KARAOKE SCENE MAGAZINE ONLINE! - horrible investigator Public Forums Karaoke Discussions Karaoke Legalities & Piracy, etc... Karaoke Scene's Karaoke Forums Home | Contact Us | Site Map  

Karaoke Forums

Karaoke Scene Karaoke Forums

Karaoke Scene

   
  * Login
  * Register

  * FAQ
  * Search

Custom Search

Social Networks


wordpress-hosting

Offsite Links


It is currently Wed Mar 29, 2017 1:15 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 2:12 pm 
Offline
Major Poster
Major Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 17, 2016 11:58 pm
Posts: 66
Been Liked: 26 times
JimHarrington wrote:
mrscott wrote:
Not only do I find that response to be offensive, I also consider it to be slanderous. A person in your profession should know better than to make things personal, no matter what. You could and should be held accountable for making remarks like that. I honestly am shocked by a statement like that. It may seem funny to you, but it is simply not funny at all.


I wasn't intending to be funny. I was making a point about the smugness of his questions. No one would seriously think I was accusing him of having beaten his wife. And it was no more offensive and slanderous than what I was responding to, yet you complain about me? It's one set of rules for me, and one set for everyone else?

Funny or not, I also take offense to your remarks. Just like how PEP claims that when a KJ uses Sound Choice music and the people sees the Sound Choice logo, they assume the KJ is associated with Sound Choice, your remarks can be construed in the same manner. It looks like you are saying that the Lone Ranger beats his wife. Counselor, you need to watch what you say in public. I normally just watch the bantering you do on a daily basis, but this is stepping over the line.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 4:37 pm 
Offline
Super Duper Poster
Super Duper Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:13 pm
Posts: 2724
Images: 1
Location: Florida
Been Liked: 1058 times
JimHarrington wrote:
I wasn't intending to be funny. I was making a point about the smugness of his questions. No one would seriously think I was accusing him of having beaten his wife. And it was no more offensive and slanderous than what I was responding to, yet you complain about me? It's one set of rules for me, and one set for everyone else?
Now you can feel what PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP goes through every day since his election and inauguration. :wink: :twisted:


Top
 Profile Personal album Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 2:52 am 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4464
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 303 times
Kind of stepped in his own poo.....

Oops....

_________________
"For all the back-and-forth I have with Mr. Staley, the thing about him is that he follows the law and our policies in his karaoke operations. We have no interest in putting him out of business, because he's not violating the law." -- HarringtonLaw (a.k.a: Jimmy "The Weasel" Harrington)


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 6:31 am 
Offline
Super Duper Poster
Super Duper Poster

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am
Posts: 2684
Been Liked: 137 times
JimHarrington wrote:

I wasn't intending to be funny. I was making a point about the smugness of his questions. No one would seriously think I was accusing him of having beaten his wife. And it was no more offensive and slanderous than what I was responding to, yet you complain about me? It's one set of rules for me, and one set for everyone else?


8) I didn't think the questions were smug, they were based on facts that are well known. I think there are a bunch of questions about this legal process of PEP's. I would hope that PEP would be reviewing the mistakes of the past and not repeating them. We won't know though until there are more suits brought, if they ever are? It seems that PEP is using the threat of suits to make sales, which is in keeping with their business model. I would be upset if it were true I had beaten my wife. I know the reason that Jim is upset is because SC has been beating up on hosts for years, and is upset if PEP is called on it.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:53 am 
Offline
Super Duper Poster
Super Duper Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 2879
Location: Pineville, NC
Been Liked: 975 times
The Lone Ranger wrote:
I didn't think the questions were smug, they were based on facts that are well known. I think there are a bunch of questions about this legal process of PEP's.


Then you don't know the definition of "smug."

So, let's analyze:

The Lone Ranger wrote:
You can't speak for APS, but didn't SC hire them to handle their pirate problems in Arizona, Nevada and California?


First of all, I didn't say "I can't speak for APS" (although that's certainly true). I said, "I can't speak to what APS might have been doing (in Arizona and elsewhere) years ago, but they've been out of the picture for a long time." That was specifically in reference to a comment that Paradigm had made regarding tactics that he believes investigators used years ago.

We have never denied that APS was hired to coordinate litigation, including both investigations and interfacing with attorneys. What you don't seem to understand is that despite having been given clear instructions on protocols, they declined to follow those protocols; they made secret deals with defendants and kept the money; they hired attorneys and investigators then declined to pay them once services had been rendered. When it became clear that they weren't going to change their ways (and couldn't come up with the money they had collected), they were fired. On the way out the door, they caused as much damage as possible. We did everything we could to make whole the people who had been damaged by their malice. In other words, we took responsibility for their actions even though they went rogue.

And, by the way, they were fired more than 5 years ago. So, why is it that you keep bringing them up, if not to try to tarnish the work that we're doing--which, by the way, has come off without incident since then?

The Lone Ranger wrote:
This company was representing SC, both as investigators, and in the court with lawyers weren't they? You claim that SC had no knowledge of their activities and yet isn't SC responsible for sub contractors they hire?


It was hired for that purpose, although they were supposed to be acting under Kurt directions. They didn't, and they hid a lot of their activities from Kurt. (I was not directly in the picture at that point.) But, as I have previously (and repeatedly) indicated, SC took responsibility for their actions and made whole the people they had harmed--attorneys and investigators who went unpaid.

The Lone Ranger wrote:
Isn't SC still owed around $300,000.00 collected by APS that was never paid to them?


It's uncollectible. APS's principal lost his house and car and apparently his business. You can't get blood from a turnip.

The Lone Ranger wrote:
Some of that money came from the operators in California that settled out of court for $5,000.00 a piece. Later judge Wright threw the cases that weren't settled out of court, and those operators didn't pay one dime. In hindsight I bet those hosts feel very stupid to have settled, and you wonder why hosts fight back, really?


He threw out those cases because the attorney that was representing us, Donna Boris, decided to disappear and blew a major deadline. It had nothing to do with the merits of the case.

The Lone Ranger wrote:
I guess PEP has learned it's lesson the hard way about subcontracting out their investigations and legal matters, or have they?


I don't know what this means. PEP is not a person. It has to contract with actual people to do investigations and file lawsuits.

The Lone Ranger wrote:
They still have to hire investigators and lawyers in states they are trying to push their legal agenda. That is part of the hold up in Arizona, that PEP couldn't get good help at the price they were willing to pay?


And here's where the smugness creeps in again.

Investigating this kind of conduct requires a particular set of skills. You have to understand how karaoke works. You have to be able to sing credibly. You have to be willing to go into unfamiliar situations and be cool. You have to be able to work without being identified as an investigator. You have to be credible as a witness. Any deficiency in those skill sets and we don't hire you. We pay very well for this work, but finding people who meet our requirements is difficult.

The Lone Ranger wrote:
If you rely on contingency as payment you run the same risk as hiring someone like APS don't you?


There are plenty of attorneys who are willing to work on contingent fee arrangements. Again, we require a particular set of skills--you need to be a litigator (most attorneys aren't), you need to have knowledge of intellectual property law or be able to pick it up quickly, you need to be reliable. The intersection of those skills and willingness to work on contingent fee is fairly small.

The Lone Ranger wrote:
After all they were working on contingency also and just decided to keep the money collected to cover their costs, that is why you didn't get any, wasn't it?


There's a word for that--it's called "theft."

The Lone Ranger wrote:
Of course you are supervising the whole operation this time, aren't you Jim so there won't be a repeat of the APS scandal, right?


No, actually, I'm not. Kurt does a fine job of supervising our litigation operation. My role in the company is plenary with regard to legal matters; I handle a small amount of the anti-piracy litigation (including some primary cases and almost all of the appeals) and all the company's legal work outside of the anti-piracy litigation (contracts, non-litigation enforcement, IP solicitation, etc.). I'm also responsible for long-range operational planning and marketing. I am the general manager for Sound Choice Entertainment.

The Lone Ranger wrote:
Seems like you have enough spare time to come on here if that is the case then you shouldn't be saying any one agent of yours went rogue, right?


I post on this board because it is one of my responsibilities, not because I have "spare time." I am very comfortable with the investigative staff we have right now. They are all very well trained and have long-term experience doing this kind of work.

The Lone Ranger wrote:
So if something happens this time both you and PEP are going to have to own it aren't you?


We "owned" it the last time--more than 5 years ago.

_________________
Since there has been some confusion:
1. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer. Statements I make here about legal issues are for informational purposes only.
2. I am an officer of Phoenix Entertainment Partners, but my opinions on matters not involving Phoenix's business are my own and may not reflect the opinions of the company.
3. If you have questions you'd like answered officially, you are welcome to email me at jim@phxep.com or send me a private message here.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:59 am 
Offline
Super Poster
Super Poster

Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 5:49 pm
Posts: 1419
Been Liked: 50 times
Jim, instead of going into a long narrative about you being butt hurt, why not just admit you said something that offended some people and swallow a bit of your pride and offer a small apology. That is the problem. You seem to believe that what you and your company are doing are the "right" thing to do, and the ONLY way to do it. Can't you see that there is an opposite side of the coin and see things from a second way of looking at the way you and your company operate.

I would think that you could hold yourself to a higher standard than to make rude and condescending comments, even when you are being baited into reacting or over reacting. That same thing should apply to the others as well. It takes two to argue you know.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 9:31 am 
Offline
Super Duper Poster
Super Duper Poster

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am
Posts: 2684
Been Liked: 137 times
JimHarrington wrote:
The Lone Ranger wrote:
I didn't think the questions were smug, they were based on facts that are well known. I think there are a bunch of questions about this legal process of PEP's.


Then you don't know the definition of "smug."

So, let's analyze:

The Lone Ranger wrote:
You can't speak for APS, but didn't SC hire them to handle their pirate problems in Arizona, Nevada and California?


First of all, I didn't say "I can't speak for APS" (although that's certainly true). I said, "I can't speak to what APS might have been doing (in Arizona and elsewhere) years ago, but they've been out of the picture for a long time." That was specifically in reference to a comment that Paradigm had made regarding tactics that he believes investigators used years ago.

We have never denied that APS was hired to coordinate litigation, including both investigations and interfacing with attorneys. What you don't seem to understand is that despite having been given clear instructions on protocols, they declined to follow those protocols; they made secret deals with defendants and kept the money; they hired attorneys and investigators then declined to pay them once services had been rendered. When it became clear that they weren't going to change their ways (and couldn't come up with the money they had collected), they were fired. On the way out the door, they caused as much damage as possible. We did everything we could to make whole the people who had been damaged by their malice. In other words, we took responsibility for their actions even though they went rogue.

8) Did you pay back the hosts that were shook down for the $5,000.00 a piece? No because they settled and admitted their guilt, rigtht?

And, by the way, they were fired more than 5 years ago. So, why is it that you keep bringing them up, if not to try to tarnish the work that we're doing--which, by the way, has come off without incident since then?

8) Five years ago isn't that long, you have been out of the production end of the business for longer than that and you act it's no great shakes.

The Lone Ranger wrote:
This company was representing SC, both as investigators, and in the court with lawyers weren't they? You claim that SC had no knowledge of their activities and yet isn't SC responsible for sub contractors they hire?


It was hired for that purpose, although they were supposed to be acting under Kurt directions. They didn't, and they hid a lot of their activities from Kurt. (I was not directly in the picture at that point.) But, as I have previously (and repeatedly) indicated, SC took responsibility for their actions and made whole the people they had harmed--attorneys and investigators who went unpaid.

8) Then it was Kurt who failed in his responsibilities to oversee and rein in APS?


The Lone Ranger wrote:
Isn't SC still owed around $300,000.00 collected by APS that was never paid to them?


It's uncollectible. APS's principal lost his house and car and apparently his business. You can't get blood from a turnip.

8) Much like the Pirate hosts you sue and let off the hook since they have no assets, that is why you go after venues, right?

He threw out those cases because the attorney that was representing us, Donna Boris, decided to disappear and blew a major deadline. It had nothing to do with the merits of the case.

8) Judge Wright did not call SC an intellectual troll, that filed frivolous lawsuits, that had no merit?


I don't know what this means. PEP is not a person. It has to contract with actual people to do investigations and file lawsuits.


8) I thought with the Supreme Court Ruling that companies are in fact people legally?




No, actually, I'm not. Kurt does a fine job of supervising our litigation operation. My role in the company is plenary with regard to legal matters; I handle a small amount of the anti-piracy litigation (including some primary cases and almost all of the appeals) and all the company's legal work outside of the anti-piracy litigation (contracts, non-litigation enforcement, IP solicitation, etc.). I'm also responsible for long-range operational planning and marketing. I am the general manager for Sound Choice Entertainment.

8) If Kurt is in charge of supervising the litigation operation, why are you coming on here talking about an area you are not involved in?
Planning and marketing, you are then involved in sales, surprise surprise, that is why suits drives sales, a lawyer is also the chief marketing officer of the company.


I post on this board because it is one of my responsibilities, not because I have "spare time."

8) Yes your responsibilities to generate sales, to try an scare hosts into paying up.

We "owned" it the last time--more than 5 years ago.



8) I don't call laying all the blame on APS and saying that SC knew nothing about it as owning it, Jim, at least where I come from that is not owning up to mistakes. What is does demonstrate is mismanagement of a sub contractor, negligence in taking the proper steps to stop the agent in acting in your interests. The only time SC complained at all about APS is when they failed to turn over the money collected by them for SC. Just like you will not complain about any pirates as long as they pay you, the minute they stop or are caught by some other plaintiff, you will disavow all knowledge of their activities, just like you have done in the case of APS.


Last edited by The Lone Ranger on Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:21 am 
Offline
Super Duper Poster
Super Duper Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 2879
Location: Pineville, NC
Been Liked: 975 times
mrscott wrote:
why not just admit you said something that offended some people and swallow a bit of your pride and offer a small apology.


I suppose I could offer you a hollow apology for offending you by directing a rhetorical comment at someone else. The problem is, I'm just really not sorry. When I err, I do apologize.

mrscott wrote:
That is the problem. You seem to believe that what you and your company are doing are the "right" thing to do, and the ONLY way to do it. Can't you see that there is an opposite side of the coin and see things from a second way of looking at the way you and your company operate.


I have no problem with listening to legitimate criticism of what I do, or of what my company is doing. It's just that Lone Ranger's long series of haranguing, offensive questions don't amount to legitimate criticism. The represent an effort on his part to damage our reputation by deliberately misquoting my words, taking statements out of context, and generally beating a dead horse. It's not constructive to the discussion in the slightest. So he doesn't get respect from me. Why would I respect someone who openly roots for pirates to get away with their piracy, regardless of the merits?

mrscott wrote:
I would think that you could hold yourself to a higher standard than to make rude and condescending comments, even when you are being baited into reacting or over reacting. That same thing should apply to the others as well. It takes two to argue you know.


I suppose I could avoid being rude, but I'm a human being, and I get tired of being Mr. Nice Guy.

_________________
Since there has been some confusion:
1. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer. Statements I make here about legal issues are for informational purposes only.
2. I am an officer of Phoenix Entertainment Partners, but my opinions on matters not involving Phoenix's business are my own and may not reflect the opinions of the company.
3. If you have questions you'd like answered officially, you are welcome to email me at jim@phxep.com or send me a private message here.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:48 pm 
Offline
Super Duper Poster
Super Duper Poster

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am
Posts: 2684
Been Liked: 137 times
8) One thing you will never be accused of Jim is being nice, at least by me. You are the general manger in charge of sales and that is basically the responsibility you are fulfilling when you come on this forum. If I get confused with your statements it is because there seems to be contradictions as to what you are doing and how you go about getting it done. The questions about investigators and hiring local talent should really be answered by Kurt since he is in charge of that part of the business. While it is true that APS was over five years ago, also the last time SC produced in any new product is farther back in the past. You still insist that SC is a viable company so if you can make that case, I think I can also say APS is relevant, especially if the same type of abuse is possible with the current method of operation. You have to learn from the past in order to avoid the mistakes of the past. I don't feel that PEP has learned much they have just changed their target from the pirate host to the venue who hires them. If I'm beating a dead horse, then what are you doing? SC has been beating the same horse now for 8 years, and it isn't any closer to getting the horse back up than when it started. Maybe it is time to look for a new mount. I have never said I support pirates, I have successfully competed against them and won, which is more than I can say for you and Kurt.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:41 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4464
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 303 times
OMG! Where to I begin? The CRAP-O-METER is pegged, the FIB-O-METER smokin' hot and newest dance is the "Victim-Twist."

JimHarrington wrote:
We have never denied that APS was hired to coordinate litigation, including both investigations and interfacing with attorneys. What you don't seem to understand is that despite having been given clear instructions on protocols, they declined to follow those protocols; they made secret deals with defendants and kept the money; they hired attorneys and investigators then declined to pay them once services had been rendered. When it became clear that they weren't going to change their ways (and couldn't come up with the money they had collected), they were fired.
However, if you read the lawsuit paperwork and exhibits, you'll find that APS threatened to expose that they in fact, had not performed investigations if they were not given an INCREASE in their percentage of the settlement money from each case. Slep agreed to this percentage increase so it seems to be apparent that those involved with the contract negotiations with APS (Slep annnndd???) were fully aware of what was not happening.

JimHarrington wrote:
On the way out the door, they caused as much damage as possible. We did everything we could to make whole the people who had been damaged by their malice. In other words, we took responsibility for their actions even though they went rogue.

"Everything?" Really? It took 109 days for you to dismiss the lawsuit against Rodney -- who used discs. You didn't so much as offer him a public apology other than to characterize him as a small statistic.
JimHarrington wrote:
And, by the way, they were fired more than 5 years ago. So, why is it that you keep bringing them up, if not to try to tarnish the work that we're doing--which, by the way, has come off without incident since then?
Probably because you walked away from any "recovery lawsuit" stating that your "business direction" had changed. You sued APS.... and then you did nothing and dropped it. You did not file any kind of malpractice suit against attorney Donna Boris. She has never "disappeared" and she's still active with the California bar...

If she had "stolen" over $170,000 from me, you can bet there would be a lawsuit you could trace today... but strangely enough, there's nothing there.

JimHarrington wrote:
It's uncollectible. APS's principal lost his house and car and apparently his business. You can't get blood from a turnip.
Wanna bet that the "sold his assets to himself?" You know how that works right?

JimHarrington wrote:
He threw out those cases because the attorney that was representing us, Donna Boris, decided to disappear and blew a major deadline. It had nothing to do with the merits of the case.

"Decided to disappear?" I don't think so:
Quote:
The following information is from the official records of The State Bar of California.
Bar Number: 153033
Address: Boris & Associates
9107 Wilshire Blvd Ste 450
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Map it Phone Number: (310) 492-5962
County: Los Angeles
Undergraduate School: Michigan State Univ; E Lansing MI
District: District 2
Sections: None Law School: Univ of San Diego SOL; San Diego CA
Status History
Effective Date Status Change
Present Active
6/10/1991 Admitted to The State Bar of California

Explanation of member status
Actions Affecting Eligibility to Practice Law in California

Disciplinary and Related Actions

Overview of the attorney discipline system.
This member has no public record of discipline.

Administrative Actions
This member has no public record of administrative actions.


JimHarrington wrote:
The Lone Ranger wrote:
If you rely on contingency as payment you run the same risk as hiring someone like APS don't you?

There are plenty of attorneys who are willing to work on contingent fee arrangements. Again, we require a particular set of skills--you need to be a litigator (most attorneys aren't), you need to have knowledge of intellectual property law or be able to pick it up quickly, you need to be reliable. The intersection of those skills and willingness to work on contingent fee is fairly small.
The Lone Ranger wrote:
After all they were working on contingency also and just decided to keep the money collected to cover their costs, that is why you didn't get any, wasn't it?


There's a word for that--it's called "theft."

And still, as of today, no malpractice suit?
JimHarrington Feb 15, 2013 wrote:
The Lone Ranger wrote:
Maybe if your side would have paid Donna she wouldn't have withheld Kurt's money, you wouldn't have to sue her, and maybe the 40 defendants wouldn't have been dismissed due to her lack of prosecuting zeal.


That wasn't the arrangement. It was a contingent fee arrangement, which is both normal and an accepted business practice. Your suggestion that SC did something untoward that justifies her misconduct is (a) wishful thinking on your part and (b) misplaced responsibility.
[/quote]
But NOT suing an attorney for theft is responsible?

Unless it was not really theft at all...

_________________
"For all the back-and-forth I have with Mr. Staley, the thing about him is that he follows the law and our policies in his karaoke operations. We have no interest in putting him out of business, because he's not violating the law." -- HarringtonLaw (a.k.a: Jimmy "The Weasel" Harrington)


Last edited by c. staley on Mon Mar 20, 2017 2:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2017 9:21 am 
Offline
Super Duper Poster
Super Duper Poster

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am
Posts: 2684
Been Liked: 137 times
8) One thing that gets me about the whole APS Donna Boris episode is 40 defendants just walked. They didn't pay anybody and they were supposed to be guilty over 5 years ago. If Donna missed dead lines and all of the ground work had been done, why didn't Jim and SC simply refile the complaints? At $5,000.00 a pop for a settlement they just walked away from $200,000.00. Those operators are probably still in the business, bragging about how they beat SC aka PEP. It wasn't worth it for that kind of money to refile? Maybe it was because they knew they would have to go up against the 9th Federal District Court, which hasn't been going their way?


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 29, 2017 12:48 am 
Online
Senior Poster
Senior Poster

Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 12:54 am
Posts: 154
Been Liked: 40 times
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

Everyone here does know (I hope) that the phrase "When did you stop beating your wife" is the oft used classic example of a loaded question, that being any question that carries with it a built-in false assumption.

Use of the phrase is a standard, colloquial way of stating "You have asked me an unanswerable question"; it's not an actual question in and of itself, nor is it at all accusatory when in this form of usage.

Nice article on the subject here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerry-wei ... 21509.html

Just sayin'


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Elementary Penguin and 19 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Privacy Policy | Anti-Spam Policy | Acceptable Use Policy Copyright © Karaoke Scene Magazine
design & hosting by Cross Web Tech