- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 92,320
- Reaction score
- 314,514
:welcome6: :lurk: er Pasasana!
:greetings:
:greetings:
Sentencing and beyond- JA General Discussion #8
- Thread starter Coldpizza
- Start date
-
Flight to London Gatwick crashes at airport in India .June 12 th 2025
- Latest: indicolite22
- Status
RickshawFan
Verified Outdoor Recreation Specialist
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2013
- Messages
- 11,289
- Reaction score
- 56,919
Wing-
even if she won and collected every last penny of what Nurmi earned from his book & media appearances (they're typically not for-pay, fwiw), and even if Nurmi's profits were in the tens of thousands of dollars (highly unlikely), that amount will NOT be enough, even when tossed into her whacked Appeals Fund, to pay even the retainer of a federal court appellate attorney.
On the other hand, even a few thousands wrested away from Nurmi could keep her in candy bars, Beeno & zit cream for at least a year or two.
Rickshaw--what would be the downside for Nurmi in just forking over whatever money he earned from the book?
For starters, his pride. And the unpalatable reality of allowing theto smear him with impunity. From every indication he's given so far, he won't throw money at her & walk away. IMO he's fixing for a fight.
Nurmi could cut his losses and try to get under the $50k mark. The only thing JA could then get—as I see it—would be $50k. That's the amount at stake here, correct?
IMO Nurms is nuts if he wants to engage in this fight. Even as a matter of ego. He'd be a bigger winner if he didn't engage. JA wouldn't be able to have her day in court on this one, and no respite from prison. No media, no attention. Those are far more valuable to her, IMO, than trashing Nurmi. If he walked away, it would be the worst possible outcome for JA, IMO. "Buh bye....I'm not playing that game...." Her attorneys are going to want to settle, too. As Nurmi demonstrated, nothing is worth it to be JA's attorney.
JA can't smear him if she's in prison. She has no public forum. If she finagles a media message, she has consequences. She can't do a whole lot of anything the way that warden keeps a tight reign on her.
If you were Nurmi's attorney how would you advise him in this situation? Not a legal opinion, but speculation?
Whadda you think?
PS It seems likely that if Nurms made a lot of money off his book and media appearances, he'd have written Volume 2. And he'd have nothing to lose. He's already been disbarred. I'll bet his book earnings were well under $50k.
is probably fantasizing that the book made a lot of $$$$, because she sees it as a reflection of public interest in her. News Flash! Even her secrets, divulged via Nurmi, aren't worth a whole lot of anything. Boom! :dance::dance::dance:
RickshawFan
Verified Outdoor Recreation Specialist
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2013
- Messages
- 11,289
- Reaction score
- 56,919
Your quote, Rickshaw, is from a page following the pics Hope posted of her 2016 trip to Mesa (and beyond).
I hadn't thought of this before reading your comment, but Hodi says she stopped in Pasadena to fill her rental. Her next known stop for fuel was in Mesquite, right? According to Mapquest, the mileage between the two cities is 340 miles. It's very likely she would have been able to drive there from Pasadena on a full tank of gas, so that sounds like another calculated part of her plan. And of course she would have gotten a receipt for documentation to prove she was "nowhere near Mesa". (ha ha) And wasn't that the leg of her trip where she got lost and then fell asleep in her car (which would explain the additional time to get there)? How conveeeeeeenient. Oh, she so sneaky!
Was there a receipt from the Mesquite gas station entered into evidence? I'd like to know how many gallons of fuel she paid for, for that 340 miles.
Btw, I only saw two pics Hope posted (sidestreet and open garage door). Are there, or were there, more?
There were all kinds of photos. Hope4More was posting them real time while driving around Mesa and then up the road all the way to the Nevada border. IIRC there was one set out in a pullover in the desert near Nevada! We analyzed whether it was a good spot for JA to stop and call Ryan.
To find the other photos, you'd have to go to the thread where Hope4More retrieved and reposted the two Mesa photos here.
Too bad you weren't on Websleuths with us while "riding along", WingDing! It was awesome.
---------
Yes, that's an interesting thought on the choice of Mesquite for gas. You're probably right. She could have served the same purpose by buying gas in Las Vegas, but instead, opted for a smaller, more obvious location. She might even have called attention to herself.
In all this, she never thought to tell Flores she decided to hang out in Vegas for a bit as an excuse for the delay in getting to SLC. That would have been such easy cover. All those people. All those people from out of state. There would have been no way to verify her story or not.
From the depths of a sub-tunnel of my civil suit rabbit hole: about ’s/Clark’s accusation that Nurmi played the sex tape in open court for reasons that benefitted him, not his client (a breach of fiduciary duty).
Arguments about the tape’s admissibility into evidence were held in chambers on January 31, 2013. The tape was played in open court on February 12, 2013, on the’s third day of direct testimony.
My guess/scenario about why Nurmi wanted the tape played in open court, inferring from everything we know (see below), and from Nurmi’s anecdote in his book about the having a screaming, crying temper tantrum during one of his visits to her relating to an unnamed (and likely never-materialized) motion (known facts are noted, everything else is inference/speculation):
I think it’s probable that after the Jan 31st chambers discussions, the tried to order Nurmi to enter a redacted version of the tape into evidence, one that edited out most of her side of the exchange.
Nurmi, on a visit to her in jail, tried to explain why that was impossible (the tape’s admission into evidence was partly contingent upon it NOT being edited). She responded with that huge temper tantrum, which he makes clear pissed HIM off, royally.
For Nurmi, the issue was settled. For the, not, as it never is unless & until she gets her way. The went on the stand for 2 days, smearing Travis as a sexual deviant and playing the meek, innocent victim, helpless in T’s clutches. She was loving it.
Then, the morning of her 3rd day on the stand arrived. Nurmi tells her, again, that today is the day. He’s going to play the tape. The whole tape. In open court. She freaks. JSS summons the whole crew into chambers (fact). She asks T’s family what they want (fact). They say they want the tape, the whole tape, played, and played in open court (fact). The freaks a whole lot harder.
JSS , being JSS, tries to accommodate the by offering to kick out the media & the public when the tape is being played (fact). How awful for the . The entire POINT of making the tape and having it played, on her terms, is to trash Travis to the largest possible audience, and to cause T’s family maximum pain.
