|
|
View unanswered posts | View active topics
| Author |
Message |
|
Bazza
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 8:29 am |
|
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 8:00 am
Posts: 3312
Images: 0
Been Liked: 610 times
|
|
Too bad we don't have any moderators on this forum.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Smoothedge69
|
Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 12:10 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 2:55 am
Posts: 3885
Images: 0
Been Liked: 397 times
|
Insane KJ wrote:
And I have been the one who reports most of the recent activity in Vegas.
RAT!!!
_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Paradigm Karaoke
|
Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 3:15 pm |
|
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:24 pm
Posts: 5107
Location: Phoenix Az
Been Liked: 1279 times
|
Smoothedge69 wrote: Insane KJ wrote:
And I have been the one who reports most of the recent activity in Vegas.
RAT!!! are you sure there has been no activity by you? that is what every bar owner thinks of certified KJ's here.
_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Smoothedge69
|
Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 4:12 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 2:55 am
Posts: 3885
Images: 0
Been Liked: 397 times
|
Paradigm Karaoke wrote: Smoothedge69 wrote: Insane KJ wrote:
And I have been the one who reports most of the recent activity in Vegas.
RAT!!! are you sure there has been no activity by you? that is what every bar owner thinks of certified KJ's here. Nope, I just call 'em how I see 'em. Being from NY, I don't like Rats.
_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Insane KJ
|
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2014 10:09 am |
|
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:24 pm
Posts: 317
Been Liked: 18 times
|
Insane KJ wrote: Tara King has filed a motion to dismiss her separate case filed on March 1st 2013 arguing that Harrington did not file a request to act "pro hac vice" in this individual case alleging that he would have no legal right to practice law in Nevada. http://www.pdf-archive.com/2013/07/23/1 ... o-dismiss/UPDATE: Tara King's Motion To Dismiss Denied August 6th 2014.
"....the Court accepts counsels’ explanation and accepts their late filed pro hac vice application and designation of local counsel." (page 2 paragraph 20) http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/di ... 6/19/0.pdf
_________________
-- Mark
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
chrisavis
|
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2014 10:38 am |
|
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:38 pm
Posts: 6086
Images: 1
Location: Redmond, WA
Been Liked: 1665 times
|
|
It's funny to me how people jump all over SC and Harrington about leveraging technicalities to file suit, but no one says a word about the technicalities used by the defendants and their attorneys to try to get out of the suits.
_________________
-Chris
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
JoeChartreuse
|
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2014 11:53 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:12 pm
Posts: 5046
Been Liked: 334 times
|
|
Chris, you really have to read the Brophy thread.... THEN go ahead and defend if you wish. The Brophy side - or at least pàrt of it - has been posted.
_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"
" Disc based and loving it..."
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
MrBoo
|
Posted: Sat Aug 09, 2014 3:48 am |
|
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 3:35 am
Posts: 1945
Been Liked: 427 times
|
chrisavis wrote: It's funny to me how people jump all over SC and Harrington about leveraging technicalities to file suit, but no one says a word about the technicalities used by the defendants and their attorneys to try to get out of the suits. There is no white hat and black hat in any of this.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
mrmarog
|
Posted: Sat Aug 09, 2014 3:55 am |
|
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:13 pm
Posts: 3801
Images: 1
Location: Florida
Been Liked: 1612 times
|
MrBoo wrote: chrisavis wrote: It's funny to me how people jump all over SC and Harrington about leveraging technicalities to file suit, but no one says a word about the technicalities used by the defendants and their attorneys to try to get out of the suits. There is no white hat and black hat in any of this. In civil suits, frequently, there is no clear wrong doing, because it only takes suspicion (and a little alleged investigation) to file a suit.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
chrisavis
|
Posted: Sat Aug 09, 2014 7:18 am |
|
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:38 pm
Posts: 6086
Images: 1
Location: Redmond, WA
Been Liked: 1665 times
|
JoeChartreuse wrote: Chris, you really have to read the Brophy thread.... THEN go ahead and defend if you wish. The Brophy side - or at least pàrt of it - has been posted. I was just making an observation.
_________________
-Chris
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
The Lone Ranger
|
Posted: Sat Aug 09, 2014 8:17 am |
|
 |
| Extreme Plus Poster |
 |
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am
Posts: 6103
Been Liked: 634 times
|
MrBoo wrote: chrisavis wrote: It's funny to me how people jump all over SC and Harrington about leveraging technicalities to file suit, but no one says a word about the technicalities used by the defendants and their attorneys to try to get out of the suits. There is no white hat and black hat in any of this.  That's right MrBoo both sides are defending themselves and in the process all get dirty. You can't be in a fight and expect not to get hurt or bloodied. This whole legal process business has been exposed for what it really is, the plaintiffs have to sink to the same level of the defendants. The trouble is like Joe says it makes little difference who wins as far as SC and APS is concerned, they are both cut from the same bolt of rotten material.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
timberlea
|
Posted: Sat Aug 09, 2014 10:14 am |
|
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 12:41 pm
Posts: 4094
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada
Been Liked: 309 times
|
|
LR and I suppose that goes for every other business or person who is sued out there?
And BTW, very few civil cases that go to court have had any investigation before being launched. Mostly it's an allegation brought forward and then the parties bring their respective evidence to court.
