Man, he just keeps digging. That "These people are the reason we diddnt unlock more cool stuff!" tangent is hilarious. He wants to whip people into a frenzy, the pathetic rabble-rouser he is. The "you'll all be sorry!" thing is also bizarre, and could possibly be construed as attempting to influence the outcome of pending legal proceedings. He's fishing for people to recant their statements.
I think we'll all notice if he decides to do so. His will be the badly disguised sock puppet accusing me of being in league with the enemies of Battle Foam and questioning my parentage, hygiene and patriotism :-P
Agamemnon2 wrote: I think we'll all notice if he decides to do so. His will be the badly disguised sock puppet accusing me of being in league with the enemies of Battle Foam and questioning my parentage, hygiene and patriotism :-P
You Finns are the reason for America's moral decay.
Agamemnon2 wrote: I think we'll all notice if he decides to do so. His will be the badly disguised sock puppet accusing me of being in league with the enemies of Battle Foam and questioning my parentage, hygiene and patriotism :-P
You Finns are the reason for America's moral decay.
You smelly, illegitemate Finns are the reason for America's moral decay.
You need to address every point that Agamemnon brought up (and please know that I'm joking).
Final point - This tread will be locked as of now. It is being locked because this had nothing to do with WWX or the kickstarter. Nothing that is being said by these people will delay the ks or effect it in any way. They are not the same company. WWX is simple a victim of what Nick Hayden and his pals attempted to do during the ks. Not only has Nick Hayden attempted to tarnish Battle Foam, Romeo, and their good name but pulled WWX into the mix. This was a move designed to hurt our efforts and get backers to leave.
It worked and cost WWX countless thousands of dollars in revenue because of his article and lies. That means Nick Hayden and his pals are directly to blame for all of you not unlocking specific goals and getting cooler models sooner.
but earlier in the same thread he said
The point is that Outlaw Miniatures has nothing to do with Battle Foam outside of being owned by me. It runs a different crew of employees and is in now way affected by anything Nick Hayden has done or can do
there is a big difference from no way affected to costing countless thousands of dollars
are forum posts admissible in court?
also do we need to worry about prism giving romeo our ip addresses so he can track us down, you know he wants to do that sort of thing (and i go with aol because i thought the british goverment couldn't get to them better stop googling how to start revolutions)
Just read the forum posts on the WWX site. What's intr is that they claim Battlefoam has signed statements from eye witnesses saying everything else anyone is saying is a lie. Anyone see any sign of those?
Also, what's with Romeo attracting rough types of people? Like people who think saying this "I can't STAND internet cowards like this Blood of Kittens weiner. I should probably find a picture of the guy, just in case I have a run in with him on the street." is acceptable
Sining wrote: Just read the forum posts on the WWX site. What's intr is that they claim Battlefoam has signed statements from eye witnesses saying everything else anyone is saying is a lie. Anyone see any sign of those?
Also, what's with Romeo attracting rough types of people? Like people who think saying this "I can't STAND internet cowards like this Blood of Kittens weiner. I should probably find a picture of the guy, just in case I have a run in with him on the street." is acceptable
If he had those, wouldn't they give them to the court as evidence? How would holding onto them benefit them? If they plan on waiting till the last moment to say 'your honour, surprise evidence' or something then they just wasted all the time leading up to that fighting a case they could have won months ago. Seems incredibly wasteful and makes me doubt they exist.
Sining wrote: Just read the forum posts on the WWX site. What's intr is that they claim Battlefoam has signed statements from eye witnesses saying everything else anyone is saying is a lie. Anyone see any sign of those?
Also, what's with Romeo attracting rough types of people? Like people who think saying this "I can't STAND internet cowards like this Blood of Kittens weiner. I should probably find a picture of the guy, just in case I have a run in with him on the street." is acceptable
If he had those, wouldn't they give them to the court as evidence? How would holding onto them benefit them? If they plan on waiting till the last moment to say 'your honour, surprise evidence' or something then they just wasted all the time leading up to that fighting a case they could have won months ago. Seems incredibly wasteful and makes me doubt they exist.
I think it has all the hallmarks of a smoke screen delivered to his faithful.
And even if the statements were claimed to be false at court, BoK could still claim to be acting bona fide reporting what his sources told him, I doubt very much Romeo can prove an intent to deceive on Hayden's part.
Sining wrote: Just read the forum posts on the WWX site. What's intr is that they claim Battlefoam has signed statements from eye witnesses saying everything else anyone is saying is a lie. Anyone see any sign of those?
Also, what's with Romeo attracting rough types of people? Like people who think saying this "I can't STAND internet cowards like this Blood of Kittens weiner. I should probably find a picture of the guy, just in case I have a run in with him on the street." is acceptable
If he had those, wouldn't they give them to the court as evidence? How would holding onto them benefit them? If they plan on waiting till the last moment to say 'your honour, surprise evidence' or something then they just wasted all the time leading up to that fighting a case they could have won months ago. Seems incredibly wasteful and makes me doubt they exist.
I think it has all the hallmarks of a smoke screen delivered to his faithful.
And even if the statements were claimed to be false at court, BoK could still claim to be acting bona fide reporting what his sources told him, I doubt very much Romeo can prove an intent to deceive on Hayden's part.
Sort of like trying to take the weatherman to court, because he said it was going to be a nice day. and a sudden downpour hit. BoK will only claim to be posting information provided to him. And I cant actually fined anything in BOKs posts about the fact that BF is a bad product. the last one i read he stated the product was good. unless He has changed the posts, its a possibility.
Yeah, I don't have very good recollections of the original blog post, but I believe it was more about Romeo's business practices and conflicts with event organizers, which are what those signed statements are about.
Agamemnon2 wrote: Yeah, I don't have very good recollections of the original blog post, but I believe it was more about Romeo's business practices and conflicts with event organizers, which are what those signed statements are about.
Romeo claims that WWX has nothing to do with him except that he owns it (yes?).
Then he goes on to claim that Nick's article cost the WWX kickstarter thousands in sales and kept it from unlocking "cooler models quicker". (yes?)
But his suit says that Nick cost him/Battlefoam thousands in sales. I guess I'm missing something. If battlefoam didn't lose thousands in sales, how can this claim even go through?
Also, if I remember correctly, Kickstarter is not a store. So these aren't thousands in sales, but thousands in investments?
Agamemnon2 wrote: Yeah, I don't have very good recollections of the original blog post, but I believe it was more about Romeo's business practices and conflicts with event organizers, which are what those signed statements are about.
Romeo claims that WWX has nothing to do with him except that he owns it (yes?).
Then he goes on to claim that Nick's article cost the WWX kickstarter thousands in sales and kept it from unlocking "cooler models quicker". (yes?)
But his suit says that Nick cost him/Battlefoam thousands in sales. I guess I'm missing something. If battlefoam didn't lose thousands in sales, how can this claim even go through?
Also, if I remember correctly, Kickstarter is not a store. So these aren't thousands in sales, but thousands in investments?
Yeah this is very true, Kickstarter is not a store ( i wish people remembered that, I'm not looking at Mantic games here what so ever). Already made my views clear on that in my blog. And the fact that in many posts he has said Loss of Sales. Not a loss of investment. So if that's what he is planning because of his Large sized mouth and its clones who also present 40k radio, then it is again a Facepalm moment for his Lawyer. When the defense lawyer brings it up.
He really would do well to hush up, before he causes himself more issues.
Sining wrote: Just read the forum posts on the WWX site. What's intr is that they claim Battlefoam has signed statements from eye witnesses saying everything else anyone is saying is a lie. Anyone see any sign of those?
Also, what's with Romeo attracting rough types of people? Like people who think saying this "I can't STAND internet cowards like this Blood of Kittens weiner. I should probably find a picture of the guy, just in case I have a run in with him on the street." is acceptable
Yeah, that was bad - and shockingly enough, I think that's from a fairly prolific poster here too!
But, Romeo has perhaps in the past gone too far done that type of road himself?
I love his products, but it might be time to start thinking about having Public Romeo take a long break.
If nothing else, at least until the legal issues here are sorted out!
Having just read those statments there seems to be quite a bit of hearsay and hesaid/shesaid with TOs and Mr.Romeo on what was to be provided. One man's merchandise is another's trash I suppose. Still with only one side presenting I'll hold off on 'internet outraging' until I hear the other side.
I just listened to the new 40kradio podcast. and yes, it's true that right around the middle of the show, Kyle (who recently seems incapable of not starting every other sentence without "at the end of the day" or ending it with "more power to you") talks about the entire case. Now he prefaced it by saying "This is just MY personal take on this and has nothing to do with anyone else ..." so obviously he wanted everyone listening to understand that the comments were NOT coming from Romeo.
He started off by saying a lot of people are outright lying and went on to read some emails regarding prize support for one of the tournaments in question. The argument was about free frickin' t-shirts. According to the emails, BF agreed to supply $5000 worth of prize support and to team up with the TO's to co-design a tshirt that would be free for all attendees. Apparently (due to hurricane Sandy according to the emails) the tourney fell well short of it's planned attendance numbers and (according to what Kyle said he saw at the event) the organizers began selling the shirts to help recoup the losses. Kyle's version basically says they saw the shirts being sold, asked the TO's mom about it and then Kyle himself just went over to the table and took them (he felt he was ok to do this because Romeo payed for them to be made). He then handed them out for free. There was also some kerfuffle about the prize support. Again, according to Kyle, BF had specific prizes alloted for specific events. The To's mom apparently kept coming over and saying things like "well, we had hardly anyone show up for Malifuex, so we're going to take that prize and put it up for the 40k event."
So IF what Kyle is saying is true, a lot of that particular issue really is not Romeo's fault. That being said, you have to take him at his word AND assume that he really was reading from emails AND that he wasn't deliberately omitting things from said emails. He made sure to give his phone # at BF out at the end so you can call him if you have any questions about it. lol The thing is though, as others have said, if you've got all this "evidence" where has it been? Why do you keep saying "I'm going to file it, I'm going to take a sworn statement..." etc etc., instead of just filing it and making your statement.
The thing I'm still having an issue with though is the whole "click conspiracy". Not only did he invent that scenario, but he then went on to threaten BoLs by saying they would just talk to all their advertisers and take them away. Kind of an odd move considering threats of that nature were part of BoKs original blog post. What freaking mess.
If any of the legal types around here are still watching, I have a question. Romeo didn't say anything at all in this podcast. Can anything that was said on this episode be used against him in court?
What was the tournament? The only thing I can find is on DuelCon... Battlefoam's own con if I remember correctly.
So... How was DuelCon's attendance affected by hurricane Sandy? DuelCon took place a month before Sandy, and nothing else on the googles has mentioned battlfoam working with a convention about t-shirts.
Alfndrate wrote: What was the tournament? The only thing I can find is on DuelCon... Battlefoam's own con if I remember correctly.
So... How was DuelCon's attendance affected by hurricane Sandy? DuelCon took place a month before Sandy, and nothing else on the googles has mentioned battlfoam working with a convention about t-shirts.
Sining wrote: Just read the forum posts on the WWX site. What's intr is that they claim Battlefoam has signed statements from eye witnesses saying everything else anyone is saying is a lie. Anyone see any sign of those?
Also, what's with Romeo attracting rough types of people? Like people who think saying this "I can't STAND internet cowards like this Blood of Kittens weiner. I should probably find a picture of the guy, just in case I have a run in with him on the street." is acceptable
If he had those, wouldn't they give them to the court as evidence? How would holding onto them benefit them? If they plan on waiting till the last moment to say 'your honour, surprise evidence' or something then they just wasted all the time leading up to that fighting a case they could have won months ago. Seems incredibly wasteful and makes me doubt they exist.
There are filing deadlines - Battle Foam doesn't have to file their objection until 9 days before the hearing. After Battle Foam files their objection Mr. Hayden gets a chance to file a reply. The earlier Battle Foam files its objection, the longer Mr. Hayden gets to work on his reply.
Opposition. Nine court days before the hearing on your motion, the plaintiff must file and serve its legal arguments and evidence in opposition to your motion.
Reply. Five court days before the hearing on your motion, you can file and serve your reply to the plaintiff’s opposition. This may include legal arguments, additional evidence, and your objections to the plaintiff’s evidence.
Alfndrate wrote: What was the tournament? The only thing I can find is on DuelCon... Battlefoam's own con if I remember correctly. So... How was DuelCon's attendance affected by hurricane Sandy? DuelCon took place a month before Sandy, and nothing else on the googles has mentioned battlfoam working with a convention about t-shirts.
The NOVA Open was the tournament in question.
That makes even less sense Carl! NOVA was before DuelCon . I can see if NOVA had smaller numbers due to another Hurricane that had happened at that time, but the claim (by Kyle) of Hurricane Sandy affecting NOVA is just false and frankly not in any realm of reality .
Cyporiean wrote: NOVA was the end of Aug/Beginning of September.
Sandy was the end of October.
That's what I'm saying! How can Hurricane Sandy, a hurricane from the 22nd of October to the 29th of October affect something that had finished 2 months earlier?
Cyporiean wrote: NOVA was the end of Aug/Beginning of September.
Sandy was the end of October.
That's what I'm saying! How can Hurricane Sandy, a hurricane from the 22nd of October to the 29th of October affect something that had finished 2 months earlier?
Alfndrate wrote: What was the tournament? The only thing I can find is on DuelCon... Battlefoam's own con if I remember correctly.
So... How was DuelCon's attendance affected by hurricane Sandy? DuelCon took place a month before Sandy, and nothing else on the googles has mentioned battlfoam working with a convention about t-shirts.
The NOVA Open was the tournament in question.
I'm pretty sure Battlefoam wasn't at NOVA in 2012. Plus, Sandy was in October with NOVA being in late August or early September.
T-shirts and harassing people? That does indeed sound like the NOVA situation, but Sandy has nothing to do with it... not sure where that's supposed to be coming from.
Edit: I didn't get ninja'd... I was just fashionably late to the party.
Cyporiean wrote: NOVA was the end of Aug/Beginning of September.
Sandy was the end of October.
That's what I'm saying! How can Hurricane Sandy, a hurricane from the 22nd of October to the 29th of October affect something that had finished 2 months earlier?
Alfndrate wrote: What was the tournament? The only thing I can find is on DuelCon... Battlefoam's own con if I remember correctly.
So... How was DuelCon's attendance affected by hurricane Sandy? DuelCon took place a month before Sandy, and nothing else on the googles has mentioned battlfoam working with a convention about t-shirts.
The NOVA Open was the tournament in question.
That makes even less sense Carl! NOVA was before DuelCon . I can see if NOVA had smaller numbers due to another Hurricane that had happened at that time, but the claim of Hurricane Sandy is just false and frankly not in any realm of reality .
I may have just added to the confusion. I saw "Hurricane" and "Tournament" and thought NOVA. I see what your point is now!
Ill shut up as this portion had nothing to do with me and further attempts to clarify on my part will probably just add to the confusion! Sorry about that.
Alfndrate wrote: What was the tournament? The only thing I can find is on DuelCon... Battlefoam's own con if I remember correctly.
