and SeeingClues,

This is why it's good news:

Pepsi is the founding partner of the Staple Center.

Who owns the Staple Center? AEG

When the footage of MJ's hair on fire was released to the media who do you suppose did it? Pepsi

What have the LAPD, then the DEA been saying about how MJ died?

He was addicted to drugs since his hair caught fire and he went into rehab in the early nineties

So what is the DEA trying to say was MJ's cause of death? addiction to Diprovan and painkillers with whatever else they found in his home.

The AEG Life Insurance policy $3 million will be paid out if it can proved that MJ was addicted to drugs. They will benefit from MJ's supposed dismiss. It's all about the money for AEG.

So do you now see the good news? The connection between Pepsi, AEG and conjugated drug addiction theory behind his death. The death of the double.

Keep the Faith!

Well, I really don't see whe good news here....

Souza81 wrote:Well, I really don't see whe good news here....

I don't think it's "good" news but it's interesting and shows that the link between Michael, Pepsi and AEG is much deeper than we first thought.

Sweet1 wrote:Okay! Smoothcriminal and SeeingClues,

This is why it's good news:

Pepsi is the founding partner of the Staple Center.

Who owns the Staple Center? AEG

When the footage of MJ's hair on fire was released to the media who do you suppose did it? Pepsi

What have the LAPD, then the DEA been saying about how MJ died?

He was addicted to drugs since his hair caught fire and he went into rehab in the early nineties

So what is the DEA trying to say was MJ's cause of death? addiction to Diprovan and painkillers with whatever else they found in his home.

The AEG Life Insurance policy $3 million will be paid out if it can proved that MJ was addicted to drugs. They will benefit from MJ's supposed dismiss. It's all about the money for AEG.

So do you now see the good news? The connection between Pepsi, AEG and conjugated drug addiction theory behind his death. The death of the double.

Keep the Faith!

Thanks for explaining i see what you mean now, i hope your right and its not just about them being greedy

You're welcomed! Everyone, remember there was a double involved in this situation. MJ is alive! Keep the Faith!

yeah, but isn't it still fraud if life insurance money was paid out for mj's policy when it was actually the double that died? Wouldn't at least AEG be faced with fraud charges?

Yep! AEG would be faced with fraudually cashing in the life insurance policy. This will happen if MJ comes back as himself. Quite Frankly! even though he is not dead I don't know what will happen. Keep the Faith!

SeeingClues wrote:yeah, but isn't it still fraud if life insurance money was paid out for mj's policy when it was actually the double that died? Wouldn't at least AEG be faced with fraud charges?

Can I be a sceptic here and ask if anyone has seen any real proof of this or is it just the media reporting it again?

I`ve seen no proof until now....
The media is just getting to confuse the people...
so we don`t have to take it serious what they are writing...or broadcasting...

don`t make it factual

I wrote this comment in another thread a few days ago.
I think it might help clarify the whole insurance thing (life insurance vs. AEG insurance).

PLEASE READ:

There are 2 different insurance policies that we are talking about and we should not confuse them:

* The AEG one: this is not life insurance, but a "no show" insurance. If MJ for whatever reasons couldn't do the shows, AEG would collect the proceeds from this insurance.
The medical examination was for this insurance and the rumors about covering overdose were for this insurance. It was contracted with Lloyds, and apparently they are refusing to pay because MJ was scheduled to take a second physical examination in June/July upon arrival in the UK, and -for obvious reasons- that never happened.
On top of that, Lloyds’ spokeppl are now denying that the policy covered overdose.
In a nut shell, probably AEG will never cash in this money (what a shame!! hehe)

* MJ life insurance: This is MJ personal life insurance and has nothing to do with AEG. According to the press, it was paid into the estate. We can choose to believe this or not. Many people are sad because they see this as a sure sign that MJ actually died.
BUT!!!! If we believe the press, we have to read what the press said:
"John Branca and John MCClain, the temporary administrators of Jackson's will, are said to have cashed in the contract, winning $3 million (£2 million) for the star's estate. Initial reports indicated Jackson's policy was worth up to $20 million (£13.3 million)."
http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/jacksons-life-insurance-pays-out-3-million_1112289
Well, cashing in the policy is not exactly the same as collecting payout.
In very simple terms, certain insurance policies (more "sophisticated" than the garden variety life insurance average people have), work a bit like a savings account. So, during the course of your lifetime you can cash in what you paid into the policy (minus certain fees) or, in the event of your death, your beneficiaries/estate collects payout.
If you read the article, the lawyers cashed in the policy. They didn't collect payout but recovered what MJ had been paying into the policy.
Because this is an option you can exercise without actually dying (remember it works a bit like a savings account??), if you cash in this money and you are not dead or hoaxed your death, you didn't ACTUALLY commit fraud, did you???

