User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/3/2013 12:52:46 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you had actually revealed your source and he was as impeccable as you have made him out to be, and what you spewed on the Internet was factual, the lawsuit against you would never have gotten off the ground since truth is an absolute defense. I believe the same thing would occur if, when you were making your allegations, you revealed your "source" to be some homeless wino who lives in a cardboard box of because a reasonable person would be able to examine the facts behind your allegations and determine that they were asinine. I find it impossible to believe that you haven't been asked or won't be asked in deposition exactly who the source of your allegedly expert, insider is and the nature of the information that was supposedly provided. It's also a puzzlement to me as to why you simply didn't cease and desist and retract when given the opportunity to avoid being sued? I hope you receive no less than the outcome you deserve in this matter. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'll have to state my source if the judge asks me to. I was mistaken in this regard. If you had actually revealed your source and he was as impeccable as you have made him out to be, and what you spewed on the Internet was factual, the lawsuit against you would never have gotten off the ground since truth is an absolute defense. I believe the same thing would occur if, when you were making your allegations, you revealed your "source" to be some homeless wino who lives in a cardboard box of because a reasonable person would be able to examine the facts behind your allegations and determine that they were asinine. I find it impossible to believe that you haven't been asked or won't be asked in deposition exactly who the source of your allegedly expert, insider is and the nature of the information that was supposedly provided. It's also a puzzlement to me as to why you simply didn't cease and desist and retract when given the opportunity to avoid being sued? I hope you receive no less than the outcome you deserve in this matter. He's either crazy or right and SEI is crazy. Perfect for ARFCOM Dinner Theatre. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2013 12:53:50 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you had actually revealed your source and he was as impeccable as you have made him out to be, and what you spewed on the Internet was factual, the lawsuit against you would never have gotten off the ground since truth is an absolute defense. I believe the same thing would occur if, when you were making your allegations, you revealed your "source" to be some homeless wino who lives in a cardboard box of because a reasonable person would be able to examine the facts behind your allegations and determine that they were asinine. I find it impossible to believe that you haven't been asked or won't be asked in deposition exactly who the source of your allegedly expert, insider is and the nature of the information that was supposedly provided. It's also a puzzlement to me as to why you simply didn't cease and desist and retract when given the opportunity to avoid being sued? I hope you receive no less than the outcome you deserve in this matter. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'll have to state my source if the judge asks me to. I was mistaken in this regard. If you had actually revealed your source and he was as impeccable as you have made him out to be, and what you spewed on the Internet was factual, the lawsuit against you would never have gotten off the ground since truth is an absolute defense. I believe the same thing would occur if, when you were making your allegations, you revealed your "source" to be some homeless wino who lives in a cardboard box of because a reasonable person would be able to examine the facts behind your allegations and determine that they were asinine. I find it impossible to believe that you haven't been asked or won't be asked in deposition exactly who the source of your allegedly expert, insider is and the nature of the information that was supposedly provided. It's also a puzzlement to me as to why you simply didn't cease and desist and retract when given the opportunity to avoid being sued? I hope you receive no less than the outcome you deserve in this matter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2013 12:57:50 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Imagine it's your business, your good name or professional reputation being disparaged by an internet "expert" who claims insider knowledge of "problems" in your product..........that don't exist. SEI gave the OP the opportunity to retract his statements..........he didn't do it for whatever reason. Fuck the OP. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I know I'm late to this party, but I'm pretty sure suits like this do more harm than good for the plaintiff. Like many folks, I'm sure, I wasn't exactly in the market for any of their items at the moment, but now I'll be certain to never buy them. Imagine it's your business, your good name or professional reputation being disparaged by an internet "expert" who claims insider knowledge of "problems" in your product..........that don't exist. SEI gave the OP the opportunity to retract his statements..........he didn't do it for whatever reason. Fuck the OP. It's the internet, if someone makes fun of you then you put on your big boy panties and prove them wrong by continuing to churn out a good product and offering good customer service - it's what all the good companies do and there isn't one out there that hasn't been slandered somewhere online. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2013 12:58:50 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you had actually revealed your source and he was as impeccable as you have made him out to be, and what you spewed on the Internet was factual, the lawsuit against you would never have gotten off the ground since truth is an absolute defense. I believe the same thing would occur if, when you were making your allegations, you revealed your "source" to be some homeless wino who lives in a cardboard box of because a reasonable person would be able to examine the facts behind your allegations and determine that they were asinine. I find it impossible to believe that you haven't been asked or won't be asked in deposition exactly who the source of your allegedly expert, insider is and the nature of the information that was supposedly provided. It's also a puzzlement to me as to why you simply didn't cease and desist and retract when given the opportunity to avoid being sued? I hope you receive no less than the outcome you deserve in this matter. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'll have to state my source if the judge asks me to. I was mistaken in this regard. If you had actually revealed your source and he was as impeccable as you have made him out to be, and what you spewed on the Internet was factual, the lawsuit against you would never have gotten off the ground since truth is an absolute defense. I believe the same thing would occur if, when you were making your allegations, you revealed your "source" to be some homeless wino who lives in a cardboard box of because a reasonable person would be able to examine the facts behind your allegations and determine that they were asinine. I find it impossible to believe that you haven't been asked or won't be asked in deposition exactly who the source of your allegedly expert, insider is and the nature of the information that was supposedly provided. It's also a puzzlement to me as to why you simply didn't cease and desist and retract when given the opportunity to avoid being sued? I hope you receive no less than the outcome you deserve in this matter. Can't find anything to disagree with in your post. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2013 1:05:36 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can't find anything to disagree with in your post. I agree. You may need to start worrying now . . . . . . |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2013 1:42:33 PM EDT
[#6]
Im failing to understand why, in your mind OP, airing all this on the internet is a good idea. Especially when running your mouth on a forum is what landed you in this situation in the first place. It seems that you thrive on attention. In any case, you will get no sympathy from me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2013 2:10:57 PM EDT
[#7]
If I made a post on ARFCOM saying "I have heard from sources that Glocks are hand grenades and will explode in my face", will I need to lawyer up?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2013 2:12:54 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If I made a post on ARFCOM saying "I have heard from sources that Glocks are hand grenades and will explode in my face", will I need to lawyer up? No. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2013 2:22:25 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If I made a post on ARFCOM saying "I have heard from sources that Glocks are hand grenades and will explode in my face", will I need to lawyer up? No. Why not, how is that any different than the SEI case? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2013 4:31:59 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why not, how is that any different than the SEI case? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If I made a post on ARFCOM saying "I have heard from sources that Glocks are hand grenades and will explode in my face", will I need to lawyer up? No. Why not, how is that any different than the SEI case? Because they actually do that. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2013 4:33:15 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I still don't think there's personal jurisdiction |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2013 4:34:21 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you had actually revealed your source and he was as impeccable as you have made him out to be, and what you spewed on the Internet was factual, the lawsuit against you would never have gotten off the ground since truth is an absolute defense. I believe the same thing would occur if, when you were making your allegations, you revealed your "source" to be some homeless wino who lives in a cardboard box of because a reasonable person would be able to examine the facts behind your allegations and determine that they were asinine. I find it impossible to believe that you haven't been asked or won't be asked in deposition exactly who the source of your allegedly expert, insider is and the nature of the information that was supposedly provided. It's also a puzzlement to me as to why you simply didn't cease and desist and retract when given the opportunity to avoid being sued? I hope you receive no less than the outcome you deserve in this matter. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'll have to state my source if the judge asks me to. I was mistaken in this regard. If you had actually revealed your source and he was as impeccable as you have made him out to be, and what you spewed on the Internet was factual, the lawsuit against you would never have gotten off the ground since truth is an absolute defense. I believe the same thing would occur if, when you were making your allegations, you revealed your "source" to be some homeless wino who lives in a cardboard box of because a reasonable person would be able to examine the facts behind your allegations and determine that they were asinine. I find it impossible to believe that you haven't been asked or won't be asked in deposition exactly who the source of your allegedly expert, insider is and the nature of the information that was supposedly provided. It's also a puzzlement to me as to why you simply didn't cease and desist and retract when given the opportunity to avoid being sued? I hope you receive no less than the outcome you deserve in this matter. Because he did it for the shorties, and the lulz. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2013 4:48:00 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't care. I like to think I'm principled. I would ask you, Why do you hate the fact they stood up for themselves? Don't give me the BS of they lost more customers... That is a cop out answer. Honestly, why do you hate them for standing behind their product? Or do you just hate the fact that they didn't let the OP trample all over them....something ( to use your words) only a bitch would do.. I don't owe SEI anything, I kinda admire their willingness to fight back. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wow. That's right up there with letting cops search your car because after all, you have nothing to hide, right? And no, you should not have to defend your product against an unsubstantiated accusation. The burden of proof is on the accuser. Op had the chance to put up or shut up and now he's got a bigger problem. No sympathy... No one is saying SEI shouldn't be allowed to sue people. What they're too stupid to see, is they've already lost on PR alone. What we're saying is it's a bitch move, and has hurt their business way more than the OP. You see how outnumbered you are here and everywhere else on the internet? There's a good reason for that. People don't like bitches. You know what most people dont like? False accusations and unfounded claims. You call it a bitch move, I call it defending their company reputation. If they where in the wrong then it would be a bitch move. The OP still hasnt offered up his evidence. If he had it why doesnt he show it. He has nothing to gain or lose by proving his case. On your other point I never even heard of this till the OPs whiney email came to the top of GD yesterday. Frankly I cant fathom how you continue to denigrate the company and not him. I am sure they didnt want this to be publicaly aired but like everything else around the OP, he did. Instead of calling Smith out, why dont you point your angst to the guy that origionally and continues to publizes this issue. SEI probably would never have even cared about the OP if he hadnt gone on the warpath. Now he has to deal with them doing the same. In the game of one upmanship, I think he is going to come out the loser. If it was because of unfounded claims it is hard for me feel sorry for him. But, if SEI chose to pursue a false claim and it turns against them they pay the piper. But (again), The OP is scrambling around begging to get folks on his side. Why? I cant help but think because his case is weak. It appears that in the game of put up or shut up, he can do niether....but he will buy up those M14 parts.... Yet you're vastly outnumbered. The reason for this, is people don't like bitches. I don't care. I like to think I'm principled. I would ask you, Why do you hate the fact they stood up for themselves? Don't give me the BS of they lost more customers... That is a cop out answer. Honestly, why do you hate them for standing behind their product? Or do you just hate the fact that they didn't let the OP trample all over them....something ( to use your words) only a bitch would do.. I don't owe SEI anything, I kinda admire their willingness to fight back. Hey how about dont be a little bitch and sue someone for talking smack, maybe? If you really cant see whats wrong with that I dont know what to tell you. Sounds a lot like an entitled liberal mentality IMHO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2013 4:55:15 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Imagine it's your business, your good name or professional reputation being disparaged by an internet "expert" who claims insider knowledge of "problems" in your product..........that don't exist. SEI gave the OP the opportunity to retract his statements..........he didn't do it for whatever reason. Fuck the OP. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I know I'm late to this party, but I'm pretty sure suits like this do more harm than good for the plaintiff. Like many folks, I'm sure, I wasn't exactly in the market for any of their items at the moment, but now I'll be certain to never buy them. Imagine it's your business, your good name or professional reputation being disparaged by an internet "expert" who claims insider knowledge of "problems" in your product..........that don't exist. SEI gave the OP the opportunity to retract his statements..........he didn't do it for whatever reason. Fuck the OP. Whatever you say comrade. The hypocrisy in this site of freedoms lovers has reached epic levels in the last few years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2013 4:59:50 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Whatever you say comrade. The hypocrisy in this site of freedoms lovers has reached epic levels in the last few years. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I know I'm late to this party, but I'm pretty sure suits like this do more harm than good for the plaintiff. Like many folks, I'm sure, I wasn't exactly in the market for any of their items at the moment, but now I'll be certain to never buy them. Imagine it's your business, your good name or professional reputation being disparaged by an internet "expert" who claims insider knowledge of "problems" in your product..........that don't exist. SEI gave the OP the opportunity to retract his statements..........he didn't do it for whatever reason. Fuck the OP. Whatever you say comrade. The hypocrisy in this site of freedoms lovers has reached epic levels in the last few years. Sorry, slander and libel have nothing to do with hypocracy or freedom lovers.......comrade. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2013 5:00:41 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Im failing to understand why, in your mind OP, airing all this on the internet is a good idea. Especially when running your mouth on a forum is what landed you in this situation in the first place. It seems that you thrive on attention. In any case, you will get no sympathy from me. My guess is that he is trying to continue to create negative publicity for the company by pleading his case on Internet forums, thereby pressuring the company to drop its lawsuit. And I believe I read that he had been previously looking for strangers on the internet forums to send him money for his legal defense. IMO, if that is so, that strategy is akin to trying to kick a field goal from his own 1 yard line because I believe it appears that SEI is going to go the distance. Just my 2 cents worth of opinion. ETA; I believe that the OPs best way out of his current legal predicament might be to offer to make a public admission and retraction to the satisfaction of the plaintiff and negate any reason for the lawsuit to go forward. He might think about discussing such an offer with his attorney. Again, this is simply my opinion and nothing more. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2013 5:03:37 PM EDT
[#17]
It will be interesting to see what the Court does, but I would be surprised if the Rule 11 motion was successful based on what I have read.
http://goo.gl/Z3g1EF |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2013 6:07:39 PM EDT
[#18]
I'm also late to the party, but have read all 14 pages of posts. This is fascinating to me. In all those posts, the only one I came across that seemed odd to me was this one. My comments are in blue.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you had actually revealed your source and he was as impeccable as you have made him out to be, and what you spewed on the Internet was factual, the lawsuit against you would never have gotten off the ground since truth is an absolute defense. I don't believe this is accurate. There's a lot of leeway given in these type of suits. In truth, anyone can sue anybody for anything. The fact that the suit hasn't been dismissed is in no way indicative of guilt. Ultimately, that's what the trial is for. Many suits like these are allowed to proceed to trial, and the plaintiff loses. I believe the same thing would occur if, when you were making your allegations, you revealed your "source" to be some homeless wino who lives in a cardboard box of because a reasonable person would be able to examine the facts behind your allegations and determine that they were asinine. This is all speculation on your part, and is quite frankly, baseless. This also indicates to me that you are in no way impartial in this matter. What is your interest? Do you have first hand knowledge of this case? I find it impossible to believe that you haven't been asked or won't be asked in deposition exactly who the source of your allegedly expert, insider is and the nature of the information that was supposedly provided. Good point. Why do you think he hasn't been asked yet? I mean, that's a pretty big thing to leave unanswered - wouldn't you agree? So why is it unasked? Is it possible they already know the answer to this question?. It's also a puzzlement to me as to why you simply didn't cease and desist and retract when given the opportunity to avoid being sued? So... because he was told to desist or be sued, he should have stopped? What kind of person would stop speaking about something they believe in, due to the threat of being sued? Would you? Would you be silenced if threatened? I hope you receive no less than the outcome you deserve in this matter. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'll have to state my source if the judge asks me to. I was mistaken in this regard. If you had actually revealed your source and he was as impeccable as you have made him out to be, and what you spewed on the Internet was factual, the lawsuit against you would never have gotten off the ground since truth is an absolute defense. I don't believe this is accurate. There's a lot of leeway given in these type of suits. In truth, anyone can sue anybody for anything. The fact that the suit hasn't been dismissed is in no way indicative of guilt. Ultimately, that's what the trial is for. Many suits like these are allowed to proceed to trial, and the plaintiff loses. I believe the same thing would occur if, when you were making your allegations, you revealed your "source" to be some homeless wino who lives in a cardboard box of because a reasonable person would be able to examine the facts behind your allegations and determine that they were asinine. This is all speculation on your part, and is quite frankly, baseless. This also indicates to me that you are in no way impartial in this matter. What is your interest? Do you have first hand knowledge of this case? I find it impossible to believe that you haven't been asked or won't be asked in deposition exactly who the source of your allegedly expert, insider is and the nature of the information that was supposedly provided. Good point. Why do you think he hasn't been asked yet? I mean, that's a pretty big thing to leave unanswered - wouldn't you agree? So why is it unasked? Is it possible they already know the answer to this question?. It's also a puzzlement to me as to why you simply didn't cease and desist and retract when given the opportunity to avoid being sued? So... because he was told to desist or be sued, he should have stopped? What kind of person would stop speaking about something they believe in, due to the threat of being sued? Would you? Would you be silenced if threatened? I hope you receive no less than the outcome you deserve in this matter. In all my past posts, I've never had the chance to use the word, Derp. After reading your post, I can confidently use it for the first time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2013 6:09:50 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm also late to the party, but have read all 14 pages of posts. This is fascinating to me. In all those posts, the only one I came across that seemed odd to me was this one. My comments are in blue. In all my past posts, I've never had the chance to use the word, Derp. After reading your post, I can confidently use it for the first time. Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm also late to the party, but have read all 14 pages of posts. This is fascinating to me. In all those posts, the only one I came across that seemed odd to me was this one. My comments are in blue. Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll have to state my source if the judge asks me to. I was mistaken in this regard. If you had actually revealed your source and he was as impeccable as you have made him out to be, and what you spewed on the Internet was factual, the lawsuit against you would never have gotten off the ground since truth is an absolute defense. I don't believe this is accurate. There's a lot of leeway given in these type of suits. In truth, anyone can sue anybody for anything. The fact that the suit hasn't been dismissed is in no way indicative of guilt. Ultimately, that's what the trial is for. Many suits like these are allowed to proceed to trial, and the plaintiff loses. I believe the same thing would occur if, when you were making your allegations, you revealed your "source" to be some homeless wino who lives in a cardboard box of because a reasonable person would be able to examine the facts behind your allegations and determine that they were asinine. This is all speculation on your part, and is quite frankly, baseless. This also indicates to me that you are in no way impartial in this matter. What is your interest? Do you have first hand knowledge of this case? I find it impossible to believe that you haven't been asked or won't be asked in deposition exactly who the source of your allegedly expert, insider is and the nature of the information that was supposedly provided. Good point. Why do you think he hasn't been asked yet? I mean, that's a pretty big thing to leave unanswered - wouldn't you agree? So why is it unasked? Is it possible they already know the answer to this question?. It's also a puzzlement to me as to why you simply didn't cease and desist and retract when given the opportunity to avoid being sued? So... because he was told to desist or be sued, he should have stopped? What kind of person would stop speaking about something they believe in, due to the threat of being sued? Would you? Would you be silenced if threatened? I hope you receive no less than the outcome you deserve in this matter. In all my past posts, I've never had the chance to use the word, Derp. After reading your post, I can confidently use it for the first time. Derp? He's spot on in his view point. Me thinks you will be eating crow when all of this is played out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2013 7:01:30 PM EDT
[#20]
So you say. Just what do you base that on? State your facts.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2013 7:14:02 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you say. Just what do you base that on? State your facts. Read my posts in this thread 13er. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2013 7:16:36 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Read my posts in this thread 13er. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So you say. Just what do you base that on? State your facts. Read my posts in this thread 13er. Thirteeners, there's the world as they see it, and the world as is it. Guess which one they think they're living in? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2013 7:39:35 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because he did it for the shorties, and the lulz. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll have to state my source if the judge asks me to. I was mistaken in this regard. If you had actually revealed your source and he was as impeccable as you have made him out to be, and what you spewed on the Internet was factual, the lawsuit against you would never have gotten off the ground since truth is an absolute defense. I believe the same thing would occur if, when you were making your allegations, you revealed your "source" to be some homeless wino who lives in a cardboard box of because a reasonable person would be able to examine the facts behind your allegations and determine that they were asinine. I find it impossible to believe that you haven't been asked or won't be asked in deposition exactly who the source of your allegedly expert, insider is and the nature of the information that was supposedly provided. It's also a puzzlement to me as to why you simply didn't cease and desist and retract when given the opportunity to avoid being sued? I hope you receive no less than the outcome you deserve in this matter. Because he did it for the shorties, and the lulz. Because he pulled his balls out of his lying liarpants and showed them to SEI after being asked to cease and desist. SEI called his bluff and stepped on him, dick, balls, and all.. Now he's crying because he LIED, was asked to put up or shut up, kept LYING, and now his dick is being stepped on. What a bitch move. He deserves to get smashed in court for being such a moron. Even though it's a silly fucking suit for SEI to go after, at LEAST they're going all the way. Freedom of speech does not protect libel and slander, and it's becoming clearer that OP was obviously trying to start shit in the first place... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2013 8:02:44 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Read my posts in this thread 13er. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So you say. Just what do you base that on? State your facts. Read my posts in this thread 13er. Dumb AND Blind!! I'm a 12'er Oh... and I read your posts. Unintelligible at best. Maybe you should stick to commenting on topics having to do with dating, or food, or dinner pics. They seem more your speed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2013 8:03:32 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Dumb AND Blind!! I'm a 12'er Oh... and I read your posts. Unintelligible at best. Maybe you should stick to commenting on topics having to do with dating, or food, or dinner pics. They seem more your speed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So you say. Just what do you base that on? State your facts. Read my posts in this thread 13er. Dumb AND Blind!! I'm a 12'er Oh... and I read your posts. Unintelligible at best. Maybe you should stick to commenting on topics having to do with dating, or food, or dinner pics. They seem more your speed. Snort. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2013 8:08:41 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm also late to the party, but have read all 14 pages of posts. This is fascinating to me. In all those posts, the only one I came across that seemed odd to me was this one. My comments are in blue. In all my past posts, I've never had the chance to use the word, Derp. After reading your post, I can confidently use it for the first time. I wouldn't be so sure if I were you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm also late to the party, but have read all 14 pages of posts. This is fascinating to me. In all those posts, the only one I came across that seemed odd to me was this one. My comments are in blue. Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll have to state my source if the judge asks me to. I was mistaken in this regard. If you had actually revealed your source and he was as impeccable as you have made him out to be, and what you spewed on the Internet was factual, the lawsuit against you would never have gotten off the ground since truth is an absolute defense. I don't believe this is accurate. There's a lot of leeway given in these type of suits. In truth, anyone can sue anybody for anything. The fact that the suit hasn't been dismissed is in no way indicative of guilt. Ultimately, that's what the trial is for. Many suits like these are allowed to proceed to trial, and the plaintiff loses. And you aren't countering anything America-First said. I believe the same thing would occur if, when you were making your allegations, you revealed your "source" to be some homeless wino who lives in a cardboard box of because a reasonable person would be able to examine the facts behind your allegations and determine that they were asinine. This is all speculation on your part, and is quite frankly, baseless. This also indicates to me that you are in no way impartial in this matter. What is your interest? Do you have first hand knowledge of this case? It's clear he doesn't have a "source." He's interested in a shit stirring troll getting his comeuppance. It's a troll vs. some fucking nutters. I'm here for the lulz. I find it impossible to believe that you haven't been asked or won't be asked in deposition exactly who the source of your allegedly expert, insider is and the nature of the information that was supposedly provided. Good point. Why do you think he hasn't been asked yet? I mean, that's a pretty big thing to leave unanswered - wouldn't you agree? So why is it unasked? Is it possible they already know the answer to this question?. Thry haven't asked him because the suit hasn't gone that far yet. Were still in pleadings; we haven't even seen interrogatories filed yet by SEI. It's also a puzzlement to me as to why you simply didn't cease and desist and retract when given the opportunity to avoid being sued? So... because he was told to desist or be sued, he should have stopped? What kind of person would stop speaking about something they believe in, due to the threat of being sued? Would you? Would you be silenced if threatened? if I was making shit up and committing tortious acts I would. Then if you wanted to fuck with SEI you drag the cease and desist out. I hope you receive no less than the outcome you deserve in this matter. In all my past posts, I've never had the chance to use the word, Derp. After reading your post, I can confidently use it for the first time. I wouldn't be so sure if I were you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2013 8:14:57 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Dumb AND Blind!! I'm a 12'er Nope. Per Arfcom definition, December '12 is the ultimate '13er. 13er and doesn't even know it . . . . 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2013 2:03:59 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's the internet, if someone makes fun of you then you put on your big boy panties and prove them wrong by continuing to churn out a good product and offering good customer service - it's what all the good companies do and there isn't one out there that hasn't been slandered somewhere online. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I know I'm late to this party, but I'm pretty sure suits like this do more harm than good for the plaintiff. Like many folks, I'm sure, I wasn't exactly in the market for any of their items at the moment, but now I'll be certain to never buy them. Imagine it's your business, your good name or professional reputation being disparaged by an internet "expert" who claims insider knowledge of "problems" in your product..........that don't exist. SEI gave the OP the opportunity to retract his statements..........he didn't do it for whatever reason. Fuck the OP. It's the internet, if someone makes fun of you then you put on your big boy panties and prove them wrong by continuing to churn out a good product and offering good customer service - it's what all the good companies do and there isn't one out there that hasn't been slandered somewhere online. No. The burden of proof is on Op. He made the accusation (which is not remotely in the category of "making fun of..."), now he's trying to get out the lawsuit (after being offered an out by SEI to put up or shut up) on a jurisdictional point rather than the merits of the case. If anybody's not putting on his big boy pants, it's Op. I guess we'll see if he actually has any real evidence other than a 'highly reliable source on the inside'. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2013 2:58:06 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hey how about dont be a little bitch and sue someone for talking smack, maybe? If you really cant see whats wrong with that I dont know what to tell you. Sounds a lot like an entitled liberal mentality IMHO. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No one is saying SEI shouldn't be allowed to sue people. What they're too stupid to see, is they've already lost on PR alone. What we're saying is it's a bitch move, and has hurt their business way more than the OP. You see how outnumbered you are here and everywhere else on the internet? There's a good reason for that. People don't like bitches. You know what most people dont like? False accusations and unfounded claims. You call it a bitch move, I call it defending their company reputation. If they where in the wrong then it would be a bitch move. The OP still hasnt offered up his evidence. If he had it why doesnt he show it. He has nothing to gain or lose by proving his case. On your other point I never even heard of this till the OPs whiney email came to the top of GD yesterday. Frankly I cant fathom how you continue to denigrate the company and not him. I am sure they didnt want this to be publicaly aired but like everything else around the OP, he did. Instead of calling Smith out, why dont you point your angst to the guy that origionally and continues to publizes this issue. SEI probably would never have even cared about the OP if he hadnt gone on the warpath. Now he has to deal with them doing the same. In the game of one upmanship, I think he is going to come out the loser. If it was because of unfounded claims it is hard for me feel sorry for him. But, if SEI chose to pursue a false claim and it turns against them they pay the piper. But (again), The OP is scrambling around begging to get folks on his side. Why? I cant help but think because his case is weak. It appears that in the game of put up or shut up, he can do niether....but he will buy up those M14 parts.... Yet you're vastly outnumbered. The reason for this, is people don't like bitches. I don't care. I like to think I'm principled. I would ask you, Why do you hate the fact they stood up for themselves? Don't give me the BS of they lost more customers... That is a cop out answer. Honestly, why do you hate them for standing behind their product? Or do you just hate the fact that they didn't let the OP trample all over them....something ( to use your words) only a bitch would do.. I don't owe SEI anything, I kinda admire their willingness to fight back. Hey how about dont be a little bitch and sue someone for talking smack, maybe? If you really cant see whats wrong with that I dont know what to tell you. Sounds a lot like an entitled liberal mentality IMHO. Well you are wrong just like the OP. I really don't think you get it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2013 7:24:39 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:No. The burden of proof is on Op. He made the accusation (which is not remotely in the category of "making fun of..."), now he's trying to get out the lawsuit (after being offered an out by SEI to put up or shut up) on a jurisdictional point rather than the merits of the case. If anybody's not putting on his big boy pants, it's Op. I guess we'll see if he actually has any real evidence other than a 'highly reliable source on the inside'. He's such a bitch for using the Constitution and 225 years of court decisions, huh? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2013 8:13:31 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He's such a bitch for using the Constitution and 225 years of court decisions, huh? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:No. The burden of proof is on Op. He made the accusation (which is not remotely in the category of "making fun of..."), now he's trying to get out the lawsuit (after being offered an out by SEI to put up or shut up) on a jurisdictional point rather than the merits of the case. If anybody's not putting on his big boy pants, it's Op. I guess we'll see if he actually has any real evidence other than a 'highly reliable source on the inside'. He's such a bitch for using the Constitution and 225 years of court decisions, huh? He should be using it for toilet paper. yuk yuk yuk |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2013 12:17:50 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hey how about dont be a little bitch and sue someone for talking smack, maybe? If you really cant see whats wrong with that I dont know what to tell you. Sounds a lot like an entitled liberal mentality IMHO. It's may be a bitch move, but it's not wrong to go to court and seek legal redress if you have a legitimate grievance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2013 12:19:36 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He should be using it for toilet paper. yuk yuk yuk Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:No. The burden of proof is on Op. He made the accusation (which is not remotely in the category of "making fun of..."), now he's trying to get out the lawsuit (after being offered an out by SEI to put up or shut up) on a jurisdictional point rather than the merits of the case. If anybody's not putting on his big boy pants, it's Op. I guess we'll see if he actually has any real evidence other than a 'highly reliable source on the inside'. He's such a bitch for using the Constitution and 225 years of court decisions, huh? He should be using it for toilet paper. yuk yuk yuk He's probably one of those guys who bitches about "criminals getting off on technicalities" while he cracks open a Genessee Light. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2013 12:40:12 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Dumb AND Blind!! I'm a 12'er Oh... and I read your posts. Unintelligible at best. Maybe you should stick to commenting on topics having to do with dating, or food, or dinner pics. They seem more your speed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So you say. Just what do you base that on? State your facts. Read my posts in this thread 13er. Dumb AND Blind!! I'm a 12'er Oh... and I read your posts. Unintelligible at best. Maybe you should stick to commenting on topics having to do with dating, or food, or dinner pics. They seem more your speed. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2013 12:42:28 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sorry, slander and libel have nothing to do with hypocracy or freedom lovers.......comrade.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I know I'm late to this party, but I'm pretty sure suits like this do more harm than good for the plaintiff. Like many folks, I'm sure, I wasn't exactly in the market for any of their items at the moment, but now I'll be certain to never buy them. Imagine it's your business, your good name or professional reputation being disparaged by an internet "expert" who claims insider knowledge of "problems" in your product..........that don't exist. SEI gave the OP the opportunity to retract his statements..........he didn't do it for whatever reason. Fuck the OP. Whatever you say comrade. The hypocrisy in this site of freedoms lovers has reached epic levels in the last few years. Sorry, slander and libel have nothing to do with hypocracy or freedom lovers.......comrade.
Wrong, dead wrong. Don't really care anymore either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2013 12:42:44 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
... I'm a 12'er
SOME people!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2013 12:47:32 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's may be a bitch move, but it's not wrong to go to court and seek legal redress if you have a legitimate grievance. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Hey how about dont be a little bitch and sue someone for talking smack, maybe? If you really cant see whats wrong with that I dont know what to tell you. Sounds a lot like an entitled liberal mentality IMHO. It's may be a bitch move, but it's not wrong to go to court and seek legal redress if you have a legitimate grievance. If that's really the case then glock should be up to their eyeballs in out going lawsuits. So should Chevrolet, Ford, Chrysler etc... Lol whatever so all the hypocrites standing behind Sei can keep bitching about slander blah blah blah |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2013 12:57:42 PM EDT
[#38]
I hate to see this... SEI did some work for me a while back and went above and beyond. Hard to dislike a company that bent over backwards to help... but I understand the situation the OP is in.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2013 1:08:24 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If that's really the case then glock should be up to their eyeballs in out going lawsuits. So should Chevrolet, Ford, Chrysler etc... Lol whatever so all the hypocrites standing behind Sei can keep bitching about slander blah blah blah Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hey how about dont be a little bitch and sue someone for talking smack, maybe? If you really cant see whats wrong with that I dont know what to tell you. Sounds a lot like an entitled liberal mentality IMHO. It's may be a bitch move, but it's not wrong to go to court and seek legal redress if you have a legitimate grievance. If that's really the case then glock should be up to their eyeballs in out going lawsuits. So should Chevrolet, Ford, Chrysler etc... Lol whatever so all the hypocrites standing behind Sei can keep bitching about slander blah blah blah So why do you hate the Constitution, bro? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2013 2:23:02 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He's such a bitch for using the Constitution and 225 years of court decisions, huh? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:No. The burden of proof is on Op. He made the accusation (which is not remotely in the category of "making fun of..."), now he's trying to get out the lawsuit (after being offered an out by SEI to put up or shut up) on a jurisdictional point rather than the merits of the case. If anybody's not putting on his big boy pants, it's Op. I guess we'll see if he actually has any real evidence other than a 'highly reliable source on the inside'. He's such a bitch for using the Constitution and 225 years of court decisions, huh? Against my better judgment, considering you have yet to offer a single worthwhile point and seem bent on just shooting off your mouth to see what kind of reaction you'll get, no, that's not why he's a "bitch". He refuses to address the merits of his accusation and is instead trying to get out of addressing it all by trying to say SEI can't sue him because they don't have the correct jurisdiction. That's why. Unless you have something other than bullshit "bitch" lines and other toilet paper analogies tossed out there to see if they'll stick, I'm done addressing any of your replies. So get ready to throw another little "bitch" line out there and enjoy that you get the last word. Tell Op I said 'hi' when you sit down for beers tonight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2013 2:26:15 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I hate to see this... SEI did some work for me a while back and went above and beyond. Hard to dislike a company that bent over backwards to help... but I understand the situation the OP is in. He's in the postion he's in by his own efforts. They did good work for you, ..."went above and beyond..." Why would you take the unsubstantiated word of a guy who has yet to offer any proof of shoddy workmanship over the good work they did for you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2013 2:27:27 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Against my better judgment, considering you have yet to offer a single worthwhile point and seem bent on just shooting of your mouth to see what kind of reaction you'll get, no, that's not why he's a "bitch". He refuses to address the merits of his accusation and is instead trying to get out of addressing it all by trying to say SEI can't sue him because they don't have the correct jurisdiction. That's why. Unless you have something other than bullshit "bitch" lines and other toilet paper analogies tossed out there to see if they'll stick, I'm done addressing any of your replies. So get ready to throw another little "bitch" line out there and enjoy that you get the last word. Tell Op I said 'hi' when you sit down for beers tonight. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:No. The burden of proof is on Op. He made the accusation (which is not remotely in the category of "making fun of..."), now he's trying to get out the lawsuit (after being offered an out by SEI to put up or shut up) on a jurisdictional point rather than the merits of the case. If anybody's not putting on his big boy pants, it's Op. I guess we'll see if he actually has any real evidence other than a 'highly reliable source on the inside'. He's such a bitch for using the Constitution and 225 years of court decisions, huh? Against my better judgment, considering you have yet to offer a single worthwhile point and seem bent on just shooting of your mouth to see what kind of reaction you'll get, no, that's not why he's a "bitch". He refuses to address the merits of his accusation and is instead trying to get out of addressing it all by trying to say SEI can't sue him because they don't have the correct jurisdiction. That's why. Unless you have something other than bullshit "bitch" lines and other toilet paper analogies tossed out there to see if they'll stick, I'm done addressing any of your replies. So get ready to throw another little "bitch" line out there and enjoy that you get the last word. Tell Op I said 'hi' when you sit down for beers tonight. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2013 2:28:09 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He's in the postion he's in by his own efforts. They did good work for you, ..."went above and beyond..." Why would you take the unsubstantiated word of a guy who has yet to offer any proof of shoddy workmanship over the good work they did for you? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I hate to see this... SEI did some work for me a while back and went above and beyond. Hard to dislike a company that bent over backwards to help... but I understand the situation the OP is in. He's in the postion he's in by his own efforts. They did good work for you, ..."went above and beyond..." Why would you take the unsubstantiated word of a guy who has yet to offer any proof of shoddy workmanship over the good work they did for you? Because SEI is ran by a nutter who considers the US Army to be a bunch of murderers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2013 2:41:21 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Against my better judgment, considering you have yet to offer a single worthwhile point and seem bent on just shooting off your mouth to see what kind of reaction you'll get, no, that's not why he's a "bitch". He refuses to address the merits of his accusation and is instead trying to get out of addressing it all by trying to say SEI can't sue him because they don't have the correct jurisdiction. That's why. Unless you have something other than bullshit "bitch" lines and other toilet paper analogies tossed out there to see if they'll stick, I'm done addressing any of your replies. So get ready to throw another little "bitch" line out there and enjoy that you get the last word. Tell Op I said 'hi' when you sit down for beers tonight. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:No. The burden of proof is on Op. He made the accusation (which is not remotely in the category of "making fun of..."), now he's trying to get out the lawsuit (after being offered an out by SEI to put up or shut up) on a jurisdictional point rather than the merits of the case. If anybody's not putting on his big boy pants, it's Op. I guess we'll see if he actually has any real evidence other than a 'highly reliable source on the inside'. He's such a bitch for using the Constitution and 225 years of court decisions, huh? Against my better judgment, considering you have yet to offer a single worthwhile point and seem bent on just shooting off your mouth to see what kind of reaction you'll get, no, that's not why he's a "bitch". He refuses to address the merits of his accusation and is instead trying to get out of addressing it all by trying to say SEI can't sue him because they don't have the correct jurisdiction. That's why. Unless you have something other than bullshit "bitch" lines and other toilet paper analogies tossed out there to see if they'll stick, I'm done addressing any of your replies. So get ready to throw another little "bitch" line out there and enjoy that you get the last word. Tell Op I said 'hi' when you sit down for beers tonight. If someone in China sues you in China for defamation while calling it a trademark claim, should you have to go to China to defend the lawsuit, even though you have never been to China? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2013 3:20:50 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If someone in China sues you in China for defamation while calling it a trademark claim, should you have to go to China to defend the lawsuit, even though you have never been to China? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:No. The burden of proof is on Op. He made the accusation (which is not remotely in the category of "making fun of..."), now he's trying to get out the lawsuit (after being offered an out by SEI to put up or shut up) on a jurisdictional point rather than the merits of the case. If anybody's not putting on his big boy pants, it's Op. I guess we'll see if he actually has any real evidence other than a 'highly reliable source on the inside'. He's such a bitch for using the Constitution and 225 years of court decisions, huh? Against my better judgment, considering you have yet to offer a single worthwhile point and seem bent on just shooting off your mouth to see what kind of reaction you'll get, no, that's not why he's a "bitch". He refuses to address the merits of his accusation and is instead trying to get out of addressing it all by trying to say SEI can't sue him because they don't have the correct jurisdiction. That's why. Unless you have something other than bullshit "bitch" lines and other toilet paper analogies tossed out there to see if they'll stick, I'm done addressing any of your replies. So get ready to throw another little "bitch" line out there and enjoy that you get the last word. Tell Op I said 'hi' when you sit down for beers tonight. If someone in China sues you in China for defamation while calling it a trademark claim, should you have to go to China to defend the lawsuit, even though you have never been to China? Man's liable to start ignoring you. I'd be careful, bro. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2013 4:29:01 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If someone in China sues you in China for defamation while calling it a trademark claim, should you have to go to China to defend the lawsuit, even though you have never been to China? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:No. The burden of proof is on Op. He made the accusation (which is not remotely in the category of "making fun of..."), now he's trying to get out the lawsuit (after being offered an out by SEI to put up or shut up) on a jurisdictional point rather than the merits of the case. If anybody's not putting on his big boy pants, it's Op. I guess we'll see if he actually has any real evidence other than a 'highly reliable source on the inside'. He's such a bitch for using the Constitution and 225 years of court decisions, huh? Against my better judgment, considering you have yet to offer a single worthwhile point and seem bent on just shooting off your mouth to see what kind of reaction you'll get, no, that's not why he's a "bitch". He refuses to address the merits of his accusation and is instead trying to get out of addressing it all by trying to say SEI can't sue him because they don't have the correct jurisdiction. That's why. Unless you have something other than bullshit "bitch" lines and other toilet paper analogies tossed out there to see if they'll stick, I'm done addressing any of your replies. So get ready to throw another little "bitch" line out there and enjoy that you get the last word. Tell Op I said 'hi' when you sit down for beers tonight. If someone in China sues you in China for defamation while calling it a trademark claim, should you have to go to China to defend the lawsuit, even though you have never been to China? When they Chinese person/entity came here to domesticate the foreign country judgment you could assert jurisdictional defenses. The issue of personal jurisdiction in the United States is based upon due process considerations and gets somewhat complicated in intentional tort areas. Rather than dismiss on personal jurisdiction grounds the federal court could transfer it to the federal court in Georgia provided there wasn't other jurisdictional defects, e.g. no federal question or lack of the diversity jurisdiction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2013 4:34:46 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
.... When they Chinese person/entity came here to domesticate the foreign country judgment you could assert jurisdictional defenses. The issue of personal jurisdiction in the United States is based upon due process considerations and gets somewhat complicated in intentional tort areas. Rather than dismiss on personal jurisdiction grounds the federal court could transfer it to the federal court in Georgia provided there wasn't other jurisdictional defects, e.g. no federal question or lack of the diversity jurisdiction. I knew somebody would bring up international law. That wasn't the point. ETA: Just make it Hawaii and Maine if that makes you happy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2013 4:55:49 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I knew somebody would bring up international law. That wasn't the point. ETA: Just make it Hawaii and Maine if that makes you happy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
.... When they Chinese person/entity came here to domesticate the foreign country judgment you could assert jurisdictional defenses. The issue of personal jurisdiction in the United States is based upon due process considerations and gets somewhat complicated in intentional tort areas. Rather than dismiss on personal jurisdiction grounds the federal court could transfer it to the federal court in Georgia provided there wasn't other jurisdictional defects, e.g. no federal question or lack of the diversity jurisdiction. I knew somebody would bring up international law. That wasn't the point. ETA: Just make it Hawaii and Maine if that makes you happy. The issue is domesticating the judgment in the home state. Most states have the uniform foreign (as in another state) judgment act which provides for a process of domesticating an out of state judgment in the defendant's home state. If you didn't challenge jurisdiction or participate in the lawsuit in the other state you can raise the personal jurisdiction argument in the domestication proceeding. That can be risky because you typically lose the right to challenge on the merits. Again, federal courts have the option of transferring to a court where the defendant resides if there is jurisdiction to be in federal court. ETA: summary here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enforcement_of_foreign_judgments |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2013 4:58:24 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The issue is domesticating the judgment in the home state. Most states have the uniform foreign (as in another state) judgment act which provides for a process of domesticating an out of state judgment in the defendant's home state. If you didn't challenge jurisdiction or participate in the lawsuit in the other state you can raise the personal jurisdiction argument in the domestication proceeding. That can be risky because you typically lose the right to challenge on the merits. Again, federal courts have the option of transferring to a court where the defendant resides if there is jurisdiction to be in federal court. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
.... When they Chinese person/entity came here to domesticate the foreign country judgment you could assert jurisdictional defenses. The issue of personal jurisdiction in the United States is based upon due process considerations and gets somewhat complicated in intentional tort areas. Rather than dismiss on personal jurisdiction grounds the federal court could transfer it to the federal court in Georgia provided there wasn't other jurisdictional defects, e.g. no federal question or lack of the diversity jurisdiction. I knew somebody would bring up international law. That wasn't the point. ETA: Just make it Hawaii and Maine if that makes you happy. The issue is domesticating the judgment in the home state. Most states have the uniform foreign (as in another state) judgment act which provides for a process of domesticating an out of state judgment in the defendant's home state. If you didn't challenge jurisdiction or participate in the lawsuit in the other state you can raise the personal jurisdiction argument in the domestication proceeding. That can be risky because you typically lose the right to challenge on the merits. Again, federal courts have the option of transferring to a court where the defendant resides if there is jurisdiction to be in federal court. Why are you talking about state court? We're in federal court. Yes, they could change venue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2013 5:06:03 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why are you talking about state court? We're in federal court. Yes, they could change venue. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
.... When they Chinese person/entity came here to domesticate the foreign country judgment you could assert jurisdictional defenses. The issue of personal jurisdiction in the United States is based upon due process considerations and gets somewhat complicated in intentional tort areas. Rather than dismiss on personal jurisdiction grounds the federal court could transfer it to the federal court in Georgia provided there wasn't other jurisdictional defects, e.g. no federal question or lack of the diversity jurisdiction. I knew somebody would bring up international law. That wasn't the point. ETA: Just make it Hawaii and Maine if that makes you happy. The issue is domesticating the judgment in the home state. Most states have the uniform foreign (as in another state) judgment act which provides for a process of domesticating an out of state judgment in the defendant's home state. If you didn't challenge jurisdiction or participate in the lawsuit in the other state you can raise the personal jurisdiction argument in the domestication proceeding. That can be risky because you typically lose the right to challenge on the merits. Again, federal courts have the option of transferring to a court where the defendant resides if there is jurisdiction to be in federal court. Why are you talking about state court? We're in federal court. Yes, they could change venue. Well you are the one that brought up China. You are the one that brought up Hawaii and Maine. In any event, civil judgments in federal court are often domesticated in state court because of broader state remedies, e.g. creation of lien on real estate, etc. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
