How many people supported Mike Joyce's claim at the trial?

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

C'mon KS, you are way better than that. And I mean that as a compliment. "...but if I was treated in court the way he was singled out and treated..."

Morrissey has spent his entire career singling himself out. From people, loved ones, the music industry (whatever that is), friends....the list goes on. And he has a pretty well documented history of treating people like crap (albeit, most of the time through other people because he doesn't have the skin for face to face confrontation).

And what happened when that confrontation happened face-to-face? He squirmed, and acted like he was being treated like a villain. For one of the few times in his life, he had to be there, to be critiqued and questioned, valid or invalid. And he didn't know how to handle it.

You can't single yourself out as an outsider, and treat people like yesterday's bagels, and then when the tide turns your way act the way he did. If you're gonna dish it out Mozzer all your life, and then someone dishes it back, handle it like a man. He wasn't singled out or treated any different than how he has lived his whole life when it comes to dealing with people.

Love the music. Thankful for what he has done for my life. But I'm not gonna feel bad for him one bit in that situation.

BTW, Sorrow Will Come To You in the End came on the playlist tonight in the car. My two youngest love that song.

With respect to KS, 'cause you alright. Be safe and well....

thank you SeniorLife, but there's no need to be so kind, this is Solo.

'He squirmed, and acted like he was being treated like a villain.' 'Squirmed' ? Did he really 'squirm'? You must have been there in that court room, otherwise how would you know? 'acted like he was being treated like a villain'? no. He was treated like a villain, from the accounts I read in his book.

'And he didn't know how to handle it.' Really? I thought he handled it quite well. The way any artist would have handled a bad experience.. by expression through creativity, rather than keeping it all bottled up inside to let it gnaw at ones gut, but to get it out... it's much healthier and keeps one sane.

'You can't single yourself out as an outsider' This is not decision one makes, you are either outside or not, it's not a choice,but a burden and a blessing.

'You can't single yourself out as an outsider, and treat people like yesterday's bagels, and then when the tide turns your way act the way he did.' 'act'? How did he 'act'?From what I've read,things he's said on the subject, and the song 'Sorrow..', I thought he acted anyway an artist would act if one was unjustly treated like he was by that judge in that court room.
'If you're gonna dish it out Mozzer all your life, and then someone dishes it back, handle it like a man.' ' like a 'man'? I felt he did handle it like a 'man', though I'm guessing here, that your idea and definition of what a 'man' is is a little different than mine.

'He wasn't singled out or treated any different than how he has lived his whole life when it comes to dealing with people.' I don't know what you're talking about. So you're saying the way he was treated in court by a stranger is justified based on what? based on your imaginings and the image you have created of M?, which is based on what? hearsay? rumors? second,third,fourth,fifth hand accounts? It doesn't matter what M is , all that matters and what I'm talking about is the way he was treated in court. Both M&Marr held the reins of the Smiths and should have been treated the same way, from what I read, Morrissey was singled out called names/mistreated.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

Ah right,Ketamin, so you basically going off what Morrissey says. Lol

yes. Why not? he was there, we were not.

 

[Anonymous]

'He wasn't singled out or treated any different than how he has lived his whole life when it comes to dealing with people.' I don't know what you're talking about. So you're saying the way he was treated in court by a stranger is justified based on what? based on your imaginings and the image you have created of M?, which is based on what? hearsay? rumors? second,third,fourth,fifth hand accounts? It doesn't matter what M is , all that matters and what I'm talking about is the way he was treated in court. Both M&Marr held the reins of the Smiths and should have been treated the same way, from what I read, Morrissey was singled out called names/mistreated.

As I pointed out in another thread, even Johnny Marr thought that Moz had been treated unfairly.

From Set The Boy Free:
"When the judge ruled in Mike's favour, he made a point of sticking it to me and particularly to Morrissey, who he really didn't like, making remarks about him that were personal and fairly shocking."

 

[SeniorLife]

thank you SeniorLife, but there's no need to be so kind, this is Solo.

'He squirmed, and acted like he was being treated like a villain.' 'Squirmed' ? Did he really 'squirm'? You must have been there in that court room, otherwise how would you know? 'acted like he was being treated like a villain'? no. He was treated like a villain, from the accounts I read in his book.

'And he didn't know how to handle it.' Really? I thought he handled it quite well. The way any artist would have handled a bad experience.. by expression through creativity, rather than keeping it all bottled up inside to let it gnaw at ones gut, but to get it out... it's much healthier and keeps one sane.

'You can't single yourself out as an outsider' This is not decision one makes, you are either outside or not, it's not a choice,but a burden and a blessing.

'You can't single yourself out as an outsider, and treat people like yesterday's bagels, and then when the tide turns your way act the way he did.' 'act'? How did he 'act'?From what I've read,things he's said on the subject, and the song 'Sorrow..', I thought he acted anyway an artist would act if one was unjustly treated like he was by that judge in that court room.
'If you're gonna dish it out Mozzer all your life, and then someone dishes it back, handle it like a man.' ' like a 'man'? I felt he did handle it like a 'man', though I'm guessing here, that your idea and definition of what a 'man' is is a little different than mine.

'He wasn't singled out or treated any different than how he has lived his whole life when it comes to dealing with people.' I don't know what you're talking about. So you're saying the way he was treated in court by a stranger is justified based on what? based on your imaginings and the image you have created of M?, which is based on what? hearsay? rumors? second,third,fourth,fifth hand accounts? It doesn't matter what M is , all that matters and what I'm talking about is the way he was treated in court. Both M&Marr held the reins of the Smiths and should have been treated the same way, from what I read, Morrissey was singled out called names/mistreated.

KS...C'mon....you are BETTER than this! Take the emotion out of it. You're too emotionally entrenched. You've reached the point to where you think Morrissey can't do anything wrong, and when you've reached that point, your arguments become less impressive, because it is clear that you have the Moz blinders on.

My whole point was this: Morrissey was treated in court, the same way he has treated people all his life. He got a little taste of his own medicine, and what does he do?....he waves around a book that has his picture and Marr's picture on it and says 'We were The Smiths!' You think a judge, who has gone through schooling is going to take this person seriously?

Lastly, he was not treated in court poorly by a stranger. He was treated poorly by someone appointed to be a judge. That is his job. To judge. Like Skinny said, he tried his hand at court, twice, and lost. And yes, maybe he was treated poorly....but it wasn't Mother Theresa on the stand.

And I will always be nice, because I believe in being nice, and having good, constructive discussions.

Step away, take the emotion away, and say what you're saying out loud. You're defending a man that doesn't really deserve to be defended.

And yes...be well!!!!!!

 

[Surface]

No I wasn't Ketamine but the judge said Morrissey was devious, truculent and unreliable, which makes me wonder how often he bends the truth.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

KS...C'mon....you are BETTER than this! Take the emotion out of it. You're too emotionally entrenched. You've reached the point to where you think Morrissey can't do anything wrong, and when you've reached that point, your arguments become less impressive, because it is clear that you have the Moz blinders on.

My whole point was this: Morrissey was treated in court, the same way he has treated people all his life. He got a little taste of his own medicine, and what does he do?....he waves around a book that has his picture and Marr's picture on it and says 'We were The Smiths!' You think a judge, who has gone through schooling is going to take this person seriously?

Lastly, he was not treated in court poorly by a stranger. He was treated poorly by someone appointed to be a judge. That is his job. To judge. Like Skinny said, he tried his hand at court, twice, and lost. And yes, maybe he was treated poorly....but it wasn't Mother Theresa on the stand.

And I will always be nice, because I believe in being nice, and having good, constructive discussions.

Step away, take the emotion away, and say what you're saying out loud. You're defending a man that doesn't really deserve to be defended.

And yes...be well!!!!!!

'KS...C'mon....you are BETTER than this! Take the emotion out of it. You're too emotionally entrenched. You've reached the point to where you think Morrissey can't do anything wrong, and when you've reached that point, your arguments become less impressive, because it is clear that you have the Moz blinders on.'

what!? what bullshit. I thought you were going to be 'nice'?

'My whole point was this: Morrissey was treated in court, the same way he has treated people all his life. He got a little taste of his own medicine'

C'mon SLife... you're better than this! I know who you are through reading your posts and it is why I can proclaim... you're better than this . Again, I don't see any connection to how M treats people and how he was treated in court. The way M treat's people does not justify the judges treatment of M in court. THINK ABOUT IT.

'He was treated poorly by someone appointed to be a judge'

Thankyou for finally realizing that he was treated by the judge poorly. O.k,now I think we're getting somewhere.