Not only wasn’t she going to get her way on ANY of that, but the very tape she had put so much time and effort into creating to destroy T’s reputation was going to be used against HER.
So why did Nurmi decide to play the tape in open court? Unless we’re missing some great big & key piece of sealed info, I’ve concluded that he did so out of anger (“you’re not going to get your way by throwing a temper tantrum”
, and maybe, in part, even for revenge, believing as he did that the cared more about her reputation than about saving her own life.
If that's true, even though I don't have one iota of sympathy for the, I actually can better understand why Clark the crusader would be outraged by Nurmi's conduct, and determined to hold him accountable.
Here’s what is on the record:
----------------------------------------
From the Complaint:
https://drive.google.com/viewerng/v...ral.com/persistent/icimages/news/2547_001.pdf
#136. Nurmi, not the, was intent upon “exposing T’s secret life.”
#137. Nurmi’s decision to play the sex tape in open court is an example of this. “ It was extremely embarrassing for her. Nurmi insisted. “
JSS offered to seal the court –to kick out the public and press- and to play the tape just to the jury . Nurmi wanted it played in open court, livestreaming to the entire world.
#139. Willmott asked Nurmi why Nurmi wanted to do so, given how much distress that prospect was causing, and because she couldn’t see any “legitimate legal benefit” in playing it in open court.
Willmott “clearly recalls “ his response: ‘She just needs to put on her big girl panties”.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The, from her 12 page motion to have Nurmi fired:
http://archive.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/jodi-arias-nurmi-motion.pd
The court offered to play the tape in a closed hearing but my attorneys turned this down. Upon learning this, I had an emotional reaction such that the rest of the day’s proceedings were cancelled. I could not speak or be reasoned with or form rational thought beyond the horrors of exposing Travis and myself.
Other team members (tried to console me) saying that this decision wasn’t being made to humiliate me or T’s family, but that it backed up my testimony (that T was a pedophile and hyper-sexual, and that I wasn’t jealous about his “planned trip across the border”
Nurmi just said to me with contempt- you’re not going to get your way just because you throw a tantrum.”
-----------------------------------------------------------
Note:
** The “rest of the day’s proceedings” weren’t cancelled. Most of the morning session was spent sans jury, in chambers, then court was recessed until after lunch.
**On the allegedly being told that playing the tape wasn’t about humiliating T’s family.
TA’s family made it crystal clear that not only were they OK with the entire tape being played, but they WANTED it to be played in open court.
How that must have infuriated (and surprised) the. No doubt she interpreted that refusal by them to be bullied by her threats/attempts to “expose” Travis as instead, a desire by his family to destroy HER “reputation.”
“Losing” (again) to his family probably contributed in no small part to her immobilizing distress; not getting her way surely contributed as well.
---------------------------
Chambers hearing
On January 31, 2013, the DT and JM argued in Chambers about the tape’s admissibility into evidence. Nurmi indicated he wanted to play the tape in open court that day, following testimony by Nuemeiser and Dworkin as to the tape’s authenticity. (Remember- the tape wasn’t played until February 12, 2013).
http://archive.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/0607arias-sex-tape-proceeding.pdf
---------------------------------------------------
JSS asked the DT: What benefit does the defense get in playing the tape?
They replied:
Nurmi (N): (arguing that the tape wasn’t hearsay): “…..it relates to the abusive and exploitative relationship which is relevant not only to her self- defense but also to anything than give rise to sudden heat of passion.
(Note that Nurmi thinks the tape would be useful to the contradictory strategies: both her chosen defense -self-defense--and his own, that of heat of passion).
Nurmi: It goes to the nature of their relationship, that it was abusive and that he used her, which is relevant to establishing (several legal elements) of a self defense case.
Nurmi: It’s evidence of how he treats he degrades her opinion. (Abusive relationship).
Nurmi: It goes to state of mind, and to the nature of their relationship: at the same time he’s saying she’s a crazy stalker and he doesn’t want around, he’s having phone sex with her and is talking about making videos with her in the future.
Willmott: It’s evidence of his sexual knowledge. He has to explain things to her. It proves he was not a virgin when he met her.
------------------
Note:
* Which defense counsel is emphasizing the sexual component of the tape? Willmott, not Nurmi. Nurmi is focused on using it as evidence of an abusive relationship, and of the difference between what Travis said and did about the.
** What is NOT being argued is that the tape would provide “evidence” that Travis was a pedophile, or that the was perfectly OK with Travis not taking her to Cancun, 2 of the 3 points thought most relevant about what the tape would “prove.”
* The either already knew on Jan 31 (if not before) that Nurmi planned on playing the tape-the whole tape-in open court, and in fact, on that very day, or Nurmi surprised her with his intentions that day in chambers. Yet…no meltdown. Nary even a protest by her. No discussion by anyone at all, or objections, to the tape being played in open court.
At least, not in the chambers transcript of that morning, which ended with JSS saying she needed to listen to the tape herself before ruling on admissibility.
If Nurmi had been a better attorney, and if Willmott had not been so convinced playing the tape meant jurors would hear Travis himself dooming the case against the, perhaps they would have reconsidered playing the tape after listening to JM in chambers.
JM seemingly objected to the tape being admitted into evidence at all, but argued that if it was going to be played, he had the right to cross examine the about not just what was on the tape, but about how and why the tape even existed.
-----------------
JM: (The tape shows that Travis) is not the aggressor, she js.
N and W: That’s for cross.
JM: I can bring it up on cross of the, or I can bring it up on cross of Mr. Alexander? Which of the two? Neither of which I have access to,
-------------------------------
JSS: did Travis know he was being recorded?
JM: No.
N: How can you know that?
JM: Because of the way he is talking. Who can tell us if he knew, other than the defendant? I mean, no one can tell us that.
N: Right. And no one can tell us that he didn’t. You seem to be saying you can conclude that.
JM: I am concluding that.
N: Based on what?
JM: On what I hear
N: (That's) so ridiculous.
JM: You brought it up. (LOL….)
-------------------------------------------------
((What I’ve always found ironic is that Nurmi and Wilmott seemed to have no clue how incredibly damaging the tape was to their own case & to their central narrative of as victim)).
’s/Clark’s accusation that Nurmi played the sex tape in open court for reasons that benefitted him, not his client (a breach of fiduciary duty).Arguments about the tape’s admissibility into evidence were held in chambers on January 31, 2013. The tape was played in open court on February 12, 2013, on the
’s third day of direct testimony.My guess/scenario about why Nurmi wanted the tape played in open court, inferring from everything we know (see below), and from Nurmi’s anecdote in his book about the
having a screaming, crying temper tantrum during one of his visits to her relating to an unnamed (and likely never-materialized) motion (known facts are noted, everything else is inference/speculation):I think it’s probable that after the Jan 31st chambers discussions, the
tried to order Nurmi to enter a redacted version of the tape into evidence, one that edited out most of her side of the exchange. Nurmi, on a visit to her in jail, tried to explain why that was impossible (the tape’s admission into evidence was partly contingent upon it NOT being edited). She responded with that huge temper tantrum, which he makes clear pissed HIM off, royally.
For Nurmi, the issue was settled. For the
, not, as it never is unless & until she gets her way. The went on the stand for 2 days, smearing Travis as a sexual deviant and playing the meek, innocent victim, helpless in T’s clutches. She was loving it.Then, the morning of her 3rd day on the stand arrived. Nurmi tells her, again, that today is the day. He’s going to play the tape. The whole tape. In open court. She freaks. JSS summons the whole crew into chambers (fact). She asks T’s family what they want (fact). They say they want the tape, the whole tape, played, and played in open court (fact). The
freaks a whole lot harder.JSS , being JSS, tries to accommodate the
by offering to kick out the media & the public when the tape is being played (fact). How awful for the . The entire POINT of making the tape and having it played, on her terms, is to trash Travis to the largest possible audience, and to cause T’s family maximum pain. Not only wasn’t she going to get her way on ANY of that, but the very tape she had put so much time and effort into creating to destroy T’s reputation was going to be used against HER.
So why did Nurmi decide to play the tape in open court? Unless we’re missing some great big & key piece of sealed info, I’ve concluded that he did so out of anger (“you’re not going to get your way by throwing a temper tantrum”
, and maybe, in part, even for revenge, believing as he did that the cared more about her reputation than about saving her own life.If that's true, even though I don't have one iota of sympathy for the
, I actually can better understand why Clark the crusader would be outraged by Nurmi's conduct, and determined to hold him accountable.Here’s what is on the record:
----------------------------------------
From the Complaint:
https://drive.google.com/viewerng/v...ral.com/persistent/icimages/news/2547_001.pdf
#136. Nurmi, not the
, was intent upon “exposing T’s secret life.”#137. Nurmi’s decision to play the sex tape in open court is an example of this. “ It was extremely embarrassing for her. Nurmi insisted. “
JSS offered to seal the court –to kick out the public and press- and to play the tape just to the jury . Nurmi wanted it played in open court, livestreaming to the entire world.
#139. Willmott asked Nurmi why Nurmi wanted to do so, given how much distress that prospect was causing
, and because she couldn’t see any “legitimate legal benefit” in playing it in open court.Willmott “clearly recalls “ his response: ‘She just needs to put on her big girl panties”.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The
, from her 12 page motion to have Nurmi fired:http://archive.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/jodi-arias-nurmi-motion.pd
The court offered to play the tape in a closed hearing but my attorneys turned this down. Upon learning this, I had an emotional reaction such that the rest of the day’s proceedings were cancelled. I could not speak or be reasoned with or form rational thought beyond the horrors of exposing Travis and myself.
Other team members (tried to console me) saying that this decision wasn’t being made to humiliate me or T’s family, but that it backed up my testimony (that T was a pedophile and hyper-sexual, and that I wasn’t jealous about his “planned trip across the border”
Nurmi just said to me with contempt- you’re not going to get your way just because you throw a tantrum.”
-----------------------------------------------------------
Note:
** The “rest of the day’s proceedings” weren’t cancelled. Most of the morning session was spent sans jury, in chambers, then court was recessed until after lunch.
**On the
allegedly being told that playing the tape wasn’t about humiliating T’s family. TA’s family made it crystal clear that not only were they OK with the entire tape being played, but they WANTED it to be played in open court.
How that must have infuriated (and surprised) the
. No doubt she interpreted that refusal by them to be bullied by her threats/attempts to “expose” Travis as instead, a desire by his family to destroy HER “reputation.” “Losing” (again) to his family probably contributed in no small part to her immobilizing distress; not getting her way surely contributed as well.
---------------------------
Chambers hearing
On January 31, 2013, the DT and JM argued in Chambers about the tape’s admissibility into evidence. Nurmi indicated he wanted to play the tape in open court that day, following testimony by Nuemeiser and Dworkin as to the tape’s authenticity. (Remember- the tape wasn’t played until February 12, 2013).
http://archive.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/0607arias-sex-tape-proceeding.pdf
---------------------------------------------------
JSS asked the DT: What benefit does the defense get in playing the tape?
They replied:
Nurmi (N): (arguing that the tape wasn’t hearsay): “…..it relates to the abusive and exploitative relationship which is relevant not only to her self- defense but also to anything than give rise to sudden heat of passion.
(Note that Nurmi thinks the tape would be useful to the contradictory strategies: both her chosen defense -self-defense--and his own, that of heat of passion).
Nurmi: It goes to the nature of their relationship, that it was abusive and that he used her, which is relevant to establishing (several legal elements) of a self defense case.
Nurmi: It’s evidence of how he treats he degrades her opinion. (Abusive relationship).
Nurmi: It goes to state of mind, and to the nature of their relationship: at the same time he’s saying she’s a crazy stalker and he doesn’t want around, he’s having phone sex with her and is talking about making
videos with her in the future.Willmott: It’s evidence of his sexual knowledge. He has to explain things to her. It proves he was not a virgin when he met her.
