 |
| WILLIAM WAGENER WE THE PEOPLE |
X1:
William is very interesting therefore he's made it to my blog. The only way you can possibly make it here is if I've taken some sort of vested interest into some statements you've made. William fights against a multitude of injustices as we all do. William speaks to many members of the fanbase and he is a self proclaimed non-MJ Supporter or Fan. This gives him an edge to me because he is able to look at things from a totally unique perspective--the outside looking in.
Because of his status I often find myself looking to people like him for an independent and objective point of view. There are many people which agree and disagree with various aspects of what has occurred over the past two years and prior to that. Moreover, I choose to dip into an untapped pool of resource and venture out into different realms to find many different takes on the same issues. I am open minded and if what you have to say should have one speck of validity to it I will listen. It doesn't matter who you are or what team you play on all of the aforementioned is irrelevant to me on a personal level.
I have nothing personal against William. My agenda doesn't regard
the deconstruction of principles which he should stand for. However, I
have some questions regarding several statements he's made in one of
his videos. This in no way is to be taken as a form of "going on the defensive" for Conrad Murray. I indeed need to address topics on him regarding the very statements William has made to properly present my argument. Presented below is the video in question which I am directing this commentary to and seeking clarification regarding its content:
X1 Argument #1
"Robert Earl Carter"
- In so many words what William has stated here is very suggestive. If in fact Conrad Murray had taken on a name change prior to taking the position as the personal physician of Michael Jackson regarding the use of the moniker "Conrad Robert Murray" vs. "Robert Earl Carter" he was perfectly in his legal rights to do so. The argument isn't regarding if his intentions were sinister.
I tend to disagree with William here. It is perfectly legal for a person to establish a legal name change under United States Law. You are allowed to change your name and go by any name which you should so choose. This is a right which is afforded to every U.S. citizen as it is a basic human right to be referenced as you wish. Even if Conrad Murray did in fact change his name he had a right to do so with out any speculative insinuations providing this was done under the whole of the law. The fact remains that utilizing the name "Barak Hussein Obama" is an exaggerated reference to plant or attempt to establish a point. I highly doubt if the authorities would even approve this sort of name change because of the ramifications regarding presidential office. Although, I can be mistaken; however, there are provisional aspects with respect to name changes as well. For instance if he chooses to change his name to "Murderer Murray" after his conviction and it was deemed as acceptable under the whole of the law--this too is his right. For Nevada State Law concerning legal name changes please see the PDF documentation below:
X1:
Here is some additional information regarding legal name change in the United States. This is a perfectly legal action regardless to what state you reside in to the best of my knowledge. Furthermore, it doesn't matter if "Conrad Robert Murray" is/was a physician or not as this legal name change ability applies to all U.S. Citizens this is a democracy. Please review the following information below:
Here is some additional information regarding legal name change in the United States. This is a perfectly legal action regardless to what state you reside in to the best of my knowledge. Furthermore, it doesn't matter if "Conrad Robert Murray" is/was a physician or not as this legal name change ability applies to all U.S. Citizens this is a democracy. Please review the following information below:
_______________________
United States
- State laws regulate name changes in the United States. Several specific federal court rulings have set precedents regarding both court decreed name changes and common law name changes (changing the name at will). A person may be employed, do business, enter into contracts, sue and be sued under any name they choose at will. Such a change carries exactly the same legal weight as a court-decreed name change, as long as it is not done with fraudulent intent. Usually a person can adopt any name desired for any reason. As of 2009, 46 states allow a person legally to change names by usage alone, with no paperwork, but a court order may be required for many institutions (such as banks or government institutions) to officially accept the change.Some states allow transgendered persons to change names either before or after sex reassignment surgery. Although the states (except part of Louisiana) follow common law, there are differences in acceptable requirements; usually a court order is the most efficient way to change names (which would be applied for in a state court), except at marriage, which has become a universally accepted reason for a name change. It is necessary to plead that the name change is not for a fraudulent or other illegal purpose, such as evading a lien or debt or for defaming someone else. The applicant may be required to give a reasonable explanation for wanting to change their name. A fee is generally payable, and the applicant may be required to post legal notices in newspapers to announce the name change. Generally the judge has limited judicial discretion to grant or deny a change of name, usually only if the name change is for frivolous or immoral purposes, such as changing the name to God, Superman, Copyright, Delicious, or Pussycat. In 2004, a Missouri man succeeded in changing his name to They. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that a name change to 1069 could be denied, but that Ten Sixty-Nine was acceptable (Application of Dengler, 1979); the North Dakota Supreme Court had denied the same request several years before (Petition of Dengler, 1976). In nearly all states, a person cannot choose a name that is intended to mislead (such as adopting a celebrity's name), that is intentionally confusing, or that incites violence; nor can one adopt, as a name, a racial slur, a threat, or an obscenity. Under the federal immigration-and-nationality law, when aliens apply for naturalization, they have the option of asking for their names to be changed upon the grants of citizenship with no additional fees. This allows them the opportunity to adopt more Americanized names. In the 2005 version of Form N-400, Application for Naturalization, Part 1 (D) asks whether persons applying for naturalization would like to change their names. During the naturalization interview, a petition for a name change is prepared to be forwarded to a federal court. The applicant certifies that he or she is not seeking a change of name for any unlawful purpose such as the avoidance of debt or evasion of law enforcement. Such a name change becomes final once a federal court naturalizes an applicant. In some states, individuals are allowed to return to the use of any prior surnames (e.g., maiden names upon divorce). Some states, such as New York, allow married couples to adopt a new surname upon marriage, which may be a hyphenated form of the bride's and groom's names, a combination of parts of their family names, or any new family name they can agree upon adopting as the married name. To maintain a person's identity, it is desirable to obtain a formal order so there is continuity of personal records.