_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
MrBoo
|
Posted: Sat Aug 09, 2014 11:33 am |
|
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 3:35 am
Posts: 1945
Been Liked: 427 times
|
chrisavis wrote: It's funny to me how people jump all over SC and Harrington about leveraging technicalities to file suit, but no one says a word about the technicalities used by the defendants and their attorneys to try to get out of the suits. You know, after thinking about it; what I find really funny is how you waffle from not liking SC's tactics to defending them then back. I never know from one day to the next where you will be.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
chrisavis
|
Posted: Sat Aug 09, 2014 2:57 pm |
|
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:38 pm
Posts: 6086
Images: 1
Location: Redmond, WA
Been Liked: 1665 times
|
|
I think I have been pretty clear. I support their right to defend their IP. I don't like the way they go about filing their suits. I would do it differently. I have spoken to Kurt about it and don't feel any need to beat it to death in the forums.
But I do admit to defending SC in the face of some of the absolutely asinine things that get posted. I have a low tolerance for intentional ignorance and blind stupidity.
_________________
-Chris
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
DannyG2006
|
Posted: Sat Aug 09, 2014 3:09 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 11:31 am
Posts: 5396
Location: Watebrury, CT
Been Liked: 406 times
|
The Lone Ranger wrote: chrisavis wrote: In my case I did a voluntary audit of my discs almost a full year before purchasing a GEM license. However, It seems logical to me that regardless of a GEM license, Sound Choice would still want/require an audit of non-GEM SC discs. I still provide updates to SC of my SC discs as they change significantly, but they have never asked for it.
Ranger - all you are doing is flopping around in the shallows muddying up the water. All of this is a lot simpler and much less devious than you want everyone to believe. As several people have pointed out over time, your willful desire to see Sound Choice fail at everything they do is obvious. It is also petty and very unbecoming. Furthermore, I believe most people see this and roll their eyes when they see your posts.
The only reason I respond to any of your posts is to correct mis-information. It is becoming more and more apparent that a blanket "ignore everything Lone Ranger posts because it isn't truthful or accurate" stance is the best approach. You pretty much dig your hole deeper every time you post.
-Chris I think you are the one flopping around Chris. It is hard to come to grips with the fact if you are a pirate all you have to do is pay off SC or PR and you have purchased peace of mind with no audit.
_________________
The Line Array Experiment is over. Nothing to see here. Move along.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
DannyG2006
|
Posted: Sat Aug 09, 2014 3:14 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 11:31 am
Posts: 5396
Location: Watebrury, CT
Been Liked: 406 times
|
The Lone Ranger wrote: chrisavis wrote: In my case I did a voluntary audit of my discs almost a full year before purchasing a GEM license. However, It seems logical to me that regardless of a GEM license, Sound Choice would still want/require an audit of non-GEM SC discs. I still provide updates to SC of my SC discs as they change significantly, but they have never asked for it.
Ranger - all you are doing is flopping around in the shallows muddying up the water. All of this is a lot simpler and much less devious than you want everyone to believe. As several people have pointed out over time, your willful desire to see Sound Choice fail at everything they do is obvious. It is also petty and very unbecoming. Furthermore, I believe most people see this and roll their eyes when they see your posts.
The only reason I respond to any of your posts is to correct mis-information. It is becoming more and more apparent that a blanket "ignore everything Lone Ranger posts because it isn't truthful or accurate" stance is the best approach. You pretty much dig your hole deeper every time you post.
-Chris I think you are the one flopping around Chris. It is hard to come to grips with the fact if you are a pirate all you have to do is pay off SC or PR and you have purchased peace of mind with no audit. They don't do the audit because they have nothing to audit. They are however forced to delete the SC tracks they don't own discs for.
_________________
The Line Array Experiment is over. Nothing to see here. Move along.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
The Lone Ranger
|
Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2014 1:48 pm |
|
|
| Extreme Plus Poster |
|
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am
Posts: 6103
Been Liked: 634 times
|
timberlea wrote: LR and I suppose that goes for every other business or person who is sued out there?
And BTW, very few civil cases that go to court have had any investigation before being launched. Mostly it's an allegation brought forward and then the parties bring their respective evidence to court. It would seem to me tim, before you file a suit of any kind, it would be nice to know if there is a basis for the suit. Maybe to do a little investigating. No wonder the courts are back logged with cases that have little merit in the first place. One thing is for sure only the lawyers make out in that type of environment.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
The Lone Ranger
|
Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2014 3:55 am |
|
|
| Extreme Plus Poster |
|
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am
Posts: 6103
Been Liked: 634 times
|
DannyG2006 wrote:
They don't do the audit because they have nothing to audit. They are however forced to delete the SC tracks they don't own discs for.
Danny if they don't do an audit, how do they know they have SC tracks with no discs? Oh that's right they are on the honor system, after SC gets it's pay off, they could care less what is on the old pc. Maybe SC would care if they are running more than one machine, then they would want a license for each rig. Once the sale is made I haven't seen where there was any follow up. They just go on to the next victim, I mean customer.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
DannyG2006
|
Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2014 5:25 am |
|
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 11:31 am
Posts: 5396
Location: Watebrury, CT
Been Liked: 406 times
|
The Lone Ranger wrote: DannyG2006 wrote:
They don't do the audit because they have nothing to audit. They are however forced to delete the SC tracks they don't own discs for.
Danny if they don't do an audit, how do they know they have SC tracks with no discs? Oh that's right they are on the honor system, after SC gets it's pay off, they could care less what is on the old pc. Maybe SC would care if they are running more than one machine, then they would want a license for each rig. Once the sale is made I haven't seen where there was any follow up. They just go on to the next victim, I mean customer. depending on how far along in the process they are, they have to prove they have the discs. Settling a case before it hits the judge's court means they admit they don't have the discs.
_________________
The Line Array Experiment is over. Nothing to see here. Move along.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
jdmeister
|
Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2014 6:01 am |
|
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 7703
Songs: 1
Location: Hollyweird, Ca.
Been Liked: 1089 times
|
Attachment:
lawyer.gif [ 120.07 KiB | Viewed 27293 times ]
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 197 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