So... How was DuelCon's attendance affected by hurricane Sandy? DuelCon took place a month before Sandy, and nothing else on the googles has mentioned battlfoam working with a convention about t-shirts.
The NOVA Open was the tournament in question.
That makes even less sense Carl! NOVA was before DuelCon . I can see if NOVA had smaller numbers due to another Hurricane that had happened at that time, but the claim of Hurricane Sandy is just false and frankly not in any realm of reality .
I may have just added to the confusion. I saw "Hurricane" and "Tournament" and thought NOVA. I see what your point is now!
Ill shut up as this portion had nothing to do with me and further attempts to clarify on my part will probably just add to the confusion! Sorry about that.
It's okay! I went digging, and saw some of the posted responses on Heresey Online, Mike Brandt's story matches up with Kyles about t-shirts and crying mothers. The problem is that Tycho had "reported"/said that Kyle had mentioned Hurricane Sandy in some emails. So either Tycho heard it incorrectly, or Kyle doesn't know when NOVA is .
Long story; not really one to air old dirty laundry. Suffice to say, the January e-mail about prize support was later revised to a much smaller level; the t-shirts were supposed to match a certain criteria ... and did not ... at all; the sale of a few of them was done erroneously by NOVA staff and attempts were made to correct / reimburse / etc. - the affidavit confirms that error on our part. Kyle came and got the T-Shirts instead of Romeo b/c of the altercation that occurred b/tween him and my mother. It was already agreed upon w/ Romeo, which is why no one in a crowded registration staffed area minded a guy walking up and taking a bunch of things from behind the reg desk. The switching of them to the BF booth for hand-out was agreed upon b/tween us after that altercation. *shrug* It's not material to the BOK stuff - not only is he not reading from the final sponsor agreements/e-mails, the case has nothing to do with miscommunication and errors regarding T-Shirt sales / giveaways. Yes, they were sold and should not have been. Yes, that was corrected. The only thing at issue in the affidavit relative to the case was the verbal/physical interaction between Roman F. and one of our staff members, a woman.
The lower attendance due to hurricane was NOT the direct issue - we had over 400 people show up regardless, including 210 for just the 40kGT, and that was within the range we in writing let Romeo and all other sponsors know we intended to have (of over 33 sponsors, all but one left happy and returned the next year ...)
The only real thing that is at issue from the BOK case is that Romeo directly confronted my mother, per the affidavit's remainder regarding physical contact, yelling, belittling, etc., with dozens of witnesses, b/c it was done in the main gaming hall right near the Invitational tables. Hence why people gathered around / came to intercede while others went to get me.
These things were discussed b/tween BF and NOVA in e-mail following the 2011 con, and we agreed mutually to part ways. We never brought it up since. The story got out because other people unaffiliated who witnessed it started spreading it around. Exactly per Kyle's 40k Radio question about why it wasn't spread around. Well, it was, that's how BOK heard about it yada yada. We certainly wouldn't contact them - BOK has thrown NOVA under the bus plenty historically. When we were contacted for an affidavit, our attorney advised we do so regarding only the facts in question, and so we did. *shrug*
It's all good man, just trying to clear up a statement that was made earlier in the thread. The t-shirt thing doesn't seem to be a huge issue, but the physical contact between Romeo and your mother most certainly is (as you said). It's pretty damming evidence.
The lower attendance due to hurricane was NOT the direct issue - we had over 400 people show up regardless, including 210 for just the 40kGT, and that was within the range we in writing let Romeo and all other sponsors know we intended to have (of over 33 sponsors, all but one left happy and returned the next year ...)
So there WAS a hurricane involved. lol I knew I heard him say it but was starting to think I was going crazy! lol
The only real thing that is at issue from the BOK case is that Romeo directly confronted my mother, per the affidavit's remainder regarding physical contact, yelling, belittling, etc., with dozens of witnesses, b/c it was done in the main gaming hall right near the Invitational tables. Hence why people gathered around / came to intercede while others went to get me.
Which they didn't really cover that much in the podcast. To me the cast read more like "It's NOVA's fault prize support got fethed up". They didn't address much besides that which I find interesting. (MVBrandt - please note I'm not suggesting I find fault with you or anything you've said).
Suffice to say, the January e-mail about prize support was later revised to a much smaller level; the t-shirts were supposed to match a certain criteria ... and did not ... at all; the sale of a few of them was done erroneously by NOVA staff and attempts were made to correct / reimburse / etc. - the affidavit confirms that error on our part.
That's kind of what I envisioned from hearing Kyle tell the story. If the tournament losses had really been that bad, I couldn't see them being made up simply by the sale of some shirts. That part of his story didn't make sense to me. Regarding the "emails" he was reading - well yeah, like I said before, I kind of figured it probably wasn't the entire story.
2) Can take a unit from any other codex at 2x the base cost
3) Add 25% to the unit's cost if it has black on the model or any where near it
4) Any units named after male Shakespeare characters gain the rage special rule, which confers to the unit they join
5) All units must be modeled with maple bats
USR Rule:
"Stop or I'll tell my lawyers!" At any point in the game, any model can contest any outcome. All adjacent tables vote on the outcome.
USR Rule:
"Eat some C&D" the Codex: Battlefoam player can draft and deliver C&D letters before any action by the opposing player, then the Codex: Battle player negates that action
Nothing Battlefoam or Romeo or someone whose livelihood DEPENDS on Romeo has said has refuted any of the allegations. I wonder just what kind of case Romeo thinks he has
Sining wrote: Nothing Battlefoam or Romeo or someone whose livelihood DEPENDS on Romeo has said has refuted any of the allegations. I wonder just what kind of case Romeo thinks he has
The guy on 40k radio said that the physical altercation between Romeo and Mrs. Brandt didn't happen.
Sining wrote: Nothing Battlefoam or Romeo or someone whose livelihood DEPENDS on Romeo has said has refuted any of the allegations. I wonder just what kind of case Romeo thinks he has
The guy on 40k radio said that the physical altercation between Romeo and Mrs. Brandt didn't happen.
Yes, a guy who wasn't even in the hall said something that was witnessed by a large # of people did not happen.
Sining wrote: Nothing Battlefoam or Romeo or someone whose livelihood DEPENDS on Romeo has said has refuted any of the allegations. I wonder just what kind of case Romeo thinks he has
The guy on 40k radio said that the physical altercation between Romeo and Mrs. Brandt didn't happen.
wait lolwut?
On a similar note: Carl, if you're still lurking in this thread. Did you and Geoff recap the story about the guy getting a battlefoam tattoo? Was he on the podcast, etc... Or did you two decide not to bring drama where it wasn't needed? I'm curious if there is first hand testimony available from that guy .
Heh, guess I focused a bit too much on 'directly related' and not enough on the actual definition of refute. At around minute 36 on Ep 62 of 40k radio someone that works for battlefoam (or at least claims to) attempts to refute several of the claims made in affidavits. He doesn't actually disprove anything though.
Lansirill wrote: Heh, guess I focused a bit too much on 'directly related' and not enough on the actual definition of refute. At around minute 36 on Ep 62 of 40k radio someone that works for battlefoam (or at least claims to) attempts to refute several of the claims made in affidavits. He doesn't actually disprove anything though.
That's Kyle, and he does work for Battlefoam. I've met him at GenCon.
I can't speak to the accuracy of this claims and/or counter claims, though.
Sining wrote: Well one side has legally signed affidavits while the other has a lot of talk. Seems pretty clear so far.
I believe it was czakk that mentioned earlier in the thread that there was a sort of... point to the delaying of filing by Romeo. He has up until 9 days before the hearing to file, the longer it takes him to file, the less time Nick has to respond to the claims.
Sining wrote: Well one side has legally signed affidavits while the other has a lot of talk. Seems pretty clear so far.
I believe it was czakk that mentioned earlier in the thread that there was a sort of... point to the delaying of filing by Romeo. He has up until 9 days before the hearing to file, the longer it takes him to file, the less time Nick has to respond to the claims.
I guess that makes some sense, but since the counter to anything Romeo's side says is going to be "No, what we said is really the truth!" it all seems like a waste of time.
Of course, the court of public opinion isn't going to decide this case, but it is going to decide a lot more in terms of PR and all that.
The whole thing is now My Word vs. Your Word, and in the end, I can't see that being 'worth' it for BF.
The hurricane didn't actually roll into town until Saturday and most people were 'there' by thurs/friday. I am surprised anyone would try to get gakky about an 'act of god'.
This situation makes me want to sell my battlefoam bag and just re-foam.
I would not attend days 1 and 2 of a convention that was due to be hit by a Hurricane on day 3. I've ridden through 3 Tropical Storms and 2 Hurricanes in my time in Houston. It isn't fun.
However, are we sure that this is what Romeo was upset about? Are we sure it wasn't something the event organizers had done? Do we have proof that Romeo yelled at the lady, or that she started yelling at him first?
Sounds like he said, she said at the moment.
Don't toss your battlefoam bags just yet, nkelsch.
Sining wrote: Well one side has legally signed affidavits while the other has a lot of talk. Seems pretty clear so far.
I believe it was czakk that mentioned earlier in the thread that there was a sort of... point to the delaying of filing by Romeo. He has up until 9 days before the hearing to file, the longer it takes him to file, the less time Nick has to respond to the claims.
I guess that makes some sense, but since the counter to anything Romeo's side says is going to be "No, what we said is really the truth!" it all seems like a waste of time.
Of course, the court of public opinion isn't going to decide this case, but it is going to decide a lot more in terms of PR and all that.
The whole thing is now My Word vs. Your Word, and in the end, I can't see that being 'worth' it for BF.
It can also be up to the lawyer's timetable as well. If Mr. Sreecharana has other matters on his plate it might not get filed until the deadline. If he wants a few days extra to review and perfect things, it's not going in until the deadline etc... There's no prize for filing early.
I wonder how much Battlefoam is worth to Romeo, might want to buy the company. The product is fantastic the owner is not, a management change could renew the peoples view of battlefoam.
Sining wrote: Well one side has legally signed affidavits while the other has a lot of talk. Seems pretty clear so far.
I believe it was czakk that mentioned earlier in the thread that there was a sort of... point to the delaying of filing by Romeo. He has up until 9 days before the hearing to file, the longer it takes him to file, the less time Nick has to respond to the claims.
I guess that makes some sense, but since the counter to anything Romeo's side says is going to be "No, what we said is really the truth!" it all seems like a waste of time.
Of course, the court of public opinion isn't going to decide this case, but it is going to decide a lot more in terms of PR and all that.
The whole thing is now My Word vs. Your Word, and in the end, I can't see that being 'worth' it for BF.
It can also be up to the lawyer's timetable as well. If Mr. Sreecharana has other matters on his plate it might not get filed until the deadline. If he wants a few days extra to review and perfect things, it's not going in until the deadline etc... There's no prize for filing early.
Agreed, but the 'prize' here might be something to help counter the negative press to date and try to generate some 'sympathy' for BF's side?
Sining wrote: Well one side has legally signed affidavits while the other has a lot of talk. Seems pretty clear so far.
I believe it was czakk that mentioned earlier in the thread that there was a sort of... point to the delaying of filing by Romeo. He has up until 9 days before the hearing to file, the longer it takes him to file, the less time Nick has to respond to the claims.
I guess that makes some sense, but since the counter to anything Romeo's side says is going to be "No, what we said is really the truth!" it all seems like a waste of time.
Of course, the court of public opinion isn't going to decide this case, but it is going to decide a lot more in terms of PR and all that.
The whole thing is now My Word vs. Your Word, and in the end, I can't see that being 'worth' it for BF.
It can also be up to the lawyer's timetable as well. If Mr. Sreecharana has other matters on his plate it might not get filed until the deadline. If he wants a few days extra to review and perfect things, it's not going in until the deadline etc... There's no prize for filing early.
Agreed, but the 'prize' here might be something to help counter the negative press to date and try to generate some 'sympathy' for BF's side?
Probably not worth it though...
A few days' of public PR isn't going to help them much. No, they have far more to gain by blindsiding their opposition and hoping to win the case.
kronk wrote:Romeo and Kyle have given their opinions on recent 40k Podcast episodes. I don't know how much more they'll say publicly before the trial, though.
Whatever Romeo says outside of court can be pulled to be admissible in court, that's why lawyers typically advise their clients to shut their trap during any case. Individuals speaking on their behalf (or in representation of them) can sometimes be dragged into the case too, but I do believe that Kyle tried to shield himself by stating that his words were his own opinions. Of course, we all know that it goes far beyond just an "opinion".
kronk wrote: Romeo and Kyle have given their opinions on recent 40k Podcast episodes. I don't know how much more they'll say publicly before the trial, though.
Yeah it seems to have been a poor attempt at damage control. I think their execution of this however borders on being as slanderous, if not more, than what they are accusing of the other parties. Kyle straddles the fence of saying it's his opinion, but at times comes across as speaking as a representative of the company. These guys are only making it harder for themselves, and as they drag more people into it, potentially more expensive also. I hope their lawyer is getting paid well.
carboncopy wrote: These guys are only making it harder for themselves, and as they drag more people into it, potentially more expensive also. I hope their lawyer is getting paid well.
Look at the claims in the lawsuit filed in Arizona - communications with customers, business partners and potential customers / business partners.
If this continues on past the motion to strike, imagine how happy those business partners will be when they get dragged into this mess and get deposed under oath.
Was there specific mention of Mantic in there that I missed?
I think that's referring to the latest 40k radio podcast. In the section where Kyle talks about the "click conspiracy" with BoLs, he talks about "how easy" it would be to go speak with their other advertisers and get them to pull support. Mantic, PP and several others were specifically mentioned in that although in all honesty I don't think that had anything to do with the court case so much as it does BF's frustration at the situation in general.
kronk wrote: However, are we sure that this is what Romeo was upset about? Are we sure it wasn't something the event organizers had done? Do we have proof that Romeo yelled at the lady, or that she started yelling at him first.
According to Kyle, this issue with Mike Brandt's mother seems to have been caused by several of the staff selling some of the convention shirts and Kyle (by taking several of the shirts to give out by his own admission) and Romeo having issue with what had been done (by the "altercation" that had occurred). We have signed testimony from Mike Brandt stating what had happened, under the threat of perjury (if I read those declarations properly), and I believe there was at least 1 other declaration to corroborate what had happened. And from Tycho's post on page 11, it seems that Kyle himself said there was something heated between Mrs. Brandt and Romeo.
I realize that both Kyle and Mike are involved (due to Kyle being a BF employee and Mike having submitted a recount of what happened), but a third party vendor mentioned something in his declaration.
I've listened to most of episode 62. From what I understand, BF supplied the shirts to the convention to be handed out for free, but the organizers chose to sell them to cover their losses due to the storm, or something to that effect. BF told them to knock it off, and the argument ensued.
At least, I think that's what I'm getting from the story. I guess I'll need to read the signed testimony to get Mike's side of the story. Was that posted earlier?
I've listened to most of episode 62. From what I understand, BF supplied the shirts to the convention to be handed out for free, but the organizers chose to sell them to cover their losses due to the storm, or something to that effect. BF told them to knock it off, and the argument ensued.
At least, I think that's what I'm getting from the story. I guess I'll need to read the signed testimony to get Mike's side of the story. Was that posted earlier?
Basically what I got too although I didn't intend what I posted on page 11 to make it sound "heated". Listening to the podcast, Kyle made it sound like there was definitely a discussion, but I don't feel like he at any point suggested that things got to the level of what is stated in the official court papers.
kronk wrote: I've listened to most of episode 62. From what I understand, BF supplied the shirts to the convention to be handed out for free, but the organizers chose to sell them to cover their losses due to the storm, or something to that effect. BF told them to knock it off, and the argument ensued.
At least, I think that's what I'm getting from the story. I guess I'll need to read the signed testimony to get Mike's side of the story. Was that posted earlier?
Sining wrote: Nothing Battlefoam or Romeo or someone whose livelihood DEPENDS on Romeo has said has refuted any of the allegations. I wonder just what kind of case Romeo thinks he has
The guy on 40k radio said that the physical altercation between Romeo and Mrs. Brandt didn't happen.
wait lolwut?
On a similar note: Carl, if you're still lurking in this thread. Did you and Geoff recap the story about the guy getting a battlefoam tattoo? Was he on the podcast, etc... Or did you two decide not to bring drama where it wasn't needed? I'm curious if there is first hand testimony available from that guy .
Geoff and I make a conscious decision to keep this kind of drama out of our show. Our show is about having fun with 40k and your friends. Not this kind of thing. We work hard on keeping it positive.
Everything I heard/witnessed was in my statement to Nick Haydens attorney. As Mike mentioned earlier, I don't think any of us sought him out to tell our experiences. The attorney came to each us for clarifications of the events.
For the most part I am staying pretty silent beyond what was said in the statement simply because don't want to make the situation inadvertently worse for any of the parties involved. It just feels like this thing has taken on a life of its own...
Sining wrote: Nothing Battlefoam or Romeo or someone whose livelihood DEPENDS on Romeo has said has refuted any of the allegations. I wonder just what kind of case Romeo thinks he has
The guy on 40k radio said that the physical altercation between Romeo and Mrs. Brandt didn't happen.
wait lolwut?
On a similar note: Carl, if you're still lurking in this thread. Did you and Geoff recap the story about the guy getting a battlefoam tattoo? Was he on the podcast, etc... Or did you two decide not to bring drama where it wasn't needed? I'm curious if there is first hand testimony available from that guy .
Geoff and I make a conscious decision to keep this kind of drama out of our show. Our show is about having fun with 40k and your friends. Not this kind of thing. We work hard on keeping it positive.
Everything I heard/witnessed was in my statement to Nick Haydens attorney. As Mike mentioned earlier, I don't think any of us sought him out to tell our experiences. The attorney came to each us for clarifications of the events.
For the most part I am staying pretty silent beyond what was said in the statement simply because don't want to make the situation inadvertently worse for any of the parties involved. It just feels like this thing has taken on a life of its own...
Coming from a community where there's a lot of drama and political bull going on, I truly respect this approach. You just earned yourself a listener.
cvtuttle wrote: Geoff and I make a conscious decision to keep this kind of drama out of our show. Our show is about having fun with 40k and your friends. Not this kind of thing. We work hard on keeping it positive.
Everything I heard/witnessed was in my statement to Nick Haydens attorney. As Mike mentioned earlier, I don't think any of us sought him out to tell our experiences. The attorney came to each us for clarifications of the events.
For the most part I am staying pretty silent beyond what was said in the statement simply because don't want to make the situation inadvertently worse for any of the parties involved. It just feels like this thing has taken on a life of its own...
That's fine, I was just wondering if the guy had come and talked to you and it had made it's way onto tape . I figured you guys would have kept it classy, just curious is all .
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Enigwolf wrote: Coming from a community where there's a lot of drama and political bull going on, I truly respect this approach. You just earned yourself a listener.
The ICs are probably the only podcast that can make me feel good about GW games and products, and Carl's pictures on facebook have made me want to pick up some deathwatch books and play in a game of that (and they haven't even recorded that episode yet!).
kronk wrote: I've listened to most of episode 62. From what I understand, BF supplied the shirts to the convention to be handed out for free, but the organizers chose to sell them to cover their losses due to the storm, or something to that effect. BF told them to knock it off, and the argument ensued.
At least, I think that's what I'm getting from the story. I guess I'll need to read the signed testimony to get Mike's side of the story. Was that posted earlier?
He didn't link to the correct declaration, check out the parts from the Wolf and Vela declarations (can't remember which one but they are the wargames con/bols guys) and one of them mentions Romeo asking for assistance to help "destroy"* Blood of Kittens.
* - Destroy is used by Alfndrate and not actually used by the declaration in question.
Edit: Specifically look at Vela Delcaration, paragraph 9, "On Monday, Mr. Filip called me again. He began by telling me he considered us to be friends. He claimed that he helped me developed my business and therefore I should be willing to do him a favor. He asked that I: 1) remove any links to Hayden's website from my websites, 2) delete any articles on my website that Nicolas Hayden had written, and 3) post an article on my site vindicating Filip and denouncing Hayden for liable. (should be libel)."
I don't have a dog in this fight, though it looks like a lot of people are going to lose time, money, and sleep over this no matter who wins. This is really a shame.
Whether or not what BoK is true, I'm no longer going to purchase Battlefoam products, based solely on Romeo's continued tortuous, irrational behavior. I'm also going to pass on WWX, for the same reason. It's a shame, as I love my PPBF bags and WWX looked neat. Just have to draw the line somewhere.
Guess who has been banned from 40kradios forum for posting here and not supporting their community. Its nice to see Brandt's helping clear stuff up and Carl taking the right approach for this. Relationships are probably damaged beyond repair over this but I doubt it will matter come the outcome of this case. I will say Kyle is a stand up guy and do think its him vs romeo speaking through him.
To what we know, whether its he said she said, its hard to say it. idnt happen when someone else says the same. On the matter of the tatto for discount, Spencer of the old 40kradio offerred free lifetime membership for a tattoo. Feel sorry for all the kool-aid drinkers there. I also seem to recall on the old battlefoam website you got something for posting your bag somewhere around the world at the time tattoo for discount was around.
So anyone know the next date where we might actually know something other than hear say, yabbering, boo hoo and "kool-aid"?
And am I not correct in saying that no matter who wins the legal system in either state means it's just a legal decision? I mean realistically reading some of the opinions here it really doesn't matter if Romeo wins for some does it? And even if he decided not to nail Nick to the wall out of kindness or otherwise then a small number (and lets face it there really is only a handful of 'dissenters' here compared to the total number of active members on Dakka and the wider gaming community at large) will immediately claim it proof of whatever your hearts desire anyway. Doh! Don't you just love legal situations!
That reminds me I must buy some kool-aid I hear it's awesome! Although I have yet to work out what it is but it sounds like I'll enjoy it.
Stay classy peeps.
Mickey 'Cant wait to buy a new 720 in blue and put a white World Eaters chevron on it' P
MickeyP2K wrote: So anyone know the next date where we might actually know something
As far as california goes, that's largely up to the parties. We can see when stuff is filed, but it isn't available electronically unless either side uploads it. Or an enterprising soul goes to the courthouse and pays to photocopy it. The next big dates are in early july, the various motion hearings.
In Arizona, if the action remains in federal court, we'll be able to get stuff as it goes up on pacer.
The next thing we'll see will be Romeo's filings, I believe. Until then, unless Romeo, Tasty Taste, or some other person involved posts some stuff, we're in speculation mode.
Also, people really need to stop saying "Don't Drink the Kool Aide". Seriously. The powdered drink mix used at Jonestown was Flavor-Aide. Leave the fething Kool-Aide man alone!
kronk wrote: I believe that Romeo/BF is wanting to have the case seen in Arizona instead of California. I don't think anything been decided, yet.
Either side can request a change in venue, but it's up to the court to grant or deny one.
(IANAL)
Oh, I see. Romeo wants the state of Arizona to take jurisdiction since he is based in Arizona, and the offense was "committed" against him. For those unfamiliar with what it does, it's a technicality usually used for lowering costs by having your opposition come to you instead of you going to them. But in this case, if the case goes to Arizona, it will prevent BoK from using California's Anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statutes. The Anti-SLAPP statute in California weighs the case heavily in BoK's favor as it stops all discovery (obtaining evidence) from happening and puts the ball in Romeo's court (hur hur hur, punny) to prove their case having legal merit rather than being used as a "weapon" or a form of harassment. Therefore, Romeo's going out and talking smack, if taken into court, would work against him.
MickeyP2K wrote: So anyone know the next date where we might actually know something other than hear say, yabbering, boo hoo and "kool-aid"?
And am I not correct in saying that no matter who wins the legal system in either state means it's just a legal decision? I mean realistically reading some of the opinions here it really doesn't matter if Romeo wins for some does it? And even if he decided not to nail Nick to the wall out of kindness or otherwise then a small number (and lets face it there really is only a handful of 'dissenters' here compared to the total number of active members on Dakka and the wider gaming community at large) will immediately claim it proof of whatever your hearts desire anyway. Doh! Don't you just love legal situations!
That reminds me I must buy some kool-aid I hear it's awesome! Although I have yet to work out what it is but it sounds like I'll enjoy it.
Stay classy peeps.
Mickey 'Cant wait to buy a new 720 in blue and put a white World Eaters chevron on it' P
I'm sure the next thing we will see is when Romeo puts forward his paperwork. Then we can see what affidavits, if any, he has for his side.
You're right, after the legal battle, no matter the outcome, no side will most likely sway the other. Each side will still assert the other side is wrong and/or a bunch of liars. Kind of makes it pointless doesn't it? And a big waste of time and money. I'm hoping the first amendment wins.
I'm not sure what you mean by "dissenters". Is there a club? More than anything, there's just consumers, who have a wide degree of opinions, and those opinions fall across a spectrum. There have been a number of people speaking in support of the events in the article, some of them big names (in our little industry), that evidence is going to be hard to deny, especially since it comes from a number of sources and not one club or one conspiracy. We'll see what affidavits Romeo has, and get another set of perspectives.
kronk wrote: I believe that Romeo/BF is wanting to have the case seen in Arizona instead of California. I don't think anything been decided, yet.
Either side can request a change in venue, but it's up to the court to grant or deny one.
(IANAL)
Oh, I see. Romeo wants the state of Arizona to take jurisdiction since he is based in Arizona, and the offense was "committed" against him. For those unfamiliar with what it does, it's a technicality usually used for lowering costs by having your opposition come to you instead of you going to them. But in this case, if the case goes to Arizona, it will prevent BoK from using California's Anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statutes. The Anti-SLAPP statute in California weighs the case heavily in BoK's favor as it stops all discovery (obtaining evidence) from happening and puts the ball in Romeo's court (hur hur hur, punny) to prove their case having legal merit rather than being used as a "weapon" or a form of harassment. Therefore, Romeo's going out and talking smack, if taken into court, would work against him.
Every lawyer ever is going to attempt to move the court to a more favorable location, either travel-wise, pro/anti [insert legal standing] state, and so on. That's just being a good lawyer.
kronk wrote: I believe that Romeo/BF is wanting to have the case seen in Arizona instead of California. I don't think anything been decided, yet.
Either side can request a change in venue, but it's up to the court to grant or deny one.
(IANAL)
Oh, I see. Romeo wants the state of Arizona to take jurisdiction since he is based in Arizona, and the offense was "committed" against him. For those unfamiliar with what it does, it's a technicality usually used for lowering costs by having your opposition come to you instead of you going to them. But in this case, if the case goes to Arizona, it will prevent BoK from using California's Anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statutes. The Anti-SLAPP statute in California weighs the case heavily in BoK's favor as it stops all discovery (obtaining evidence) from happening and puts the ball in Romeo's court (hur hur hur, punny) to prove their case having legal merit rather than being used as a "weapon" or a form of harassment. Therefore, Romeo's going out and talking smack, if taken into court, would work against him.
Every lawyer ever is going to attempt to move the court to a more favorable location, either travel-wise, pro/anti [insert legal standing] state, and so on. That's just being a good lawyer.
Correct. I was just pointing out the finer nuances of the benefit it gives Romeo, for those who didn't really understand why he wants to do that.
MickeyP2K wrote: So anyone know the next date where we might actually know something other than hear say, yabbering, boo hoo and "kool-aid"?
And am I not correct in saying that no matter who wins the legal system in either state means it's just a legal decision? I mean realistically reading some of the opinions here it really doesn't matter if Romeo wins for some does it? And even if he decided not to nail Nick to the wall out of kindness or otherwise then a small number (and lets face it there really is only a handful of 'dissenters' here compared to the total number of active members on Dakka and the wider gaming community at large) will immediately claim it proof of whatever your hearts desire anyway. Doh! Don't you just love legal situations!
That reminds me I must buy some kool-aid I hear it's awesome! Although I have yet to work out what it is but it sounds like I'll enjoy it.
Stay classy peeps.
Mickey 'Cant wait to buy a new 720 in blue and put a white World Eaters chevron on it' P
I'm sure the next thing we will see is when Romeo puts forward his paperwork. Then we can see what affidavits, if any, he has for his side.
You're right, after the legal battle, no matter the outcome, no side will most likely sway the other. Each side will still assert the other side is wrong and/or a bunch of liars. Kind of makes it pointless doesn't it? And a big waste of time and money. I'm hoping the first amendment wins.
I'm not sure what you mean by "dissenters". Is there a club? More than anything, there's just consumers, who have a wide degree of opinions, and those opinions fall across a spectrum. There have been a number of people speaking in support of the events in the article, some of them big names (in our little industry), that evidence is going to be hard to deny, especially since it comes from a number of sources and not one club or one conspiracy. We'll see what affidavits Romeo has, and get another set of perspectives.
Yes it truly does suck, shame Nick decided to go legal rather than open a dialogue. Ditto on the first amendment for cases where it's relevant.
I don't think any evidence is hard to deny but it might be hard for some of the community to swallow that a good story is just that... A story, how ever much they wish to believe it (of course I appreciate you could return that right back at me ).
MickeyP2K wrote: Yes it truly does suck, shame Nick decided to go legal rather than open a dialogue.
You mean Romeo right? Nick testified that the first thing he heard was the C&D and the denial of an extension.
No I mean Nick. But hey before I get drawn back in I'm off to discuss hobby and gaming an forget about this until we have more info in public domain for y'all to mull over.
Yes it truly does suck, shame Nick decided to go legal rather than open a dialogue.
Hrmmm
6. I received an April 1, 2013 letter from attorneys representing Romeo Filip and Battle Foam, LLC. The letter alleged that statements I made within the article were defamatory and demanded that I immediately remove the article and any other material referencing Mr. Filip, Battle Foam, and/or Outlaw Miniatures regardless of whether the statements were true. The letter also demanded that I post a notarized letter (drafted by Mr. Filip or his attorneys) and I pay $2,500 in legal fees. The letter demanded that I take all of these actions by April 8, 2013, or Filip would file a lawsuit against me. I have attached a copy of the letter hereto as Exhibit A.
7. Neither Mr. Filip, nor his attorneys ever contacted me by telephone, e-mail, or in any other manner before sending the letter threatening litigation. The lawyers never pointed to specific statements that they believed to be defamatory. Nor could I determine which statements they believed were defamatory because their recharacterization of my statements did not match what I had written.
8. Wishing to obtain counsel before I took any action in response to the letter, I sent an e-mail on April 5, 2013 requesting an extension of time to respond. I received a letter in response flatly denying my request. I have attached a copy of the second letter from Filip’s attorneys as Exhibit B.
Now there are two sides to every story and I'm looking forward to reading Mr. Filip's sworn version of events. So far the one we've got in front of us points to one side hiring a lawyer first and issuing an ultimatum.
MickeyP2K wrote: Yes it truly does suck, shame Nick decided to go legal rather than open a dialogue.
You mean Romeo right? Nick testified that the first thing he heard was the C&D and the denial of an extension.
No I mean Nick. But hey before I get drawn back in I'm off to discuss hobby and gaming an forget about this until we have more info in public domain for y'all to mull over.
So the fact that he testified, under penalty of perjury, that he was not contacted prior to the C&D means, well - the opposite to you? That's odd.
MickeyP2K wrote: And even if he decided not to nail Nick to the wall out of kindness or otherwise then a small number (and lets face it there really is only a handful of 'dissenters' here compared to the total number of active members on Dakka and the wider gaming community at large) will immediately claim it proof of whatever your hearts desire anyway.
Romeo already has "nailed Nick to the wall". His original demand was harsh and unreasonable and he has never been interested in any kind of compromise. I have never seen him exhibit any kind of kindness.
I also have a hard time framing "it's a shame he didn't open a dialogue" as anything other than "It's a shame he wrote the article in the first place", given what evidence we have in the form of the materials presented. There was never any time to have a dialogue in, nor a willingness from Battlefoam to do anything other than dictate terms. Going to court to defend yourself against such an aggressively litigious company is an act of self-preservation, not the rude aggression you wish to construe it as. The argument that Nick could have done something to avoid this after his original article is ludicrous. It's like berating a man wrestling a bear for resorting to violence.
Alpharius wrote: I'm starting to wonder about MickeyP2K, and his constant "720" shout-outs too!
One does wonder. Ironically, Romeo himself played the clueless newbie who's stumbled onto the product when BF first showed up on Dakka.
Mickey, thanks for taking a step back out of this discussion as you seemingly are playing the, "I know something you don't know" game and frankly it's not helping us, as people interested in this case.
We have signed, legally verified documents of the defendant stating under the penalty of law that his statements are true, whereas from Romeo we have... nothing, except words from you that Nick isn't lying.
MickeyP2K wrote: Yes it truly does suck, shame Nick decided to go legal rather than open a dialogue.
You mean Romeo right? Nick testified that the first thing he heard was the C&D and the denial of an extension.
No I mean Nick. But hey before I get drawn back in I'm off to discuss hobby and gaming an forget about this until we have more info in public domain for y'all to mull over.
nice...
way to dip out on that one...
Nick didn't have a choice but to file against BF, or else he would have had to come up with $2,500 in a week to just throw at Romeo...
Romeo filed the C&D, and chose to incure the lawyer fees, yet expected Nick to pay...
as of now, the ball is in Romeo's court...
what we have are sworn statements by the event organizers...
until BF comes back with their statements, these are the only bits of legal evidence on the table...
are the TO's going to lie in court over $2500 and a few internet articles, when they have their own futures to worry about???
i highly doubt it...
Alpharius wrote: I'm starting to wonder about MickeyP2K, and his constant "720" shout-outs too!
For what it's worth, MickeyP2K is not a Romeo sock puppet, as was alluded to earlier in this thread.. He's a regular poster on the 40k Radio forums. BF has a few new colors of 720s coming out this fall, and he's probably excited about it. I certainly like the blue one for my Crimson Fists and Disciples of Horus (both painted blue), but I'm not in the market for a new gaming bag right now.
Alpharius wrote: I'm starting to wonder about MickeyP2K, and his constant "720" shout-outs too!
For what it's worth, MickeyP2K is not a Romeo sock puppet, as was alluded to earlier in this thread.. He's a regular poster on the 40k Radio forums. BF has a few new colors of 720s coming out this fall, and he's probably excited about it. I certainly like the blue one for my Crimson Fists and Disciples of Horus (both painted blue), but I'm not in the market for a new gaming bag right now.
Outrider Hobbies has had Blue and Red bags for quite some time, cheaper and more easily attained foam sizes.
Oh okay one last one... you got me . The thing is that until Romeo posts his documents there isn't much more to say so before you read anything more into my comments or try to twist my love of awesome army protecting products made by BattleFoam you will just have to accept I am awesome at 40k. Nothing more, nothing less
And for the record... Sock puppets are frikin cool! My daughters have them. So quit with your sock puppetism! They have feelings too!
MickeyP2K wrote: Oh okay one last one... you got me . The thing is that until Romeo posts his documents there isn't much more to say so before you read anything more into my comments or try to twist my love of awesome army protecting products made by BattleFoam you will just have to accept I am awesome at 40k. Nothing more, nothing less
No one has twisted your words for a few pages now (until it was assumed and then proven false that you were a sock puppet). We get it, you love Battlefoam, no one is claiming that it's a gak product. But you seem to know more about this case than we do, so please help enlighten us with something that's more than "he said, she said." We have eye witnesses testifying under penalty of perjury. If all of these declarations are lying, then many people have just put themselves in hot water legally. WHY WOULD ANYONE DO THAT?
Trying to bring this back inline....So what guesses do we have for affidavits or other statements on Romeo's side? Here's what I gathered so far:
*We maybe have the Tattoo Guy
*Mickey alluded that although he doesn't have any info, might be vouching for Romeo's character (being the 40kradio forum moderator).
*Kyle of Battlefoam
*Possibly Jason Flanzer in regards to Duelcon (was mentioned by Kyle)
I would think that Tattoo Guy would be someone Romeo wouldn't want, unless of course the issue between TG and Romeo was resolved amicably and without the issue that was in Nick's article.
Alfndrate wrote: I would think that Tattoo Guy would be someone Romeo wouldn't want, unless of course the issue between TG and Romeo was resolved amicably and without the issue that was in Nick's article.
Kyle said on 40kradio that the Tattoo guy was buddies with them. Or at least Facebook friends and Con friends. I imagine there was some guffaw about it at first, but ended up resolving amicably.
Trying to bring this back inline....So what guesses do we have for affidavits or other statements on Romeo's side? Here's what I gathered so far:
*We maybe have the Tattoo Guy
*Mickey alluded that although he doesn't have any info, might be vouching for Romeo's character (being the 40kradio forum moderator).
*Kyle of Battlefoam
*Possibly Jason Flanzer in regards to Duelcon (was mentioned by Kyle)
Anyone else have more possibilities to add?
I can't think of any additional names to add, but from the last podcast, Kyle basically said his affidavit would basically refute all of the other affidavits which should be interesting. Either way (and assuming Kyle DOES file an affidavit) it really doesn't look like either side has much more than he said/she said and I'm wondering how a Civil Court deals with that. Do the more legally minded Dakkites among us have any insight on that?
Seems to me that BoK doesn't really have to prove that the things it reported happened, per se, but that they weren't just libelously printing random slander. If they in good faith reported what was told to them, then surely some of the responsibility for any untruths goes to the sources, not the reporter?
The case is "I had good sources giving me this information and reported in good faith that Romeo is a jerk."
It doesn't matter if all the tournament organizers decided to lie and create a conspiracy against Romeo (even though that wouldn't be at all logical by the organizers). All that matters is that BoK had no reason to believe that they all made this stuff up and reported in good faith on information that he believed was true.
The case is "I had good sources giving me this information and reported in good faith that Romeo is a jerk."
It doesn't matter if all the tournament organizers decided to lie and create a conspiracy against Romeo (even though that wouldn't be at all logical by the organizers). All that matters is that BoK had no reason to believe that they all made this stuff up and reported in good faith on information that he believed was true.
Exactly, and that's why it's such a large uphill battle for Romeo.
But given the very strange rants on the Wild West Exodus forum and 40k Radio, it seems that he thinks there is some giant persecuting conspiracy of thieves working together against him and the entire gaming community and he's going to expose them all. I'm assuming that's why all of those John Doe's have been listed - possibly to sue them also? Or is there a more sane, legal reason behind that?
Agamemnon2 wrote: Seems to me that BoK doesn't really have to prove that the things it reported happened,
This is correct. They are protected by California's anti-SLAPP statutes.
Does this remind anyone else of the issues surrounding US news agencies and TV stations releasing confidential government information that was leaked to them?
It occurs to me that getting Romeo on the stand, with the right line of questioning from BoK's lawyer, could see him wig out and prove the case for BoK...
Dysartes wrote: It occurs to me that getting Romeo on the stand, with the right line of questioning from BoK's lawyer, could see him wig out and prove the case for BoK...
Given the comments made over the last few weeks, I can't see his lawyer wanting him anywhere near the stand or in any way able to be cross examined. I can't even imagine he would want him testifying in a deposition where the other side could question him on the record. But I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV, maybe his lawyer has been the one telling him to go out and say all those things, who knows.
Agamemnon2 wrote: Seems to me that BoK doesn't really have to prove that the things it reported happened, per se, but that they weren't just libelously printing random slander. If they in good faith reported what was told to them, then surely some of the responsibility for any untruths goes to the sources, not the reporter?
This is my understanding as well. Nick only needs to demonstrate that he had a good faith reason to believe what he posted was true. Even if the sources weren't truthful they would need to prove that Nick should have known they weren't true. What worries me is the 10 does named in BF's Arizona suit and what he intends to claim against them.
Of course I am not a lawyer, etc... Just pure speculation from the peanut gallery.
Could it be a way to make them take back their affidavits (are they allowed to do that?). You know, 'I'll sue you and force you to come to Arizona etc etc but if you back out and withdraw your support I'll drop you from the case'. Some sort of unspoken bargain rather than a threat? Or are they unable to withdraw their statements, and it's just a threat.
motyak wrote: Could it be a way to make them take back their affidavits (are they allowed to do that?). You know, 'I'll sue you and force you to come to Arizona etc etc but if you back out and withdraw your support I'll drop you from the case'. Some sort of unspoken bargain rather than a threat? Or are they unable to withdraw their statements, and it's just a threat.
I'm quite sure that a written affidavit cannot be taken back once submitted to the court. In any case, all the members testifying under perjury are doing so with the very real understanding that lying under perjury is considered a felony and is a jailable offense. I'm quite sure none of them are going to go out of their way to lie and risk their livelihoods for that...
motyak wrote: Could it be a way to make them take back their affidavits (are they allowed to do that?). You know, 'I'll sue you and force you to come to Arizona etc etc but if you back out and withdraw your support I'll drop you from the case'. Some sort of unspoken bargain rather than a threat? Or are they unable to withdraw their statements, and it's just a threat.
I'm quite sure that a written affidavit cannot be taken back once submitted to the court.
I do not think anyone is going to be taking back their affidavits. I also think there's not much of a road to go down. Most of us did not share these stories with Nick. We simply filed affidavits to what parts we knew to be true once they were requested.
Besides the whole perjury thing, I don't think that any of these organizers would screw with Romeo for the lulz or anything like that.
Calling out Romeo and Battlefoam in this manner and posting this dirty laundry out in the open does not do them any favors unless it is true. Battlefoam is a big draw for events as a vendor presence, and having Battlefoam on your list as a vendor/sponsor will draw people to your event.
If Romeo is right and all these people are just lying and willing to screw with a high name sponsor, why would any other company ever think about attending or sponsoring any of their events in the future? If Romeo is right these people are willing to not only face perjury charges, but are also willing to put the future of their events on the line just so they could mess with him.
I doubt that any of these events really make any money, so it's not like they are putting their livelihood on the line here. But the fact that these people would be throwing away everything they have done for the community and risk having every single sponsor walk away from their events in the future just so that they could screw with Romeo if they were making these things up.
That's cool, I wasn't trying to call anyone into question or anything, I just wasn't sure if that was a viable road in terms of legal process or not. Some kind of unspoken convention rather than law (apparently Aus law is full of conventions which aren't technically laws, I wasn't sure about other countries).
Dysartes wrote: It occurs to me that getting Romeo on the stand, with the right line of questioning from BoK's lawyer, could see him wig out and prove the case for BoK...
Given the comments made over the last few weeks, I can't see his lawyer wanting him anywhere near the stand or in any way able to be cross examined. I can't even imagine he would want him testifying in a deposition where the other side could question him on the record. But I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV, maybe his lawyer has been the one telling him to go out and say all those things, who knows.
Well, unless I've missed some major developments (in a legal system which is, admittedly, quite different from the one I'm trained in, but still...) you certainly can be compelled to testify in civil proceedings, even when it's against your own interest. Your fifth amendment only flies in criminal cases (as it should be) so while you're right this bozo is a major headache to his own attorney anywhere near a witness stand, he won't actually have much of a choice, as long as BoK et al can show he can provide relevant testimony (as opposed to just making an ass of himself without doing so).
A party is being deposed. Then, a familiar phrase is heard: "I’m taking the Fifth." "On counsel’s advice, I invoke my right under the Fifth Amendment not to answer, on the grounds I may incriminate myself."
Regardless of the formula used to assert it, or the formality of the terms actually used, a lawyer who hears these words while attempting to obtain necessary discovery in a commercial case is likely to feel that the witness is unfairly using this right to cut off a litigant’s need to discover evidence.
Seems odd that they'd be different when it means the same thing (I know it's quite OT since it has no relevance to the legal proceedings, I just found it funny)
Seems odd that they'd be different when it means the same thing (I know it's quite OT since it has no relevance to the legal proceedings, I just found it funny)
I'm guessing it's because Nick's wife is also named in the suit.
Seems odd that they'd be different when it means the same thing (I know it's quite OT since it has no relevance to the legal proceedings, I just found it funny)
I'm guessing it's because Nick's wife is also named in the suit.
Correct. One Jane Doe Hayden was named in the proceedings.
Thought it had to deal with the fact that Nick wasn't a separate entity from BoK, so Nick's wife could be drawn into any legal reparations that would be owed should he lose this suit.
Alfndrate wrote: Thought it had to deal with the fact that Nick wasn't a separate entity from BoK, so Nick's wife could be drawn into any legal reparations that would be owed should he lose this suit.
I know off topic but this lawsuit should once again help people understand that if you are running a blog and you have not spent the 50 bucks or so it takes to create a corporate shell then you should.
Alfndrate wrote: Thought it had to deal with the fact that Nick wasn't a separate entity from BoK, so Nick's wife could be drawn into any legal reparations that would be owed should he lose this suit.
Correct. Nick's wife and him are considered an "entity" that's liable for the damages, in layman's terms, similar to how a company would be one. Typically, one would establish an LLC, or Limited Liability Corporation, which shields your personal property by limiting the target of suits and the damages that they can claim to be whatever the LLC holds.
Alfndrate wrote: Thought it had to deal with the fact that Nick wasn't a separate entity from BoK, so Nick's wife could be drawn into any legal reparations that would be owed should he lose this suit.
Correct. Nick's wife and him are considered an "entity" that's liable for the damages, in layman's terms, similar to how a company would be one. Typically, one would establish an LLC, or Limited Liability Corporation, which shields your personal property by limiting the target of suits and the damages that they can claim to be whatever the LLC holds.
This actually makes me wonder... Blood of Kittens (if it were an LLC) wouldn't have anything more than the small bit of Advertising money it could get (to keep the site up and running), the content of the website, and the url/domain name itself... I'm wondering if Romeo went after Nick in such a way because he knew that he could actually do things to hurt Nick and really hurt Nick (not physical violence).
Alfndrate wrote: Thought it had to deal with the fact that Nick wasn't a separate entity from BoK, so Nick's wife could be drawn into any legal reparations that would be owed should he lose this suit.
Correct. Nick's wife and him are considered an "entity" that's liable for the damages, in layman's terms, similar to how a company would be one. Typically, one would establish an LLC, or Limited Liability Corporation, which shields your personal property by limiting the target of suits and the damages that they can claim to be whatever the LLC holds.
This actually makes me wonder... Blood of Kittens (if it were an LLC) wouldn't have anything more than the small bit of Advertising money it could get (to keep the site up and running), the content of the website, and the url/domain name itself... I'm wondering if Romeo went after Nick in such a way because he knew that he could actually do things to hurt Nick and really hurt Nick (not physical violence).
Typically when a filing is made in this manner, it's used for the filing party to claim as much in damages as they can (including compensation for legal and travel fees, if the court deems it such). Having an LLC basically stops them from claiming even enough damages to recompensate their legal fees, I believe. I don't know if Romeo had this intention or not (and as Janthkin has requested, it should not be discussed), but it is a certain possibility.
Janthkin wrote:Time to reign in the discussion, folks. If you're not discussing the contents of the court filings, you're likely off-topic.
And in particular, let's keep unprovable speculation on motives out of the thread.
Janth, would it be on-topic to be discussing and clarifying the finer nuances legal terms and tactics as such being utilized in the case for those unfamiliar with legal matters?
Although this arrangement seems awfully french* to me, both Arizona and California are community property states (husband and wife are liable for each others debts).
My guess is that in order to enforce a judgment against community property, it might be necessary to name a spouse as a party in a lawsuit in order to give them notice and a chance to defend, even though they weren't involved in the tortious activity. Otherwise a judgment creditor might encounter difficulties actually collecting money.
* in this case I think it is a result of spanish / mexican influence in the west of the US way back in the day rather than the french, I just automatically think of the french when I see civil law due to Quebec.
Enigwolf wrote: Janth, would it be on-topic to be discussing and clarifying the finer nuances legal terms and tactics as such being utilized in the case for those unfamiliar with legal matters?
Sure, no problems with that.
czakk wrote: * in this case I think it is a result of spanish / mexican influence in the west of the US way back in the day rather than the french, I just automatically think of the french when I see civil law due to Quebec.
I think Louisiana; it's the only civil law jurisdiction in the US.
Community property is a civil law concept that's been adopted by some of your states (although they remain common law for the rest of it). Apparently California's regime dates back to like 1850 and was based on the spanish system.
Spoiler:
It actually comes up in tax history - when the income tax system was implemented married folks who lived in community property states were able to spit their income and pay less tax than folks in other states.
Less of an issue now because Americans can choose to joint file, but it caused a fuss back in the 1930s-1940s.
czakk wrote: Community property is a civil law concept that's been adopted by some of your states (although they remain common law for the rest of it). Apparently California's regime dates back to like 1850 and was based on the spanish system.
Spoiler:
It actually comes up in tax history - when the income tax system was implemented married folks who lived in community property states were able to spit their income and pay less tax than folks in other states.
Less of an issue now because Americans can choose to joint file, but it caused a fuss back in the 1930s-1940s.
So for the non-attorney's amongst us...
Nick's female relative is named so that damages could be collected? If that is so would Jane Doe Hayden have to be his wife? My assumption being that his mother or sister would not be a communal owner of his goods?
czakk wrote: Community property is a civil law concept that's been adopted by some of your states (although they remain common law for the rest of it). Apparently California's regime dates back to like 1850 and was based on the spanish system.
Spoiler:
It actually comes up in tax history - when the income tax system was implemented married folks who lived in community property states were able to spit their income and pay less tax than folks in other states.
Less of an issue now because Americans can choose to joint file, but it caused a fuss back in the 1930s-1940s.
So for the non-attorney's amongst us...
Nick's female relative is named so that damages could be collected? If that is so would Jane Doe Hayden have to be his wife? My assumption being that his mother or sister would not be a communal owner of his goods?
It's his wife. If you read the filings, she is stated to be in a "legal partnership" or something with him (I can't remember the exact words, but it's implied to be his wife)
BoK gains probono representation by Mark Randazza and Gill Sperlein
Battlefoam attempts to move the case to Arizona. This would then require BoK to obtain counsel in California, and deprive them of the direct representation by Messrs Randazza and Sperlain.
Anyone who reads Popehat regularly should know that hearing Randazza is going to be appearing against you in a 1st amendment case causes opposing counsel to begin reconsidering their chosen profession.
Obtaining them as counsel was likely the reason for the attempt to move jurisdiction (or at the minimum it's a significant bonus to doing so).
BOK actually brought the suit against battlefoam in California at this stage Randazza was already on board. This was a declaratory relief action. This is basically a suit a defendant brings against a legal threat (The C&D letter from battlefoam) that forces the issue into court, i.e. put up or shut up.
Battlefoam have then raised the case in Arizona. The resident Dakka legal people will have to explain the potential outcomes of this and if a win in California precludes the AZ case from continuing or will just help.
Getting Randazza on board is definitely a huge boon for BOK and Romeo doesn't seem to be helping himself with the public comments.
I think the next interesting thing we will see is the Battlefoam responses to the witness statements which were pretty damning to the Battlefoam case. I'm not sure how they can respond without claiming the witnesses have perjured themselves.
If this does happen can the witnesses claim defamation from Battlefoam? I know in the UK they would not be able to as you can say what you want in a court case without fear of legal reprisal but I'm not sure if the same applies to the US system.
Randazza is licenced to appear in Arizona (he's based out of Las Vegas I believe so it might even be closer to him). Moving jurisdictions isn't going to make him disappear.
czakk - just wanted to say how much I appreciate your analysis of this (and other legal cases) on this forum. It's incredibly helpful to cut through some of the speculation sometimes.
As mentioned before, moving the case from California to Arizona prevents BoK from using the anti-SLAPP statutes as a working platform for the defense for their 1st Amendment rights.
BOK actually brought the suit against battlefoam in California at this stage Randazza was already on board. This was a declaratory relief action. This is basically a suit a defendant brings against a legal threat (The C&D letter from battlefoam) that forces the issue into court, i.e. put up or shut up.
Ahh, I assumed battlefoam had brought it, then BoK got representation, in which case yep, avoiding SLAPP (not having to deal directly with Randazza,as they'd need local counsel as well, is the cherry on top).
morkian wrote: If this does happen can the witnesses claim defamation from Battlefoam? I know in the UK they would not be able to as you can say what you want in a court case without fear of legal reprisal but I'm not sure if the same applies to the US system.
Silly question, but wouldn't that only cover you for what is said in court, not on your own podcast?
Federal court in Arizona has punted back to the State Court:
The Notice of Removal states “Defendants Hayden and Jane Doe Hayden are
residents of the State of California, located in Contra Costa County.”1 It also states “Plaintiff
Battle Foam is a citizen of California,” and “Plaintiff Outlaw Miniatures is a citizen of
California.”2 (Doc. 1 at 2). Based on these allegations, diversity of citizenship does not exist
and this case must be remanded. See Maniar v. FDIC, 979 F.2d 782, 784-85 (9th Cir. 1992)
(district courts may remand sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction).
From the Notice of Removal:
7. Plaintiff Battle Foam is an Arizona limited liability company. Complaint ¶ 2.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), a corporation is a citizen of the state in which it is
incorporated and of the state where it maintains its principal place of business.
Accordingly, Plaintiff Battle Foam is a citizen of California.
8. Plaintiff Outlaw Miniatures is an Arizona limited liability company.
Complaint ¶ 3. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), a corporation is a citizen of the state in
which it is incorporated and of the state where it maintains its principal place of business.
Accordingly, Plaintiff Outlaw Miniatures is a citizen of California.
9. Therefore, complete diversity of citizenship exists between the parties within
the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).
Looks like a typo in the original document - perhaps someone filled out a precedent incorrectly and stuck California where it should say Arizona. Presumably there's a way of amending / refiling if that is the case.
12thRonin wrote: So then it's back to Cali where the Anti-SLAPP laws are in effect?
It's still going on in California, we have two proceedings going on in tandem / parallel for now. This proceeding got sent back to Arizona state court (I guess I should have said that more clearly).
kronk wrote: Weird, so there's a clerical error, but the case is going back to Arizona and not California? Or am I not following?
In Universe 1 (California) we have BOK's request for declaratory relief, Battle Foam's cross claims, Battle Foam's motion for forum non conveniens and Mr. Filip's motion for no jurisdiction. There are some hearings on all of that coming up in July. Filip et all would like to move the case to Arizona.
In parallel Universe 2 (Arizona) we have Battle Foam, Filip, Outlaw Miniatures suing BOK. BOK tried to move the case from Arizona Superior Court (State) to the US District Court of Arizona (Federal Court). The Federal court just said "you don't meet the requirements to be in federal court, go back to the state court".
Two different cases, but covering all the same stuff. Eventually one of the cases will be stayed (put on hold) or dismissed. This last round of documents is from Case # 2 in Arizona.
Czakk, the two lawsuits don't have to be stayed, or even one dismissed. It is the perview of the courts to make that decision, if they even have to. Depending on the true formal wording, and the designs of who sued who first. I honestly see both playing out, draining both parties of funds they sorely don't need to lose. And pro bono only goes so far.
Would it be possible for both to belive they have jurisdiction and end up ruling on it ?
Neither court has to back down, because it is officially two seperate law suits. Since the state of origin for each suit is different, they both can claim jurisdiction over the respective suit. The California case would probably go first, and then the Arizona one would then occur, since California has priority as their docket had the lawsuit first, but it could become a massive Charlie Foxtrot if the Arizona court decides to try and run the case simultaneously.
Editted Because I had no idea about the appended next post... Embarassed now!
You folks down south would really run the same case twice? I mean, theoretically both courts could insist on trying the case but it's the same facts and legal issues - issue estoppel / res judicata would kick in pretty fast no?
On June 19, this Court entered an order remanding the action to Maricopa County
11 Superior Court (ECF 6). This Order was based on the erroneous statements by Defendant’s
12 counsel that Plaintiffs Battle Foam LLC and Outlaw Miniatures LLC were “citizens of
13 California.” However, throughout the notice of removal and Plaintiffs’ complaint, it is
14 clear that, despite this typographical error, Battle Foam LLC and Outlaw Miniatures LLC
15 are, along with Plaintiff Filip, residents of Arizona. As such, this action is properly
16 removed to this Court and the prior order (ECF 6) should be reconsidered and reversed.
Oh - and as an exhibit we have Battle Foam and Mr. Filips motion for forum non conveniens filed in California.
The first case only listed Battlefoam until the whole shebang exploded. So even with the revisions, the second case had more persons of interest. Yes, there is res judicata, but the problem is how the case is presented in California, and the rulings therein. Otherwise, Arizona (and the case there,) could just as easily happen.
Also, think about timing. IIRC, Judges in Arizona are elected, not appointed. Can't really have bad press as a judge unless you take bribes, and Arizona, as an judiciary body doesn't like being dictated to, by California, unless absolutely necessary. So if it was far too similar (which it may or may not be, since we aren't privy to the full filings and information disclosures,) California could ask Arizona not to intercede, but Arizona, as of right now, has full rights and privaleges to try the civil case as well. Which the civil case is the big sticking point we have to look at.
From my understanding it went..
Universe 1: Bok files suit against C&D letter by BF (only target is BF and Owner.) BF counter sues, targets BOK and a couple of others (all attached to BoK.) Still only BF and BOK (and co.) As more information is added...
Universe 2: BK owner utilizes Arizona courts to file full suit. Brings his other owned companies into the knowledge pool for use. BOK attempts to make it a federal case.. which it isn't, and gets slapped back down to state court.
And now here we are. Overly simplified at the end, but I hope it gets the point across.
Edit: What you posted is simply from the Federal court case that BoK attempted to turn this into. Since it comes from Arizona, this is still Universe 2 stuff. California still has docket precedence so they will hear it first.
It's a filing by BoK in federal court in an attempt to correct the typo.
Attached as an exhibit is a filing from the California case. I just noted it because we haven't seen much from California (because its not available electronically).
czakk wrote: You folks down south would really run the same case twice? I mean, theoretically both courts could insist on trying the case but it's the same facts and legal issues - issue estoppel / res judicata would kick in pretty fast no?
Or even worse, conflicting judgments.
I would assume so. I do not see two courts wishing to deal with what is, for all intents and purposes, the same case with the same set of facts. It is a waste of time and money for the public.
Edit: somewheresomehow makes some very good points. The cases are different, can both be handled separately, and there could be an inclination for the courts to do so. However, if a judge had a good excuse to dump a case like this, I would bet on it being dumped. At the end of the day, this is a silly little case with a pro-bono CA lawyer making an issue out of it (this is no reflection on Mr. Hayden's counsel, but I can see a state court judge looking at it that way). I do not see many judges having a high degree of patience for this set of facts.
Having read all this thread, why is this lawsuit going ahead? It seems rather petty to be honest and it is just going to eat up money for no good reason. Far worse has been send about Romeo and his volatile nature and dubious selling by many other people on many other sites.
fullheadofhair wrote: Having read all this thread, why is this lawsuit going ahead? It seems rather petty to be honest and it is just going to eat up money for no good reason. Far worse has been send about Romeo and his volatile nature and dubious selling by many other people on many other sites.
Because apparently, according to Romeo, BF lost a lot of money from the BoK post.
Because BoK used their influence to throw themselves a rage party on the WWXks page, which caused Romeo to rage. So, it influenced both BF and WWX. (Or that is what I have heard elsewhere about how it actually started, unless I missed an earlier useless rant from BoK about an angry Romeo?)
czakk wrote: It's a filing by BoK in federal court in an attempt to correct the typo.
Attached as an exhibit is a filing from the California case. I just noted it because we haven't seen much from California (because its not available electronically).
Czakk, correcting the typo won't change that the Federal court would slap BoK down for even believing he was worthy of their time. Nothing on either end warrants federal judicial oversight. Libel, slander, even bad business practices can be handled in state courts, unless the bad business practice breeches a federal statute, which, I haven't seen any actual breech of federal statutes.
It is effectively two kids whining, and they brought it to adults, who really should just throw the cases away, and tell them to go take a long walk into the sunset, before putting them both in time out.
Edit: Kronk, sometime in July is when the California case officially has an in court hearing.
somewheresomehow wrote: Because BoK used their influence to throw themselves a rage party on the WWXks page, which caused Romeo to rage. So, it influenced both BF and WWX. (Or that is what I have heard elsewhere about how it actually started, unless I missed an earlier useless rant from BoK about an angry Romeo?)
So Nick writes the article Meat for Meta: Bad Battlefoam Practices, and states several incidents in which Battlefoam has reneged on promises, started drama/issues for people in the wargaming community, or has threatened to physically assault people and then hypothesizes that WWX is run by Battlefoam and he (Nick) wonders what sort of things might come from this kickstarter based on the previous experiences he's been informed of? Right?
So how is this having a rage party, unless I missed something... I was following that kickstarted like a bad ex-gf
Alfndrate, from what I was told (since I jumped on the WWXks at the tail end,) and from some of the interpretations one could see from the KS comments around the same time, that there was a massive negative comment stream that began on there that targeted Romeo and BF, and it was a bunch of relatively newly created KS accounts. The assumption being made (I don't entirely believe it, but hey, it is out there, might as well add it to this mix,) was that the sudden influx of bad press towards Romeo and BF, which didn't inherently affect the Outlaw Miniature situation, caused negative gain on the Kickstarter, and thus was a negative gain financially.
Again, I find that above last bit to be a stretch. But, you have to keep all of the information that is out there, that lead to this whole shebang in the first place, so that we can see that it really is just a bunch of posturing by people who shouldn't be posturing and can't afford to do it in the first place.
I have read BoK, and find his writing to be that of a child who couldn't get the pony he asked for, and even the good information he puts out, is drowned out by that childish, whiny nature. Romeo, sometimes needs to take a deep breath... and then let someone else handle what is going on. Delegation of powers is something a business owner needs to realize if there is a PR team of ANY kind within it. Romeo doesn't really do that, and so... when he rages, he rages hard, and does things far away not befitting a business owner, which defeats the purpose of having a business since unlike famous people, businesses suffer under bad press. We can say both are people, being people, on the internet, but that is giving excuses where excuses shouldn't be.
somewheresomehow wrote: Alfndrate, from what I was told (since I jumped on the WWXks at the tail end,) and from some of the interpretations one could see from the KS comments around the same time, that there was a massive negative comment stream that began on there that targeted Romeo and BF, and it was a bunch of relatively newly created KS accounts. The assumption being made (I don't entirely believe it, but hey, it is out there, might as well add it to this mix,) was that the sudden influx of bad press towards Romeo and BF, which didn't inherently affect the Outlaw Miniature situation, caused negative gain on the Kickstarter, and thus was a negative gain financially.
Again, I find that above last bit to be a stretch. But, you have to keep all of the information that is out there, that lead to this whole shebang in the first place, so that we can see that it really is just a bunch of posturing by people who shouldn't be posturing and can't afford to do it in the first place.
I have read BoK, and find his writing to be that of a child who couldn't get the pony he asked for, and even the good information he puts out, is drowned out by that childish, whiny nature. Romeo, sometimes needs to take a deep breath... and then let someone else handle what is going on. Delegation of powers is something a business owner needs to realize if there is a PR team of ANY kind within it. Romeo doesn't really do that, and so... when he rages, he rages hard, and does things far away not befitting a business owner, which defeats the purpose of having a business since unlike famous people, businesses suffer under bad press. We can say both are people, being people, on the internet, but that is giving excuses where excuses shouldn't be.
As a regular KS user, I'm pretty sure you can't post comments on a KS page unless you've already backed it. So the theory that people were creating new accounts just to spam poor feedback is unbelievable in my eyes.
As I have done before just to comment to get further information on other KSes, all you need to do is post a dollar, and you can comment. And you can cancel your pledge within seconds.
Also, don't take my above response as giving a care either way. A kickstarter with negativity!? SAY IT AIN'T SOOOO! So, as I said, I doubt there was any such true event that could be definitively tied to anything other than negativity brought about by Romeo's responses on other sites, and on the KS itself, but that is out there, as being information that brought these cascading charlie foxtrots, to bear upon our community.
I just attempted to post comments in a KS I didn't back, and it wouldn't let me. I have a KS account and have backed 3 so far.
If you donate $1, you can comment on that KS, though.
Edit:
somewheresomehow wrote: As I have done before just to comment to get further information on other KSes, all you need to do is post a dollar, and you can comment. And you can cancel your pledge within seconds.
Beat me to it. That approach, at least, would cost you nothing but time.
somewheresomehow wrote: Czakk, correcting the typo won't change that the Federal court would slap BoK down for even believing he was worthy of their time. Nothing on either end warrants federal judicial oversight. Libel, slander, even bad business practices can be handled in state courts, unless the bad business practice breeches a federal statute, which, I haven't seen any actual breech of federal statutes.
It is effectively two kids whining, and they brought it to adults, who really should just throw the cases away, and tell them to go take a long walk into the sunset, before putting them both in time out.
Edit: Kronk, sometime in July is when the California case officially has an in court hearing.
Please read the filings and it is pretty clear why the issue is being raised to federal court. It is due to BF forcing the issue on the amount of damages and the statements and claims they have made.
Spoiler:
11. Where a complaint only alleges unspecified damages and does not support the
amount in controversy, the defendant in a diversity case may invoke federal jurisdiction so
long as it can show by preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy is
more likely than not to exceed the $75,000.00 jurisdictional requirement. Welsh v. New
Hampshire Ins. Co., 843 F.Supp.2d 1006, 1009 (D. Ariz. 2012). Evidence of the amount in
controversy is not confined to the face of the complaint. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372
F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004).
12. Plaintiffs filed a Certificate of Compulsory Arbitration certifying that this
dispute was not subject to arbitration. See Composite Exhibit A at 33. Disputes in which the
amount in controversy exceeds $50,000.00 are exempt from compulsory arbitration,
according to Ariz. Sup. Ct. R. 3.10. Counsel for Plaintiffs confirmed via telephone on June
4, 2013 that the reason for the arbitration exception was that the amount in controversy
exceeded the jurisdictional ceiling for arbitration.
13. Further, in a demand letter made prior to filing this suit, Plaintiffs expressed
the value of its claim in terms of a dollar amount lost per day that the article at issue in this
suit has been posted on the Internet. Plaintiffs claimed that the amount lost was “$2,000 per
day.” See Exhibit B (Demand Letter of April 5, 2013). The article Plaintiffs claims was
defamatory was posted on Mach 7, 2013. Complaint ¶ 31. Therefore, the accrued amount
as of June 4 would total $180,000.00. Even if the amount is half that much, it would exceed
the jurisdictional minimum.
TLDR: The Battlefoam claim is so large federal court is the correct venue.
I have read BoK, and find his writing to be that of a child who couldn't get the pony he asked for, and even the good information he puts out, is drowned out by that childish, whiny nature. Romeo, sometimes needs to take a deep breath... and then let someone else handle what is going on. Delegation of powers is something a business owner needs to realize if there is a PR team of ANY kind within it. Romeo doesn't really do that, and so... when he rages, he rages hard, and does things far away not befitting a business owner, which defeats the purpose of having a business since unlike famous people, businesses suffer under bad press. We can say both are people, being people, on the internet, but that is giving excuses where excuses shouldn't be.
morkian wrote: If this does happen can the witnesses claim defamation from Battlefoam? I know in the UK they would not be able to as you can say what you want in a court case without fear of legal reprisal but I'm not sure if the same applies to the US system.
Silly question, but wouldn't that only cover you for what is said in court, not on your own podcast?
Possibly Dysartes, he could potentially claim he was reading from a declaration that was going to be issued to the court but I don't know if the US laws are with regards to it. He could also just probably argue that it wasn't the way he remembered the incidents. Not the greatest arguments in the world but probably enough with the legal protections there is for speech in the US.
somewheresomehow wrote: Czakk, correcting the typo won't change that the Federal court would slap BoK down for even believing he was worthy of their time.
It was sent back to state court because of a typo. One of the reasons for requesting the federal court take jurisdiction was diversity of the parties, Mr Hayden in California, and Battle Foam and Mr. Filip in Arizona. Mr. Hayden's filing erroneously stated that Mr. Filip and Battle Foam were citizens of California, which meant there was no diversity. On that basis the federal court declined to take jurisdiction.
The next hearing in California is scheduled for the 8th of July.
Some of that is interesting Morkian, thank you for that, since I tend to ignore BoK now like the plague, and try my damnedest to only get information from places like dakka and a few other scant forums, so blogs and podcasts tend to be out for me. So linking something that isn't actually BoK is more enlightening.
That Brandt one... holy great cow in the sky.
I am a bit mind boggled how they think 180k, or even 90k is a possible number? My head actually hurts reading even further, so I may hide away from this thread, as it just gets worse and worse! My mind is melting.
Also, on the defamation of name during testifying in a trial? Has to be grievous enough to cause actual financial, emotional, or mental harm, that can be proven (remember that nanny during the Casey Anthony trial that Casey fingered as the killer? She was successful in her suit because she was actually targetted for verbal and physical abuse by crazed vigilantes ontop of it being grievous lies by Casey Anthony) unless the defamation is truly libelous, then it becomes a whole other ball game, and then if it occurs, the court can actually bring the libelous party to task with additional fines, fees, and then the civil aspect spirals. Contempt of court tends to be the average charge for that.
somewheresomehow wrote: Czakk, correcting the typo won't change that the Federal court would slap BoK down for even believing he was worthy of their time.
It was sent back to state court because of a typo. One of the reasons for requesting the federal court take jurisdiction was diversity of the parties, Mr Hayden in California, and Battle Foam and Mr. Filip in Arizona. Mr. Hayden's filing erroneously stated that Mr. Filip and Battle Foam were citizens of California, which meant there was no diversity. On that basis the federal court declined to take jurisdiction.
The next hearing in California is scheduled for the 8th of July.
Diversity of the parties only can be emphasized, if there is a case of 75k+, but even then, the Federal Court can relegate it to the State courts.
Spoiler:
A case also may be filed in federal court based on the "diversity of citizenship" of the litigants, such as between citizens of different states, or between United States citizens and those of another country. To ensure fairness to the out-of-state litigant, the Constitution provides that such cases may be heard in a federal court. An important limit to diversity jurisdiction is that only cases involving more than $75,000 in potential damages may be filed in a federal court. Claims below that amount may only be pursued in state court. Moreover, any diversity jurisdiction case, regardless of the amount of money involved, may be brought in a state court rather than a federal court.
Above text from the United States federal court website, which is why I am still mind boggled by the 75k price point, or even further amounts.
Also, I thank you both, because this is the most judicial research I have done in months... and is distracting me from some horrible issues here on my end! Have a great afternoon/evening you two!
somewheresomehow wrote: Some of that is interesting Morkian, thank you for that, since I tend to ignore BoK now like the plague, and linking something that isn't actually BoK is more enlightening.
That Brandt one... holy great cow in the sky.
I am a bit mind boggled how they think 180k, or even 90k is a possible number? My head actually hurts reading even further, so I may hide away from this thread, as it just gets worse and worse! My mind is melting.
Also, on the defamation of name during testifying in a trial? Has to be grievous enough to cause actual financial, emotional, or mental harm, that can be proven (remember that nanny during the Casey Anthony trial that Casey fingered as the killer? She was successful in her suit because she was actually targetted for verbal and physical abuse by crazed vigilantes ontop of it being grievous lies by Casey Anthony) unless the defamation is truly libelous, then it becomes a whole other ball game, and then if it occurs, the court can actually bring the libelous party to task with additional fines, fees, and then the civil aspect spirals. Contempt of court tends to be the average charge for that.
No problem, most of the docs are pretty boring barring the declarations which basically back up the BOK article and do not put BF in a good light. I really wanna see how BF respond to those, I sense it might give us some laughs. That response should also hopefully tell us which way BF are going to try and take the case. The only way I can think of without giving BOK an easy out is "The witness statements are orchestrated frauds." That seems like an explosive legal strategy but I think fits Romeo. If he doesn't do this then BOK can sit behind the "I believed them to be reliable sources and was reporting and what I was told by said reliable sources." A false statement is not defamatory if the person who is repeating it believes it to be true. BOK have all the evidence to prove he believed the statements he made in the article to be true
I have no idea where the figures come from or how they plan to justify them. My first thought it they probably can't they put a stupid figure together to scare him and then had to refuse arbitration because BF wanted to drag it to court. This then gives Randazza a very easy route to get it into Federal court if he so chooses which he did.
The only thing missing on the defamation piece is if the person is a public person. That very much changes how much you can get away with. But again not sure on the US law for this, the UK is watertight that statements in court cannot be pursued (see Mohammed Al Fayed for possibly the most ridiculous example of this) but you may be able to take action in the US especially if he goes the explosive route and claims the witnesses are lying ergo committing perjury with their signed declarations.
I'm not sure what BF are hoping to gain from this. If you're gonna sue everyone who says bad things about you on the internet then you should probably become a lawyer first cos you're gonna spend most of your time in court. If nothing had been done this would have all disappeared and been forgotten about in April.
Well, claiming defamation is a seperate piece. Once the testimony starts, you cannot just outright go "Ohmergerd defamation!" The whole suit has to go through, and then the second suit can commence about defamation. US doesn't have protections that I know of (which doesn't mean they don't exist mind you, but just that I have no history behind having that indepth of knowledge,) to protect statements in court unless they are completely 100% true, elsewise, it can come back to haunt you, much like actual lies, or are grandious exaggerations.
But then, contempt of court will probably be called. And if he rages, he becomes in contempt, and the case is decided fairly quickly.
The only thing missing on the defamation piece is if the person is a public person. That very much changes how much you can get away with. But again not sure on the US law for this, the UK is watertight that statements in court cannot be pursued (see Mohammed Al Fayed for possibly the most ridiculous example of this) but you may be able to take action in the US especially if he goes the explosive route and claims the witnesses are lying ergo committing perjury with their signed declarations.
If you look in most of the affidavits that were submitted, towards the bottom there is typically a statement confirming that Romeo is a public person. US law dictates that a public person is exempt from what would usually be considered tortious. This, combined with 1st Amendment laws, are in my view the strongest points of BoK's defense. In any case, Romeo/his pals have all but declared the witnesses committed perjury in their out-of-court interactions...
I have read BoK, and find his writing to be that of a child who couldn't get the pony he asked for, and even the good information he puts out, is drowned out by that childish, whiny nature. Romeo, sometimes needs to take a deep breath... and then let someone else handle what is going on. Delegation of powers is something a business owner needs to realize if there is a PR team of ANY kind within it. Romeo doesn't really do that, and so... when he rages, he rages hard, and does things far away not befitting a business owner, which defeats the purpose of having a business since unlike famous people, businesses suffer under bad press. We can say both are people, being people, on the internet, but that is giving excuses where excuses shouldn't be.
I got that pony thank you very much and funny I thought of you when I read your posts to this thread excuses being excuses and all.
Oh, I am totally okay with him writing that way. I may not like it, but the 1st Amendment means he can write that way, and means I can voice my opinion of his writing style. Wouldn't want it any other way, really.