Informal Methods of Legal Name Change
Assumed Name:
- "The "open and notorious" use of a name is often sufficient to allow one to use an assumed name. In some jurisdictions, individuals may register trade names that are distinct from their legal names and are registered with their county clerks, secretaries of state, or other similar government authorities. Individuals who wish to publish materials and not have the publications associated with them may publish under pseudonyms; such a right is protected in the United States of America under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution."
Usage Method:
- "A common law name (i.e. one assumed for a non-fraudulent purpose) is a legal name. In most states a statutory method, while quick and definitive, only supplements the common law method, unless the statute makes itself exclusive. Note that although a person may sue under a common law name, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) have a higher standard and must use the "real" information, allowing the case to be dismissed. In California the "usage method" (changing the name at will under common law) is sufficient to change the name. Not all jurisdictions require that the new name be used exclusively. Any fraudulent use or intent, such as changing the name to the same name as another person's name, may invalidate this type of name change. Specifically in California, Code of Civil Procedure § 1279.5 and Family Code § 2082 regulate common law and court decreed name changes. Code of Civil Procedure § 1279.5 (a) reads, "Except as provided in subdivision (b), (c), (d), or (e), nothing in this title shall be construed to abrogate the common law right of any person to change his or her name." Subdivisions b through e preclude one from changing their name by common law if they are in state prison, on probation, on parole, or been a convicted sex offender. If a person is not in any of these categories, then a common law name change is allowed. Family Code § 2082 also specifically states, "Nothing in this code shall be construed to abrogate the common law right of any person to change one's name."
Official Registration:
- "A legal name change is merely the first step in the name-change process. A person must officially register the new name with the appropriate authorities whether the change was made as a result of a court order, marriage, divorce, adoption, or any of the other methods described above. The process includes notifying various government agencies, each of which may require legal proof of the name change and that may or may not charge a fee. Important government agencies to be notified include the Social Security Administration, Bureau of Consular Affairs (for passports), the United States Postal Service, and the Department of Motor Vehicles (for a new driver's license or state identification card). Additionally the new name must be registered with other institutions such as employers, banks, doctors, mortgage, insurance and credit card companies. Online services are available to assist in this process either through direct legal assistance or automated form processing. Although state requirements differ, it is generally recommended to first register a new name with the Social Security office as some state motor-vehicle departments require updated social security cards to make changes; Arizona is one of these states. Most states require name changes to be registered with their departments of motor vehicles (DMVs) within a certain amount of time. For example, South Carolina,and Wyoming require a name change be registered with their office within ten days. Illinois and Texas require it be registered within 30 days, while North Carolina allows up to 60 days. New York State requires visiting a local motor vehicle office to change the name on all records and documents, but without a definite deadline to do so. The fees for registering a new name vary from state to state. The forms, along with the state-specific requirements, can generally be obtained for free. Many states will require reasons for wanting a name change. For example, in Florida, a court will not grant a petition for a change of name if it finds that (i) the petitioner has ulterior or illegal motives in seeking the name change, (ii) the petitioner's civil rights are suspended, or (iii) granting the name change will invade the property rights (e.g., intellectual property rights) of others."
_______________________
X1 Argument #2:
"We are prosecuting him under a name he did not use most of his life."
2. I would like to add that the court system will try a person on an alias and include the real name of the person once that determination is made. The name can also be A.K.A. and be perfectly legal! In fact if you reference Murray by either of those names anyone which has studied him long enough is aware that the individual in fact being referenced is "Conrad Robert Murray". Besides it is in court records that the defendant stated his name was true as charged. This is just for good measure as we can establish from Argument #1 that this wouldn't be an issue. However, please see page one of the PDF documentation below:
Defendant States His Name is True as Charged
_______________________
Expert: RunTam38 CA Lawyer replied 1159 days ago:
- "If you are doing business under your legal name, that is the name which should be used in suing you. However, the use in the complaint of the alias which you use for convenience does not invalidate the complaint or the proceedings. The complaint can be amended at any time to show the correct name (or more commonly, to show both names, such as "Jane Doe aka XXXXX XXXXX"). This can be done by oral motion in the court by either party and the judge will simply write in the additional name on the complaint. Even if this is not done, any decision in the case would still be valid. Adding the date of birth is not a requirement. If the correct date was added, then there is no problem in doing so. If the birth date on the complaint is wrong, that can also be fixed by way of a motion to correct the date. This motion can also be made orally by either party and the court can interlineate the correct date. This is a ministerial error which also has no bearing on the validity of any decision in the case."
What is an alias search?
- "An alias search uses an assumed name as the search criteria. An alias search provides the ability to perform a party search by any alias names on file. The alias search will only return alias names on file with the Clerk. When the alias search box is checked, the names returned by the search are aliases, and information matching the party's "real" name."
http://www.browardclerk.org/bccoc2/faqpublicsearch.aspx
_______________________
X1:
As a prime example here is a document filed by Thomas Mesereau during the 2005 trial for Michael notice that it is filed under the name Michael "Joe" Jackson. However, that didn't dissolve the charges which which were brought against Michael. An alias or pseudonym is not a dissolution or a technicality here in the U.S., only an NOT GUILTY verdict is. *MICHAEL got that:D* Nevertheless, if Michael was convicted Michael "Joe" Jackson, Michael "Joseph" Jackson, or just plain ole Michael Jackson would have gone to prison with a guilty verdict delivered via his peers in a open court of law. Thank goodness this was not the case:) The jury saw through all of the lies.
Motion to Seal Regarding 2005 Trial
*A Felony Complaint which is drafted to include the charges is not done by the defendant in that case. This holds true and is applicable in either the recent case of Conrad Robert Murray or the case of Michael "Joe" Jackson in 2005. The complaint is drafted by the authorities. They are solely responsible for both obtaining and processing this information.
_______________________ As a prime example here is a document filed by Thomas Mesereau during the 2005 trial for Michael notice that it is filed under the name Michael "Joe" Jackson. However, that didn't dissolve the charges which which were brought against Michael. An alias or pseudonym is not a dissolution or a technicality here in the U.S., only an NOT GUILTY verdict is. *MICHAEL got that:D* Nevertheless, if Michael was convicted Michael "Joe" Jackson, Michael "Joseph" Jackson, or just plain ole Michael Jackson would have gone to prison with a guilty verdict delivered via his peers in a open court of law. Thank goodness this was not the case:) The jury saw through all of the lies.
Motion to Seal Regarding 2005 Trial
*A Felony Complaint which is drafted to include the charges is not done by the defendant in that case. This holds true and is applicable in either the recent case of Conrad Robert Murray or the case of Michael "Joe" Jackson in 2005. The complaint is drafted by the authorities. They are solely responsible for both obtaining and processing this information.
X1 Argument #3
"Secondly we have that time, last week, where defense Attorney Flanagan says, "Isn't he a doctor?".
-William Wagener
3. An astonishing revelation indeed Mr. Wagener! I would however beg to differ with regard to the validity of that statement. The testimony of a witness is to be sorted through via a jury during deliberations for the separation of fact from fiction. This is indeed done at the discretion of the jury! It would need to be verified or clarified as to where the witness actually acquired this tidbit of information regarding the credentials of "Conrad Robert Murray" before we could actually take that as a fact.
Do we know if that witness did a records search on any medical board of the respective states where "Conrad Murray" practiced medicine? Providing this indeed isn't the case this at best is an assumption or an insinuation which doesn't stand as confirmation of a fact! This also could have been regarding a specific sort of training or certification in which the prosecution "David Walgren" specifically based his objection upon!
You've also stated that it was not entered on the record in court that "Conrad Robert Murray" was in fact a doctor? I apologize however this is extremely misleading and a misrepresentation of the court record. This is also another case of redundant misinformation. Please see the PDF document which follows this paragraph as it will clarify that there is in fact evidence which has been entered into the court record for The People v. Conrad Robert Murray.
Conrad Murray Medical License Restriction On Order
Do we know if that witness did a records search on any medical board of the respective states where "Conrad Murray" practiced medicine? Providing this indeed isn't the case this at best is an assumption or an insinuation which doesn't stand as confirmation of a fact! This also could have been regarding a specific sort of training or certification in which the prosecution "David Walgren" specifically based his objection upon!
