North Carolina civil jury decides against Greg

[eduardo89]

North Carolina civil jury decides against US Senate hopeful
hxxp://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/politics&id=9436671


RALEIGH -- U.S. Senate candidate Greg Brannon gave false or misleading statements to two people as he tried to get them to invest in a now-defunct technology company, meaning he's now liable for more than $250,000, a jury concluded on Tuesday.

Jurors deliberated over two days in the civil trial before reaching their decisions in Wake County Superior Court to single out Brannon, previously a director in Neogence Enterprises. The jury absolved ex-CEO Robert Rice of wrongdoing related to similar questions it also was asked to consider about Brannon.

Brannon, a Cary obstetrician, said he plans to appeal, but the result is unlikely to change before May, when voters choose a Republican expected to challenge Democratic incumbent Kay Hagan in the fall. Brannon is one of at least six GOP hopefuls.

[Brett85]

This is really bad. Unfortunately, it's hard to see how he survives this.

[TaftFan]

He'll appeal.

[jjdoyle]

He'll appeal.

Yeah, but he has to deal with the issue until the appeal is the problem. As someone that has SAT on a jury, and knows how many of them think in regards to evidence presented, unless Brannon had a witness or witnesses testify on his behalf, he should have taken the stand.

[AuH20]

Was this a hitjob?

[Bergie Bergeron]

Has there been any major coverage of this?

[jurgs01]

This is really bad. Unfortunately, it's hard to see how he survives this.

It's a civil suit. I'm sure he will be fine. It will only be used in attack ads should he become a real contender, which means his message is getting out (and probably people who hear his message aren't going to be swayed by a civil suit).

[Brian4Liberty]

This is really bad. Unfortunately, it's hard to see how he survives this.

Falling for this nonsense?


Was this a hitjob?

Of course it is.

Who filed this lawsuit in the first place? Rumors are that it's a political ally of Tillis. How about the timing? All very convenient. Could be coincidence, but who knows?

How about the coverage by the media? Who says this is a big deal? The media decides what is "important" and what gets reported.

How about the merits of the case? Somebody lost money on an investment. So no one loses in the business world anymore? Gee, only when it is a political candidate who is being blamed. I want money back from all of my investment losses. The CEOs of S&P 500 companies are constantly talking about future plans that go awry. They should pay me back for any losses.

Hell, the CEO in this Brannon case was found innocent! And supposedly it was the main sales partner who was talking about a Verizon deal. Brannon forwarded that information. Why is the Sales Partner not part of this? Forwarding a message makes a person the only person "responsible" for a business loss or failure?


The pattern is obvious. How many petty, tempest in a teapot "scandals" break out in political races, especially when it is an establishment candidate against a Tea Party candidate? At this point, we have mini-scandals involving Bevin, Stockman and Brannon. It's mostly dirty campaigning on the part of the establishment candidates. They research, they nudge, they create anything they can. Unpaid parking ticket? They can make that into a scandal. They may even get the help of the local Court system to make something up. The establishment and their media can smear anyone.

Five felonies a day. That can make anyone they want into a criminal.

[Brian4Liberty]

Yeah, but he has to deal with the issue until the appeal is the problem. As someone that has SAT on a jury, and knows how many of them think in regards to evidence presented, unless Brannon had a witness or witnesses testify on his behalf, he should have taken the stand.

No doubt some on the Jury think that this is a way to take down a "big wig". And who knows how many on the Jury are Democrats or establishment Republicans?

[Brett85]

Falling for this nonsense?

It just seems like it will be really bad if the appeals process is still going on when/if Brannon is running in a general election campaign against Hagan.

[TaftFan]

It just seems like it will be really bad if the appeals process is still going on when/if Brannon is running in a general election campaign against Hagan.

The Koch Brothers have decided to spend whatever it takes to get rid of Hagan. So that will help.

I might contact James O'Keefe and ask him to investigate Hagan's campaign for law breaking. He just exposed Battleground Texas as the next ACORN.

[eduardo89]

The Koch Brothers have decided to spend whatever it takes to get rid of Hagan. So that will help.

What PACs of theirs are involved and who are they currently supporting? Or are they just attacking Hagan?

[TaftFan]

What PACs of theirs are involved and who are they currently supporting? Or are they just attacking Hagan?

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/koch-brothers-kay-hagan-103406.html

[RandallFan]

It is possible to get a low information juror who hates a. Tea Party, b. All politicians, c. Pro-life Doctors , d. Republicans, etc.

It seems like they are all under a cloud in North Carolina.

Governor Pat McCrory worked for decades for Duke Energy and they had the coal ash spill.
Patriotic Democrat Heath Shuler left congress and worked for Duke Energy as a government liason lobbyist.
Tillis has some issue regarding payments to a staffer.

A homosexual Democrat is running against an open borders ex-Tea Party now-RINO open-borders Republican Ellmers.

The first primary is in May right? If Tillis is under 40% it goes to runoff? Brannon may have a better outlook on the case by the runoff?

The Ellmers and Tillis's could lose a race if enough Republicans want to punish them for pro-amnesty views and actions.

[jjdoyle]

No doubt some on the Jury think that this is a way to take down a "big wig". And who knows how many on the Jury are Democrats or establishment Republicans?

Oh, exactly. And, sometimes all it takes is for the defendant to get up and say, "No, it's not true. The information I gave was information I had been given."

That's it. It's enough to have his word, against their words for some. And had he gotten just one juror on his side, it could have ended in mistrial. Some people on the jury want to hear you say, "I didn't do it." If they can hear that, it helps them with the "not guilty" part, even if there is more evidence against you.

Sure, lawyers might not like it, because then they can't draw out the appeals process. And while we can hope that most Americans understand the 5th Amendment, assuming that is horribly the wrong way to go. Someone like Greg I would imagine should be able to look at the scope/size of the federal government, and understand that most Americans don't read, much less comprehend/understand. It doesn't matter if "not testifying" doesn't assume guilt, that's not the way the human minds of many have been conditioned these days.

They are of the, "If you don't have anything to hide, why not just say it." Kind of like the people that might say/think, "I ain't nothing to hide, the NSA can listen to me all day long."

I actually thought he was taking the stand, since he said last week, or maybe 2 weeks ago he was ready for his day in court...
Kind of interesting, seeing two liberty minded candidates from NC both have faced civil lawsuits from business matters.

[Spikender]

Of course they have both faced civil suits. Gotta destroy anybody who threatens the status quo. This particular case just seems so silly to me.

[cbc58]

This is really bad. Unfortunately, it's hard to see how he survives this.

being realistic - have to agree.

[johndeal]

being realistic - have to agree.

I'm not so sure the verdict is a big deal. More important to me is how female voters will respond to the allegation Brannon was talking up his business while the guy's wife was in the exam room. I'm not sure what the focus groups will say about how to spin it but that could be brutal.

[ctiger2]

I'm sure there was no political agenda with this garbage ruling.... RIIIIGHT

[Brian4Liberty]

being realistic - have to agree.

Being realistic about what? The mainstream media spin and smear machine?

And then we have the chosen GOP front runner for President, he's as clean as a whistle. :rolleyes: Bet we won't see any of these many scandals and crimes reported...

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1992/09/bush-family-value

[cbc58]

Being realistic about what? The mainstream media spin and smear machine?

And then we have the chosen GOP front runner for President, he's as clean as a whistle. :rolleyes: Bet we won't see any of these many scandals and crimes reported...

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1992/09/bush-family-value

You are kidding yourself if you don't think this is a big problem come election time. Most voters base their decisions on two things: 1.) how their pocketbook is effected, and 2.) what the media spin machines tell them. They spend less than 5 minutes researching candidates - sad but true. The opposition will spin this hard and he screwed up. Just being realistic. Even with that said - I live in this district and will vote for anyone but Hagan.

