Karaoke Forums

Just for the record, Mr. Kossack, the author of the blog you have linked to, has been suspended from practicing law on May 24th 2013 by the Nevada State Bar for at least 18 months.

You can search the State Bar Of Nevada's website for more information.

http://www.nvbar.org/

_________________
-- Mark

Nice of you to keep posting this, when Jim Harrington himself has said that doing so is in bad taste.

That aside, his suspension has no bearing on the validity of his statements and the links that he has provided.

The attempt to discredit fails, and fails with bad taste.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Then what about all the links to his blog that RaokeBoy has posted about Harrington? What's the difference? BTW, I disagree with James because I believe that the blog author should have his character exposed in the same vein that RaokeBoy has exposed Harrington. Isn't that fair?

_________________
-- Mark

While I agree with this, I think you are assuming that his statements have some validity. In actuality, I have seen numerous defendants who have clearly cribbed from his "work" (as he encourages), and they are being very poorly served.

Insane - Why on earth do you stoop so low to attempt to tarnish the reputation of Mr. Kossack, who according to the court papers filed with the Nevada Bar, was simply not diligent in monitoring a sticky-fingered staff member, the topic which has absolutely nothing to do with his blog or the issues of this thread, namely, Slep-tone's trolling for settlements and its attorney's self-righteousness?

Understood, Jim, and agree. Of course, any technical advice - bad or good- can serve poorly when amateurs attempt to utilize it.

I was actually referring to links providing access to court documentation, etc.... Though I don't open links with this- my office/business- PC, I will do so with my tablet. Yours, his, Chip's, anyone with a document worth my travel to a hot spot . It's that documentation that's important for BOTH "sides" ( I still think there is only one side, with differing opinions on implementation ).

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Because it is an example of his competence and I just want KJs who may follow his advise to be warned.

If a lawyer can not manage his own practice, how can he manage anyone's case?

I'm sorry that Robert put himself in such a position to have a suspension occur at the public level, and the public has the right to know.

_________________
-- Mark

Okay Insane, you got it out now it is time to end it. I'm not a Kossack fan, however by you trying to keep dredging it up (notice the original thread was terminated), you are making yourself look like an @$$. Enough is enough.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

I agree Tim and thank you.

It is time to shut up now.

Hopefully my latest's posts will remain, as well as RaokeBoy's.

_________________
-- Mark

The bottom line is quite simple as I see it. If someone is a true pirate, the advise at his site is totally useless. If, for example, someone is just a person who purchased their tracks and play them on a PC, then the advise there is quite useful. Most judges are much smarter than they are given credit for and are very willing to read between the lines of both sides...

The Federal Circuit has now spoken about the sanctions order against Harrington's client in the Precision Links case. It did so on June 7, 2013. So now we have a U.S. District Court judge in North Carolina plus three appellate court judges in Washington DC (without dissent) agreeing almost entirely with his findings. Here are some selected quotes from the decision.

"[W]e hold that Precision’s infringement theory as to claim 1 of the ’464 patent was not objectively baseless and that it was improper for the district court to conclude that the infringement allegations as to claim 1 were brought in bad faith."

"We take a different view, however, of Precision’s allegations regarding claims 6 and 8. Those claims were to a “cargo securement system” comprising a plurality of elongateable straps used in conjunction. IIn his pre-filing opinion letter, Precision’s counsel acknowledged that he had no evidence that the accused straps were sold with instructions or other directions that they should be used in tandem; instead, the opinion letter simply stated that “claims 6 and 8 might form the basis for a claim of contributory infringement or for infringement by inducement, and so these claims should be pled as well.” Precision never identified any act by the defendants that would constitute contributory infringement or infringement by inducement, and it never identified any evidence that any third party had engaged in infringing conduct at the behest of the defendants. The district court therefore found that the allegations of infringement were baseless and that any reliance on the pre-filing opinion of counsel would have been unreasonable. The opinion, the court observed, “is completely devoid of analysis and fails to provide an objective basis for bringing suit for infringement of the ’464 Patent.” The inadequate pre-filing investigation demonstrated that the plaintiff “lacked any reasonable basis to accuse the Defendants of infringing Claims 6 and 8.” . . . We therefore uphold the district court’s conclusion that the charges of infringement as to claims 6 and 8 were frivolous."

"In addition to finding that Precision’s charges of infringement were baseless, the court concluded that Precision had engaged in litigation misconduct that provided further justification for the imposition of attorney fees.2 . . . The district court characterized that theory as “frivolous,” and we agree."

"The district court found that Precision’s actions unduly extended the proceedings and imposed additional burdens on its opponents. Giving appropriate deference to the district court’s superior position to assess the behavior of the litigants before it, we hold that the court did not clearly err in considering the behavior at issue to be litigation misconduct that could properly be taken into account in making an exceptional case determination. While an exceptional case finding that is based on litigation misconduct “usually does not support a full award of attorneys’ fees,” the court may assess fees to compensate the opposing party for the extra legal effort to counteract the misconduct. Highmark, 687 F.3d at 1316. 4"

"Because the allegations as to claim 1 played a significant part in the litigation before the
district court, and in the court’s exceptional case determination, we vacate the attorney fee award and remand this case for consideration of “the specific types of conduct” we
have identified as potentially supporting a fee order. Id."

http://www.finnegan.com/files/Publicati ... 7-2013.pdf

Just bumping the thread in deference to the post before this one in hopes of a response from Jim H.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

The opinion Mr. McLaughlin has quoted has nothing to do with karaoke. It is designed merely to be a gratuitous personal attack on me, to which there is no need of a response.

Keep guessing. Just providing some information to those who have been and would be sued by Slep-tone as to the litigation practices of Slep-tone's attorneys.

Mr. Harrington, are you suggesting that when Slep-tone has been asked in interrogatories the factual basis of the allegations against them that Slep-tone's attorneys including you have not in bad faith refused to answer them? Funny, that is not what US District Court Judge Wright said about Slep-tone's interrogatory responses. "Slep-Tone takes trolling to the next level and essentially ignored all requests for discovery, explanations of exculpability, and requirements to act in good faith. (Mot. 2–6.)"

Mr. Harrington, similarly, were you not sanctioned for bad faith conduct in the Panama City case for instructing Kurt Slep not to answer questions at a deposition? According to Magistrate Judge Kahn: "I have previously entered an order requiring payment by plaintiff to Donovan’s Reef, and its attorney, a fee in the amount of $2,026.50 as a sanction for plaintiff’s representative’s failure to provide deposition answers at the express direction of plaintiff’s counsel." . . . "Moreover, plaintiff’s attorney used the occasion of its response to engage in a screed against Donovan’s Reef’s lawyer, accusing that lawyer of being “discourteous, unprofessional, and outside the usual rules of decorum to which most courts expect reasonable adherence.” (Doc. 179, p. 2). The screed did not stop there, however. Plaintiff’s attorney went on to explain that the court was mistaken to conclude that the “extraordinary rancor” in this case had anything to do with the behavior of plaintiff’s counsel. Instead, plaintiff’s counsel explained that he had consistently treated Mr. Dever with courtesy, but Mr. Dever had responded only with a “sour, aggressive, accusatory tone.” (Doc. 179, p. 2). Finally, counsel for plaintiff offers his appraisal that his opponent’s attitude “can only be fairly described as one of seething anger and barely concealed contempt.” (Doc. 179, p. 3). These matters laid out in paragraph 5 of plaintiff’s response (Doc. 179), do not appear to this court to be fairly responsive to the motion, but, instead, demonstrate an attempt by plaintiff’s attorney to demean his opponent in a way that could not possibly be calculated to advance this case to a fair resolution." Well, the record shows you are at least consistent and quite gratuitous at that.

And weren't you sanctioned for playing games with the check in response Judge Kahn's first sanctions order? "It is apparent that Mr. Harrington, acting on behalf of the plaintiff, decided that he did not need to undergo the formalities of a court order or a stay, and could simply delay payment by placing a condition on this check. Then, in its response to the Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Sanctions, plaintiff’s counsel took the position that the typed notation “to be held in trust,” was just a “suggestion.” (Doc. 179, p. 2).

Clearly, you had credibility problems with the court. Later in the same order, he finished you off. "The problem with plaintiff’s counsel’s behavior, which is now becoming more and more consistent, is that he seems to be directing his efforts more at opposing counsel in a personal manner, than upon advancing this case to fair resolution. For these reasons, the Second Motion for Sanctions will be granted, and plaintiff’s attorney will be required to pay to the defendant reasonable attorney’s fees associated with filing of the two motions for sanctions."

So now we come to yet another case in which you represented a plaintiff, albeit not Slep-tone, where bad faith conduct by plaintiff was found, here, on your home turf first by US District Court Judge Reidinger in the Precision Links case, and then almost entirely supported on your appeal by three appellate judges of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 7, 2013. (See quotes from the appellate decision above.)

Please explain why current and prospective defendants in Slep-tone cases would not wish to know about all these findings? While you may desire them not to, wouldn't such defendants be entitled to draw conclusions by connecting dots about Slep-tone's lawyer? Or are you saying that there is no common thread here? If you were a defendant or representing one, wouldn't it be helpful to know if opposing counsel had brought claims previously in bad faith and without a basis, engaged in bad faith discovery tactics, and has acted in Judge Kahn's words "to demean his opponent in a way that could not possibly be calculated to advance this case to a fair resolution"? Let's continue to be consistent Mr. Harrington. Given the evidence of the way you engage with opposing counsel, if you were on the other side, you would be pounding your fists, stomping your feet, and raising such findings at every possible opportunity before the judge.

Insane, you have exposed yourself again. Mr. Kossack wasn't suspended for anything related to his character, nor anything to do with a case involving Slep-tone, or anything involving his conduct with opposing counsel or the court. Just admit you failed badly and apologize to Mr. Kossack for doing so.

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/

_________________
-- Mark

What? That's like saying a Doctor who has been banned from practicing medicine should still be looked too for medical advice. Maybe you would trust your life with such a person...not me.

Posting the TRUTH about a very real suspension isn't bad taste. It's the TRUTH.


Seems this gentleman has tarnished himself. After all an 18 month suspension from ones career, handed down by ones OWN PEERS, is no minor slap on the wrist.

Again, his suspension had nothing to do with his legal knowledge, or the validity of his legal statements. It was based on other things.

However, Bazza being Bazza, will always be there to repudiate anything that I post- my personal forum troll.....The sky's not blue, the grass isn't green, and it won't get dark at night- if I post it....

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

If you live in Beijing, the sky is almost always brown....
If you don't water your lawn, it turns yellow or brown....
Two nights ago, we had a supermoon.....it was superbright at night.....

Just saying.....

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Try Alert in July. Sun still shines at midnight.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger