Karaoke Forums

Why would we sue Mr. Staley? We've manipulated him into doing exactly what we wanted.

Yeah, like increase the amount of the settlement check you had to write?

I thought you claimed not to have any involvement in that. Are you changing your story?

You, more than anyone here, are well aware that my involvement was limited to that of a 3rd party witness well after the copyright infringement suit was initiated, nothing more.

Are you changing your story regarding your settlement payment?

Well hopefully people will read my entire post, rather than your slanted abbreviated parts of what I said. But then again that is your M.O., move and cut things to your benefit, urge others to do what you counsel even though you do not have the courage of your convictions. You missed your calling as a political hack of a spin doctor. But then again most see right through you.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Are you throwing a temper tantrum (again) trolling like a madman timmy? Why am I not surprised?

Go back and read how many "ifs" you have in your original post.... "If you got sued", "If you won", "if you lost" If, if, if... You are the king of the strawman argument. You can't begin to presume what I would do "if" I won, lost or anything else. So, if you want to come back to reality and debate like an adult, let me know. Otherwise, if your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle.... but "IF" it was Caitlyn Jenner....... he'd be both...

Nice try.

Actually, I know that's not true, but no matter.


[/quote]

There is no "story" to change. I have not stated whether there was a settlement payment or not, nor (if there was one) which direction it went in. My point is that you claim to have cost us money in that case, yet you claim that your involvement was extremely limited and passive. You can't have it both ways.

Well then by all means, please enlighten all of the readers here with your wisdom -- and don't forget to toss in at least some evidence that what you allege is true and not just more spiteful speculation as you have presented in the past.

So far, you've alleged that you've "had conversations" with opposing counsel and at the same time alleged that you "were not involved in the suit." If that's the truth then it seems to be a dizzying contradiction, not to mention hearsay. And you stated that your client's New York law firm was "very thorough" by demanding trademarked items be presented at a deposition by a 3rd party witness for your copyright infringement lawsuit. I wonder how that happened if you weren't poking your nose into something you alleged you weren't involved in?
It's quite possible to have very limited involvement and still have a substantial effect. And whether that involvement is passive or not is meaningless because once again, you're re-writing history. No where have I ever stated "passive" that's just another invention on your part; I actively provided truthful evidence that was derived directly from Slep Tone's own servers which has never been contested to this day. Apparently, you have a problem with the truth if it happens to paint you or your client in a bad light, but sometimes the truth just stings a little and other times it hurts really bad. It's all a matter of perspective.

I don't claim to have any direct knowledge in the proceedings of that case, but I can surmise that if the evidence that I provided (which came directly off Slep Tone's own web servers) wasn't important enough to help "tilt the scales of preponderance" it wouldn't have been used at all. Wouldn't you agree?

Therefore, the logical conclusion is that since the evidence was not only used in the case, but important enough for your legal team to attempt to impeach me without --even once-- claiming the evidence was inaccurate or not truthful, it did serve to further cement what would have been a ruling certainly not in your favor. After a couple years in court, I believe the settlement took place just 6 weeks before the scheduled trial and about 2 months after Phoenix Entertainment Partners was added as a defendant and Slep Tone was dissolved and assets transferred, correct?

Based on my observational experience in the typical course of civil lawsuits like this that settle so close to trial dates, it is typically one party that doesn't want to set foot in the courthouse where a jury may rule against them in a very big way. In this case, it would have been Slep Tone/PEP with the most to lose, because the worst ruling the plaintiff would have suffered would have been a dismissal with costs. Not a big deal for a multi-billion dollar corporation.

And you were whining about their money-grubbing attorneys since just after the suit was filed.... So yes, all indicators point to a rather large check... from your side to theirs. Since you have invalidated my purchases of SC product from years ago, and your client "changed the rules" regarding their use, I can only hope that my contribution in some small way, added to increase that settlement as a token of my never-ending sentiment. (You created and maintain the monster so don't complain about the existence.)

Of course you (as an officer of PEP) are legally bound not to discuss the details of the settlement, you can't either confirm or deny it directly, but suffice it to say, no matter how much you squawk about it, it's pretty easy to read between the lines.

Yawn...incorrect inference piled on irresponsible supposition. Keep dreaming.

WHARRRLLLLLLGBALLL!

*crickets*