Karaoke Forums

No, I'm saying that Canadian surface water has a lower content of emulsifiers that prevent surfacants such as soap from lowering the surface tension in the water. Even in the absence of soap, Canadian water on average, would have a natuarally lower surface tension because of it's lower mineral content (making it wetter).

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

Let's give credit where credit is due. That credit should go to birdofsong.

I don't understand why she is not the one to post this stuff since she is trained in these areas as a Paralegal. An A/V Court Reporter is not.

_________________
"Just Say NO, To Justin Bieber & His Beatle Haircut"

Yet with all of that, he still has more exposure to civil law than both of you put together.

I have no interest in bickering with the two of you. Anytime someone posts anything that is directly contrary to your ideology, you turn this place into a Kindergarten. He posts anyway because he doesn't mind. He just has a thicker skin than I do.

_________________
Birdofsong

Let's give credit where credit is due. That should go to c. staley!

_________________
"Just Say NO, To Justin Bieber & His Beatle Haircut"

I wouldn't know, I'm not a court reporter.


Sticks and stones timberlea.... and once again (you are quite predictable) with no valid opposing argument, you (and wallofsound) resort to name-calling.

What IS interesting is that neither of you are responding to the original subject matter of this thread... you've completely ignored it and skipped right on to kiddy play...

So I'll have to ask you BOTH directly:

#1: What is your opinion of SC apparently offering to allow a KJ to purchase a dismissal for the venues? And, if it's not "protection money" than what is it?

#2: If their lawsuit is for "Trademark Infringement" why isn't SC producing the listing of infringing song titles that have been demanded in discovery? It would seem to make sense that if you claim there has been infringement, you would be happy to point the finger and present the infringement evidence to support your claim.

Well since it's between SC, their attorneys and the Defendants, ask them. If it works, the more power to them. It's called recovery of revenue which corporations do when things are stolen from them. And number two, they're going after it all and apparently winning with at least one judges order demanding the hard drives be destroyed.

Since you're apparently in court what does a judge do when an attorney continues to nitpick at everything and becomes argumentative. That's right they're told to shut up.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

And HarringtonLaw has more than you & c. staley put together have.

I have consistently pointed out that "I listen to the one who passed the bar exam & that any intelligent reader would do the same." I do not claim that I know much of anything about the law.

Why not have one of the partners of the firm you work for come on here to KS & place their arguments opposing what HarringtonLaw has been stating or the legalities of SC's lawsuits? They would be much more qualified than you or your husband.

BTW, are you allowed to be logged on to KS at work? It seems to be the case at 2:40pm CDT on a Friday. Perhaps you can show one of the partners what is going on in here.

_________________
"Just Say NO, To Justin Bieber & His Beatle Haircut"

I'm waiting for the response of someone qualified to answer.

_________________
"Just Say NO, To Justin Bieber & His Beatle Haircut"

Sorry, let me make the correction:

Certified Legal Video Specialist

_________________
"Just Say NO, To Justin Bieber & His Beatle Haircut"

You didn't ask me and I am not qualified for much, but I'll bite. I would have to watch this to conclusion because a defendant could claim anything just the same as some say SC is just claiming things and, not having paid the 8 cents, I don't see the entire thing, the judge's ruling, etc. Maybe SC provided the list to the judge? Don't know. Will have to watch this one to conclusion to really know.

I would think it wouldn't matter which songs were played, there trademark/logo was displayed.

_________________
LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!

It does matter. The trademark shows up with the song title. I would ask what evidence they have other than someone saying they saw one. The point of the defense is that SC got the scans of the discs and can simply now say: "it wasn't any of those and were not telling which one it was"

Sorry but that's bull. If They are going to claim infringement then they need to produce real evidence.

That's right, because you know it all, right?

How do you know that? It is a misconception that just because someone passes the bar, they actually know how to practice law effectively. No disrespect to Harrington, and I really have no information regarding his particular situation, but I've been in this field for 24 years. It really takes at least 3 years once a lawyer passes the bar for them to actually be able to effectively practice law without training wheels. And quite often, I am those wheels. That's part of my job at my firm.

My point is not that I know more than Harrington. More to the point is that you should not make assumptions based on titles and degrees. Don't assume that he knows everything, and don't assume that I know nothing. Practical experience really is the most important part of becomming a good attorney.

_________________
Birdofsong

That's a foolish point of view.

The simple act of passing an exam to be licensed by the state to participate in any particular profession does not ensure a person's charchter, competence, skill, ability, or intelligence.

Here's a short list of some occupations in which a person would pass a test to be licensed to act:

bus driver
real estate agent
insurance agent
lawyer
pesticide applicator
teacher
home inspector
barber
private investigator
nurse
electrician
plumber
cab driver
pilot
residential contractors
securities agent
massage therapist
air conditioning and refridgeration technician
truck driver

I have experienced a variety of incompetence, ignorance, dishonesty, stupidity, and ugliness from persons in every occupation on that list in spite of the fact that they passed a test to get there.
Blindly accepting someone's recommendations merely because they passed a test could land you in jail, injured, broke, and with a bad haircut.

Consider the United States Congress. The majority of the members have passed the bar exam, yet I'll bet you disagree with half of them. You may even think of some of them as being idiots.

That's just my point of view, but I'm not just "any intelligent reader".

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

It certainly does matter which songs were played. It's called evidence and you would need to produce it in court to support your case. I seriously doubt that a judge would find for a plaintiff that refused to produce his evidence in court.
Defendant's lawyer: "Which car are you accusing my client of stealing?"
Plaintiff's lawyer:" It doesn't matter which one. He has a whole bunch of them in his garage."

Yeah, I can really see a judge letting that pass......

I went to school with a girl with the most fantastic memory I've ever seen. She could read a textbook and quote you anything from it word for word, even months later, and of course, she racked up the straight A's in every subject at school, particularly at test time.
But ask her what any of it meant or ask her to apply it to something in real life and she was completely lost. She had no clue what any of it meant.
She had a great memory but really was one of the stupidest people I've ever met.

To cite someone Civil Court is different than Criminal Court and the burden of proof is different. Obviously, at least in one case, the proof required was given, resulting in the ENTIRE hard drive to be destroyed, after the appeal period of 30 days.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

You've jumped to the wrong conclusions, possibly due to your erroneous presumption that Canadian and American law are the same.
My scenario above could easily apply to both a criminal case and a civil case.
For example, someone could be suing another person for the theft of a car, particularly if the vehicle wasn't insured, was damaged as a result of the theft, loss of use, etc.
Think OJ being sued for wrongful death. Much of the same evidence was presented at both the criminal and civil cases.

this was a default judgement as well i believe. that just means that they did not show up to court or respond to inquiries.
do we have anything yet besides dismissals for someone who actually responded?

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens

Chances are you'll never see what you want. If a host is legit 1:1, it will be settled at the Discovery. If a host is not legit, then they will one, accede to the Complainant or two, go to a Default Judgement as they would have no defence.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Discovery

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger