Karaoke Forums

Whatever Jon....

"Are you done?" - Bird of Song

I'm sure U.S. district Judge Jed Rakoff would have comment on that statement!

I don't understand why you'd say that Jay.... If the parties have agreed to settle, I've never seen a judge intervene in a consent judgment on a civil case.

The Judge has the choice to either accept or reject the settlement/decree. I don't think any Judge would blindly "rubber-stamp" anything without considering it's contents.

The document clearly shows that the Court (Judge) has considered the validity of the decree after making conclusions of law based on facts found. Note that, in the quoted text from the document that follows, it is "the Court" that makes the findings and conclusions, not the parties.

"In support of the decree, the Court makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT"

"Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Court makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW"


And included in those conclusions:

"5. Leimone’s activities constitute trademark infringement
and federal unfair competition.
6. Slep-Tone is entitled to the entry of a permanent injunction
against the unauthorized use of the Sound Choice Marks by
Leimone."

"Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED,
DECREED, and ADJUDGED as follows:"

"Accordingly, in view of the foregoing". That surely shows that the Judge has considered the facts and conclusions of law do, in fact, support the decree and has accordingly granted it, thereby affirming Slep-Tone's claims as valid.

And that just confirms that you are not privy to all proceedings of the Courts.

It actually happens quite frequently, and if you had searched for "jed rakoff sec bank of america" using Google, you'd have your example.

I still have never seen one.... BTW: that was a $33 MILLION dollar settlement involving stockholders that were unaware of any such agreement... that in and of itself requires more scrutiny by the court. Point to one similar in scale to these karaoke actions and you might have something worthwhile.

Here's an interesting tidbit from the court document... (Harrington, did you write this consent decree?)



Doesn't look like they'll be getting back into the manufacturer biz anytime soon...

And nevermind.... it was written by HarringtonLaw:


And Jay: There was no "real finding of fact" by the court. It was simply a "rubber stamp" affixed by the judge to Harringtons' motion and Dan's agreement:


If you need a copy, I have one.....

Whatever, C.Staley

Formerly Sound Choice Studios, SRS is your destination for recording and custom audio.

I don't think anyone has made any secret of the fact that SCS was spun off into a new entity. There is certainly nothing prohibiting the new entity from performing the same function that SCS used to perform. It's pretty dishonest of you to draw the conclusion you drew.

Are you under contract with any football stadiums? If not, you should look into it, as you're excellent at moving goalposts.

Naw, no football stadiums. But you have to admit that a civil case with a 33 million dollar deal is substantially greater than suing a $150/night karaoke host for an 8k settlement and would require much greater scrutiny by any court. Especially when there are stockholders involved. Your goalpost was on another planet, I just moved it closer to reality.

(I did do a voice-over for a UT Arlington halftime show, but that was basketball so "technically" it wasn't football)

I would have to disagree. "Sound Choice Studios" apparently won't be getting back into the manufacturing biz because it has ceased operations, so my statement is not dishonest at all.

Are you suggesting that the former operations are simply renaming itself to continue? Like Dangerous is All Hits is Helluva Disc etc?

I'm stating that the assets and operations of Sound Choice Studios, Inc., the entity that formerly made karaoke recordings for Slep-Tone Entertainment Corporation (and did a lot of other sound work for other entities), have be spun off to a new entity that will continue those operations.

It's dishonest of you to imply that you meant "Sound Choice Studios, Inc." when you used the term "they" in "Doesn't look like they'll be getting back into the manufacturer biz anytime soon... ."

That's not what you said. You said, "If the parties have agreed to settle, I've never seen a judge intervene in a consent judgment on a civil case." It's right there in black and white. You didn't say "If the parties have agreed to settle, I've never seen a judge intervene in a consent judgment on an insignificant civil case."

There are literally thousands of examples of judges refusing consent decrees and judgments, including many in cases that you would deem insignificant. I doubt this judge spent hours poring over case law before deciding whether to sign, but it was not a rubber stamp, either. Perhaps you should confine your comments to events and occurrences in which you have some firsthand knowledge or significant experience.

What you are doing here is pretending that the judge decided to hold his own personal trial of this case in spite of the fact that the parties to the case came to an agreement. And then you are taking bits of the decree out of context in an effort to support your own mistaken conclusions.

Here is the context you are missing:


"The court finds that Slep-Tone and Leimone have reached agreement upon the operative facts and law "

The findings of fact were submitted by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, not the judge.

"The court finds that Slep-Tone and Leimone have reached agreement upon the operative facts and law "

The conclusions of law were submitted by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, not the judge.

"Accordingly, in view of the foregoing,"
Here is the context of the foregoing:


Every bit of this consent decree was authored by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, not the judge.

The only thing that was confirmed as valid was the agreement of the two parties as it pertains to those two parties.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

earthling, that is true, however, as Harrington has said, a judge, whether in Civil or Criminal court, does not have to accept joint agreements. The judges still have to read the agreement to ensure that the facts and the law are correct in the agreement. Even then, they do not have to accept it. In this case the judge did accept it.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Oh, contrare counsel.... I'm not anymore "dishonest" than you claiming that nothing more than "a letter" from APS constitutes "an investigation" that leads to an investigative report claiming a KJ was "witnessed using counterfeit" anythings filed with Federal court.

You thrive on splitting "technical hairs" with me as fine as you can shave them, but I see that when the tables are turned, (even in the slightest) you're the first to cry foul.

I stand by my assertion that "they" in the context in which it is used -- meaning "Sound Choice STUDIOS, INC." -- will not be getting back into the manufacturing biz anytime soon.

Your assertion is that the same "operators" who owned Sound Choice STUDIOS, INC., have invented a new name and may (or may not since you did not confirm anything) start producing music.

I can't help but wonder why they would abandon such a long-lived corporate structure....

I've never made any such claim.



No, my assertion is exactly as I put it before. The people who run the new entity are the same people who ran SCS. And they do produce music now. They are probably producing music right now.



Because the ownership changed.

In the 17 or so years I've worked in litigation, I've never seen it happen once.

_________________
Birdofsong