------------------
Note:
* Which defense counsel is emphasizing the sexual component of the tape? Willmott, not Nurmi. Nurmi is focused on using it as evidence of an abusive relationship, and of the difference between what Travis said and did about the
. ** What is NOT being argued is that the tape would provide “evidence” that Travis was a pedophile, or that the
was perfectly OK with Travis not taking her to Cancun, 2 of the 3 points thought most relevant about what the tape would “prove.”* The
either already knew on Jan 31 (if not before) that Nurmi planned on playing the tape-the whole tape-in open court, and in fact, on that very day, or Nurmi surprised her with his intentions that day in chambers. Yet…no meltdown. Nary even a protest by her. No discussion by anyone at all, or objections, to the tape being played in open court.At least, not in the chambers transcript of that morning, which ended with JSS saying she needed to listen to the tape herself before ruling on admissibility.
If Nurmi had been a better attorney, and if Willmott had not been so convinced playing the tape meant jurors would hear Travis himself dooming the case against the
, perhaps they would have reconsidered playing the tape after listening to JM in chambers.JM seemingly objected to the tape being admitted into evidence at all, but argued that if it was going to be played, he had the right to cross examine the
about not just what was on the tape, but about how and why the tape even existed. -----------------
JM: (The tape shows that Travis) is not the aggressor, she js.
N and W: That’s for cross.
JM: I can bring it up on cross of the
, or I can bring it up on cross of Mr. Alexander? Which of the two? Neither of which I have access to, -------------------------------
JSS: did Travis know he was being recorded?
JM: No.
N: How can you know that?
JM: Because of the way he is talking. Who can tell us if he knew, other than the defendant? I mean, no one can tell us that.
N: Right. And no one can tell us that he didn’t. You seem to be saying you can conclude that.
JM: I am concluding that.
N: Based on what?
JM: On what I hear
N: (That's) so ridiculous.
JM: You brought it up. (LOL….)
-------------------------------------------------
((What I’ve always found ironic is that Nurmi and Wilmott seemed to have no clue how incredibly damaging the tape was to their own case & to their central narrative of
as victim)).
salberg7
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 614
- Reaction score
- 1,200
Since dropping by this thread a few weeks ago I have been mini re-reviewing Nurmis arguments and strategy in both trials. I feel pretty satisfied that Nurmi did the best he could with this killers defense. Whenever the killers mouth opened she spewed another lie & it went on for years. I think Nurmi did the best he could. He defended that monster and saved her life ... twice. The killer, of course, cant see the value in that-She is not on Death Row & has Nurmi to thank for that.
As far as the killer, she just has too much time on her hands and of course, she IS the smartest person in the room after all. She thinks everyone needs to acquiesce to her every whim. I hope she thinks of Travis every time they slam her jail cell for all the misery she caused.
If Willmott or MDLR had any prior knowledge of Nurmis statement re: getting rich off writing a book, they had the burden of reporting that to JSS. Thats BS. Just more hot air from Ms Arias.
The killer will try to use her brilliance to manage to litigate for decades to keep herself revelant. She is probably looking to get herself in the Guinness Book of World Records with the largest number of lawsuits one defendant can generate in their existence while in DOC. Anything for continued fame and to not fade away.
I also truly thinks she will be released some day. I believe shell never get out.
With how she slaughtered Travis she should never be out of prison ever as she is very dangerous.
As far as the killer, she just has too much time on her hands and of course, she IS the smartest person in the room after all. She thinks everyone needs to acquiesce to her every whim. I hope she thinks of Travis every time they slam her jail cell for all the misery she caused.
If Willmott or MDLR had any prior knowledge of Nurmis statement re: getting rich off writing a book, they had the burden of reporting that to JSS. Thats BS. Just more hot air from Ms Arias.
The killer will try to use her brilliance to manage to litigate for decades to keep herself revelant. She is probably looking to get herself in the Guinness Book of World Records with the largest number of lawsuits one defendant can generate in their existence while in DOC. Anything for continued fame and to not fade away.
I also truly thinks she will be released some day. I believe shell never get out.
With how she slaughtered Travis she should never be out of prison ever as she is very dangerous.
Nurmi could cut his losses and try to get under the $50k mark. The only thing JA could then getas I see itwould be $50k. That's the amount at stake here, correct?
IMO Nurms is nuts if he wants to engage in this fight. Even as a matter of ego. He'd be a bigger winner if he didn't engage. JA wouldn't be able to have her day in court on this one, and no respite from prison. No media, no attention. Those are far more valuable to her, IMO, than trashing Nurmi. If he walked away, it would be the worst possible outcome for JA, IMO. "Buh bye....I'm not playing that game...." Her attorneys are going to want to settle, too. As Nurmi demonstrated, nothing is worth it to be JA's attorney.
JA can't smear him if she's in prison. She has no public forum. If she finagles a media message, she has consequences. She can't do a whole lot of anything the way that warden keeps a tight reign on her.
If you were Nurmi's attorney how would you advise him in this situation? Not a legal opinion, but speculation?
Whadda you think?
PS It seems likely that if Nurms made a lot of money off his book and media appearances, he'd have written Volume 2. And he'd have nothing to lose. He's already been disbarred. I'll bet his book earnings were well under $50k.
What happens if Nurmi decides to fight the civil suit, PART ONE (because I'm an incorrigible rabbit hole delver)
The arbitration process in Arizona
1. Civil lawsuits claiming breach of fiduciary duty must be filed within 2 years of the plaintiff becoming aware of the breach/damages resulting from breach.
(Nurmi published his book in October, 2015; the suit against him was filed in October, 2017).
2. The civil case is automatically turned over for mandatory arbitration IF the damages alleged do not exceed $50,000, AND the defendant isnt willing to agree to a summary judgment against him. (The
/her attorney are not seeking damages over a total of $50k).3. In 2011, arbiters overseeing suits were given the power to subpoena witnesses/ the production documents/evidence related to discovery, and to put confidential and privileged information under seal. (If Nurmi breaks confidentiality to defend himself, whatever he says can be sealed).
4. The process of arbitration is designed to minimize the time and costs of civil litigation involving lesser damages (under $50k). By a LOT.
***** Both parties are required to provide the arbiter a joint pre-hearing statement no later than 10 days before the scheduled hearing, to include witness and evidence lists.
******The post-discovery arbitration process involves a single hearing. Anyone who wants a transcript of the hearing must hire and pay for a reporter, as arbritraion hearings are NOT otherwise recorded. (Unless local media are interested enough to cover the cost, we'll never hear much about the hearing).
5. According to AZLawyer, the
wouldn't be allowed to attend/testify in person a civil case against brought by T's family (she'd give testimony via a video link),so I doubt very much she'd be allowed out for an arbitration hearing. My guess is that her attorney would simply enter a statement by the into evidence. 5. Awarding damages: both compensatory damages (all costs relating to bringing the civil suit) and punitive damages can be awarded if the defendant is found to have breached fiduc. duty. The total damages awarded may not exceed $50k (case isnt eligible for arbitration if the award sought exceeds that trigger amount).
So...if Nurmi fights back, it would involve a fairly quick, relatively inexpensive, likely low publicity process, during which he would not have to deal personally with the
.Should Nurmi fight back? Part Two.
First, a definition:
Fiduciary duty: an obligation to act in the best interest of another party.
When an attorney agrees to act for a client in a fiduciary relationship, the law forbids him from acting in any manner adverse or contrary to the interests of the client, or from acting for his own benefit; he must not obtain a personal benefit at the expense of his client.
(BTW: Keeping client confidentiality is part of an attorney’s fiduciary duty, and with very few exceptions, fiduciary duty to a client never ends).
---------------------------------------------
The civil complaint charges, again, simplified, and the judgment (penalties) requested:
Count One-Breach of Fiduciary Duties
1. Nurmi breached by “engaging in acts, omissions, concealments, and wrongful conduct.”
2. Nurmi breached with the specific intent to harm () for the purpose of personal financial gain and enhancing his own public image.
3. Because his actions were directly averse to the interests of, she’s entitled to damages based solely on the breach of fiduciary duties.
4. Punitive damages should be awarded because of his “shocking, self-serving, egregious conduct,” either intentional out of spite, or with a conscious disregard of risking significant harm to the.
5. Breaches are ongoing because of sales of book & marketing of same.
6. Judgment requested: Punitive and exemplary damages in an amount sufficient to punish Nurmi and ensure such conduct doesn’t happen in the future.
---------------------
Count 2: Unjust Enrichment
1. Breaches of fiduciary duty benefitted Nurmi financially. As’s agent (meaning, as her attorney he was acting on her behalf) he is liable for all money he received as a result of his breach of duties to her.
2. Judgement sought: all money he earned from book and media appearances.
-----------------------------------------------
It would be different if “all” he was accused of was of writing a book that he knew constituted a breach of his fiduciary duty to the. By definition, that’s exactly what he did, whether or not he really believed the had waived privilege by criticizing him in public interviews.
By law, it isn’t necessary for’s attorney to prove Nurmi intended to breach fiduciary duty, only that he in fact did so.
The book did not serve her interests, it served his own. That part isn’t complicated: the law says he’s not allowed that selfish indulgence, for whatever reason. Shame on him. So, he’s guilty, make it go away by agreeing to a summary judgment, whatever the amount in damages (can’t be over $50k).
BUT……..….the accusations about breach of duty don’t end there, and what else he is being accused of is far more serious, and IMO, worth defending against, whatever the cost.
First, a definition:
Fiduciary duty: an obligation to act in the best interest of another party.
When an attorney agrees to act for a client in a fiduciary relationship, the law forbids him from acting in any manner adverse or contrary to the interests of the client, or from acting for his own benefit; he must not obtain a personal benefit at the expense of his client.
(BTW: Keeping client confidentiality is part of an attorney’s fiduciary duty, and with very few exceptions, fiduciary duty to a client never ends).
---------------------------------------------
The civil complaint charges, again, simplified, and the judgment (penalties) requested:
Count One-Breach of Fiduciary Duties
1. Nurmi breached by “engaging in acts, omissions, concealments, and wrongful conduct.”
2. Nurmi breached with the specific intent to harm (
) for the purpose of personal financial gain and enhancing his own public image.3. Because his actions were directly averse to the interests of
, she’s entitled to damages based solely on the breach of fiduciary duties.4. Punitive damages should be awarded because of his “shocking, self-serving, egregious conduct,” either intentional out of spite, or with a conscious disregard of risking significant harm to the
.5. Breaches are ongoing because of sales of book & marketing of same.
6. Judgment requested: Punitive and exemplary damages in an amount sufficient to punish Nurmi and ensure such conduct doesn’t happen in the future.
---------------------
Count 2: Unjust Enrichment
1. Breaches of fiduciary duty benefitted Nurmi financially. As
’s agent (meaning, as her attorney he was acting on her behalf) he is liable for all money he received as a result of his breach of duties to her.2. Judgement sought: all money he earned from book and media appearances.
-----------------------------------------------
It would be different if “all” he was accused of was of writing a book that he knew constituted a breach of his fiduciary duty to the
. By definition, that’s exactly what he did, whether or not he really believed the had waived privilege by criticizing him in public interviews. By law, it isn’t necessary for
’s attorney to prove Nurmi intended to breach fiduciary duty, only that he in fact did so.The book did not serve her interests, it served his own. That part isn’t complicated: the law says he’s not allowed that selfish indulgence, for whatever reason. Shame on him. So, he’s guilty, make it go away by agreeing to a summary judgment, whatever the amount in damages (can’t be over $50k).
BUT……..….the accusations about breach of duty don’t end there, and what else he is being accused of is far more serious, and IMO, worth defending against, whatever the cost.
SHOULD NURMI FIGHT BACK, PART 3 (last part, mercifully, eh?)
BUT……..….the accusations about breach of duty don’t end there, and what else he is being accused of is far more serious, and IMO, worth defending against, whatever the cost.
Nurmi is also being accused of:
1. Choosing a defense strategy that was against his client’s wishes.
2. That he chose his strategy AND conducted trial not in the best interest of his client, but to further his own financial interests.
3. That he deliberately chose a strategy of trashing Travis, the victim, and of focusing so relentlessly on sex, not to further his client’s interests, but to further his own, despite (or even because of) the harm that defense did to his client and to the victim’s family.
4. That after the fact, after trial, he breached his fiduciary duty in multiple ways to blame his client so as to redeem his own reputation for putting on an unnecessary, undesired, vile, victim-blaming, “FAILED” defense strategy.
**Most if not all these allegations are either untrue, a distortion of truth, can’t be proven, or all of the above.
**None of these allegations are relevant to a straightforward case against Nurmi that in writing his book he acted in his own interests, not his client’s.
