Mike Joyce on the Queen's Christmas address; suggests Morrissey sort peace treaty - NME

Link posted by Mike Joyce / Facebook:

The Smiths' Mike Joyce says Queen should wear 'Queen is Dead' T-shirt during Christmas address - NME
Drummer also says Morrissey should sort out Christmas peace treaty

Excerpt:

Mike Joyce, former drummer of The Smiths, has said he thinks the Queen should wear a 'Queen Is Dead' T-shirt during her Christmas speech, as well as "tell the truth" about what's happening in the world.

Speaking in the new issue of NME, which is on newsstands now and available digitally, the drummer said: "I think she [the Queen] should wear a 'Queen Is Dead' T-shirt! And maybe tell the truth instead of this cosseted opinion of what's happening in the world. They [the royals] don't understand about money, war, strife and struggle and the realities of life that 99.9 per cent of the country deals with on a regular basis. They don't live normal lives."

When asked who should be in charge of sorting out a Christmas peace treaty, Joyce replied that his former bandmate Morrissey would be the best option. "I like that when he puts his arguments forward, there's no flim-flam, no compromise. For that I've always adored him," he said. "I became vegetarian after 'Meat is Murder' in 1985. All my kids have grown up vegetarian and that was his doing."
 

Roy Keane

New Member
A "quirk" in the law? No, there's nothing "quirky" about it. Joyce won because the law - s.24(1) of the Partnership Act 1890 - supported his position. Granted, it's an old piece of legislation, but that isn't important or even relevant. It remains on the statute book and has effect, regardless of its age, until and unless it's repealed. You could argue that the Act hasn't been repealed precisely because it the principles underlying it are still considered to be just (by everybody except Morrissey, that is).

Plaintiff bears the burden of proof...

...that is unless a lawsuit under the Partnership Act exists. Oh sure, plaintiff still has a burden of proof under this Act alright, but it's drastically chopped down to a nub. And when plaintiff satisfies that minimal burden, the Act then imposes a presumption against defendant. So in practical terms, the defendant must prove the case, not the plaintiff.

In Joyce v. Morrissey, Joyce's burden consisted of essentially uttering the phrase, "o hai guise, I was in Da Smiffs". Voila! Burden of proof fulfilled. It was then presumed that Morrissey (and Marr) had to pay up unless they could prove otherwise. They had to prove the case, which is obviously ass backwards. If that's not a quirk in the law, I don't know what is.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
And Rogan's piece in the NME which I think also had a quote from Joyce on Morrissey and Marr working together again?

I asked Joyce via his website Q&A (a good while back now) if Rogan was correct in saying that Morrissey and Marr had been working again in secret in the 90's - he replied in the negative (that he knew of anyway).

A lack of commuciation between Moz and Marr was the final straw that broke The Smiths back and unfortunately, as already pointed out, is the exact same reason that's preventing a reconciliation. The partnership appeared to be on and off in the 90's - the two coming together to deal with the sale of their back catalogue to Warners and then to fight Joyce in the courts.

I recall late 2005 Marr publically talking about re-uniting with Moz but it looks like the renewed interest in all things Moz with the release of You are the Quarry the previous year might have scuppered any interest from his side in a reunion at that point.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Plaintiff bears the burden of proof...

...that is unless a lawsuit under the Partnership Act exists. Oh sure, plaintiff still has a burden of proof under this Act alright, but it's drastically chopped down to a nub. And when plaintiff satisfies that minimal burden, the Act then imposes a presumption against defendant. So in practical terms, the defendant must prove the case, not the plaintiff.

In Joyce v. Morrissey, Joyce's burden consisted of essentially uttering the phrase, "o hai guise, I was in Da Smiffs". Voila! Burden of proof fulfilled. It was then presumed that Morrissey (and Marr) had to pay up unless they could prove otherwise. They had to prove the case, which is obviously ass backwards. If that's not a quirk in the law, I don't know what is.

In reality, Joyce's burden of proof was discharged by the wealth of evidence already in the public domain. Without that evidence, I doubt the court would unquestioningly have accepted his word for it that he was a member of the band. And even if that were true, Mike Joyce could still point to the aforementioned evidence to support his case.