I hope it doesn't, because it would just be truly facepalmy. So much wasted pro bono work (on BoK's side), and wasted lawyer fees etc on BF's side, because Federal court bumps the costs up significantly, and to actually win on the federal level is pretty hard unless proof is relatively solid or you have a crack lawyer team, and your costs may not be outweighed by your judgment
My hope is it gets punted back to the state courts, which the feds can do, and then Arizona and California can have at it. Means that it is cheaper overall for both, and the likelihood of judgments coming out to equal fees is higher.
As well, a bit more transparency on the case, from my knowledge of how it all works, so we can have regular updates we can grab as third parties.
Actually, federal court tends to be much easier to extract information from (PACER, while annoying, is at least consistent). California state courts don't have a uniform approach to electronic document posting, and often have nothing available online at the trial court level.
Then maybe it would be beneficial. Could also consolidate both cases into a single one, since the Federal court jurisdicition would override both the California court and the Arizona court case controls, even with them being both 'seperate' suits.
Thank you for the information! I have only heard horror stories from some of the law professors I have had for some of my supplimental classes on American jurisprudence and International Law.
somewheresomehow wrote: and wasted lawyer fees etc on BF's side, because Federal court bumps the costs up significantly, and to actually win on the federal level is pretty hard unless proof is relatively solid or you have a crack lawyer team, and your costs may not be outweighed by your judgment
Yeah, I'm wondering if by BF trying to sue for an exorbitant sum, whether he's actually going to be able to recoup all of his expenses (unless the court rules overwhelmingly in his favor and BoK has to pay his expenses too)
BoK's legal team, even doing pro bono, is probably working their butt off too. So, though they could get "publicity" for winning, it would still be one heck of a ride. So their time, is effective money.
Whoever wins, still loses, legal team wise, unless BoK wins a large sum victory and BF is forced to pay legal fees, or the converse occurs. Otherwise, mediocre victories either way, is a loss to the legal teams involved.
Moral victories can still occur for either side, I am just speaking up for the lawyers (which... sounds so odd!)
somewheresomehow wrote: BoK's legal team, even doing pro bono, is probably working their butt off too. So, though they could get "publicity" for winning, it would still be one heck of a ride. So their time, is effective money.
Whoever wins, still loses, legal team wise, unless BoK wins a large sum victory and BF is forced to pay legal fees, or the converse occurs. Otherwise, mediocre victories either way, is a loss to the legal teams involved.
Moral victories can still occur for either side, I am just speaking up for the lawyers (which... sounds so odd!)
somewheresomehow wrote: BoK's legal team, even doing pro bono, is probably working their butt off too. So, though they could get "publicity" for winning, it would still be one heck of a ride. So their time, is effective money.
Whoever wins, still loses, legal team wise, unless BoK wins a large sum victory and BF is forced to pay legal fees, or the converse occurs. Otherwise, mediocre victories either way, is a loss to the legal teams involved.
Moral victories can still occur for either side, I am just speaking up for the lawyers (which... sounds so odd!)
Yea, this is a BS case, but at the end of the day, it is Romeo who is forcing it through the courts. I personally can't blame Hayden for attempting to defend himself. Romeo could have allowed this thing to die the minute Hayden filed his DJ action. Instead, he decided to double down.
Now, we have a crappy lawsuit that is going to fabulously waste my taxpayer dollars. It will be a financial drain on the public, waste the much in demand time of the court(s), and be an emotional and financial drain on the parties. No good can come from this litigation, unless you feel it is an important 1st Amendment issue, but then that's pretty well cut and dry. This thing has settlement written all over it, and it would greatly benefit from a bit of mandatory mediation. But again, you can't settle with someone who does not want to settle, and who would that be in this case?
somewheresomehow wrote: BoK's legal team, even doing pro bono, is probably working their butt off too. So, though they could get "publicity" for winning, it would still be one heck of a ride. So their time, is effective money.
Whoever wins, still loses, legal team wise, unless BoK wins a large sum victory and BF is forced to pay legal fees, or the converse occurs. Otherwise, mediocre victories either way, is a loss to the legal teams involved.
Moral victories can still occur for either side, I am just speaking up for the lawyers (which... sounds so odd!)
Yea, this is a BS case, but at the end of the day, it is Romeo who is forcing it through the courts. I personally can't blame Hayden for attempting to defend himself. Romeo could have allowed this thing to die the minute Hayden filed his DJ action. Instead, he decided to double down.
It's called All or Nothing.
IIRC, Hayden did mention that he tried to resolve it with Romeo, and had indeed submitted a response asking for a time extension, of which Romeo's lawyers rejected and maintained the less-than-a-week that he had to respond to his ultimatum.
Look at comments like this for examples of Romeo trying to hide his involvement:
We would also like to comment on the continued mention of Battle Foam and Romeo in this thread. The Outlaw Miniatures team is made up of many hard working people looking to build a great game.
It is in no way part of Battle Foam outside of getting bags made by them. Romeo is a large part of the team because it is his concept and fluff. The rest of the team is made up of graphic artists, sculptors, painters, and gamers.
This new world is being created to bring forward a new and exciting IP to the market dealing strictly with the wild west. What Battle Foam does with its partners has nothing to do with this nor does this project effect Battle Foam.
One of Romeo's main points was that his dedication rests with his partners and the hard work needed at Battle Foam. That was the only way he would sign up for this.
outriderhobbies wrote: Look at comments like this for examples of Romeo trying to hide his involvement:
We would also like to comment on the continued mention of Battle Foam and Romeo in this thread. The Outlaw Miniatures team is made up of many hard working people looking to build a great game.
It is in no way part of Battle Foam outside of getting bags made by them. Romeo is a large part of the team because it is his concept and fluff. The rest of the team is made up of graphic artists, sculptors, painters, and gamers.
This new world is being created to bring forward a new and exciting IP to the market dealing strictly with the wild west. What Battle Foam does with its partners has nothing to do with this nor does this project effect Battle Foam.
One of Romeo's main points was that his dedication rests with his partners and the hard work needed at Battle Foam. That was the only way he would sign up for this.
That comment is supposed to hide Romeo's involvement? It quite clearly says "Romeo is a large part of the team because it is his concept and fluff." right there. What this says to me is that it and Battle Foam are separate, not that it and Romeo are separate, which seems perfectly legit to me.
Yeah, that's separating 2 different companies. BF and WWX are probably separate LLCs with separate sets of owners, but Romeo is front and center there.
Romeo clearly stated several times that he was involved in WWE. The distinction was made such that the Battlefoam company and the WWE company were not involved. All this is true. There was no deceit here.
People may be getting rather hung up on Romeo not being up front about Outlaw being headed by him. This makes sense considering his questionable reputation. Then again, he had no obligation to do so; he created a new company as a sort of 'clean slate' to distance his product from his reputation.
Absolutionis wrote: ; he created a new company as a sort of 'clean slate' to distance his product from his reputation.
Speculation.
He could very well just be keeping the LLC's separate as the WWX has other partners involved helping with rules, sculpts, etc.
Agreed. It is a separate endeavor so why wouldn't it be a separate LLC. That is just good basic business sense and the one thing Romeo cannot be accused of is being stupid - a lack of control over his temper and vindictive nature yes, stupid no.
czakk wrote: Federal Court still wants nothing to do with the case.
Wait, I'm confused. I thought Romeo wanted to bring it to Federal Court? Is it just me or does that document read that BoK wanted it to go to Federal Court?
czakk wrote: Federal Court still wants nothing to do with the case.
Wait, I'm confused. I thought Romeo wanted to bring it to Federal Court? Is it just me or does that document read that BoK wanted it to go to Federal Court?
Mr. Hayden was trying to move the lawsuit in Arizona from state court to federal court. We have no indication whether or not the plaintiffs opposed the move.
Side note, Arizona's federal court declared a judicial emergency (just after their Chief Judge was shot by Jared Loughner) and they are short a number of judges (4 or 5 I think). Busy, likely overworked and not a lot of time to wade through filings. I don't know how many kicks at the cat you get trying for diversity jurisdiction but if there is another filing it will probably mention in big bold letters that Mr. Filip is a member of Battle Foam LLC in the first paragraph.
czakk wrote: Federal Court still wants nothing to do with the case.
Wait, I'm confused. I thought Romeo wanted to bring it to Federal Court? Is it just me or does that document read that BoK wanted it to go to Federal Court?
Mr. Hayden was trying to move the lawsuit in Arizona from state court to federal court. We have no indication whether or not the plaintiffs opposed the move.
Side note, Arizona's federal court declared a judicial emergency (just after their Chief Judge was shot by Jared Loughner) and they are short a number of judges (4 or 5 I think). Busy, likely overworked and not a lot of time to wade through filings. I don't know how many kicks at the cat you get trying for diversity jurisdiction but if there is another filing it will probably mention in big bold letters that Mr. Filip is a member of Battle Foam LLC in the first paragraph.
IIRC, all Obama's judicial appointments to Arizona federal courts have been blocked for over two years at the moment. By blocked, I mean not even allowed a hearing because of the Arizona federal senators. I suppose this sort of thing is where the rubber meets the road on the issue.
Blood of Kittens and Battlefoam have come to terms to settle out of court their current legal disputs.
The following is a joint statement from both parties.
The Parties have jointly concluded that open public debate best serves their own interests and, more importantly, those of the community. Accordingly, the Parties have worked together to amicably resolve their legal dispute. Because unknown facts came to the attention of the Parties and because the Parties are unbiased professionals, the Parties assign no fault to one another. The Parties request that the miniature war gaming community respect their concerted decision to move on and join the Parties in unifying miniature war gamers everywhere. In recognition of the Parties’ attorneys, who assisted the Parties in resolving their disputes, the Parties are making a joint donation to the Online Media Legal Network.
I ask everyone to respect both parties’ decision to end this whole affair. I also want to thank everyone for all their support through out this process, with special mention to the OMLN Network and my lawyers for making my defense possible.
The Parties have jointly concluded that open public debate best serves their own interests and, more importantly, those of the community. Accordingly, the Parties have worked together to amicably resolve their legal dispute. Because unknown facts came to the attention of the Parties and because the Parties are unbiased professionals, the Parties assign no fault to one another. The Parties request that the miniature war gaming community respect their concerted decision to move on and join the Parties in unifying miniature war gamers everywhere. In recognition of the Parties? attorneys, who assisted the Parties in resolving their disputes, the Parties are making a joint donation to the Online Media Legal Network.
TheAuldGrump wrote: It may be best to close the thread at this point, since both parties wish to move on.
The Auld Grump
Probably so. But one could also argue that since they value public open debate it would make sense for it to remain open.
I was just wondering if there was a joint agreement between the parties that could serve as a final footnote if it is on official paper. That would make a nice closure.
Reading the articles above, I think Battle Foam was never in the wrong. Romeo may have a hot temper when it comes to something he is passionate about, but I haven't met a marine that isn't hot tempered about something he is passionate about (if you ever met my brother and started talking about treating patients you would pray he was your nurse because he would do everything in his power to make sure you got the best care possible as he would argue until he was blue in the face if the doctor wasn't timely or responsive). What you may think of as bad business practices are actually real business practices. If you have an agreement in place you honor it. It doesn't appear that Battle Foam has done anything wrong and by judging the reaction from the community when looking at these forums as evidence, he needed to go to court to settle the matter because he obviously had to get his side of the story out there.
boyd wrote: Reading the articles above, I think Battle Foam was never in the wrong. Romeo may have a hot temper when it comes to something he is passionate about, but I haven't met a marine that isn't hot tempered about something he is passionate about (if you ever met my brother and started talking about treating patients you would pray he was your nurse because he would do everything in his power to make sure you got the best care possible as he would argue until he was blue in the face if the doctor wasn't timely or responsive). What you may think of as bad business practices are actually real business practices. If you have an agreement in place you honor it. It doesn't appear that Battle Foam has done anything wrong and by judging the reaction from the community when looking at these forums as evidence, he needed to go to court to settle the matter because he obviously had to get his side of the story out there.
I dunno, all the depositions he posted say pretty much the opposite of what the BoK depositions say, so if anything, the matter is far from settled as those depositions tell a completely different story. Looks like its still a "he said - she said" type of thing to me.
boyd wrote: Reading the articles above, I think Battle Foam was never in the wrong. Romeo may have a hot temper when it comes to something he is passionate about, but I haven't met a marine that isn't hot tempered about something he is passionate about (if you ever met my brother and started talking about treating patients you would pray he was your nurse because he would do everything in his power to make sure you got the best care possible as he would argue until he was blue in the face if the doctor wasn't timely or responsive). What you may think of as bad business practices are actually real business practices. If you have an agreement in place you honor it. It doesn't appear that Battle Foam has done anything wrong and by judging the reaction from the community when looking at these forums as evidence, he needed to go to court to settle the matter because he obviously had to get his side of the story out there.
It was a business practice that has made me and several others decide never to purchase from Battlefoam.
So... no, not a good business practice.
As for 'not doing anything wrong'... Oy!
The Auld Grump - I know a fair number of marines that aren't hot tempered... including one of the most mellow people that I know.
So there was an mutual settlement, made a "joint" donation to BoK's legal defense and the article that sparked it all is still up. Sounds like someone beat Romero about the head about how stupid his suit was.
Maddermax wrote: So there was an mutual settlement, made a "joint" donation to BoK's legal defense and the article that sparked it all is still up. Sounds like someone beat Romero about the head about how stupid his suit was.
My read as well... Seems counsel walked Romeo through his best course of action.
As much as I wanted to see this go through the court system, mostly for the commentary on Popehat, this is probably best not only for those involved, but also for the court system.
derek wrote: As much as I wanted to see this go through the court system, mostly for the commentary on Popehat, this is probably best not only for those involved, but also for the court system.
And... least said soonest mended.
Some folks just need to keep a better grip on their tempers...
The Auld Grump, either that or find a better place to hide the bodies.... (Joking... or am I?)
Thank god someone at BF came to their senses. Even if he won in court the PR beating he was taking was ridiculous. Again without this suit how many of us would a)have never read the article in question and b) not known about all of the mud raking the BoK affidavits contained?
For instance. I bought some Xwing Stuff at Adepticon from BF and was impressed with the quality I need to buy some foam for my new Raven Wing army and was looking at BF custom cuts for bike armies, then this broke out and I backpedaled quickly.
boyd wrote: Reading the articles above, I think Battle Foam was never in the wrong. Romeo may have a hot temper when it comes to something he is passionate about, but I haven't met a marine that isn't hot tempered about something he is passionate about (if you ever met my brother and started talking about treating patients you would pray he was your nurse because he would do everything in his power to make sure you got the best care possible as he would argue until he was blue in the face if the doctor wasn't timely or responsive). What you may think of as bad business practices are actually real business practices. If you have an agreement in place you honor it. It doesn't appear that Battle Foam has done anything wrong and by judging the reaction from the community when looking at these forums as evidence, he needed to go to court to settle the matter because he obviously had to get his side of the story out there.
