View Poll Results: Final verdict

Voters
166. You may not vote on this poll
  • AEG liable

    80 48.19%
  • AEG not liable

    86 51.81%
Page 72 of 114 FirstFirst ... 2262707172737482 ... LastLast
Results 1,066 to 1,080 of 1699

Thread: Verdict Reached: AEG NOT Liable - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

   
  1. #1066
    Points: 32,876, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 16.0%
    Achievements:
    Three FriendsTagger Second Class25000 Experience PointsVeteran
    TheChosenOne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Barbados
    Posts
    2,601
    Points
    32,876
    Level
    100
    Thanks
    277
    Thanked 2,350 Times in 518 Posts

    Default Re: Verdict Reached: AEG NOT Liable - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

    Thanks for answering my query. I would have been a tad bit annoyed if Michael had had to pay for this trial financially.

    I have to say though, I have reading some stuff about people feeling like Michael has been picked on enough and maybe it is time to let that ish go! That shift in mentality is going to take some time and I feel as a community we have to be ready to re-frame the narrative about Michael.

    The trial exposed alot about his personal life, but we can simply acknowledge that he had his challenges but looked at what he achieved anyway.
    Michael Jackson (1958 - 2009): You Do Not Define Him So You Cannot Confine Him!

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to TheChosenOne For This Useful Post:


  3. #1067
    Points: 22,365, Level: 93
    Level completed: 2%, Points required for next Level: 985
    Overall activity: 9.0%
    Achievements:
    Three FriendsOverdrive10000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    9,578
    Points
    22,365
    Level
    93
    Thanks
    17,306
    Thanked 12,247 Times in 4,025 Posts

    Default Re: Verdict Reached: AEG NOT Liable - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

    Mneme I just wanted to answer something I saw you post more than once, about the transcripts. Every time Ivy was going to buy the transcripts, we realized that the various articles/tweets/reports gave the gist of what the witnesses said, or the witnesses information was not that in-depth/new, etc., so it was not bought. Ivy wanted to buy transcripts that was of use to the community as a whole, and not just important to one person. Ivy did not want to use thousands of dollars to buy a bunch of transcripts when the main information was covered. Even the closing was going to be bought. Then we heard it would be televised, so there was no need to buy it.

    Think about it, to buy transcripts for 5 months would run over $10,000, since each day cost about $400.

    The next thing I wanted to talk about was that the rules for jurors in the US may not be the same for where you live. A juror can talk about the case after the verdict. In the Muarry trial the judge said jurors could not give interviews until a specific number of days after the trial. Notice the judge never said the juror could not talk about the case ever. In the US jurors cannot discuss the case, read about it, be around people who are discussing it, can't do research on it while the case is ongoing. These rules do not apply to the juror after the verdict, unless with the ruling with the criminal trial above.^^ This means that our forum can discuss the case with any juror who wants to do so.

  4. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Petrarose For This Useful Post:


  5. #1068
    Points: 152,225, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 19.0%
    Achievements:
    Three FriendsOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,078
    Points
    152,225
    Level
    100
    Thanks
    423
    Thanked 34,443 Times in 7,257 Posts

    Default Re: Verdict Reached: AEG NOT Liable - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

    reading is your best friend

    Quote Originally Posted by Admin View Post
    Admin note: Thread cleaned.Please Don't derail this thread arguing over whether you think Juror # 27 is authentic or not.
    and

    Quote Originally Posted by ivy View Post
    Everyone is free to form their own opinions and can choose to believe or not to the posts of juror#27 but let me note that derailing of the thread will not be allowed.
    it can't be any more clearer than that.

    Any posts in this regard have been deleted and will be deleted. we heard what you said and we might consider what we can publish or not & it requires conversations among us and that takes time. If you have any questions, send them to me in private message. Also this is the third warning. If the same behavior continues, the next step will be infractions and moderation que.
    Twitter : Ivy_4MJ

  6. #1069
    Points: 2,790, Level: 32
    Level completed: 27%, Points required for next Level: 110
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Rocky Mountains
    Posts
    413
    Points
    2,790
    Level
    32
    Thanks
    468
    Thanked 1,458 Times in 330 Posts

    Default Re: Verdict Reached: AEG NOT Liable - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

    I also want to add my thanks to Juror#27. I'm grateful you chose MJJC to share your thoughts and answer questions--something you don't have to do--and you are furthering our understanding of what thought processes you and others on the jury went through to arrive at the verdict. Your commentary here is invaluable and helps us connect the dots on all our conversations and speculations through many months. What you're doing is a gift and I'm among many others here who are very grateful.

  7. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to crillon For This Useful Post:


  8. #1070
    Points: 3,211, Level: 35
    Level completed: 8%, Points required for next Level: 139
    Overall activity: 1.0%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Mneme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Berlin (Germany)
    Posts
    387
    Points
    3,211
    Level
    35
    Thanks
    1,866
    Thanked 609 Times in 189 Posts

    Default Re: Verdict Reached: AEG NOT Liable - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

    <> <> <>

    /juror 27

    if I may ask two questions

    1.)
    I'm presuming that in the beginning or on the end of the trial the jurors got plaintiffs complaint and statement from AEG.
    If yes, do you got the 2 older plaintiff complaints too?


    2.)
    What was you thinking about Mr. Panish' argument alteration in relation to his opening plädoyer? (i mean addiction; Michael's health etc.)

  9. #1071
    Points: 3,211, Level: 35
    Level completed: 8%, Points required for next Level: 139
    Overall activity: 1.0%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Mneme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Berlin (Germany)
    Posts
    387
    Points
    3,211
    Level
    35
    Thanks
    1,866
    Thanked 609 Times in 189 Posts

    Default Re: Verdict Reached: AEG NOT Liable - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

    <> <> <>

    doubble posting

  10. #1072
    Points: 13,345, Level: 75
    Level completed: 24%, Points required for next Level: 305
    Overall activity: 33.0%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree FriendsVeteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    3,246
    Points
    13,345
    Level
    75
    Thanks
    5,925
    Thanked 3,874 Times in 1,384 Posts

    Default Re: Verdict Reached: AEG NOT Liable - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

    @Mneme Just to add to Petrarose post, we did have a transcript fund and some were brought, but as Petra said it would have cost a small fortune to buy them all.

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to LastTear For This Useful Post:


  12. #1073
    Points: 6,329, Level: 51
    Level completed: 90%, Points required for next Level: 21
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    975
    Points
    6,329
    Level
    51
    Thanks
    1,839
    Thanked 1,676 Times in 517 Posts

    Default Re: Verdict Reached: AEG NOT Liable - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

    Have a question. Did the witnesses for Katherine are already paid? If not, who has to pay Panish or Katherine?

  13. #1074
    Points: 3,211, Level: 35
    Level completed: 8%, Points required for next Level: 139
    Overall activity: 1.0%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Mneme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Berlin (Germany)
    Posts
    387
    Points
    3,211
    Level
    35
    Thanks
    1,866
    Thanked 609 Times in 189 Posts

    Default Re: Verdict Reached: AEG NOT Liable - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

    Quote Originally Posted by Annita View Post
    It seems they only get paid if they would have won the case.
    Hello Annita!,

    but isn't it that this applies only Mr. Panish' office (the other attorneys as Boyle,...)?

    Wasn't there a second attorney office? I have forgotten but I remember that Katherine has had 10 attorneys.
    If that is true maybe this costs Katherine perhaps has to pay.
    We will read about it later.

  14. #1075
    Points: 3,360, Level: 36
    Level completed: 7%, Points required for next Level: 140
    Overall activity: 27.0%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    2,316
    Points
    3,360
    Level
    36
    Thanks
    1,410
    Thanked 1,274 Times in 703 Posts

    Default Re: Verdict Reached: AEG NOT Liable - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

    Allow me to preface this post by stating I am neutral on the validity of Juror27.

    I have participated heavily in this particular subforum while always making my sole intention for participating abundantly clear. I simply did not perceive a balanced pre-trial discussion of the civil trial. It was important to me personally that those who lurked in the subforum saw at least one poster (there were more to their credit however, we were the minority) who routinely supported the plaintiffs using the evidence brought forth by the media resources available as well as the court transcripts. One would be hard pressed to find one post I authored where I relied on any of the Jacksons’ past actions or my personal view of the family to support my stance.

    Juror27, I have no question for you personally as any discussion we would engage in will not change the verdict rendered that I do not support. I will however, leave you with this comment: jurors are expected to use their common sense, life experiences, and intuition when deciding on the trustworthiness of witnesses and the rendering a resulting verdict. Jurors should not rely on or express personal biases against either party.

    Quote Originally Posted by Juror#27 View Post
    Every single witness who was questioned about whether they thought MJ was a good father (and almost every one who knew him closely was asked) sang endless praises about his love of his kids. If Prince's testimony is any indication, MJ was definitely a great father. The kid is bright, intelligent, caring, has great character and a great personality, and I truly believe MJ did a phenomenal job raising him in the few years he was able to. Honestly, every single juror came away feeling very positive about Michael Jackson as a person and father.
    There were four plaintiffs. Testimony and evidence did not dismiss the fact that Michael idolized his mother as well as being an outstanding and loving father to his three children.

