|
| Authored by: eric76 on Monday, October 08 2012 @ 04:11 AM EDT |
Quite true, I think. The details of the bankruptcy are not important.
What is important is that he didn't mention the matter when asked.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 08 2012 @ 04:42 AM EDT |
But he brought it upon himself by saying things like "they
want to send a message about patents", he wanted to punish
and it will not be a slap on the wrist.
Considering that he worked in Seagate and Samsung is the
biggest share-holder and his bankruptcy resulted as a result
of Seagate's action, there is definitely a conflict of
interest situation. That is the reason questions are asked
about previous court cases involved. He was not truthful
when answering those questions.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 08 2012 @ 04:55 AM EDT |
<em>If jury duty implies that everybody and his dog is free to wash
decades of one's dirty laundry in public, then nobody will serve any
more.</em>
Jury duty is a duty. You don't get to choose whether to serve.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 08 2012 @ 07:34 AM EDT |
How can the dispute the juror had with Seagate be accurately described without
discussing the bankruptcy? He himself discussed in the press that he used
bankruptcy to save his house being lost to his debt with Seagate.
I think that once a subject has been brought up by the witness, it is fair game
to continue the investigation along those lines.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 08 2012 @ 07:53 AM EDT |
Given the large number of jurors on this case, it is unlikely that Mr Hogan is
the only one who has had financial problems. Samsung's attorneys have raised
issues about this juror who appears to have ignored multiple directions from the
court (and wants to boast about his actions). There are some unusual things
about this bankruptcy filing, that Mr. Hogan appeared to have sufficient income
to pay off his debts, and that the major debt was the $25,000 he owed to
Seagate. This is relevant to whether or not Mr Hogan could have biased against
Samsung.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: artp on Monday, October 08 2012 @ 10:19 AM EDT |
This isn't anywhere near a lynching. In any case, Hogan
stuck his neck in a noose for anyone to pull the lever on.
He volunteered for the position. Nobody forced him to go on
tour, with T-shirts being sold in the lobby. The man is a
piece of work. And even that comment doesn't approach being
a lynching. It's an observation of facts.
If criticism automatically becomes a lynching, if
considering legal matters automatically becomes a lynching,
then it pretty much shuts out any discussion of the topic,
doesn't it?
I wonder who would benefit from stifling discussion of this
topic? Hhhmmmm?
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 08 2012 @ 05:37 PM EDT |
Assuming you are correct that this is character assassination-- I find it hard
to have any sympathy for him. This is a man who gave pages and pages of quotes
to the press. Most of the other jurors didn't even give one quote, the one other
juror who did gave two quotes each around two paragraphs. If you don't want the
spotlight shined on you don't step into the spotlight.
The other thing is that had he simply answered truthfully during voir dire, and
he virtually says he that he deliberately did no0t mention these lawsuits
himself, the bankruptcy itself would have sent up red flags and he would have
been dismissed from jury duty.
Keep in mind too, that most of what we are saying now would not have seen the
light of day if Judge Koh had done as Samsung requested and sealed parts of the
motion mentioning Hogan and told jurors not to talk to the press anymore. Or if
Apple had not opposed that part. So blame Apple.
As for character ... when he got sued by Seagate, he could have made some
arrangement with Seagate to pay off the debt probably even having some forgiven.
The way these things work, his lawyer probably suggested it. Instead he let it
get to the point where Seagate felt they had to sue him. Even then, we see he
could have rearranged his finances and paid back Seagate. Instead went and
declared bankruptcy just so he wouldn't have to pay them, which is something
that is much more painful then paying them.
It is strongly suggestive that that this guy has to be right no matter what the
facts are. This is confirmed by other things we see, running away at the Gizmodo
interview when challenged, saying the judge asked only about the last ten years,
etc. Seems to me his character really can't be assassinated.
Mouse the Lucky Dog[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: cjk fossman on Monday, October 08 2012 @ 05:47 PM EDT |
| . [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
