Karaoke Forums

The attorney who was handling Las Vegas was fired for missing deadlines.

But that's not the part I have a problem with. "Is apparently causing lawsuit after lawsuit to be dismissed"--in the present tense--says that lawsuits, plural, are being dismissed right and left currently. There were a couple of dismissals of individual defendant groups in a single lawsuit, and we also dismissed a handful of defendants whom we couldn't prove had been served, but that was a couple of months ago.



It's the same guy. He was (mis)managing investigations, lawsuits, and settlements in several areas. He was fired. After that, he refused to report which defendants had been served. So, whether you can "fathom" that or not is irrelevant.



We did.

[/quote]

That is simply not true.

But even if it were, what do you think the purpose of discovery is, if not to gather evidence?

My point exactly. It's always "someone else's fault."




"couple of , handful, groups" all plural words written by you. How many in a handful or group? I believe you started with over 50 defendants... how many are left?

And there were others that were dismissed by the court were there not?






I can fathom that it looks more like he was told he wouldn't get paid and in turn, decided you wouldn't get information. but once again, the blame for mismanaging investigations are placed squarely on the shoulders of – someone else. Apparently you can hire them, tell them what to do, or at the very least – what you expect of them – then it all suddenly blows up. Repeatedly.


Obviously, you're not completely finished.



I know the purpose of discovery. But since plaintiff attorneys push the envelope as far as possible – as often as they can – what is the purpose of an investigator other than to verify that a KJ is using a computer?

You will cite that the investigator "saw a logo" but then immediately claim that the evidence relating to that logo – such as the song title, date and time of the investigation – is suddenly some type of "work product" that must remain some high-level secret.

Or you will claim that there must be some sort of piracy going on if the KJ owns more than 8,500 song titles in their songbook.

Or if the KJ does not use a songbook at all.

Or if there is a computer in the room....

All speculation. And your discovery is crafted to extract quick settlements.... not find any truths. While it was bad enough that your investigator had called up Rodney and not only explained to him that there was no investigation, but that the only reason he was sued was because he did not answer a piece of paper sent to him under which he had no obligation to respond in the first place.

While I use Rodney as an example, I would have a tendency to believe that this would be a similar tactic used by your crack investigative team against any other KJ who may or may not be using disks in their karaoke shows. Strictly for the expedience and quantity of defendants in order to minimize filing costs.


It would be very interesting to hear the side of the story from that of the investigator which you claim you fired. The very same investigator that you claim has mismanaged your investigations. I would like to know what their side of the story is and specifically why – after performing all of this work – they simply did not fill out a piece of paper to send to you. If that doesn't sound fishy, I don't know what does.

On the other hand, you have voluntarily dismissed other KJ's who were using a computer in their shows – and have never submitted to one of your audits – and it would be interesting to find out from you why these cases were not pursued to the same logical conclusion that you have set the standard for on every other KJ.

You claim that one of your goals is to "help the industry" and one would expect that to be in an equitable and fair manner. It's obvious from your history that your approach to this endeavor is anything but fair.

Rather than quote the novella of posts above, I just quote this piece from Jim Harrington:
--------------------------------------------------------
"It's the same guy. He was (mis)managing investigations, lawsuits, and settlements in several areas. He was fired. After that, he refused to report which defendants had been served."
--------------------------------------------------------

While I acknowledge the good business sense of trying to disassociate both you and SC by claiming ignorance of the actions taken by those above, I'm afraid it can't be done.

Not even without any knowledge or feed back given from them- which I don't believe is the case. SC and/or you have been monitoring this and other forums for a long time. You and/or have seen, read, and responded to posts in regard to their actions for quite awhile ( at least a year, though I believe longer) prior to removing them.

On top of that, now it is requested that one believe SC contracted a company to help create and income for them, yet never kept up on their progress and methods. Why would that be allowed to happen?

If one were told that said company did not supply information updates, then one would be requested to believe that SC would voluntarily remain in the dark in regards to their operation- a major source of SC's income. Why would that be allowed?

Even if one were to practice a suspension of belief, and actually consider the above valid ( not happening), one would have to consider how this would reflect on the managerial abilities of those in charge at SC and in charge of the legal actions initiated by SC. After said reflection, would one truly believe that it was piracy that brought on SC's woes?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."