You've also stated that it was not entered on the record in court that "Conrad Robert Murray" was in fact a doctor? I apologize however this is extremely misleading and a misrepresentation of the court record. This is also another case of redundant misinformation. Please see the PDF document which follows this paragraph as it will clarify that there is in fact evidence which has been entered into the court record for The People v. Conrad Robert Murray.
Conrad Murray Medical License Restriction On Order
California Medical Board Conrad Murray Surgeon License
Just for extremely good measure there are the other states which "Conrad Robert Murray" was/is licensed to practice medicine in and here are the records for those states as well respectively listed in PDF format below:
Conrad Murray Texas Medical License
Conrad Murray Nevada Medical License
Video Supportive Evidence:
Ruby Mosley
Ruby Mosley
- "The City of Houston will recognize Ruby Lee Sanders Mosley for her commitment and service to the Acres Homes community by renaming the Acres Homes MSC Auditorium in her honor. This celebratory recognition will take place in the Auditorium of the Acres Homes Multi-Service Center on Feb. 5 at 11 am. Mosley was born in Mexia, TX, on April 25, 1929 to Willie and Rosie Bell Standmire-Sanders. She attended Prairie View A&M University and moved to Houston in 1948. She became a licensed beautician from Franklin Beauty College, and was later trained in community organizing by Alex Branch, a former community leader in Acres Homes. For 18 years, she worked as a Health Coordinator, advocating to provide water, sewer and other city services in the rural areas of Houston that only had outhouses. In 1982, she worked tirelessly as a City of Houston Community Service Supervisor to provide essential services for the senior citizens and children of the Cuney Homes Housing Development, and established a school for the children living there. The school was later named in her honor."
Ruby Mosley Houston Council Meeting (Please view page #4.)
Dr. Joanne Bednarz-Prashad
- "A Houston, Texas, doctor called by the prosecution Monday paid Dr. Murray a compliment Monday afternoon, saying she was "impressed" with Murray's ability to remember a patient and that patient's treatment when she called him "out of the blue." Dr. Joanne Bednarz-Prashad's testimony was important for the prosecution because she is one of the several people who spoke to Dr. Murray on the phone the morning Jackson died. Prosecutors say he effectively abandoned Jackson by leaving his bedroom to talk on the phone that morning. Dr. Bednarz-Prashad called Murray's cell phone to get his advice on a patient he had treated who was about to undergo surgery at a Houston hospital. Most doctors she calls in such circumstances have to call back after consulting medical charts, she said, but Murray recalled the correct information immediately."
_______________________
As you can see based upon the information below there in fact was a ruling via the Supreme Court regarding prison system overcrowding. I tend to agree with William here as the timing of this ruling will presumably affect what sentencing Conrad Murray will get. In my honest opinion I feel that he should be exempt from the ruling however to do so would violate his Constitutional Rights as well! We'll just have to wait until Judge Pastor hands down his ruling regarding this on November 29th, 2011 to see what the outcome will be.
Many at the beginning of this including myself were under the presumption that he would walk. I didn't think that he would get convicted at all until I bore witness to the ruling issued via the Court of Appeals. In this ruling the Court of Appeals denied Conrad Murray's Writ of Mandate and immediate stay of trial. At that point I knew that he was going to jail more than likely. At that point Conrad Murray ceased to have any defense mechanisms with respect to deeming any of Michael's past prior to 2009 as admissible. Therefore, we will await the gavel of Judge Pastor to conclude what the end result will be regarding this issue. This remains to be determined with regard to the sentencing. In addition we will have to see what moves their County Jail System makes afterwards. We can cross that bridge when we get there.
Supreme Court Opinion Prision OvercrowdingMany at the beginning of this including myself were under the presumption that he would walk. I didn't think that he would get convicted at all until I bore witness to the ruling issued via the Court of Appeals. In this ruling the Court of Appeals denied Conrad Murray's Writ of Mandate and immediate stay of trial. At that point I knew that he was going to jail more than likely. At that point Conrad Murray ceased to have any defense mechanisms with respect to deeming any of Michael's past prior to 2009 as admissible. Therefore, we will await the gavel of Judge Pastor to conclude what the end result will be regarding this issue. This remains to be determined with regard to the sentencing. In addition we will have to see what moves their County Jail System makes afterwards. We can cross that bridge when we get there.
Supreme Court Rules California Prison Overcrowding Unconstitional
*I am going to take this blog entry out just how I started it by exercising a word of caution:
I have nothing personal against William. My agenda doesn't regard
the deconstruction of principles which he should stand for. However, I
have some questions regarding several statements he's made in one of
his videos. This in no way is to be taken as a form of "going on the
defensive" for Conrad Murray. I indeed need to address topics on him
regarding the very statements William has made to properly present my
argument. I am directing my statements as
commentary and seeking clarification regarding "William Wagener's" content.
-X1