SeeingClues wrote:yeah, but isn't it still fraud if life insurance money was paid out for mj's policy when it was actually the double that died? Wouldn't at least AEG be faced with fraud charges?

IF the rumours about AEG forcing him to do the shows, controlling his life and the rumous about MJ being scared they'd kill him if he didnt do the concerts are true, then.....wouldn't that be a good way for MJ go get revenge?

i thought michael owns all footage of pepsi commercial??

BuBBLes wrote:i thought michael owns all footage of pepsi commercial??

yes. It's why it's weird ...
Because we never saw this footage before, because he didn't want people to see.

BuBBLes wrote:i thought michael owns all footage of pepsi commercial??

He was supposed to have which in mind only leaves two options.

Either Pepsi didn't give him all of the footage and released it, or for some reason Michael wanted it released after the hoax and did so himself. I'm still undecided as to which I believe it is

Rachel wrote:

BuBBLes wrote:i thought michael owns all footage of pepsi commercial??

He was supposed to have which in mind only leaves two options.

Either Pepsi didn't give him all of the footage and released it, or for some reason Michael wanted it released after the hoax and did so himself. I'm still undecided as to which I believe it is

lol i prefer to believe the second one

All reports from varying sources I have read re: the Pepsi footage are that Michael wanted the footage released folowing the accident. Pepsi did not want it released as it would have been horrible PR at the time. Michael bought all of the footage.

After it's release a few weeks ago, Pepsi released a statement about how angered they were at it's release, and denouncing whoever was responsible. No one has come forward admitting to releasing the footage.

You would have to buy that footage of the Pepsi incident. If a fake ambulance pic sells for $500-750K, how much do you think that footage would cost?

Looking back to the third week in July, the release of the footage changed the tone of the media's "investigation" sharply.

Common sense and logic never fails.

bec wrote:All reports from varying sources I have read re: the Pepsi footage are that Michael wanted the footage released folowing the accident. Pepsi did not want it released as it would have been horrible PR at the time. Michael bought all of the footage.

After it's release a few weeks ago, Pepsi released a statement about how angered they were at it's release, and denouncing whoever was responsible. No one has come forward admitting to releasing the footage.

You would have to buy that footage of the Pepsi incident. If a fake ambulance pic sells for $500-750K, how much do you think that footage would cost?

Looking back to the third week in July, the release of the footage changed the tone of the media's "investigation" sharply.

Common sense and logic never fails.

What are you saying, Bec? What was Michael's purpose in releasing the footage now? If he already had the rights to it (and had wanted to release it years ago), why wait all this time? I understand how it backs up the drug theory, but I'm not sure how that helps Michael unles it feeds into the hoax. Enlighten me.

The footage envokes sympathy. Prior to it's release, all media reports were JUNKIE JUNKIE DIRTY JUNKIE... afterwards the tune was changed to AWW POOR JUNKIE.

Brilliant PR move on that leak. This time it worked.

bec wrote:Ps. There's no body, no double, no one died.

I agree

bec wrote:Ps. There's no body, no double, no one died.

Oh how I pray to GOD every night for this to be true.

bec wrote:All reports from varying sources I have read re: the Pepsi footage are that Michael wanted the footage released folowing the accident. Pepsi did not want it released as it would have been horrible PR at the time. Michael bought all of the footage.

That's weird. I read several times that Michael DIDN't want the footage released because he thought it was humiliating. I also read that his people who were on set in 1984 grabbed the video footage from the camera men immediately after the incident to prevent anyone else from keeping it.

The footage then remained with Michael's private possessions, and family members claimed that somebody went through Michael's stuff after his "death" and gave the footage to that tabloid without Michael's permission.

This is just another case of multiple sources saying totally opposite things, I guess.

bec wrote:Ps. There's no body, no double, no one died.

Bec, I need to be around you more because, honestly, today has sucked. You reinforce my belief.