    Quote Originally Posted by Juror#27 View Post
    Asking for a lot of money doesn't mean one is unethical in my estimation (and I hope the irony of repeatedly implying that in court was not lost on the plaintiffs ;D).
    As the jury said no to question two, a discussion of potential damages to be found in question six and later is invalid.
    Last edited by Tygger; 06-10-2013 at 07:20 PM.

  15. #1076
    Points: 8,599, Level: 62
    Level completed: 50%, Points required for next Level: 151
    Overall activity: 30.0%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassVeteran5000 Experience Points
    jamba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    1,261
    Points
    8,599
    Level
    62
    Thanks
    6,587
    Thanked 3,204 Times in 861 Posts

    Default Re: Verdict Reached: AEG NOT Liable - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

    Hi, Juror 27,

    Thanks so much for joining us and for your candid and thoughtful comments. Many have already said what I would have said regarding your participation and how honored we are!!! Yay!!!

    One thing I want to say, I appreciate that you pointed out the word "timeline." It is so important IMO for this trial. Ivy used the word "hindsight" in pointing out that many things re Dr. Conrad Murray were completely unknown until it was too late and MJ was already gone. To judge a hiring on the eventual outcome of Murray's treatment would not be fair to the defendants. The question remains, was there evidence to anticipate or to 'know' that despite his licenses, education, training, he was going to be one of the most incompetent and unfit doctors ever. I am convinced by the evidence presented that such was not a reasonable conclusion at the time he was hired.

    As you might have noticed, the MJ 'fan community' has a number of heated, on-going debates within it, and it is sometimes a struggle to deal with these in a way that reflects MJ's message of love and tolerance. People strive to present their opinions in a way that respects the other party's views, but let's face it, we are not perfect--we are human--we make mistakes and we get caught up in our likes and dislikes, our deeply felt convictions, so please bear with us.

    I would like to ask you this: How well did you think the case was managed? Do you think it should have been dismissed, as some have argued?

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to jamba For This Useful Post:


  17. #1077
    Points: 3,902, Level: 39
    Level completed: 68%, Points required for next Level: 48
    Overall activity: 7.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    114
    Points
    3,902
    Level
    39
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked 931 Times in 113 Posts

    Default Re: Verdict Reached: AEG NOT Liable - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

    Quote Originally Posted by Nina Hamilton View Post
    I was very happy to read your words, Jury No.27. that you have joined the band of followers of MJ. Maybe the trial has had a positive outcome after all. However, one or two points are bothering me. If AEG had checked Conrad Murray out, they would have discovered that his medical licences/board certifications in Nevada and Texas had expired in December, 2008. so indicating they were negligent in hiring him knowing that. Perhaps it didn't matter. But something else, I read that CM asked AEG for resuscitation equipment but failed to get it. Surely AEG would have wondered if he was carrying out a risky procedure, and was he competent? Over four years some information may have been forgotten. I don't remember hearing any of that in the civil trial.
    I honestly don't see how letting a license lapse means that someone is negligent. Doctors let licenses lapse all the time when they are not going to practice in a particular state any more. What we were looking for was disciplinary action against Murray in the form of malpractice suits or complaints, something that would give a reasonable person cause to find Murray unfit or incompetent at the time they hired him.

    Kathy Jorrie's "10 minute google search" of Murray was talked about at length at trial, but I am of the opinion that that is a reasonable amount of due diligence for someone who you are bringing onboard as a favor to someone else. If AEG had found out about CM's financial troubles and told MJ "We can't hire your doctor for you, because we have seen that he is in financial straits and is therefore likely to be unethical or unfit", I can't imagine that going over very well, either with MJ or in the media if the story were to get out.

    Quote Originally Posted by bluetopez View Post
    I understand the reasoning behind saying NO to question number 2 because of its wording! But, because the jurors did find that Murray was Hired by AEG, for some anything he did wrong later should fall on their responsibility, regardless! And I can understand that too because they did hire him. I will always be split with this case and the verdict, both sides made good arguments IMO!
    Think of it like this. A doctor works at a hospital and is caught stealing meds and performing unauthorized procedures in secret. When the hospital hired the doctor, there was nothing in his record that showed this kind of behavior. The doctor in this example should be held responsible, not the hospital.

    The decision to deviate from the standard of care and to ignore his Hippocratic Oath was CM's, not AEG's.

