Karaoke Forums

There have been some who have said many people have pulled SC from their libraries but no indication of same. Here is a simple poll to see what the numbers are

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Seriously? You think any kind of poll here can possibly produce any realistic sampling? You're a special kind of...... oh nevermind....

Okay, I'll play your silly game:

I dropped it.

Seven times.


Does that count for 1 or 7?

One legal and six illegal?

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

I voted NO, but my vote doesn't really count, as I am an ODB KJ. Your poll really only has bearing to those who operate from a PC.

How did you determine that fact? From the SC certified host list?

I don't believe he stated it as a fact.

It was a question that was inferred from Mr. Staley's behavior before and after he found out we were suing KJs for multi-rigging from a single set of discs (which is a matter of public--very public--record).

And so is your law firm's "behavior" filing a suit against a boat company... with no client to sue on behalf of...

That's also --very public-- public record.

Shall I go on? There's lots of stuff out there..... with supporting documentation....

A boat company? Not sure what you mean by that.

If you are referring to the Stringliner case--Stringliner makes equipment used in construction to mark out level lines for doing things like laying bricks--then you have no idea what you're talking about. (A boat company? I guess you could imagine they might be a boat company.)

The client in that situation was the U.S. government. The law at that time allowed private individuals to sue companies on behalf of the government for marking patent numbers that didn't apply onto their products--a criminal act known as "patent false marking." If the suit is successful, the individual who sues keeps 50% of the penalty. We identified Stringliner as a company that had done that, so we filed a lawsuit. Shortly thereafter, we got a call from the law firm that my then-associate (later partner) worked for previously--he had only worked there a short time, didn't like it, and left, which they didn't like--saying that their major client was involved in litigation against Stringliner and that they didn't appreciate our suing them also, since Andy used to work for them. Out of professional courtesy, not obligation, we dropped the suit.

Several years later, in order to retaliate against Andy for leaving, they filed a grievance against him with the Bar, claiming that he had used information gained in representing their client to his personal advantage. It was completely false, but they had a lot of pull with the Bar, which put together a hearing panel that consisted of two attorneys from the same large firm (that had existing relationships with Andy's former firm) and a nonlawyer who was a former employee of that same large firm. They ended up censuring Andy, and even though it was a completely bogus charge, he decided not to appeal because the punishment was "censure," an official disapproval of his actions that did not carry any other weight.

If you think that somehow reflects poorly on me, so be it. But some of what you're saying isn't true.

Depends.....Do you currently have 1 or 7 systems?

_________________
-Chris

You tell me.

Wowser!... that's a whole lot of justification and tap dancing there ain't it?


Operative phrase here; "Some of what you're saying isn't true." Some?.... Care to specify which parts of this are true because none of it is reflecting kindly on you. Except for the "suing someone for a 50% commission of a product you had nothing to do with" part... that sounds about right...

But if this all seems unfair to you, I'd be happy to move on to other "judicial corrections" if you prefer.

Sorry Tim, but this rapidly going in the dumper..