Karaoke Forums

Clearly it is you who is kidding! Or just downright stupid!
Perhaps you should try re-reading the statements she made in two separate posts which are clearly contradictory. And if you think the following is "absolutely correct", then your comprehension needs more than a little work. Perhaps I should bring your attention to the highlighted word, as you may wish to further improve your knowledge by looking up it's meaning!


Now that is just plain incorrect.
Do you, or do you think anyone else here would, really think that a judge would rubber-stamp anything that he/she considered invalid in regards applicable law?

We are not allowed to call people names like stupid here. What is clear is that you are looking for some type of pissing contest here, and I have no intention of taking the bait. I was clear and succinct with regard to procedure. If you want to try to discredit me, then have at it. I could care less. Now excuse me. I have to go back to work at my law firm. Where exactly do you work again? If it's the local bar and grill, I think I have a little more credibility. Have a nice day.

_________________
Birdofsong

Hello? Anyone home? You're focusing on the wrong word... try this one:


"Validity" and "legality" are separate issues. A judge will check over a settlement to see if it is "legal" and that's really all there is to it. You're purposely beating your head against a wall... hoping you'll get someone to agree with you and it ain't working....

Remember: The judge is NOT the "fact finder" -- that's what jurys are for -- and for some reason you refuse to believe it. The jury determines based on the facts it finds, whether or not (in a criminal case) a person is guilty or not guilty..... that's where their responsibility ends.... It's up to the JUDGE to interpret the LAW based on the facts and either release the innocent person or set the sentence for the guilty ones. Jurys don't sentence criminals.... judges do.

In this case, the plaintiff and defendant AGREED on the facts and as long as their agreement isn't illegal in itself, the judge will "rubber stamp" their name on it and be done with it. Ask HarringtonLaw if you still believe this to be horse-hockey... he wrote the settlement.


I thought I had the hardest head on these forums..... I see now that I have a worthy opponent...

No, it's not. Therefore your thinking is ill-conceived. Thankyou, and have a nice day yourself.


The only thing clear and succinct was your attempt to try and discredit Mr. Harrington with false and misleading statements, when in fact , Mr. Harrington was correct in his statement.



va·lid·i·ty
   [vuh-lid-i-tee]
noun
1.the state or quality of being valid: to question the validity of the argument.
2.legal soundness or force.

keep beating, sunshine!

What is it, exactly, that you do at this law firm of "yours"?

In this particular case, the judge was in fact the finder of fact, because there were only equitable issues at stake. We voluntarily relinquished any claim for damages, and sought only equitable relief (an injunction). In such cases, the judge is both the finder of fact and the interpreter of law.

Thankyou Mr. Harrington. And yes, I think you have far more credibility in this that I

I am not the only attorney of record for SC--and far from it. There are at least four or five others currently, and there have been still others in the past.

My involvement with APS with respect to SC has been as follows:

1) APS served process on two defendants in the original case I filed in Arizona. They did not conduct any of the investigations.
2) I took over as counsel of record in a suit that had been filed in Arizona based upon APS's investigations, in which there was one remaining defendant and the prior counsel withdrew.
3) I visited Rodney in California on SC's behalf to examine his operations after he claimed to be an ODB host. At that time he was a defendant in an APS investigation-based lawsuit.

Other than that, I have had very little contact with the attorneys who initiated lawsuits based upon APS's investigations. When I have had contact, it has almost exclusively been to consult regarding responses to various motions, discovery requests, etc. Because of my position, my specialization in this area of the law, and my experience with SC, as you might imagine, I am pretty well positioned to provide that kind of assistance. Except as noted in part 2 above, I have not been counsel of record in any APS investigation-based lawsuit.

You interested in taking a cheap shot at me, Mr. Harrington? I thought you were above that.

If your implication is that I'm overstating my credentials, I never suggested to anyone that I either owned the law firm or was an attorney. However, I do think that over 17 years as a litigation assistant (for a senior partner at a law firm with over 75 attorneys) with a paralegal background should afford me with a little respect.

In my opinion (for what you think it's worth) the judge didn't need to be the finder of fact in your case if you filed a consent judgment -- this was not ruled on by motion and required no "finding." You dropped your claim in exchange for an injunction and asked the judge to sign off on it in order to end the case. What exactly did the judge rule on?

_________________
Birdofsong

BALONEY!

(and how you can actually type that misleading, misinformation propaganda with a straight face?)

And like anyone else who put their pants on one leg at a time; just because you said it, doesn't necessarily make it true.

The judge didn't "find" anything... he simply read your writing, saw there was nothing illegal in what you wrote, gave you your precious injuction-not-to-do-something-you-are-already-not-supposed-to-do, and went on his way.

I'm sure it took all of about 10 seconds....

My direct question to you - since you were directly involved - is; "Who initiated the settlement?"

(and an answer of "both parties" isn't a valid answer, so don't even go there.)


[note to self:]
file for an injunction against every single person in the U.S...to prevent them from killing another person..... (even if murder is already illegal)

That should make a big step toward world peace.......

Yes... "legal soundness" means within the limits of the law.... as in what's "legal." Why do you insist that it means something different?

Besides, you've simply "validated" my answer.... thanks....

(you're not doing much for your own credibility though, just sayin' )

Bingo!
If Mr. Harrington, as you say, authored the "facts", it "doesn't necessarily make it true", meaning they are not fact at all.
But, the Court found (past tense of find) the "facts" to be true because the defendent agreed with them and the Court had no reason to dispute them.

And did you know that in the State of New Jersey, it is illegal to wear a bullet-proof vest while committing a murder.

Okay great.... now we need ANOTHER injunction..... (will this madness ever stop?)

[note to Joe C.]
Stop wearing your bullet-proof while you're singing.... it's apparently illegal.

No cheap shots at all--although your remark to Jay probably falls into that category. I was simply asking for clarification, because referring to your employer as "my law firm" is ambiguous.



I don't disagree.


[/quote]

Actually, we dropped our claim for damages long before submitting the closing papers to the judge--that was done in January, during a judicial settlement conference. We were preparing to go to trial--and that trial was to have been a bench trial, not a jury trial--based upon the request for injunctive relief only.

I know it must burn you up that we were able to get a favorable resolution out of the case with Dan Dan--you and Chip seem to make a sport of egging other people on in their legal disputes with SC--but sometimes when the parties sit down together and discuss their differences, and collaborate on a solution that works to their mutual benefit, what results is more "just" than anything a court can decide.

That is hardly a credible question!
Where do I insist anything about the meaning of "legal soundness"? I have not insisted that at all. What I have insisted is that the statement by birdofsong is incorrect. It was you who thought I should be concentrating on the word "validity" instead of the word that was originally emphasized, "anything". So, as you have rightly accepted "validity" to mean "legal soundness", let's see what happens when that is substituted in the statement....

"A consent judgment rubber stamped by the judge does not mean the court recognized the legal soundness of anything."

That, in my opinion, is incorrect. Do you honestly think a Judge would approve anything that is not legally sound?

Surprisingly enough, part of her responsibilities is training attorneys......

Ain't that a switch?

Does Jay sound like he has a little "Thunder" in his writing?

_________________
I like everyone when I first meet them. If you don't like me that's not my problem it's YOURS!
A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet

This is the same kind of "technicality bull" that you just love to take out of context, twist it around and try to maintain some semblance of innocence.

Man up counsel. It was a cheap shot. Just as cheap as Jay calling her "stupid."







"Was to be?"... right... you can "was to be" to anything that never appears....

("I was gonna win the 600 million dollar lottery too, but the state gave the ticket to the wrong person.")



"Favorable resolution?" And exactly what did you gain counsel?
Money? (nope)
Car washes for month? (nope)
Shoe shines? (nope)

Your resolution in this case was a meaningless piece of paper. No court "award" of anything, no "precedent" of any kind, nothing more than a way to dispense with the case so you client doesn't rack up any more expenses especially on a case they might have lost. (since Dan was pro-per, he didn't have the same legal costs)

It appears as though Dan has permission to use the media shifted tracks - without either an audit OR a monetary settlement for trademark infringement. Why did SC bother to settle at all if trademark infringement is such an open-and-shut case? Perhaps there's not as much to it as you'd like us all to believe...

And all you got was an injuction that says:"you promise not to do anything that's not authorized anyway?" Might as well be a certificate on the wall for "Continued Breathing."

Seems like Dan "won" more in this agreement than SC did.

I understand that it must be frustrating to you when your propaganda is simply spit out like the poison Kool-Aid it is. And I do take offense to your assertion that either I or birdofsong "seem to make a sport of egging other people on in their legal disputes with SC." Because it's just another slam on your part (that you are stating as though it is fact) and a chance to toss in another insult.

Predictable....

Now that you mention it....... hmmm...