'That is his job. To judge.'
Yes... to judge, not to go outside of that duty, step over the line of decency and use the derogatory words against a person who did not deserve them. The judges actions were totally unjustifiable.

'he tried his hand at court, twice, and lost.' fine, he did,but that's not what we're talking about.

'Step away, take the emotion away, and say what you're saying out loud.' Well that's not a very nice thing to say, I thought you believed in 'being nice'? Next you'll be saying something like... 'be a man and grow a pair',etc. RIDICULOUS.

'You're defending a man that doesn't really deserve to be defended.' I could say the same thing to you, Why are you defending a man that doesn't really deserve to be defended? I'm talking about... judge John Weeks.

 

[Anonymous]

Judge Weeks awarded the case to Joyce.

Morrissey as the losing party, didn't legally require to be described as "devious, truculent and unreliable".

If it was simply because he was the loser, Marr should have been similarly described. In terms of the case, what did Marr do that Morrissey didn't?

What was Marr's equivalent of "devious, truculent and unreliable" if it was part of the judgement?

For that reason I am confident it was like how both Moz and Marr tell it:

Moz could do no right; Johnny just, isn't as controversial; the media had it in for Moz or at any rate found him more interesting; perhaps the Judge therefore wanted to be quoted.

Keep up the good work KS

 

[GMS]

Judge Weeks awarded the case to Joyce.

Morrissey as the losing party, didn't legally require to be described as "devious, truculent and unreliable".

If it was simply because he was the loser, Marr should have been similarly described. In terms of the case, what did Marr do that Morrissey didn't?

What was Marr's equivalent of "devious, truculent and unreliable" if it was part of the judgement?

From The Times Newspaper, Friday 12th December 1996
- taken from http://www.cemetrygates.com/vault/news/court.html


After a seven-day hearing, Judge Weeks said he preferred the evidence of Joyce and Rourke, who had dropped out of the action after accepting £83,000. Describing the "credibility" of the four partners, the judge said Joyce and Rourke impressed him as "straightforward and honest", although without great intellectual ability.

"Morrissey was more complicated and didn't find giving evidence easy or a happy experience. He was devious, truculent and unreliable when his own interests were at stake." The judge said Marr was "a more engaging personality" and "a more reasonable character" and the most intelligent of the four "but seemed to me to be willing to embroider his evidence to a point where he became less credible".

The judge said there was no evidence of a 40-40, 10-10 agreement for splitting the profits and there never was an assumption by Joyce and Rourke that that was what they would get...

...[Morrissey] was the dominant character who kept a tight grip on the purse strings. He treated the lesser known members of the band merely as session musicians, it was claimed. After the group split up Joyce discovered, for the first time, that the profits had not been shared equally. He began a legal action to recover royalties for the recordings and profits from the concerts by the group, paid to a company called Smithdom Ltd...

 

[SeniorLife]

'KS...C'mon....you are BETTER than this! Take the emotion out of it. You're too emotionally entrenched. You've reached the point to where you think Morrissey can't do anything wrong, and when you've reached that point, your arguments become less impressive, because it is clear that you have the Moz blinders on.'

what!? what bullshit. I thought you were going to be 'nice'?

'My whole point was this: Morrissey was treated in court, the same way he has treated people all his life. He got a little taste of his own medicine'

C'mon SLife... you're better than this! I know who you are through reading your posts and it is why I can proclaim... you're better than this . Again, I don't see any connection to how M treats people and how he was treated in court. The way M treat's people does not justify the judges treatment of M in court. THINK ABOUT IT.

'He was treated poorly by someone appointed to be a judge'

Thankyou for finally realizing that he was treated by the judge poorly. O.k,now I think we're getting somewhere.

'That is his job. To judge.'
Yes... to judge, not to go outside of that duty, step over the line of decency and use the derogatory words against a person who did not deserve them. The judges actions were totally unjustifiable.

'he tried his hand at court, twice, and lost.' fine, he did,but that's not what we're talking about.

'Step away, take the emotion away, and say what you're saying out loud.' Well that's not a very nice thing to say, I thought you believed in 'being nice'? Next you'll be saying something like... 'be a man and grow a pair',etc. RIDICULOUS.

'You're defending a man that doesn't really deserve to be defended.' I could say the same thing to you, Why are you defending a man that doesn't really deserve to be defended? I'm talking about... judge John Weeks.

