Karaoke Forums

Unverified? My apologies, Murray. I was under the understanding that in - what. three years?- that not a single SC case has ever made it to court.

For instance: It's a FACT that Ernie was willing to fight them in court, and it's a FACT that SC chose to default, rather than go to court.


I would have assumed that SC would have made an example of at least one KJ, to add the strength of court precedent to their case.

I'm guessing by your post that I must have missed one. Would you be kind enough to provide information in regard to that case? Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

HarringtonLaw said it? Thanks Rick. Murray, did you catch this post?

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

Like I said....

I don't take pleasure in responding to ridiculous posts, but in this case I will make an exception.
Firstly the fact that I directly quoted from this post should be an indication of the stupidity of your question.

I ignore hearsay. Why? For the following reason:

What exactly did Harringtonlaw state? Do you know? Do you have first-hand knowledge of what he said? Or are you just relying on what rickgood said that he said.

Here's one thing that Harringtonlaw did state:
Now, I cannot interpret that last sentence to be "these cases can't go to trial". Can you?

Ummm, no, rickgood, not like you said at all.

And this is a good example of why I ignore hearsay!
Harringtonlaw did not say "these cases can't go to trial" at all. That is only your interpretation of what was stated. And there is error in your comprehension.

It seemed to me that Harrington was trying to clarify that these aren't criminal cases where someone gets convicted of something. He was just saying the possible outcomes for Civil Cases. Didn't mean they wouldn't go to trial.

Exactly! Nice to know someone around here has some good comprehension skills!

A default judgement is not a trial in court!

_________________
I like everyone when I first meet them. If you don't like me that's not my problem it's YOURS!
A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet

Actually it is. If a Defendant doesn't show, then that's their problem. The Complainant still has to produce evidence to prove their case. Now had the Defendant showed, then they would have had the opportunity to present a defence but they didn't.

It's no different than if you failed to show up in Traffic or Criminal Court. The prosecution still has to prove their case before a conviction, if warranted, is entered and a sentence is given. It's still a trial.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

_________________
I like everyone when I first meet them. If you don't like me that's not my problem it's YOURS!
A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet

But they "prove" their case with only half the evidence!
Supposing there is a traffic court case in which I supposedly was speeding. I fail to show and I am convicted because the radar gun said I was speeding 2km/h over the limit.
Now if I show up and can show that the radar gun has a margin of error or + or - 2 km/h I can have the whole thing dismissed! In the first example, the judge would have convicted me based on half the evidence. In the second example, The judge now has BOTH sides to consider in rendering his judgement.
And this is a realistic example. It happened this summer to a man who had his car seized at roadside for going 41 km/h over the speed limit. It's a new law in BC - excessive speeding means they can seize your car at roadside with no trial, with 40km/h over the posted speed limit being the threshold. He was clocked at 91 km/h in a 50 km/h zone. He later went to court and proved a margin of error of + or - 2 km/hr and had his car returned. Still got a speeding ticket, but didn't have to pay impound fees or much higher ticket for excessive speeding.
Now if we could get a "full" case, with both sides to court, we could perhaps have more of a definitive answer. But like others have indicated, SC doesn't want that. Too much risk of losing.

In the United States the jury trial method of resolving disputes is premised on the belief that justice is best achieved by pitting the parties against each other as adversaries, with each party advocating its own version of the truth. The jury, a group of citizens from the community, decides which facts in dispute are true. A judge presides at the trial and determines and applies the law. At the end of the trial, the judge will enter a judgment that constitutes the decision of the court.

Not all trials are jury trials. A case may also be tried before a judge. This is known as a court trial or a bench trial. A court trial is basically identical to a jury trial, except the judge decides both the facts and the law applicable to the action.

Different types of judgments are made, based on the process the court uses to make the final decision. A judgment on the merits is a decision arrived at after the facts have been presented and the court has reached a final determination of which party is correct.

A default judgement is arrived at through a hearing where only one side presents evidence. A hearing is not a trial.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

Thank you!

"Hearing:

hearing n. any proceeding before a judge or other magistrate (such as a hearing officer or court commissioner) without a jury in which evidence and/or argument is presented to determine some issue of fact or both issues of fact and law. While technically a trial with a judge sitting without a jury fits the definition, a hearing usually refers to brief sessions involving a specific question at some time prior to the trial itself, or such specialized proceedings as administrative hearings. In criminal law, a "preliminary hearing" is held before a judge to determine whether the prosecutor has presented sufficient evidence that the accused has committed a crime to hold him/her for trial."

"Trial:

A judicial examination and determination of facts and legal issues arising between parties to a civil or criminal action.

In the United States, the trial is the principal method for resolving legal disputes that parties cannot settle by themselves or through less formal methods. The chief purpose of a trial is to secure fair and impartial administration of justice between the parties to the action. A trial seeks to ascertain the truth of the matters in issue between the parties and to apply the law to those matters. Also, a trial provides a final legal determination of the dispute between the parties.

The two main types of trials are civil trials and criminal trials. Civil trials resolve civil actions, which are brought to enforce, redress, or protect private rights. In general, all types of actions other than criminal actions are civil actions. In a criminal trial, a person charged with a crime is found guilty or not guilty and sentenced. The government brings a criminal action on behalf of the citizens to punish an infraction of criminal laws.

The cornerstone of the legal system in the United States is the jury trial. Many of the opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court, which set forth the law of the land, are based on the issues and disputes raised in jury trials. The jury trial method of resolving disputes is premised on the belief that justice is best achieved by pitting the parties against each other as adversaries, with each party advocating its own version of the truth. Under the Adversary System, the jury, a group of citizens from the community, decides which facts in dispute are true. A judge presides at the trial and determines and applies the law. At the end of the trial, the judge will enter a judgment that constitutes the decision of the court. The parties must adhere to the judgment of the court.

Not all trials are jury trials. A case may also be tried before a judge. This is known as a court trial or a bench trial. A court trial is basically identical to a jury trial, except the judge decides both the facts and the law applicable to the action. A criminal defendant is always entitled to a trial by jury. Also, common-law civil claims usually are tried by jury. Often, however, actions created by statute may be tried only before the court. In some court trials, the court will have an Advisory Jury. The advisory jury observes the proceedings just as an ordinary jury would, but the judge need not accept the advisory jury's verdict."

_______________________________________

The BIG difference is the only determination a judge can give is if there is enough evidence or not and of course the administration and method of how a trial will be conducted or proceeeded with. At a hearing the judge CANNOT find in favour of a Plaintiff and make a judgement, it can only be done in a trial.

Preliminary Hearings (or Preliminary Inquiries in Canada) only determine whether there is enough evidence to proceed to trial and what can be presented at trial, along with solving any administrative problems prior to trial. A defendant cannot be convicted or sentenced at such a hearing (criminal) nor any remedies (civil). That can only be done at trial.

So this was a trial where the Defendant, for whatever reason, failed to appear.

Hearings set things up for trials and trials render a verdict.Karaoke machine rental
Karaoke Rentals

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

A jury trial renders a verdict.
A judge issues a judgement on the verdict.
A judge may conduct a trial without a jury.
The conclusion of the court is a judgement.
A trial hears both sides of the argument.

A default judgement occurs when one side fails to appear in court to present an argument.
A default is entered in the record by the clerk of the court. The plaintiff then requests a hearing in which the judge determines the terms of the default judgement (assigns damages). The case is then concluded. No trial is held in a default judgement.

The defendant did not respond, hence the default. The judge did not proclaim a judgement of default, it happens automatically when the defendant fails to respond in the given time period. The judge only conducts a hearing to determine damages based on the evidence provided by the plaintiff.

In a default judgement, the case is concluded without the need of a trial.

A hearing is not a trial.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

I will stand corrected on this being a hearing.

"Default Judgement:

default judgment n. if a defendant in a lawsuit fails to respond to a complaint in the time set by law (usually 30 days), then the plaintiff (suer) can request that the default (failure) be entered into the court record by the clerk, which gives the plaintiff the right to get a default judgment. If the complaint was for a specific amount of money owed on a note, other money due, or a specific contract price (or if the amount due is easy to calculate) then the clerk of the court can enter a default judgment. If proof of damages or other relief is necessary, a hearing will be held in which the judge determines terms of the default judgment. In either case the defendant cannot speak for himself/herself. A defendant who fails to file an answer or other legal response when it is due can request that the default be set aside, but must show a legitimate excuse and a good defense to the lawsuit."

So unless there is a legitimate excuse AND a good defence, in this case, then Karaoke Miami is out of luck.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Speaking as one of the few people here that actually works in the U.S. court system, a motion hearing is not a trial. In the course of any given case, there can be 10 or more different motion hearings. Just because this particular motion hearing ended in the conclusion of the case, doesn't make it a "trial." In every case -- each and every one -- a Scheduling Order is entered by the court governing the timeline for that particular case. The scheduling order generally includes a trial date. If not, then a Notice of Trial is sent out to the parties following the discovery cut-off.

In this case, there was a Scheduling Order, and it included a trial date, as follows:

Before me is the Joint Report Of The Parties (Doc. 55). Upon consideration,

IT IS ORDERED:
1. Jury trial is set for November 14, 2011, beginning at 8:30 a.m., in Panama City, Florida.


You can argue semantics all you want, but any disposition of a case is not a trial. Only a trial is a trial. And this ain't it.

_________________
Birdofsong

Thank you. I hope we're all done play court experts and linguists now.

First, please note that I do not use the negative personalizations in my posts - such as "stupid"- that you do. You will find that if one wishes to make a point in a debate, using such terms will alienate the reader/listener to the points that you wish to make. It's considered a last resort used to distract from a weak arguement.

Second, if you had read my post ( and the very quote that you included in your own post), you will have noted that I questioned Rick in regard to Harrington's statement- I did not neccesarily except it as fact. This is why I asked you if YOU had read it as well. Please see the quote in question at the very top of your own post.

As for "hearsay"...well, we have evidence that ( i.e. the unwillingness of SC to go to court) it is more than that.

On top of that, I add the following:

Weak case or strong really doesn't matter. SC has come up with an absolutely gorgeous ( if completely immoral and unethical) operation whereby they send out letters, and uneducated and fearful KJs send them $7500 bucks. Why would they bother to go to court? If someone wishes to fight, they pass and send the letter to someone else.

$7500 return for a stamp and a commission (percentage) to HarringtonLaw? Why pay for court time right?

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."