Joyce's name was listed on all of the sleeves as a member of The Smiths; he performed with the other three members on virtually all of the recordings and on stage; he was pictured innumerable times alongside the other three members in internationally distributed publications and other promotional materials. There was so much evidence to support Joyce that his membership of the group would (and should) have been taken as axiomatic. If he'd just turned up at court without the above facts on his side claiming, "I really was a member of The Smiths," the outcome of the case would very likely have been different.

Joyce isn't Paul Carrack, or Kirsty MacColl or Annalisa Jablonska - by public repute, he was a member of the band. Morrissey's counter-claim, on the other hand, flew in the face of common knowledge. There was not a heavier burden of proof on Morrissey than on Joyce. Both the plaintiff and the respondent had to produce evidence to support their respective submissions to the court. Morrissey lost the case because the evidence in support Joyce's contention was readily available whereas the evidence to support Morrissey didn't exist.
 

Roy Keane

New Member
In reality, Joyce's burden of proof was discharged by the wealth of evidence already in the public domain. Without that evidence, I doubt the court would unquestioningly have accepted his word for it that he was a member of the band. And even if that were true, Mike Joyce could still point to the aforementioned evidence to support his case.

Joyce's name was listed on all of the sleeves as a member of The Smiths; he performed with the other three members on virtually all of the recordings and on stage; he was pictured innumerable times alongside the other three members in internationally distributed publications and other promotional materials. There was so much evidence to support Joyce that his membership of the group would (and should) have been taken as axiomatic. If he'd just turned up at court without the above facts on his side claiming, "I really was a member of The Smiths," the outcome of the case would very likely have been different.

Joyce isn't Paul Carrack, or Kirsty MacColl or Annalisa Jablonska - by public repute, he was a member of the band. Morrissey's counter-claim, on the other hand, flew in the face of common knowledge. There was not a heavier burden of proof on Morrissey than on Joyce. Both the plaintiff and the respondent had to produce evidence to support their respective submissions to the court. Morrissey lost the case because the evidence in support Joyce's contention was readily available whereas the evidence to support Morrissey didn't exist.

I’m sorry, but your understanding of the law and the case specifically is well wide of the mark. As a general matter, a plaintiff’s first pleading document to the court asserts a series of facts in support of the requested relief. In response, defendant’s first pleading must admit or deny each of plaintiff’s facts.

In Joyce v. Morrissey, Joyce asserted the following facts: 1) he is Mike Joyce; 2) he was a member of The Smiths; and 3) he is entitled to 25%. Morrissey responded to each as follows: 1) admit; 2) admit; and 3) deny. Since Morrissey admitted that Joyce is a member of the Smiths, the parties and the court could then spend their time on the sole remaining issue of contention, to wit, whether Joyce is entitled to 25% or 10%. Consequently, all of your hullabaloo about how Joyce was on the sleeves as a member of The Smiths; performed with the band; etc., is entirely superfluous.

And sorry, but your claim that Morrissey didn’t have a heavier burden of proof than Joyce is just silly. Because Morrissey admitted that Joyce was a member of the Smiths, the Partnership Act imposed a legal presumption that Joyce is entitled to 25%. Even if the band members did verbally agree to a 40, 40, 10 and 10 split, the legal presumption was that Joyce is entitled to 25%. The burden entirely shifted over to Morrissey to prove the case, i.e., to produce evidence and such that they agreed to a 40, 40, 10 and 10 split. By this legal quirk of the Partnership Act, Joyce was able to sit back, and let Morrissey do all the work of trying to prove that Joyce was only entitled to 10%. Indeed, this is precisely what happened. The court ruled that there was insufficient evidence to overcome the legal presumption that Joyce is entitled to 25%. This didn’t mean that Joyce proved that he is entitled to 25%; rather, this means that Morrissey didn’t prove that Joyce was entitled to 10%. That’s a big difference. If you somehow think that Joyce, like other plaintiffs, bore the legal burden and produced a mound of evidence to prove that he is entitled to 25%, then you need to take a closer look at the whole affair.
 

Chip

Member
I don't know anything about the law in the United Kingdom, could somebody please explain to me why Joyce was not entitled to 25% of the royalties or why Morrissey/Marr should have prevailed?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I’m sorry, but your understanding of the law and the case specifically is well wide of the mark. As a general matter, a plaintiff’s first pleading document to the court asserts a series of facts in support of the requested relief. In response, defendant’s first pleading must admit or deny each of plaintiff’s facts.

In Joyce v. Morrissey, Joyce asserted the following facts: 1) he is Mike Joyce; 2) he was a member of The Smiths; and 3) he is entitled to 25%. Morrissey responded to each as follows: 1) admit; 2) admit; and 3) deny. Since Morrissey admitted that Joyce is a member of the Smiths, the parties and the court could then spend their time on the sole remaining issue of contention, to wit, whether Joyce is entitled to 25% or 10%. Consequently, all of your hullabaloo about how Joyce was on the sleeves as a member of The Smiths; performed with the band; etc., is entirely superfluous.

Superfluous, perhaps, in relation to Joyce v Morrissey & Marr, but a direct response to your previous post where you specifically argued: "In Joyce v. Morrissey, Joyce's burden consisted of essentially uttering the phrase, "o hai guise, I was in Da Smiffs". Voila! Burden of proof fulfilled" and I responded to that point.

And sorry, but your claim that Morrissey didn’t have a heavier burden of proof than Joyce is just silly. Because Morrissey admitted that Joyce was a member of the Smiths, the Partnership Act imposed a legal presumption that Joyce is entitled to 25%. Even if the band members did verbally agree to a 40, 40, 10 and 10 split, the legal presumption was that Joyce is entitled to 25%. The burden entirely shifted over to Morrissey to prove the case, i.e., to produce evidence and such that they agreed to a 40, 40, 10 and 10 split. By this legal quirk of the Partnership Act, Joyce was able to sit back, and let Morrissey do all the work of trying to prove that Joyce was only entitled to 10%. Indeed, this is precisely what happened. The court ruled that there was insufficient evidence to overcome the legal presumption that Joyce is entitled to 25%. This didn’t mean that Joyce proved that he is entitled to 25%; rather, this means that Morrissey didn’t prove that Joyce was entitled to 10%. That’s a big difference. If you somehow think that Joyce, like other plaintiffs, bore the legal burden and produced a mound of evidence to prove that he is entitled to 25%, then you need to take a closer look at the whole affair.

This takes us back to what I posted on the previous page: "Joyce won because the law - s.24(1) of the Partnership Act 1890 - supported his position."

You're right to say the burden of proof "shifted" to Morrissey because, of course, it didn't begin with him. Joyce had to prove, in the first instance, that he was a member of The Smiths. In practice, this was easy: (a) because there was evidence aplenty in the public domain to the contrary; and (b) because Morrissey and Marr didn't contest that submission. That Morrissey and Marr had to prove that he wasn't an equal member of the group wasn't a heavier burden than that borne by Joyce. Nor was it unfairly disadvantageous to them. Had they had evidence of an agreement contrary to s.24, then their contention should've been possible to prove, on the balance of probabilities.
 

Kewpie

Member
Moderator
Subscriber
I don't know anything about the law in the United Kingdom, could somebody please explain to me why Joyce was not entitled to 25% of the royalties or why Morrissey/Marr should have prevailed?

I advise you to read following:

http://www.morrissey-solo.com/threads/88070-Mike-Joyce-on-Smiths-royalties?

http://www.morrissey-solo.com/threa...-vs-Joyce-and-Rourke-Can-someone-clarify-this

http://www.morrissey-solo.com/threads/62292-A-question-to-all-the-veteran-Moz-Smiths-fans
 
Last edited:
A

Anonymous

Guest
Superfluous, perhaps, in relation to Joyce v Morrissey & Marr, but a direct response to your previous post where you specifically argued: "In Joyce v. Morrissey, Joyce's burden consisted of essentially uttering the phrase, "o hai guise, I was in Da Smiffs". Voila! Burden of proof fulfilled" and I responded to that point.



This takes us back to what I posted on the previous page: "Joyce won because the law - s.24(1) of the Partnership Act 1890 - supported his position."

You're right to say the burden of proof "shifted" to Morrissey because, of course, it didn't begin with him. Joyce had to prove, in the first instance, that he was a member of The Smiths. In practice, this was easy: (a) because there was evidence aplenty in the public domain to the contrary; and (b) because Morrissey and Marr didn't contest that submission. That Morrissey and Marr had to prove that he wasn't an equal member of the group wasn't a heavier burden than that borne by Joyce. Nor was it unfairly disadvantageous to them. Had they had evidence of an agreement contrary to s.24, then their contention should've been possible to prove, on the balance of probabilities.

Correction... that should've said, "In practice, this was easy: (a) because there was evidence aplenty in the public domain to support that position..." ...

:/
 

marred

Member
I don't know anything about the law in the United Kingdom, could somebody please explain to me why Joyce was not entitled to 25% of the royalties or why Morrissey/Marr should have prevailed?

In a nutshell he played drums and wrote nothing.
 

billybu69

Junior Member
Subscriber
I don't know anything about the law in the United Kingdom, could somebody please explain to me why Joyce was not entitled to 25% of the royalties or why Morrissey/Marr should have prevailed?

The contract Morrissey and Marr had with Rough Trade stated they wrote the songs, reducing Joyce and Rourkes parts to mere jobbing musicians. They all signed the contract, but joyce and rourke merely as witnesses, Joyce late argued he wasn't aware this was the case and assumed they where all signing as equals. This I believe is bulshit as every record The Smiths ever released had song by Marr/Morrissey all over it, and even the dumbest of the dumb understands what that means publishing wise, but he won anyway, the rest is history.
 

Kewpie

Member
Moderator
Subscriber
The contract Morrissey and Marr had with Rough Trade stated they wrote the songs, reducing Joyce and Rourkes parts to mere jobbing musicians. They all signed the contract, but joyce and rourke merely as witnesses, Joyce late argued he wasn't aware this was the case and assumed they where all signing as equals. This I believe is bulshit as every record The Smiths ever released had song by Marr/Morrissey all over it, and even the dumbest of the dumb understands what that means publishing wise, but he won anyway, the rest is history.

Actually, Mike and Andy were after 25% of live performance fee because they got paid less than that.
 

marred

Member
well that's just not fair.

But if it was just one contract covering studio and live then Rourke and Joyce only have themselves to blame. Ignorance isn't as blissful as they say it is maybe?

You could argue they only deserved 10% for live performances because the material they are performing live is owned by Morrissey and Marr, not the four of them. If you're getting 10% to play in the studio why 25% to play live?
 

Roy Keane

New Member
Superfluous...

I'm glad you agree. Because the question of whether Joyce was in the band was NEVER an issue.

This takes us back to what I posted on the previous page: "Joyce won because the law - s.24(1) of the Partnership Act 1890 - supported his position."

No one refuted the legitimacy or the applicability of that Act. I said that Joyce benefitted from a quirk in that Act, ie the legal presumption shifting the burden of proof onto Morrissey/Marr, a point that you, by all indications, weren't aware of, and a point in hindsight you now acknowledge. Ergo, my original point is made.

You're right to say the burden of proof "shifted" to Morrissey because, of course, it didn't begin with him. Joyce had to prove, in the first instance, that he was a member of The Smiths. In practice, this was easy: (a) because there was evidence aplenty in the public domain to the contrary; and (b) because Morrissey and Marr didn't contest that submission. That Morrissey and Marr had to prove that he wasn't an equal member of the group wasn't a heavier burden than that borne by Joyce. Nor was it unfairly disadvantageous to them. Had they had evidence of an agreement contrary to s.24, then their contention should've been possible to prove, on the balance of probabilities.

Joyce had to prove he was in The Smiths. That was all.

Morrissey/Marr, by stark contrast, had to prove the existence of a contract by conduct, a herculean task. You can go on believing tbat Joyce had as heavy a burden as Morrissey/Marr as is your right, but you'd be wrong.

We're going in circles. Bye.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, Mike and Andy were after 25% of live performance fee because they got paid less than that.

No, Joyce wanted 25% of everything except songwriting/publishing revenue, which was 100% to Morrissey and Marr.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Allegedly using legal aid to put a lien on a senior citizen's home is a disgraceful use of taxpayer money.

A senior citizen who's loving son is a multi-millionaire and ensures she wants for nothing, and endures no financial hardhsip whatsoever. Exscuse me if I don't cry too hard at Morrissey's mum's expense. If her son had just paid what he was legally obliged to, then this never would have happenned in the first place.
 
M

Musician

Guest
But if it was just one contract covering studio and live then Rourke and Joyce only have themselves to blame. Ignorance isn't as blissful as they say it is maybe?

/QUOTE]

The same applies to Morrissey and Marr - had they made a clear contract with Joyce + Rourke, the court case wouldn't have happened.
 

Trending Threads

Top Bottom