That was fun

Unfortunately, I think you misinterpreted my 'step away....comment.... I wasn't trying to mean and apologize if it came across that way. My intention in saying that is that sometimes when we take our emotions out of things, we can see things more clearly for what they are; sometimes emotions can get in the way. Secondly, sometimes I live by a rule where, if I say something 'actually out loud' it makes more sense to me, and can be more clear than if I just think it in my head.

My intention is always to be nice, because being mean is unproductive. But I do enjoy a good debate. Sometimes people just don't see eye to eye on things. It's called life, and should be respected.

Be well...

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

No I wasn't Ketamine but the judge said Morrissey was devious, truculent and unreliable, which makes me wonder how often he bends the truth.

'but the judge said'

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

As I pointed out in another thread, even Johnny Marr thought that Moz had been treated unfairly.

From Set The Boy Free:
"When the judge ruled in Mike's favour, he made a point of sticking it to me and particularly to Morrissey, who he really didn't like, making remarks about him that were personal and fairly shocking."

'As I pointed out in another thread, even Johnny Marr thought that Moz had been treated unfairly.

From Set The Boy Free:
"When the judge ruled in Mike's favour, he made a point of sticking it to me and particularly to Morrissey, who he really didn't like, making remarks about him that were personal and fairly shocking." '


informative, thank you

 

[Surface]

Wouldn't even try to be nice to Ketamine, Senior L. She is the biggest one eyed moz bot on the site, she would still say he was right if he wandered into a shop and started shooting folks.

 

[Surface]

'but the judge said'

Yes a judge you f***ing moron.

 

[Anonymous]

I think the judge went out of his role expressing personal ideas about the four members of the band. A judge must be super patted and just find out the evidence of breaking rules. The judge had a prejudice against Morrissey being the older member of the band and thought Morrissey was an avid manipulator. False.Morrissey simply did'nt know the members of the band were equal with performance royalities, like every other members of the band. A simple sentence giving Joyce and Rourke their right part of money without labeling the four men would be enough.

 

[Quando quando quando]

I think the judge went out of his role expressing personal ideas about the four members of the band. A judge must be super patted and just find out the evidence of breaking rules. The judge had a prejudice against Morrissey being the older member of the band and thought Morrissey was an avid manipulator. False.Morrissey simply did'nt know the members of the band were equal with performance royalities, like every other members of the band. A simple sentence giving Joyce and Rourke their right part of money without labeling the four men would be enough.

^^ This ^^

And because he didn't, he showed to be biased and damaged the image of justice and judges in general.
It attributes to the distrust people have in justice.
Well, I guess he's not the only one.

As if judges are allways right, make no mistakes and are not influenced.
Why should all verdicts they make and especially all opinions they have (that are weakening their supposed objectivity, and undermining the arguments of the verdicts) not be subject to any criticism?
Are they above the law? Allways?

I sense that people are afraid to be critical about it cause they'd rather believe in an abstraction that is justice than admit that the idea of justice has it's inbuilt flaws too and can't be perfect.

I understand the motives of Johnny Marr as after all he came to the conclusion he should pay but I can understand Moz felt betrayed and alone and treated very badly and not justified, well not with the right arguments anyway. That totally uncalled for remarks by the judge made it worse.

He didn't need to say that. The verdict and arguments for it should have been more than enough.
Now it seems like those comments were just made to backup the verdict and in doing so weakening them.
When you're totally on your own and when you know that trial is just about people making as much money they can of you, lawyers too, trying to set the parties up against each other, the only thing you can do is fight for your own interest.

I don't want to criticise Johnny Marr, but what if he defended his and Moz case as he initially wanted to?
They could have worked together again in future cause he would be the only one not letting Moz down.

 

[Judge Joe Brown]

I think the judge went out of his role expressing personal ideas about the four members of the band. A judge must be super patted and just find out the evidence of breaking rules. The judge had a prejudice against Morrissey being the older member of the band and thought Morrissey was an avid manipulator. False.Morrissey simply did'nt know the members of the band were equal with performance royalities, like every other members of the band. A simple sentence giving Joyce and Rourke their right part of money without labeling the four men would be enough.

I agree that a judge doesn't need to do more than give a ruling but I think there are different philosophies on this and I can see a judge being equally convinced that it is part of his role to state his opinions beyond just making a ruling. If a judge goes too far and shows some sort of bias then his ruling can be overturned on appeal. But judges do make those sorts of remarks and have done as long as there have been judges.

I don't agree that the judge's comments on Morrissey have much to do with Morrissey being older or manipulative of the other band members. I take the comments to be more about Morrissey's behavior in the courtroom, which the judge observed directly.

 

[Anonymous]

I agree that a judge doesn't need to do more than give a ruling but I think there are different philosophies on this and I can see a judge being equally convinced that it is part of his role to state his opinions beyond just making a ruling. If a judge goes too far and shows some sort of bias then his ruling can be overturned on appeal. But judges do make those sorts of remarks and have done as long as there have been judges.

I don't agree that the judge's comments on Morrissey have much to do with Morrissey being older or manipulative of the other band members. I take the comments to be more about Morrissey's behavior in the courtroom, which the judge observed directly.

Morrissey didn't help himself with his behavior, as usual, but this doesn't mean the judge can say whatever he wants to say. Maybe he can explain with simple words where and when Morrissey was wrong, but it wasn't a simple court case, it was more a pop comedy drama and all the characters played their role. In my country a judge can't be persecuted even if condammned an innocent and that gives to the formal justice a great power. In my opinion Judge Weeks gave to Mike and Andy their right art of money, but killed The Smiths forever.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

Yes a judge you f***ing moron.

sticks and stones Surface sticks and..... stones. Ah now I see how you and judge Weeks would get along juuuust fine.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

Judge Weeks awarded the case to Joyce.

Morrissey as the losing party, didn't legally require to be described as "devious, truculent and unreliable".

If it was simply because he was the loser, Marr should have been similarly described. In terms of the case, what did Marr do that Morrissey didn't?

What was Marr's equivalent of "devious, truculent and unreliable" if it was part of the judgement?

For that reason I am confident it was like how both Moz and Marr tell it:

Moz could do no right; Johnny just, isn't as controversial; the media had it in for Moz or at any rate found him more interesting; perhaps the Judge therefore wanted to be quoted.

Keep up the good work KS

'
Morrissey as the losing party, didn't legally require to be described as "devious, truculent and unreliable".

If it was simply because he was the loser, Marr should have been similarly described. In terms of the case, what did Marr do that Morrissey didn't?

What was Marr's equivalent of "devious, truculent and unreliable" if it was part of the judgement?

For that reason I am confident it was like how both Moz and Marr tell it:

Moz could do no right; Johnny just, isn't as controversial; the media had it in for Moz or at any rate found him more interesting; perhaps the Judge therefore wanted to be quoted.'

right on ! there's a lot of bullies on this site who to no ones surprise do side with a bully like judge Weeks.

But some of us know who really won.

 

[Kenmare]

^^ This ^^

And because he didn't, he showed to be biased and damaged the image of justice and judges in general.
It attributes to the distrust people have in justice.
Well, I guess he's not the only one.

As if judges are allways right, make no mistakes and are not influenced.
Why should all verdicts they make and especially all opinions they have (that are weakening their supposed objectivity, and undermining the arguments of the verdicts) not be subject to any criticism?
Are they above the law? Allways?

I sense that people are afraid to be critical about it cause they'd rather believe in an abstraction that is justice than admit that the idea of justice has it's inbuilt flaws too and can't be perfect.

I understand the motives of Johnny Marr as after all he came to the conclusion he should pay but I can understand Moz felt betrayed and alone and treated very badly and not justified, well not with the right arguments anyway. That totally uncalled for remarks by the judge made it worse.

He didn't need to say that. The verdict and arguments for it should have been more than enough.
Now it seems like those comments were just made to backup the verdict and in doing so weakening them.
When you're totally on your own and when you know that trial is just about people making as much money they can of you, lawyers too, trying to set the parties up against each other, the only thing you can do is fight for your own interest.

I don't want to criticise Johnny Marr, but what if he defended his and Moz case as he initially wanted to?
They could have worked together again in future cause he would be the only one not letting Moz down.

Yes. It's astonishing that Weeks felt smug enough to call Joyce and Rourke simpletons (unintellectual) and Marr and Morrissey, liars (the former, one who "embroidered the truth" and the latter "devious").

No matter your opinion on who was entitled to what, it was a rare public airing of private bias.

It speaks as much about him as it does the grieving parties and respondents.