[pulp8721]

I'm not so sure the verdict is a big deal. More important to me is how female voters will respond to the allegation Brannon was talking up his business while the guy's wife was in the exam room. I'm not sure what the focus groups will say about how to spin it but that could be brutal.

Where's that coming from?

[johndeal]

Where's that coming from?
It's in all the articles about the case. One plaintiff was a med school buddy and the other is allegedly the husband of a patient. The husband says Brannon talked to him about the business during the wife's checkups.

It puts Greg in a tough position. He can't even confirm or deny if the wife is a patient because of HIPAA privacy laws.

If i were him that's exactly what I'd say if anyone brought it up - "How dare you ask me to break the confidence of one of my patients. First you try to destroy the doctor patient relationship with Obamacare and now you want me to break the oath I give my patients to keep their information private. You should be ashamed of yourself Ms Hagan. How dare you claim to represent the people of North Carolina?"

That's the only response I see working if it comes up.

[johndeal]

Here's my last post on this. It's an interview with Brannon's partner who was acquitted. The more I think on this the more I think Brannon can spin this as Tillis and Hagan not understanding the risks small businessmen have to take.

http://www.wwnc.com/onair/pete-kaliner-46655/brannon-codefendant-ruling-defies-logic-12094947/

[jjdoyle]

Here's my last post on this. It's an interview with Brannon's partner who was acquitted. The more I think on this the more I think Brannon can spin this as Tillis and Hagan not understanding the risks small businessmen have to take.

http://www.wwnc.com/onair/pete-kaliner-46655/brannon-codefendant-ruling-defies-logic-12094947/

"The jury also seemed to be confused during deliberations about whether they should view Brannon's refusal to testify as admission of guilt.
Rice testified. He was found not liable. Had Brannon done the same he may very well have gotten the same ruling.



Read more: http://www.wwnc.com/onair/pete-kaliner-46655/brannon-codefendant-ruling-defies-logic-12094947/#ixzz2uIsgu0PA"

The most pertinent part I found in the piece, quoted above. Greg should have testified. Assuming the jury is actually informed, knowledgeable, and capable of thinking outside of how they have been programmed, was a mistake in my opinion. A huge mistake.

[phill4paul]

"The jury also seemed to be confused during deliberations about whether they should view Brannon's refusal to testify as admission of guilt.
Rice testified. He was found not liable. Had Brannon done the same he may very well have gotten the same ruling.



Read more: http://www.wwnc.com/onair/pete-kaliner-46655/brannon-codefendant-ruling-defies-logic-12094947/#ixzz2uIsgu0PA"

The most pertinent part I found in the piece, quoted above. Greg should have testified. Assuming the jury is actually informed, knowledgeable, and capable of thinking outside of how they have been programmed, was a mistake in my opinion. A huge mistake.


If you are innocent you stand and say why you are innocent. I would. Why would one not?

[Brian4Liberty]

The most pertinent part I found in the piece, quoted above. Greg should have testified. Assuming the jury is actually informed, knowledgeable, and capable of thinking outside of how they have been programmed, was a mistake in my opinion. A huge mistake.


It appears that would not be a safe assumption when it comes to juries.

[jjdoyle]

If you are innocent you stand and say why you are innocent. I would. Why would one not?

I have no clue. None. And I understand the 5th Amendment, and that not testifying doesn't mean guilty.


It appears that would not be a safe assumption when it comes to juries.

It is 100% not safe to assume. The average juror, is your average Republican and Democrat voter. How have they been programmed by the media? Guilty, until proven innocent. It's the way the media reports everything. "If you don't have anything to hide, just say so."

And honestly, having served on a jury, it's how some think. And it only takes one to say innocent. The problem here IMO, was he didn't testify. Have no clue why, other than horrible legal advice to draw out an expensive appeals process; but it's absolutely bizarre to me. Especially considering what an "innocent", or not liable verdict could have done.