Karaoke Forums

Looks like SC's mass suit in Vegas got dismissed without prejudice.

They can re-file in by the beginning of March ( at the latest)- since it was without prejudice- but if they do they will have to file each case separately with separate fees for each filing.

I'm betting that isn't going to happen- or if it does, it will only be on 1 or 2 of the very smallest venues.

Any takers?

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Say it ain't so Joe, the certified hosts on the other forum are jumping up and down and say a few of the easily pressured have already settled. This will give SC the badly needed funds to go on with their individual suits. These suits should have been filed individually in the first place, and it was due to lack of proper resources on SC's part that they were not. One thing I'm wondering even if they do file and go to court, what are they going to do for evidence? APS did the investigations and compiled the files, and SC is suing it's former contractor. Does this mean SC is going to have to do new investigations? I have my doubts the first ones were ever done. Why else did APS fail to produce the files to Donna Boris in the California suits? Especially when APS stood to get 30% of the recovered monies from the settlements. Oh well let's hope this year will see the last of this comic opera. Have a nice day.

Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about.

We have never used investigative reports for evidence in a contested case. The investigative work is strictly for the purpose of establishing a good faith basis for a lawsuit.

SC is in good financial shape and we will be filing new actions in Las Vegas shortly.

We do not have a problem with paying filing fees where the courts require it. Good businesses strive to cut costs even when it's not strictly necessary. It's become necessary, so we'll pay them, and pass the extra costs onto the defendants through settlement or judgment.

1) Agreed- then again, that may be because many- including myself- don't believe that they exist- hence, many dismissals.- and some judges' reprimands.

2) You may well pass the expenses on- if you win a case. Since so many negative precedents have been recorded against SC, anyone with a decent legal background may well make this much more difficult to do.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Still flogging that dead horse, I see. It's been proven to you that they do exist, so at this point it's just a question of your integrity.

As for "so many negative precedents," those don't exist either. There is not a single on-merits precedent against our project. The courts have routinely upheld our theory of prosecution. We've now had two merits trials, and both have resulted in victory for the good guys. And I know it kills you that we're right, but that doesn't make us wrong.

I must assume that this post must be an extension of your humor.

1) Since you ( meaning SC and subcontractors, not Jim personally) ( or whoever) don't ( or can't) bring these reports to court where evidence MUST be provided to make a case, there is no proof that they exist. You might consider leaving integrity out of it- especially when a federal judge describes your legal actions a "Shakedown Suits", your conduct as "vexatious", and states that you "take trolling to the next level". This isn't me, this is a FEDERAL JUDGE, whose statements are a part of court records.

2) The courts don't seem to be upholding much in your favor. Your ( you and yours refer to SC and their subcontractors, whether badly mismanaged or never overseen))cases routinely get dismissed or lost by default, you have been beaten and embarrassed in court by a KJ with NO LEGAL EXPERIENCE, You have had a judge describe you and your suits in an EXTEMELY derogitory manner as a matter of court record, you have sued a disc based host for media-shifting, you have lost 18K to Taka-O due to mismanagement of that case. Strangely, to my untrained eye, these seem like negative precedents.

You have lost-what,200K?- for unknown reasons to said sub-contractors, many of your original cheerleaders have jumped ship, and you have tainted the SC label to a point where many venues won't allow them to be played.

Kind of like Charlie Sheen's "winner" campaign....

Even if I were an outsider, with no karaoke interests at all, were I to note what has happened I would have to conclude that SC has made a complete mess out of whatever they were attempting to do.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

"Don't pay any attention to that man behind the curtain", Kurt is still the all powerful Oz, yeah right!

A police or private investigator's report is never submitted as evidence in court and in 30 years as a police officer then a private investigator, not one of my reports was ever submitted as evidence. My evidence was always given on the stand. Even when autopsy reports are given, they will not (other than extreme circumstances) be accepted as evidence until the examiner has testified. You guys must watch too much TV/movies and think what you see is so, when it is not.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

@Timberlea: What if an investigator is dead or missing, then the only thing left is his evidence/report. That has been known to happen, I bet. Without probable cause evidence, what is the basis for the suit? If the evidence is not shown, and the investigator has vanished, then what proof is there that the law suit was warranted?

What's left is the evidence on the operator's computer system, plus business records and the operator's testimony. That material is obtained in discovery.

The investigative report is never used unless the good faith basis for bringing the suit is challenged under Rule 11.

If the investigative reports are no big deal then why did Kurt agree to pay APS 30% of the settlement monies as part of their recovery pact signed between Kurt, APS and Donna Boris? Also if it is no big deal why did 40 defendants walk with dismissed cases in California, when APS failed to provide the files? Something isn't ringing true here.

McGog, I guess you do not understand the words "extreme cases" which are very very rare. Even of the investigator dies, there would be a Voir Dire, to see if the report can be entered as evidence. The reports assist the prosecutor and gives him or her the background and the events of the case to plan their prosecution.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

I know if I were accused of something I would like to review the report that supports the case, just saying.

The Defence in criminal cases do get the reports (and everything else to do with the case, including the officer's notes) but as Mr Harrington and I have said, those reports are not evidence. Evidence is what is presented in court and reports, except in very rare cases are not presented in court. Evidence is physical, direct testimony or in some cases, expert opinion. A report is none of that. A report is usually a chronological log of what happened. Again, not evidence. If a police officer takes a statement, the only thing he can testify to is that he or she took the statement, that the statement was voluntary and if it is the statement of the accused, that they read them their rights. He cannot testify on the contents, except for extreme cases (ie the witness passed away) but again it would be subject to a Voir Dire.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

If it is not that critical then why was Kurt and Donna Boris willing to cut APS in for 30% of the recovered monies, per their recovery agreement?

100% is way better than 30%. That must be what they were thinking when they disappeared with SC's money.

Listen if some of you want to be or play dense, so be it. You've asked the questions and got the answers. I guess next, you're going to ask why police do investigations if their reports are not evidence. Over the years I have learned there are stupid questions.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

And at my job, my Boss has always said, "There is no such thing as a stupid question... just a question never asked."

So Cuey do you believe "The customer is always right"? But then again you think that Bud is beer.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

American Beer has less alcohol than Canadian beer. That is so people can drink a few beers at a bar and not be too drunk to drive home without killing somone. I guess the goal in Canada is to get drunk as quickly as possible. They must have an inalienable right to be as drunk as a skunk up there.