** None of these allegations are relevant to the key element of a civil case, that Nurmi’s breach of fiduciary duty caused actual & quantifiable damage to his client.
** Nurmi cannot be held liable in a civil case for strategic decisions he made for & during a criminal trial.
-------------------------------
I can think of only several reasons why these specific allegations are being made:
1. The’s attorney included them to maximize whatever potential punitive might be awarded (especially since the won’t be able to demonstrate any basis for actual damages).
2. The’s attorney included them in her civil suit to gain standing in the ’s COA appeal, and/or to put the allegations on the record for the to use in her inevitable petition for Post Conviction Relief.
---------------------------------
If Nurmi accepts a summary judgment, he knows he’ll be seen as either admitting that these accusations are true, or that he doesn’t think they are scurrilous/significant enough to warrant defending himself against.
Why should he admit to what isn’t true, especially when that admission would be to the benefit of the who is obviously bent on destroying him?
Kirk Nurmi says in his book that his sole consolation prize for all the hell the put him through was his unshakable and unrepentant belief that his defense strategy saved the ’s life. Both as a vehement opponent of the DP, and as a capital case defense attorney, Nurmi believes that saving the life of his client mattered, and that being able to do so was especially noteworthy given a self-destructive and uncooperative client.
I don’t think Nurmi is going to give up his consolation prize at all, much less willingly. Nor should he, IMO.
BUT……..….the accusations about breach of duty don’t end there, and what else he is being accused of is far more serious, and IMO, worth defending against, whatever the cost.
Nurmi is also being accused of:
1. Choosing a defense strategy that was against his client’s wishes.
2. That he chose his strategy AND conducted trial not in the best interest of his client, but to further his own financial interests.
3. That he deliberately chose a strategy of trashing Travis, the victim, and of focusing so relentlessly on sex, not to further his client’s interests, but to further his own, despite (or even because of) the harm that defense did to his client and to the victim’s family.
4. That after the fact, after trial, he breached his fiduciary duty in multiple ways to blame his client so as to redeem his own reputation for putting on an unnecessary, undesired, vile, victim-blaming, “FAILED” defense strategy.
**Most if not all these allegations are either untrue, a distortion of truth, can’t be proven, or all of the above.
**None of these allegations are relevant to a straightforward case against Nurmi that in writing his book he acted in his own interests, not his client’s.
** None of these allegations are relevant to the key element of a civil case, that Nurmi’s breach of fiduciary duty caused actual & quantifiable damage to his client.
** Nurmi cannot be held liable in a civil case for strategic decisions he made for & during a criminal trial.
-------------------------------
I can think of only several reasons why these specific allegations are being made:
1. The
’s attorney included them to maximize whatever potential punitive might be awarded (especially since the won’t be able to demonstrate any basis for actual damages).2. The
’s attorney included them in her civil suit to gain standing in the ’s COA appeal, and/or to put the allegations on the record for the to use in her inevitable petition for Post Conviction Relief.---------------------------------
If Nurmi accepts a summary judgment, he knows he’ll be seen as either admitting that these accusations are true, or that he doesn’t think they are scurrilous/significant enough to warrant defending himself against.
Why should he admit to what isn’t true, especially when that admission would be to the benefit of the
who is obviously bent on destroying him?Kirk Nurmi says in his book that his sole consolation prize for all the hell the
put him through was his unshakable and unrepentant belief that his defense strategy saved the ’s life. Both as a vehement opponent of the DP, and as a capital case defense attorney, Nurmi believes that saving the life of his client mattered, and that being able to do so was especially noteworthy given a self-destructive and uncooperative client. I don’t think Nurmi is going to give up his consolation prize at all, much less willingly. Nor should he, IMO.
BBM
Have I told you lately that I love you?
Can't wait to read the brief! I'm days and pages back, I hope nothing has happened between your post above and today to alter the deadline.
(((Sister Geevee))). Nope. last checked the COA docket yesterday, and (amazingly) opening briefs haven't been delayed.
I've looked for him too, and asked about him on another thread. No response. Hope he's OK. And, taking a very deep breath before asking ......where is Gigi? I noticed weeks ago that she hasn't posted in almost a year, but I've been afraid to hear the answer.
Glad you're here, and trust me, very little or nothing is considered OT here.
RickshawFan
Verified Outdoor Recreation Specialist
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2013
- Messages
- 11,289
- Reaction score
- 56,919
Okay, Hope4More, I take it that the bottom line is that could throw a summary judgment against Nurmi in the pot of support for her appeal. Per your Part 3.
You are concluding that $50k would technically take care of the civil suit, but it wouldn't take care of the implications. And the implications are what's most important to Nurms. It's an emotional satisfaction thing, and it preserves his wins against all the odds.
From what I recall, Nurmi was extremely proud of his wins in' case. Maybe this is the most important item to him.
As for the sex angle, there's no telling what might have been the outcome if it hadn't been included. Without it, Travis might have looked like a martyr. And she was the one so obsessed about the and wanted it included. How in heck could she lay sex at Nurm's door?
JSS is the judge who makes the decision about Post Conviction Relief, IIRC. No way, she's going to unravel her decision on the sex tapes.
And, are you saying punitive damages would be in addition to the $50k? I really can't think Nurms made very much. To him, it seemed like the emotional satisfaction of having endured such terrible hardship against his will, and to such a degree that he got cancer. And he tried so many times to get out of that case: no way she can realistically claim he was in it for fame and fortune when he kept trying to resign. Not to mention, he had 2 big wins that technically benefited her. All in all, I have a hard time seeing JA making her case in any way that would advantage her COS appeal. But whaddo I know?
could throw a summary judgment against Nurmi in the pot of support for her appeal. Per your Part 3.You are concluding that $50k would technically take care of the civil suit, but it wouldn't take care of the implications. And the implications are what's most important to Nurms. It's an emotional satisfaction thing, and it preserves his wins against all the odds.
From what I recall, Nurmi was extremely proud of his wins in
' case. Maybe this is the most important item to him.As for the sex angle, there's no telling what might have been the outcome if it hadn't been included. Without it, Travis might have looked like a martyr. And she was the one so obsessed about the
and wanted it included. How in heck could she lay sex at Nurm's door?JSS is the judge who makes the decision about Post Conviction Relief, IIRC. No way, she's going to unravel her decision on the sex tapes.
And, are you saying punitive damages would be in addition to the $50k? I really can't think Nurms made very much. To him, it seemed like the emotional satisfaction of having endured such terrible hardship against his will, and to such a degree that he got cancer. And he tried so many times to get out of that case: no way she can realistically claim he was in it for fame and fortune when he kept trying to resign. Not to mention, he had 2 big wins that technically benefited her. All in all, I have a hard time seeing JA making her case in any way that would advantage her COS appeal. But whaddo I know?
Okay, Hope4More, I take it that the bottom line is that
You are concluding that $50k would technically take care of the civil suit, but it wouldn't take care of the implications. And the implications are what's most important to Nurms. It's an emotional satisfaction thing, and it preserves his wins against all the odds.
From what I recall, Nurmi was extremely proud of his wins in
As for the sex angle, there's no telling what might have been the outcome if it hadn't been included. Without it, Travis might have looked like a martyr. And she was the one so obsessed about the
JSS is the judge who makes the decision about Post Conviction Relief, IIRC. No way, she's going to unravel her decision on the sex tapes.
And, are you saying punitive damages would be in addition to the $50k? I really can't think Nurms made very much. To him, it seemed like the emotional satisfaction of having endured such terrible hardship against his will, and to such a degree that he got cancer. And he tried so many times to get out of that case: no way she can realistically claim he was in it for fame and fortune when he kept trying to resign. Not to mention, he had 2 big wins that technically benefited her. All in all, I have a hard time seeing JA making her case in any way that would advantage her COS appeal. But whaddo I know?
Rickshaw- sorry for being unclear; perhaps my reply was just too dang wordy?
1. The MAXIMUM the
can be awarded in an arbitrated civil suit is $50k. That includes punitive damages.2. I agree, completely, that Nurmi believes saving the
's life--twice--was a heck of an achievement, and one that he will not willingly allow the to taint with this lawsuit against him. I think he'll fight it, and I think he should.3. Post Conviction Relief will be considered and denied/granted solely on one or both of 2 grounds:
**Ground #1. New evidence has been discovered post-trial that wasn't available at time of trial, AND that is so significant, had it been introduced at trial the jury likely would have reached a different verdict.
Ground # 2: ineffective counsel (the burden of proof on the
for this ground is even more insurmountable than for Ground 1).JSS won't be reviewing ANY of her own rulings during a PCR. Reviewing the rightfulness & legality of her rulings is precisely what the Court of Appeals will (soon
) be doing on the 's direct appeal. As for the connection between the civil case against Nurmi & the
's criminal appeal to the COA? That question driven me nuts for months, ever since Clark's name suddenly appeared on the
's COA docket. There has to be a legal connection, but what it can be is pretty baffling, since her appeal to the COA is based solely on her criminal trial record.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 92,320
- Reaction score
- 314,514
Hope4More said:
Unfortunately, your worst fears are real....
WS's GigiG passed away:
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/s...-passed-away&p=13412092&posted=1#post13412092
:tears:
Hope4More said:snipped by me....
1. The MAXIMUM the
And IF and it's a BIG IF - wouldn't part of that $$ go to the Alexander Family??
and a BIG :tyou: on your explanation of ALL this!!
(((Niner))). What horrible news about Gigi! I'm so sorry for your loss. I know how close you & all the SB'ers have been for so long. It still must feel like there's a hole there without her.
--------
About what happens if the civil case goes to arbitration, and Nurmi loses, and a financial award beyond court costs are awarded, AND the arbiter decides the award should go to the
(lots of IF's). I'm pretty sure the Alexanders would be given the same percentage (20%, IIRC) as they are automatically entitled to from any source of funds "earned" by or given to the
. (Until the $30k or whatever it was total is reached).Less than 3 weeks until the 's are to file their COA opening brief. With any luck it won't be sealed, and the mystery of Clark's role in that appeal is answered. Hopefully.
I've been doing a lot of reading on case & constitutional law relating to ineffective counsel, defendants' rights as to counsel & choosing trial strategy, and precedents for the legal/appellate implications if attorney & client disagree on trial strategy or simply very much can't get along.
My best guess now as to how Clark's civil case and the's COA appeal may intersect:
's attys may argue that JSS erred in allowing Nurmi to remain as counsel. Nurmi tried no fewer than 5 times to be released. The tried to have Nurmi removed at least 3 times.
A few months before PP2, the tried for that 3rd time, advising JSS that she & Nurmi had fundamental differences in what trial strategy to use for the retrial. JSS denied the 's motion. The went pro per, against JSS's explicit (on the record) advise.
Nurmi tried to withdraw for the final time after the went pro per, saying that his " ethical duty" to remain as counsel was diminished by his client's decision to represent herself. JSS denied his motion to be set free.
In between, the "offered" (in true goddess style) to relinquish her pro per status if Nurmi was allowed off/forced out. JSS denied her offer.
After the 2nd mistrial, and after the show was completely over save for that infamous sentencing hearing, the DT entered a single extra document into the trial record, sealed, of course.
The document appears to have been a statement by the of what she would have said to JSS in an ex-parte meeting with JSS she requested but wasn't granted.
The statement was definitely related to her demand that Nurmi be "fired." Her reasons were that Nurmi was neither loyal to her or effective; that he allegedly mistreated her in numerous ways; and that his mistreatment had affected her ability to prepare for trial & her testimony itself (the ex parte mtg was requested in her 12 page motion to fire Nurmi).
Regardless of the legal merits of an argument that JSS erred in not releasing Nurmi,'s attorneys are entitled to make it a grounds of appeal, as every "request" by Nurmi & the to part ways was filed as a motion, and is part of the trial record.
Clark's central argument in the civil case is effectively that Nurmi absolutely should have been released, for multiple reasons, but primarily because he never intended and did not in fact place his client's interests first.
So maybe that is where the 2 cases will connect?
's are to file their COA opening brief. With any luck it won't be sealed, and the mystery of Clark's role in that appeal is answered. Hopefully.I've been doing a lot of reading on case & constitutional law relating to ineffective counsel, defendants' rights as to counsel & choosing trial strategy, and precedents for the legal/appellate implications if attorney & client disagree on trial strategy or simply very much can't get along.
My best guess now as to how Clark's civil case and the
's COA appeal may intersect:'s attys may argue that JSS erred in allowing Nurmi to remain as counsel. Nurmi tried no fewer than 5 times to be released. The tried to have Nurmi removed at least 3 times.A few months before PP2, the
tried for that 3rd time, advising JSS that she & Nurmi had fundamental differences in what trial strategy to use for the retrial. JSS denied the 's motion. The went pro per, against JSS's explicit (on the record) advise. Nurmi tried to withdraw for the final time after the
went pro per, saying that his " ethical duty" to remain as counsel was diminished by his client's decision to represent herself. JSS denied his motion to be set free.In between, the
"offered" (in true goddess style) to relinquish her pro per status if Nurmi was allowed off/forced out. JSS denied her offer.After the 2nd mistrial, and after the show was completely over save for that infamous sentencing hearing, the DT entered a single extra document into the trial record, sealed, of course.
The document appears to have been a statement by the
of what she would have said to JSS in an ex-parte meeting with JSS she requested but wasn't granted. The statement was definitely related to her demand that Nurmi be "fired." Her reasons were that Nurmi was neither loyal to her or effective; that he allegedly mistreated her in numerous ways; and that his mistreatment had affected her ability to prepare for trial & her testimony itself (the ex parte mtg was requested in her 12 page motion to fire Nurmi).
Regardless of the legal merits of an argument that JSS erred in not releasing Nurmi,
's attorneys are entitled to make it a grounds of appeal, as every "request" by Nurmi & the to part ways was filed as a motion, and is part of the trial record.Clark's central argument in the civil case is effectively that Nurmi absolutely should have been released, for multiple reasons, but primarily because he never intended and did not in fact place his client's interests first.
So maybe that is where the 2 cases will connect?
Hatfield
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 3, 2012
- Messages
- 17,014
- Reaction score
- 59,143
Less than 3 weeks until the
I've been doing a lot of reading on case & constitutional law relating to ineffective counsel, defendants' rights as to counsel & choosing trial strategy, and precedents for the legal/appellate implications if attorney & client disagree on trial strategy or simply very much can't get along.
My best guess now as to how Clark's civil case and the
A few months before PP2, the
Nurmi tried to withdraw for the final time after the
In between, the
After the 2nd mistrial, and after the show was completely over save for that infamous sentencing hearing, the DT entered a single extra document into the trial record, sealed, of course.
The document appears to have been a statement by the
The statement was definitely related to her demand that Nurmi be "fired." Her reasons were that Nurmi was neither loyal to her or effective; that he allegedly mistreated her in numerous ways; and that his mistreatment had affected her ability to prepare for trial & her testimony itself (the ex parte mtg was requested in her 12 page motion to fire Nurmi).
Regardless of the legal merits of an argument that JSS erred in not releasing Nurmi,
Clark's central argument in the civil case is effectively that Nurmi absolutely should have been released, for multiple reasons, but primarily because he never intended and did not in fact place his client's interests first.
So maybe that is where the 2 cases will connect?
As devious as the
is I do think you have it right. I think she has an ulterior motive to try to get something on record with all this lawsuit rigamaroo that will help her criminal case appeals if she has any appeal attacks left with either sentencing or original trial.
I bet she is working hard to get him to admit something in writing or during the proceedings that she can then turn around and use to help appeal her criminal case or the sentencing part.
That is probably her primary focus and the added benefit she gets if she wins any money is to share it with her new lawyer friends and get to jump up and down in her cell and throw a few bills in the air.
She probably thinks she has a million people waiting to celebrate with her if she wins anything.
I recently watched a TV special about her case and it brought back horrible memories of the trial proceedings and the few characters that came out of the woodwork to support her. LOL
Like the one who attended the trial and sat in the courtroom and thought he was in love with her. Or the one who made a song for her. LOL
Im not sure of her following now but I suspect it has diminished from the few lost souls that were on her side.
Does anyone remember the date (if it was ever known) when Auntie Sue "found" the Helio & (same day? ) turned it over to Nurmi?
The Helio was turned over to LE for forensic examination on June 30, 2010 (according to trial testimony), but am trying to figure out the earliest date Nurmi had it in his possession (not sure if he could or would have tried to access the sex tape on it before turning it over to LE).
This has to do with with the whens & why's of their differing stories about choice of defense.
The Helio was turned over to LE for forensic examination on June 30, 2010 (according to trial testimony), but am trying to figure out the earliest date Nurmi had it in his possession (not sure if he could or would have tried to access the sex tape on it before turning it over to LE).
This has to do with with the whens & why's of their differing stories about choice of defense.
Colie
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2014
- Messages
- 243
- Reaction score
- 199
IIRC the tape was submitted right before trial in December 2012. Juan said he never was in possession of the helio with the tape. I believe the one from 2010 was the one from her arrest.
There was a time when Nurmi wanted off the case (to devote his time to his practice outside of PD work) and Arias did not want him released. She wrote a very lengthy diatribe to the judge stating why she wanted him to continue to represent her. I believe her mother was also involved in trying to keep him on. I do not recall the dates that occurred but it was before the criminal trial.
IIRC, Arias changed her tune on that subject when she was in a snit because Nurmi refused to devote his every waking moment to her and her demands. She then went into the "I do not want him representing me" phase which continued for the duration.
One does not refuse Jodi Arias, neither attorney of his time nor Judge regarding her requests.
IIRC, Arias changed her tune on that subject when she was in a snit because Nurmi refused to devote his every waking moment to her and her demands. She then went into the "I do not want him representing me" phase which continued for the duration.
One does not refuse Jodi Arias, neither attorney of his time nor Judge regarding her requests.
Colie
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2014
- Messages
- 243
- Reaction score
- 199
Here is the minutes from the hearing on admitting the sex tape.
http://archive.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/0607arias-sex-tape-proceeding.pdf
http://archive.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/0607arias-sex-tape-proceeding.pdf
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
Staff online
-
FraizeAdministrator
Online statistics
- Members online
- 221
- Guests online
- 475
- Total visitors
- 696