Karaoke Forums

EXACTLY!


Yes. Will they reimburse him? Of course not. That would require integrity on their part.

How is this different from the "line doublers" that videophiles used back in day? Or are you saying you invented that technology? Patent?

C'mon Chippie, you have all the anti-SC answers. So put your mouth where your money is. Media shift and let them sue you so you can countersue them for whatever you want. A lot of talk of if they did this to me I'll do it to them. You're good at telling others but too chicken to do it yourself. I mean if you believe your diatribe so much, then go to war with them.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

More drivel..... and deflection.

But then again, that's all you've been offering for the last 2 days anyway. All big talk, not a single FACT to back up that noise box of yours.

You are so predictable.

I just love the way you've completely ignored the BS that Rodney just went through, the crap he had to put up with from cheerleaders, the money he had to spend (for what again?) and of course what appears to be the absolute lack of any type of investigation at all.

But you'd rather deflect the attention to me?

Nice Try Eh?


And the only "anti-SC answer" that works for me is my decision to drop the brand entirely. Makes all your drivel a moot point now doesn't it?

I assure you that no one in my office or at SC is ignoring any of that, regardless of what timberlea is ignoring. Resolution of this specific matter is only the first step.



I think that if you'll look Rodney's posts on this subject, you'll see that he believed he had been investigated. I understand that you're hard-coded to ignore things that don't fit your mindset, but if the person who was sued believes he was investigated, there really isn't any basis for your assertion that it "appears to be the absolute lack of any type of investigation at all." I will also point out that several people on here have wondered why we don't just ask people about their systems before filing suit. I happen to be of the view that that approach fails more than it works, but the investigator--a licensed PI, by the way--who manages this project in several states disagrees with my view. Asking people about their systems is "investigation"--at least it is enough to defeat "the absolute lack of any type of investigation at all" standard that you've set up. You need not be covert to conduct an investigation. That was done in this case. Whether that will be considered sufficient going forward, in other cases, is another matter, and one that I will be paying attention to from now on.

It appears there was no investigation. It's seems apparent that you want to create the "illusion" of an investigation. . . as long as the KJ "believes" he was investigated right? Makes your attempt at keeping the investigator's (IMHO non-existent) "report" a big secret by calling it privileged more sense doesn't it?


BALONEY. It's simply another "illusion" and double-talk. If your "crack investigator" wasn't "covert" in this case, how could he miss the fact that Rodney was using DISCS? An "error" perhaps? Shall we chalk this up to more "confusion" on the part of your "licensed Private Investigator?"

Pick whatever you like, I still believe it to be baloney. And I have to believe that an investigator never set foot in any gig that Rodney works, ever.

I've known Rodney for 12 years, read his post S-L-O-W-L-Y -- I believe Rodney. Your cheerleaders were of no help. You really need to put them back on their chain, they're not helping your case(s) at all. I've noticed a great many of them have gone silent and I'm wondering if it's because they don't want the conflict or if there has been a silent abandonment of your cause.


After 2 years I would think it would be about time.

C'mon HarringtonLaw, admit it. This was more than "a simple mistake" against a perfectly innocent KJ. . . this is business as usual.

It seems that everyone showing a SC Trademark is getting sued.

So, it seem to me, removing the Trademark is the answer if one wants to use a SC track.

Removing the SC trademark is no different than removing a FORD Trademark from a FORD car. If I don't want to advertise for FORD...I remove their TM.

I'm not trying to resell it and pass it off as a TOYOTA.

Just like I'm not trying to resell a SC Disc as a PIONEER disc.

Think I'll start removing the SC Logos.

The only thing SC will be left with is Format shifting of which they have NO CONTROL OVER.

My point is that if Rodney believes he was investigated, how can you, sitting 2,000 miles away, say otherwise? I don't think it's sufficient that the KJ believes he was investigated. Ideally he wouldn't know it was happening. But it should be sufficient to rule out your view, that there was definitely no investigation.

Since you're such a whiz at PACER, how about calling up document number 37 from case no. 3:11cv122-GCM from the Western District of North Carolina, which is Slep-Tone Entertainment Corporation v. Garner. It's an opinion, so it shouldn't cost you anything to pull. In that opinion, Judge Mullen denies the defendants' motion to dismiss. Pay special attention to the last two paragraphs on page 5, and tell me you still think we don't do investigations.



Sigh. Sometimes I worry about your reading comprehension. Let's try this again.

By sending a letter to Rodney asking him for information about his system, the investigator was conducting an investigation. It may be minimal; it may be ineffective; and if that's all he did, that's not enough in my view. But it is nonzero. When you say "the absolute lack of any type of investigation at all," that is not accurate. We know, at a minimum, that a letter was sent.

As for the "cheerleaders," as you put it, after the material from Facebook was posted on another forum, I made a request on that forum that SC's supporters stop doing that, and to reserve judgment on the question, because I believed it was neither helpful nor appropriate. As a rule, I'm grateful to the people who support our position, but I have never been the kind of person who subscribes to the position that my side can do no wrong. We are all humans. We all make mistakes from time to time. 100% perfection is impossible to attain.

Moreover, we don't benefit from refusing to acknowledge errors. (On the other hand, it is possible to be too quick to accept fault or assess blame.) If an error was made in suing Rodney, then it needs to be addressed quickly, and it has been. If investigations don't meet the appropriate standard, then there needs to be additional training, termination, or some other measure taken to address it. We will reserve judgment, obtain as many facts as we can, and address in due course whatever issues there are.



I have repeatedly stated that I don't manage this investigator. I don't know how many times I will have to say that for it to sink in.

I do manage my own investigators and researchers. If you could see all of the work that goes into preparing and filing a suit, you would never claim that we do no investigations. In fact, most of the time, I would put the case we build up against any criminal investigation--and we don't have access to pre-suit subpoena power, grand juries, or search warrants.



I don't know whether it was "business as usual," a simple mistake, or any mistake at all. I don't have all of the facts yet. If it was, in fact, business as usual for this investigator, then it will be addressed, because I know that Kurt doesn't want it to be business as usual.

You are, of course, correct. Please forgive a tired 2-finger typist..

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Could this tired two fingered typist please give a link.
I have not yet found any reference.

Not a whole lot of difference, except that it can double and redouble, and redouble again to a higher rate than that which you described. Because of it's medical usage- and later aerospace, it had to do so in a more dependable manner, meaning a lot tighter design specs. Also, this ws truly a "black box", as after it produced, any identifying marks on key components were removed, and the board encapsulated in some sort of black resin in a small box.

The circuit was created in the 70's while I was an employee of Matrix Instruments, Inc. who retained all rights to it. I received a nice holiday bonus.

Also, please note the "CO-" in regard to my statement.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

There was not only no internet at the time of it's creation, there wasn't even Easylink.

What would you like to link TO?

Either way, though you asked me, I won't ask you. I'm a bit more respectful, and take folks at face value.

I did kind of figure Bazza would jump in- he would argue sky color if it was me on the other side.

This ids the legalities forum- why not start another thread in Technical or discussions?

Done here.....

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Easy, but it's "privileged information."

Not at all. You "investigation" was about as close to "zero" as it could possibly be. Rodney was under NO obligation to "participate" in your investigation. Nice try counsel but extremely weak at best.


You do it and post it. I'm not your performing monkey. You want something to bolster your position, get off your duff and do it yourself... or ask a cheerleader because I'm sure they'd love to.



Your comprehension seems to be lacking here because it's appearing as though you will subscribe to the position that you can send a letter to every single KJ on the planet and call it "an investigation." And simply sue them if they don't respond? It's underhanded in my opinion. It appears you will keep those that do respond in order to revisit and sue at a later date I'm sure. If Rodney had responded that he was cdg based and next year switched you'd use that letter against him as some sort of "evidence" or "admission." I would do the same that Rodney has done, toss it away.

Using your logic then picking your nose is also "an investigation" isn't it? (useless double-talk)



Your cheerleaders are a little too eager to insinuate guilt on your behalf.


Issues like repaying Rodney for legal fees he should have NEVER had to expend in the first place?


Apparently no one else is "managing" this investigative company either.


Your demand for discovery of all tracks and not just "infringing tracks" is exactly a "search warrant." You've been know to refuse to provide a list of those tracks you claim were displayed in other (AZ) cases because you want to "search" the whole library.



On that we have to agree to disagree and I'll be right there to point it out every time it happens.

You mean like a transformer, a LOPT.
Has the technology not always been there?
Sounds like it was more of a bright idea of usage.
Well done.

This is the point where you lose all credibility.

I didn't expect you to be interested in reading anything that contradicts your view. Some people will do anything to avoid confronting cognitive dissonance. I'll quote the key sentence.



For the uninitiated, Twombly and Iqbal are recent U.S. Supreme Court cases that significantly increased the amount of information that must be provided in civil complaints in order to survive a motion to dismiss.

In that sentence, Judge Mullen says two important things and implies a third that directly contract Mr. Staley's position: (1) that there were investigative reports (and thus investigations) that were generated before the suit was filed, as to all of the defendants in the action, (2) that those investigations were legally adequate to support the bringing of the lawsuit under the heightened standards established by the Supreme Court in those cases, and (3) that Slep-Tone has a legitimate interest in protecting those reports from public disclosure, sufficient to justify sealing them from review by the public and the KJs themselves. Only the attorneys and the court were allowed to see them, and the attorneys were not allowed to disclose the contents to their clients.

It has nothing to do with cognitive dissonance. I post what I want and you post what you want -- I'm not your secretary. Again, find a cheerleader to work for you or at the least, post the PDF (after all, it's free right?)... Show everyone what you've omitted.

Because one sentence in one case is not a precedent. I can easily quote the other judge who denied your request for privileged information as well.

Still weak, no cigar,

The most important precedents are often only a single sentence.

Even so, the judge who ordered us to turn over the information agreed that we had a protectible interest in the information, agreeing that the defendant could only claim to have owned what he had already identified.

But even so, the importance of that opinion isn't about whether we had to turn over the reports or not. It is the acknowledgement that the reports exists and that the investigations were adequate to support the lawsuit. Kind of flies in the face of your contention that we don't investigate, doesn't it?

Not at all. There were a number of "non-investigations" in Arizona against KJ's that were sued - simply ask Paradigm...

Besides, you said it yourself that all that matters is that the KJ "believes" he's been investigated.

HarringtonLaw.

Like what you are doing.
Question...
Do you find as much time to do your job as you do to argue with Chip.
I being me... can see arguing with Chip as being a full time occupation.
Guess you wanted two jobs huh.