Karaoke Forums

Interesting since here is a current case right in your neck of the woods....

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index ... speed.html

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

they broke not only the public meeting law (doing everything behind closed doors) but then tried to defy the court order to not do it. totally different than this case.

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens

they broke not only the public meeting law (doing everything behind closed doors) but then tried to defy the court order to not do it. by allowing the discussion of an agreement to continue, it would have broken other laws. The judge was not refusing to sign the agreement, but refusing to allow them to make such an agreement behind closed doors when the law states that they must do it in a public manner.

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens

It would be my guess that initiating a suit based on the above would imply such a claim....

I don't believe that the most active quasars produce as much spin as I have seen on this thread.

I don't have all the facts, but from what little I do know, the whole thing looks like both parties developed a case of the "screw-its" and just want and ending. They've both been stretching it out. My guess: Dan, because he doesn't want to pay, and may well be innocent but doesn't know how it will play in court, and SC because they seem to have a weak or non-existant case for court.

Whether my guesses are right or wrong, it looks like this one ends up a draw- unfortunately. Moving on......

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Sorry Chris, but "delaying a potential consent agreement between the state of Michigan and the city of Detroit" is not the same thing...

There is no consent agreement in this case, only a "potential" one. And this is between two governmental entities - the city and the state....

Not even close.

Considering I've never initiated ANY suit involving APS, then my statement stands even with your qualification of it.

What you are doing here is taking bits of the decree out of context in an effort to support your own mistaken conclusions. Perhaps you should download and read the whole decree instead of just the first page.
I'm not pretending anything. In that you are mistaken also.

You are now pretending this was a meaningful rebuttal of my statements.
Yes you did.
Oh no you didn't.
Oh yes you did.
Oh no you didn't.
I'm rubber you're glue.....

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

Here is the entire document offered here at my expense:

http://dkusa.com/CHBz/scConsent.pdf

You'll find that Earthling12357 is correct:

Authored by the plaintiff and defendant and simply rubber-stamped by the judge. There is no finding of fact or law by the judge.

I'm sure the judge was glad to be rid of it as well.

Anchorage Alaska?

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens

At your expense??? What expense is a FREE download?

Now that is a funny as your misguided sense of who "the Court" is. Read the Decree. It does not say The plaintiff and defendant make the findings of fact. They can't. They can only present the facts and information. It is the court that determines what is fact and what is not fact from the evidence and/or information presented to it. That is why the wording states "the Court" makes the findings of fact and based upon those findings of fact, "the Court" makes the "Conclusions of Law".

Hum...Doesn't clause 6-A state that the judgement is entered in favor of Slep-tone Entertainment agianst Dan in all claims? Clause B includes his activities and buddies, and C, the court will still have the power if Dan screws up agian...Sounds like SC won to me...

Jon

Amazing how some people equate "rubber stamping" with not reading what the lawsuit is all about. I don't think there are any judges out there stupid enough to sign any order without reading it first. Further, if they find something wrong with the facts or the law, they would send it back and say fix it.

For those who are not aware, often one of the lawyers involved will draw up the paperwork forming the order. They will then review it and agree upon it, making sure the "i"s are dotted and the "t"s crossed. It does not negate the judge from reading and ensuring that the final order is correct.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Absolutely at my expense. If you downloaded the pdf file from the link above, then you downloaded it from my site... my web space ... free. Where I placed the document after purchasing it from Pacer.gov

Your welcome.

Are you stating that SC had another attorney initiate those suits, and that you were completely uninvolved? Are you also stating that you are not the ONLY attorney of record for Sound Choice? ( If you were, than you would have to be aware of, and have some participation in those suits)

I don't doubt your answer Jim, I just want it clarified here.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Nobody said that rubber stamping meant that the judge didn't read the Judgment, Timberlea. However, keep in mind that the judge is not the finder of fact. The judge is only the interpreter of law. The only thing the judge is going to care about is whether the Consent Judgment violates the law. That's why the judge in Harrington's example link stopped the settlement. It violated the law. The judge relies on the facts set forth in the Consent Judgment. The judge is not there to decide whether a statement of fact set forth by both parties is correct. If neither party is disputing them, then the Judge will rely on the parties to get them right. If, however, the judgment read something like, "Dan Dan will give SC his first-born child," since that violates several laws, the judge would not sign it. If it said that "Dan Dan ate ice cream last Saturday," the judge isn't going to care whether that is factually correct. It's a statement that doesn't violate any laws, and if it was included in the Judgment, it wouldn't stop the judge from signing it whether it was true or not.

Most orders are signed by rubber stamp, by the way (although in Federal Court it is an electronic signature) and often the judge approves these in a few seconds while listening to other cases in the courtroom. If you have the idea that the judge agonized over whether to sign a simple agreement between two parties that ended the case with no terrible consequences or violations of law, then that is a fantasy.

But nice try.

_________________
Birdofsong

Joe, Jim has indicated a number of times he is not the only attorney handling SCs lawsuits. It was quite clear that he wasn't a part of Dan Dan's suit. He also stated that Michigan and some other areas were not under his perview.

Julie, who ever said I said a judge would "agonize" over a consent order, but nice try in trying to twist things around. Again to go slowly, judges do not just rubber stamp things, they can actually read and ensure the Order is correctly done and the law followed. The method of signature is not important as long as it is a recognized and legal form.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Actually, no, the pdf can be downloaded for free from a different URL than the one you have provided. The link is available in kjathena's original post on this thread. I'm sorry if you find that you have therefore undergone an unnecessary expense in purchasing it from Pacer, when it was already available as a free download. But thankyou for your generous gesture.

Who is misleading whom?


Except maybe that the Court recognized the settlement and it's content was valid within the applicable law?


Now is that contradictory, or merely misleading?



Yes, if there is agreement of the facts/testimony presented by both opposing parties, then the Court would have no reason not to find those facts relevant and true and the Court would make it's conclusions of law based on those facts. Of course, as this is a settlement agreement, the facts are already agreed to by both parties and the Court can make it's finding of facts as they are presented. Unlike a courtroom situation whereby there is often conflicting testimony as to the facts and the Court must make it's finding of facts based on what the Court believes to be true.

You're kidding, right?
Try reading it again, IN CONTEXT.
There's absolutely nothing whatsoever misleading in her statements, which are absolutely correct. Yours, however, are misleading at best or completely wrong at worst.
Clearly, your reading comprehension needs some work.