    Quote Originally Posted by morinen View Post
    Technically that was what the next question was about (3). And there I would agree with you. But q. 2 was about simple fact - was he competent or not to do the job. My logic is: the job required first aid skills, he didn't have them, hence - not fit.

    It is a skill, because when you are taught first aid, you are taught that call 911 is the first thing you should do, before you start CPR. He didn't do it, and his excuse later was the he didn't call because he started doing CPR first. This technically means he didn't have the proper skill.
    But that again is taking what we learned in hindsight and applying it to an earlier time frame. When you go to see your general practitioner, are you absolutely certain they can perform CPR? Don't you think it is reasonable to assume that a licensed doctor who is practicing medicine would know that? Is it really reasonable to say that AEG should have quizzed CM about how to perform CPR and whether calling 911 immediately in case of an emergency is the best course of action? I have never asked a doctor who is treating me these things and I doubt I ever will.

    Quote Originally Posted by LMAT View Post
    Want to thank Juror #27 for posting her thoughts on the trial verdict and on Michael. The last 5 months have been very painful as we watched Michael's privacy be so grossly invaded and his personal business broadcast across all forms of media. A media that salivates over salacious details about this lovely man. Based on what this juror explained and a bit of common sense, I agree with the verdict. Personally, I believe that Conrad Murray holds the majority, if not all, the responsibility for his patient's death. And to think his burden of guilt would be diminished in the slightest is totally unacceptable. Rather than the deep pockets of AEG, perhaps justice would have been served by not waiving restitution and hounding that man for every dime he attempts to pocket from what he did.

    The fact that this juror and others were able to see the kindness, gentleness and caring that is at the core of Michael Jackson,certainly is a wonderful gift and a reason to finally smile. Thank you for sharing that with us.
    You are very welcome. I just thought it was important to let you guys know that we did not come away with any negative feelings toward MJ. Quite the opposite, actually.

    Quote Originally Posted by ivy View Post
    If I was to ask questions to the jurors, I would be curious about

    - What did they think about the witnesses? Who did they believe to be honest and who did they believe to be not honest?

    - and if they discussed it or considered it, what did they think about the other questions on the verdict form? or in other words of we assume question 2 wasn't on the form would the verdict change? (it looked like 2 jurors believed AEG didn't and couldn't know what was going on in regards to Propofol. I wonder if this was a widely shared belief)
    1. We thought that most people were genuinely trying to be honest, but the way they were boxed in by the attorneys' questions often led to witnesses trying to clarify, avoid answering, or just answering something that wasn't asked, and that could sometimes come across as trying to hide something or being less than truthful. I thought Kenny Ortega was the most forthright out of everyone, and his testimony was a refreshing change because there was no dodging of questions or anything like that. His emails expressed sincere care and concern for MJ and his testimony in person just solidified and strengthened that feeling. He very obviously cared for and loved MJ. I didn't applaud when he left the witness stand because I thought that was inappropriate, but I understand the other jurors doing it. It was spontaneous and the result of the conclusion of a lot of heartfelt, riveting testimony.

    2. I don't think if question 2 was gone the verdict would have changed. We did not discuss question 3 much once we reached a 'no' on question 2, but the impression I got is that there is no way we would have said that AEG knew or should have known that CM was unfit or incompetent and that his unfitness or incompetence would pose a particular risk to others. There was simply no evidence presented which would prove that AEG should have known that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mneme View Post
    I hope the juror tells nothing about this, Ivy!
    He would get into trouble if he would answer of such Question. All witnesses were put under the oath and if the juror would say "i believe Mr./Mrs. XYZ was not honest"... now, he could be sued for slandering. (IMO!)

    But maybe in US it isn't so????
    Actually in the jury instructions it explicitly said we are free to believe a witness or not, but I would never slander or disparage any of the witnesses I saw. The stress of being on that stand is unbelievable and I can't fault someone for their answers while in that hot seat unless I thought they were flat out lying, and I very rarely got that impression during this case.

    Quote Originally Posted by serendipity View Post
    Ivy you asked the question I wanted to ask too - about question #3 and how the jurors would have answered it, if it was discussed.

    And just wanted to add a Thank you to Juror#27 for posting this really nice message. Know that a lot of MJ fans do think you made a reasonable and logical decision with that verdict.

    A lot of us who answered the questions from the verdict form, answered with "no" the second question (and the third too).

    Don't pay attention to the disrespectful people out there.
    Thank you for the kind words. After hearing about MJ so much for the last 5 months and reading a bit more the last few days, I understand why some fans are so protective and emotional about MJ, so I know not to take their anger at the verdict personally.

    Quote Originally Posted by twinklEE View Post
    Thank you so much for taking the time to post here juror#27, it is defintely appreciated don't let a few people's opinions bother you.
    You are quite welcome.

    Quote Originally Posted by corlista View Post
    "But his not calling 911 wasn't about skill or professional know how. A kid knows to call 911. Murray's was about covering himself and covering up. MJ was already dead when Murray started making any calls. And that he DID know."

    Juror 27. Though I am not part of the majority here that supports the verdict, I do honestly commend you for having the courage to come here to explain the jury's decision (which I now better understand) and share your feelings but most importantly to acknowledge your softening of heart towards Michael. I always loved Michael's music and had a soft spot for him when the media began their 25 year attack mode but regretfully didn't become a passionate fan until after he died and I read everything I could get my hands on about him. Then I fell in love with the MAN and his goodness of heart. Please understand that Michael's fans have been in battle mode for years, some for decades. It has produced very protective and passionate advocates as we saw the human being behind the genius shredded and ridiculed. For all the joy that Michael gave us - which is immense - we are often a community in pain. Sometimes that bubbles over into overzealousness and anger and we suffer errors in judgment. However, if nothing good came out of this trial except that more people like you came to see the decent and loving and brilliant person that he was, then for that I am thankful. Thank you for caring enough to "talk" to us.
    Yes, this is the impression I get from his fans. I promise that I won't hold the actions of a few against everyone. I'm very relieved to see that so many MJ fans are willing to discuss the case with reason and logic rather than get emotion. I understand being emotional but when dealing with law and facts I think logic and evidence should reign supreme.

  18. The Following 23 Users Say Thank You to Juror#27 For This Useful Post:


  19. #1078
    Points: 10,361, Level: 67
    Level completed: 78%, Points required for next Level: 89
    Overall activity: 18.0%
    Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Westland, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    1,806
    Points
    10,361
    Level
    67
    Thanks
    5,436
    Thanked 3,845 Times in 1,060 Posts

    Default Re: Verdict Reached: AEG NOT Liable - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

    For Juror #27 I'd like to ask what you thought of the judge in the case. Did you feel she controlled her courtroom well? How did you feel about the attorneys for both sides and which witnesses did you feel were not truthful? Which ones were the most truthful? Thank you again for joining us and giving us your thoughts.

  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Victory22 For This Useful Post:


  21. #1079
    Points: 8,599, Level: 62
    Level completed: 50%, Points required for next Level: 151
    Overall activity: 30.0%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassVeteran5000 Experience Points
    jamba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    1,261
    Points
    8,599
    Level
    62
    Thanks
    6,587
    Thanked 3,204 Times in 861 Posts

    Default Re: Verdict Reached: AEG NOT Liable - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

    Thanks again, Juror 27. I just read your wonderful post above in answer to questions that were posed.

    I have one more: What was the most moving part of this trial for you? When were you most deeply touched by what you heard or saw?

  22. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jamba For This Useful Post:


  23. #1080
    Points: 3,902, Level: 39
    Level completed: 68%, Points required for next Level: 48
    Overall activity: 7.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    114
    Points
    3,902
    Level
    39
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked 931 Times in 113 Posts

    Default Re: Verdict Reached: AEG NOT Liable - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

    Quote Originally Posted by Tygger View Post
    Juror27, I have no question for you personally as any discussion we would engage in will not change the verdict rendered that I do not support. I will however, leave you with this comment: jurors are expected to use their common sense, life experiences, and intuition when deciding on the trustworthiness of witnesses and the rendering a resulting verdict. Jurors should not rely on or express personal biases against either party.
    And whether you choose to believe me or not, I am telling you that not one juror on this case relied on or expressed personal bias against either party during the entire trial nor during deliberations. I don't understand where this comment is stemming from?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tygger View Post
    There were four plaintiffs. Testimony and evidence did not dismiss the fact that Michael idolized his mother as well as being an outstanding and loving father to his three children.
    Again, I don't understand this comment? We all believed without exception that MJ idolized his mother and was an outstanding and loving father to his three children. I only mentioned Prince because he was the only one to testify in person and I was very impressed by him.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tygger View Post
    As the jury said no to question two, a discussion of potential damages to be found in question six and later is invalid.
    Agreed, and we never discussed damages while deliberating. I was simply turning the plaintiffs' logic against themselves. They told us that someone asking for an outrageous sum of money is a red flag of unethical behavior. Does that logic not also apply to them? I ask only in a playful, rhetorical sense, because had we decided to award damages the ethics of the plaintiffs were completely irrelevant and would not have factored in at all.

  24. The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to Juror#27 For This Useful Post:


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •