What's new
By:
Filters

Questions about the Arizona Suits

KjAthena said:
Kurt offered to reopen his case and set aside his settlement.
Click to expand...
I really don't think Kurt's "offer" was as benign as you wish to make it seem. As I recall, on the other forum at the same time, Kurt's threats were a little less restrained and definitely showed vindictiveness on his part. Taken altogether, it's not hard to see. I certainly did "dig deeper", as you put it. Look at his posts AND ALL THE REPLIES, but pay special attention to Kurt's, and you will see exactly what I mean.
As for never admitting guilt, YOU may never do it, but as evidenced by case after case of people admitting guilt to crimes they never did, up to, and including MURDER, only to be found completely innocent later, others don't always take your tack, for whatever reason; some legitimate, others not so much. I would surmise that Ernie's is the former. It's simply easier when under that kind of pressure and intimidation.
 
Daifel....I respect and will defend your right to form your own opinions. and if you did dig deeper then the purpose of this thread has been achieved with at least one.
 
KjAthena said:
Profomance...
First off I have no desire to assassinate Earnies character..it is my opinion that he is doing that well enough on his own. I am bringing up for disussion and reveiw his own statements.
Second unless Arizona law differs dramaticly(sp?) from Florida law as confirmed by my IP attny, due to the timeline stated by Ernie the settlement would take precedent as approval by the court is not required if both parties agree in writting and both parties receive benefit from the agreement (Erine already stated he had made payments to SC (benefit to SC)and had received disc and his venues were made safe from suit (benefit to Ernie)....I could be wrong and if so will admit my error.
Please reread the legal documentation as nowhere in it does it state "case dismissed with prejudice or without prejudice"
Unless the Judge specifically states in the order "DISMISSED with PREDJUDICE" then the case can be refiled at any time by the plantiff!

"11/17/2010 69 ORDER entered by Judge Mary H. Murguia on 11/17/10. On October 26, 2010, this Court issued an Order directing Plaintiff to show good cause why it had failed to respond to Defendant Ernest McCullars Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 64). In that Order, the Court stated that Defendants Motion to Dismiss would be summarily granted pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(i) should Plaintiff fail to show good cause within 10 days of the Courts Order. The deadline has passed and Plaintiff has not responded in any manner whatsoever to the Courts Order. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting Defendant Ernest McCullars Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 56). [This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.] (KSP) (Entered: 11/17/2010) "
I have a few internet friends that are on the opposite side of the fence on the whole SC issue and we have agreed to disagree... as this thing works itself abet very slowly tru the legal system we will all receive definitive legal answers
My opinion of how he runs his business only comes into play when he gives incomplete information and asks me to take it at face value....then I ask questions to clarify that he never answers. I do not like it when anyone tries to "spin" an issue with partial information and will not provide additional details
I have answered every question asked for clarification on this board truthfully and above board and I ask for the same respect.
Click to expand...

It is most certainly character assissination. Despite the integrity of the dismissal you continue to grasp at puzzle pieces in a depserate attempt to make Ernie fit your personal (and pathetic) picture of "piracy."

This is not about your discs or his discs or what you think it takes to be a legitimate KJ. It is about whether or not SC had standing to bring suit against him - and clearly they could produce none. It is also about SC shaking people down and it appears that's exactly how they work.

The source of this baseless venon resides in you - not him.
 
KjAthena said:
Daifel....I respect and will defend your right to form your own opinions. and if you did dig deeper then the purpose of this thread has been achieved with at least one.
Click to expand...

Really, just WHAT do you expect me to "dig deeper" into? The steaming pile of crap that keeps getting shoveled around here? Seriously, there is nothing "deeper" to dig into. What was said was said and what was posted was posted. Kurt was clearly on a vendetta against Ernie for speaking out at what was an injustice done to him, and you seem to be defending Kurt for doing so and even going to far as to make your own innuendos without legitimate cause for doing so.
SC NEVER RESPONDED to the dismissal, obviously because they did not want a ruling on it. Instead they chose to step up their harassment and intimidation of Ernie in order to squeeze the money out of him. They didn't care what was right. They just wanted money, apparently at any cost.
 
Diafel....as you said that you did dig deeper I commend you. You have given me no reason to believe that you are anything but sincere in your postings. You are correct that SC never responded to the dismissal. We differ in our opinions as to the reason. I try to state things are clearly as I can and if you have inferred some inuendos I apologize. Time will probably give us the answers we are seeking.
 
Profomance...
time will tell and we will have plenty of time to debate these issue as they wok there way thru the legal system. I fully support SC's right to collect any and all amounts due to them.
 
Diafel said:
SC NEVER RESPONDED to the dismissal, obviously because they did not want a ruling on it.
Click to expand...

But we really don't know that. It could be that they chose to let it lapse as Ernie had already been making settlement payments. IE: They had already "won". No need to run up lawyers fees to terminate something that will die on its own.

Or...it could be you are correct. We really wont ever know.
 
Bazza said:
But we really don't know that. It could be that they chose to let it lapse as Ernie had already been making settlement payments. IE: They had already "won". No need to run up lawyers fees to terminate something that will die on its own.

Or...it could be you are correct. We really wont ever know.
Click to expand...


"Won" what? The "intimidation game?"

And you most probably will never know.... because you are simply a tool in their shed... or a fiddle in their orchestra. You keep reporting and they'll keep bilking...
 
c. staley said:
"Won" what? The "intimidation game?"

And you most probably will never know.... because you are simply a tool in their shed... or a fiddle in their orchestra. You keep reporting and they'll keep bilking...
Click to expand...

Well, it's "all about the money", right? They won...IE: they got paid. Would YOU continue to pay to fight when you have already got the cash? Wait...you probably would because as you have shown over & over again you love to fight.

So I am a tool now, eh? LOL, typical. Nope, I'm just a happy SC/CB customer with a kick-**** collection. While you continue to foam at the mouth with your bizarre cyber-rage, I continue to be blisfully happy on the karaoke circuit. ;-)
 
Bazza said:
But we really don't know that. It could be that they chose to let it lapse as Ernie had already been making settlement payments. IE: They had already "won". No need to run up lawyers fees to terminate something that will die on its own.

Or...it could be you are correct. We really wont ever know.
Click to expand...

Yes, you do know - and now we all know. The court ORDERED them to reply. They failed to do so and LOST THEIR CASE against Ernie. What they bartered on the side has no bearing on the fact that they let the case proceed without them to a losing conclusion.

Sound Choice's argument now appears to be a loser - because they failed to demonstrate that they even have a trademark right in the product they claim is infringed.

It's a very simple (common and sleazy) scenario:
SC had no proof of standing, (if they did they'd have replied because it can also be brought up by any other defendents.) They knew the judge would be unlikley to approve a settlement prior to their reply on standing. So, they shook Ernie down and walked away before the roof caved in on them.

It's mind blowing how many of you are still in denial about these manufacturers and believe they deserve to remain in business. Say goodnight to these dinosaurs already!
 
Bazza said:
IE: They had already "won". No need to run up lawyers fees to terminate something that will die on its own.

Or...it could be you are correct. We really wont ever know.
Click to expand...

Um, no. Look again. They ( Sound Choice) LOST ( the case was dismissed)., and they DIDN'T get paid ( The settlement was not an issue or a requirement for the dismissal - SC blew it due to no response-, and was put aside. Null and void. While Ernie did make a payment or two before dismissal -per previous posts-, it was mostly unpaid.).

I can only hope that any other mfr. doesn't crap the bed as badly as ex-producer Sound Choice. I would think that they would be more careful, since they are still in the business, and in need of their customers.
 
Ernie Settled, Kurt made mention in a previous post about him being paid in full, i went back and read through their posts back and forth
 
Now we're talking "speculation" here folks....

First of all, whether or not this case can be brought back up is entirely up to the resulting order issued by the court - not by the motion that was submitted to the court. So, unless someone has a copy of the ORDER, (not just the motion) then it's still up in the air.

Second, based on #1 above, it is impossible to know whether or not SC actually "lost" anything. IMHO, if the facts bear out that SC used intimidation to force a settlement after the case was dismissed by the court, then their dishonesty is only overshadowed by their vindictiveness.

Third, as for Ernie's role in all of this, I find it somewhat irresponsible to NOT know that your own case had been dismissed based on your own motion (if that was the case) for over 2 months. Often in cases like this, a motion is filed and a settlement reached before the court rules. The resulting order is a "stipulated order" (and "agreed to order") that would specify whether or not the case is dismissed "without prejudice" (can be refiled) or "with prejudice" (dead forever).

However, if the case was dismissed based on the motion that Ernie has provided us here, then SC cannot simply bring back this case without first submitting a motion of their own to do so that the court would to rule on. It would not be an automatic gimme by any means, SC would have to do some pretty fancy footwork to get around their failure to respond earlier.

And there are some informational holes here that need to be filled.

So, the information submitted here would certainly make it look like SC "lost the case" when in fact, it's all dependent on the language in the final order - not just the motion - and until we have that, it's all still speculation.

I would ask Ernie to either provide a link to the final order or a pdf of the order itself. I wouldn't expect SC to do anything.
 
I sent Ernie a PM, but no response yet. I can't figure it out.
 
I've checked into a little more and there doesn't appear to a document in this case that is marked as "Order" which is not unusual in Federal courts. That is what I was referring to and looking for in the above post.

So here's the -simplified- scoop (IN MY OPINION):

Yes, the lawsuit is over and has been trash-canned by the judge because SC failed to respond based on the following rule(s):

(i) Briefs or Memoranda of Law; Effect of Non-Compliance. If a motion does not conform in all substantial respects with the requirements of this Local Rule, or if the unrepresented party or counsel does not serve and file the required answering memoranda, or if the unrepresented party or counsel fails to appear at the time and place assigned for oral argument, such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the denial or granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily.
Click to expand...

However, you'll notice that there is no determination whether it is with or without prejudice. This means that SC could (if they wanted to) refile this case against Ernie, but if they did, they'd really need to do some fancy footwork and provide some really good reasons why they ignored the court in the first place.

Courts don't like to be ignored and they have memories....

If SC were to refile this case, I'd place my bets (and big ones at that) on Ernie. Because if they did, Ernie could simply ask that it be dispensed with based on the suit being vacated previously and most like win on a summary judgment which -at that time- would shut it down forever, and ever, amen.
 
JoeChartreuse said:
Um, no. Look again. They ( Sound Choice) LOST ( the case was dismissed)., and they DIDN'T get paid ( The settlement was not an issue or a requirement for the dismissal - SC blew it due to no response-, and was put aside. Null and void. While Ernie did make a payment or two before dismissal -per previous posts-, it was mostly unpaid.).

I can only hope that any other mfr. doesn't crap the bed as badly as ex-producer Sound Choice. I would think that they would be more careful, since they are still in the business, and in need of their customers.
Click to expand...

Sorry Joe, but Ernie said earlier that he paid them and Kurt said it had been paid in full. Only months later did Ernie see it had been dismissed. So, THEY GOT PAID which was, according to many here, "what it's all about". (The money). Since they GOT PAID, why continue on? Why pay lawyers to respond to something that is already over?

It could be that they let it lapse on purpose because of this, but as I said, and my close friend Chip has agreed, we really don't know. This whole thread is speculation, even if in RED and IN ALL CAPS . :p
 
Bazza said:
It could be that they let it lapse on purpose because of this, but as I said, and my close friend Chip has agreed, we really don't know. This whole thread is speculation, even if in RED and IN ALL CAPS . :p
Click to expand...

Well, old buddy, old pal-o-mine....

It's no longer speculation - as far as the disposition of the suit is concerned.

Why SC is bothering with this mess is still a puzzlement to me. Their library is nothing more than the horse that left the barn long ago. There are easier ways in my book to get money from those using computers without making enemies of everyone on the planet.... But that suggestion has a teensy price tag on it because I'd need to be able to afford to fly to my good buddy Bazza's shows and buy him beers... and strippers..... (girls this time.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top