I dunno, all the depositions he posted say pretty much the opposite of what the BoK depositions say, so if anything, the matter is far from settled as those depositions tell a completely different story. Looks like its still a "he said - she said" type of thing to me.
I guess, I think battle foam just looks better because they refuted several of their claims.
They claim he got pissy at one tournament they sponsored. Turns out it was because he had an exclusivity agreement they were going to violate. I think he had the right to get upset about that.
He said he was required to donate $1,000 in prize support, the other guy says he got 30 passes valued at $30 each and 1 gift card for $100. That appears to add up to $1,000. It sounds like the support just wasn't split up in a manner he wanted. I'm sure if there was more communication like , "hey we want your prize support to be one of the big items we give out as a grand prize to each winner not as door prizes." Heck, if I was sponsoring an event that had 9 events, the best thing for my sponsorship is to give out door prizes because it would get more people to my site. It would be in my best interest to do it that way, that or give something to the top 3 players in each event a prize. It sounds like the TO got butt hurt because the communication was poor.
He said someone wasn't provided a life time discount, he showed who the guy was and proved he was in fact getting a life time discount of 30%. So that is another false statement.
So the statement regarding making someone cry cannot be substantiated. I guess we will have to wait and see if battle foam continues to work with them. Even then, who knows what is true or isn't. I could find many plausible reasons why Battle Foam would decide to work with them or not work with them.
As far as th Internet forum goes, it appears to me that you have a couple of people egging him on. I really think both sides are in the wrong but only one side had anything to lose. He was damned if he said anything and damned if he was silent.
One issue for me personally with Battlefoam "Vouchers" is that the one I got was not a true voucher, which I think is standard practice. When I hear "$100 voucher" then I usually expect a $100 voucher, and not a "here is a coupon that is not worth anything unless you spend your own money first".
d-usa wrote: One issue for me personally with Battlefoam "Vouchers" is that the one I got was not a true voucher, which I think is standard practice. When I hear "$100 voucher" then I usually expect a $100 voucher, and not a "here is a coupon that is not worth anything unless you spend your own money first".
Exactly. In no way is that a prize, unless you think being forced to spend $100 of your own to get $200 worth of stuff counts as prize support.
because they refuted several of their claims
But they didn't, they just said the opposite. Does that mean if BoK had followed up with a second round of depositions, you would have said they refuted BF's counter claims? Because that is how your logic flows in this scenario.
'I didn't do any of the stuff people are saying I did. But the only thing I can prove for certain is that I gave away the lifetime discount to the chap who tattoed his body (see appended evidence)'.
'I was at a tournament, and I didn't hear anything about Romeo being nasty to an old lady. I wasn't actually at the alleged place of the incident, but I'm totally sure it didn't happen.'
'I work for Romeo, and I never saw him make anyone's mother cry'.
Maddermax wrote: So there was an mutual settlement, made a "joint" donation to BoK's legal defense and the article that sparked it all is still up. Sounds like someone beat Romero about the head about how stupid his suit was.
That matches my reading of it. I mean, the timeline, as far as I can see, was:-
-Tastytaste writes a slightly naff critical article on Battlefoam and Romeo.
-Romeo threatens legal proceedings.
-Tastytaste gets pro bono support and forces Battlefoam to either make good on their threat or shut up.
-Romeo follows through and says he'll meet him in court.
-Depositions by witnesses who don't even like tastytaste corroborate and validate probably 75% of his claims.
-Romeo tries some hijinks to get a more favourable court/set of laws to apply to the case. Fails.
-The two parties come to a secret out of court settlement immediately after Romeo releases his counter-claims, thus ensuing they have no chance to be questioned/proven wrong.
That says to me that Romeo knew he was on a highway to a hiding, so he got the last word in legally and then quickly jumped ship before legal fees sucked his bank account dry. Which I'm inclined to think was probably the best move he could have made at this stage.
The only claims I can currently see that I think tastytaste got wrong were the one over the lifetime discount for a tattoo, and the one over him trying to get someone fired from Duelcon. The rest seem to more or less hold weight to me.
I mean, call me slightly cynical, but most of Romeo's 'He didn't do anything's seem to be being made by his employees. As such, I'm somewhat more likely to give credence to Tastytaste's depositions over theirs, which were made by people who don't particularly like tastey, and have no real interest in the outcome of the case. Especially when Romeo's past behaviour patterns match their statements.
It's all very Streisand Effect, and probably hurt Romeo/Battlefoam's business far more than if he'd ignored it. I'm in no rush to buy from him again, and I have 3 BF cases.
boyd wrote: Reading the articles above, I think Battle Foam was never in the wrong. Romeo may have a hot temper when it comes to something he is passionate about, but I haven't met a marine that isn't hot tempered about something he is passionate about (if you ever met my brother and started talking about treating patients you would pray he was your nurse because he would do everything in his power to make sure you got the best care possible as he would argue until he was blue in the face if the doctor wasn't timely or responsive). What you may think of as bad business practices are actually real business practices. If you have an agreement in place you honor it. It doesn't appear that Battle Foam has done anything wrong and by judging the reaction from the community when looking at these forums as evidence, he needed to go to court to settle the matter because he obviously had to get his side of the story out there.
I dunno, all the depositions he posted say pretty much the opposite of what the BoK depositions say, so if anything, the matter is far from settled as those depositions tell a completely different story. Looks like its still a "he said - she said" type of thing to me.
I guess, I think battle foam just looks better because they refuted several of their claims.
They claim he got pissy at one tournament they sponsored. Turns out it was because he had an exclusivity agreement they were going to violate. I think he had the right to get upset about that.
He said he was required to donate $1,000 in prize support, the other guy says he got 30 passes valued at $30 each and 1 gift card for $100. That appears to add up to $1,000. It sounds like the support just wasn't split up in a manner he wanted. I'm sure if there was more communication like , "hey we want your prize support to be one of the big items we give out as a grand prize to each winner not as door prizes." Heck, if I was sponsoring an event that had 9 events, the best thing for my sponsorship is to give out door prizes because it would get more people to my site. It would be in my best interest to do it that way, that or give something to the top 3 players in each event a prize. It sounds like the TO got butt hurt because the communication was poor.
He said someone wasn't provided a life time discount, he showed who the guy was and proved he was in fact getting a life time discount of 30%. So that is another false statement.
So the statement regarding making someone cry cannot be substantiated. I guess we will have to wait and see if battle foam continues to work with them. Even then, who knows what is true or isn't. I could find many plausible reasons why Battle Foam would decide to work with them or not work with them.
As far as th Internet forum goes, it appears to me that you have a couple of people egging him on. I really think both sides are in the wrong but only one side had anything to lose. He was damned if he said anything and damned if he was silent.
Those are my thoughts anyway.
Ketara summed it up much nicer than I did, but I think you aren't quite understanding what "substantiated" means.
If one person says they saw someone do something, and then the other person says "No I didn't", that's not substantiated, that's disputed. As such, the arguments are now based on who's word you want to believe, and leaves the waters muddy and unclear. So that being the case, Battlefoam doesn't look "better" in this, unless you just happen to like Romeo more than TastyTaste.
What demands were made in the original C&D sent by Battlefoam, and were those demands met?
If not then Battlefoam utterly lost.
Should the article in question remain up, with no public apology from Tastytaste and no consequences on Blood of Kittens continued existence, then it is pretty clear who got the better end of this deal.
One should also keep in mind that the truth of the various claims made by Blood of Kittens is kinda irrelevant.....as long as Tastytaste had trusted sources for his claims (as shown by the statements on his behalf) then he reported the facts known to him in good faith.
Any objections about the truth of those claims are to be directed at the sources of said claims, and only if found to be erroneous can Blood of Kittens be forced to change or remove the article.
Maddermax wrote: So there was an mutual settlement, made a "joint" donation to BoK's legal defense and the article that sparked it all is still up. Sounds like someone beat Romero about the head about how stupid his suit was.
My read as well. It looks like Romeo got spanked hard and begged to settle out. The underlying message in that joint statement is glaring.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sidstyler wrote: The only way it could have ended better is if Romeo just ignored him in the first place.
HAHAHAHA! Exactly! Exalted.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dysartes wrote: I'm surprised BoK settled, to be honest, if the depositions supporting BF are as weak as they sound.
Why not settle? He got everything he wanted. Public affidavits that support his position, a symbolic payment by Romeo, his article still up, and as icing on the cake, a huge amount of damage to Battlefoam's image. There was no reason to not settle. When you get everything you want, and demand that the opposing party lay down and 'do the worm', that's it, really.
That's what this joint statement says, Romeo begged to settle out, Hayden made a series of 'walk over coals/do the worm' demands, Romeo capitulated, but insisted that they at least sort of spin it in a neutral manner in a joint statement. This is LOL town. I can't imagine how pissed Romeo is with this.
That's how seriously you know Battlefoam got trashed. Romeo leaves the post up, recovers no damages from Hayden, drops his lawsuit, and donates money to the opposing counsel's organization. Wow, just wow. I can't imagine Romeo was at all happy with that...at all.
Dysartes wrote: I'm surprised BoK settled, to be honest, if the depositions supporting BF are as weak as they sound.
Even if BoK's case was rock solid, it's still a lot of stress, a lot of disruption (travel and court time) and so on, and the only thing he walk ups have gained, over and above what he has with this settlement, would be a chance to say he 'won' - and that's not worth it compared to real world drawbacks.
I agree with a lot of the prior statements, and to add on, I think that BoK probably took the more "gentleman" approach to this. With a defense by Romeo that isn't exactly built on a strong foundation, he could've disagreed to an out-of-court settlement and instead just ripped Romeo a new one in full public view.
Even with pro bono representation a court case is expensive - lost time, lost support for BoK's site, and bad feelings al 'round.
I know wargamers that have seen Romeo in similar flights of fury, so I know whom I believe.*
But the case was going to hurt both parties.
The Auld Grump
* Those same wargamers claim that the Battlefoam cases are excellent, and possibly the best on the market - they have no problems with his products, whatsoever.
Personally, I won't do business with Battlefoam.
Not because of the court case, but because whenever I've emailed them regarding clarification for making a (big) order, I've been roundly ignored.
If they don't want my business, there are plenty of case companies who do.
Well personally I'm glad Mr Hayden finally came to his senses (and Romeo to be fair) and I think this is best for the community at large (even though there are those who will bever be happy but I'd suggest they are just 'those guys' and prefer not to be happy anyway).
For me if they can both settle their differences then I'm happy to just move on. Life is just too short to waste more time on this. If you feel this is going to effect your future buying habits then I think you're mad.
Right now back to the business of wargaming and having fun... Good luck to those who prefer to wallow in supposition and bitter regret at the outcome.
I wouldn't call not purchasing from a company run by a less-than-likeable person wallowing in supposition and bitter regret. It's not like my life is worse for not owning Battle Foam, and I'm certainly not unhappy for the fact that I've written off his business as being for me
They make an okay product that has plenty of decent competition. If I decide not to buy because the owner is a meanie, or his website is bad, or his store doesn't take my preferred payment method, or whatever criteria I decide is a requirement for my custom, I'm no more mad than the person who decides that the person in charge of a business shouldn't affect the customer's decision to buy. It's all a matter of perspective and personal decision making process. Human agency is a wonderful thing.
recruittons wrote: I wouldn't call not purchasing from a company run by a less-than-likeable person wallowing in supposition and bitter regret. It's not like my life is worse for not owning Battle Foam, and I'm certainly not unhappy for the fact that I've written off his business as being for me
They make an okay product that has plenty of decent competition. If I decide not to buy because the owner is a meanie, or his website is bad, or his store doesn't take my preferred payment method, or whatever criteria I decide is a requirement for my custom, I'm no more mad than the person who decides that the person in charge of a business shouldn't affect the customer's decision to buy. It's all a matter of perspective and personal decision making process. Human agency is a wonderful thing.
Exactly - I feel no urge to support bad behavior, and there are plenty of options that will not support such shenanigans.
I do have one Mantic Battlefoam case - pretty well made, but until I looked at it I had no idea that it was BF.
KR Multicase or Sabol both look good. I do kind of wish that I had gotten some of the Outrider cases from Reaper during the Bones Kickstarter.
Heck - I will buy standard pistol cases before supporting BF.
Several of my friends that have purchased BF cases in the past have not done so since seeing Romeo having a tantrum at a con.
And... he does not in any way address his misbehavior in the settlement. Even a simple 'I will try to work on my temper, folks' would help.
Glad they resolved this... but looks like Battlefoam was definitely the side getting their arm twisted from the "legal reading in between the lines" people have done. Hopefully, that will make them a bit less trigger happy in the future.
Not unlike a bigger corporation that just had an unfavorable outcome due to throwing their legal weight around without a strong case...
What demands were made in the original C&D sent by Battlefoam, and were those demands met?
If not then Battlefoam utterly lost.
Not only were none of the demands met, but the end result is Battlefoam providing part of a joint donation to an organization that protects online journalists from exactly this sort of predatory legal action.
To me I see this as a settlement on BF's part. BoK's blog post is back up afaik.
Battlefoam makes a great product. That much is certain. But it is a disservice to the company to have someone like Romeo running his mouth as he has, and then blowing up anytime someone talks ill of him. I think his own legal counsel looked at the statements that BoK managed to get and realized that regardless of where the case took place it would be a massive uphill battle all over a simple blog post.
If you can't take criticism, retailing to the geek market is the wrong business for you. We are by far the most critical consumers there are.
Steelmage99 wrote: I look at it like this;
What demands were made in the original C&D sent by Battlefoam, and were those demands met?
I agree with this. Look at the original demands of the Cease and Desist and see what was actually accomplished. None of it that I can see.
*Was the article taken down? No.
*Did Nick pay Romeo the $2,500? Nope, and it looks like Romeo had to pay the legal organization that helped Nick.
*Did Nick post an affidavit that refutes his article and says he is wrong? Nope. Instead a "neutral" statement was posted by both sides saying what happened.
What did Romeo get out of this?
I'm guessing a lot of legal fees of his own.
Having to essentially pay Nick's legal fees, in the form of a payment to the legal organization that helped him.
A lot more bad publicity and dirty laundry aired than the original article brought on.
I'm sure a whole lot of wasted time.
He at least got to end the legal battle it before things became worse.
What did Nick get out of this?
Probably some publicity.
Personal costs of his own (not covered by the Pro Bono work)
I'm sure a whole lot of wasted time.
He at least got to end it before more time was wasted
What did the community get from this?
Confirmation that legal bullying sometimes backfires.
Confirmation that the first amendment is hard to overcome.
Aerethan wrote:
If you can't take criticism, retailing to the geek market is the wrong business for you. We are by far the most critical consumers there are.
Interestingly enough, from this it does seem that GW certainly has chops, no? We've been criticizing and flaming them for the past decade, and they still continue to take actions that piss us off (price hikes, Khornedozer, etc.) and yet we still keep coming back.
carboncopy wrote:
Entertainment.
This. So this. Exalted for taking the time to summarize that concluding list.
I miss Mickey, I wanted to see his response more than, "Glad Nick wised up!"*
* - This is a paraphrase
It is a rather interesting turn of events, too bad we'll never really know what Romeo's points were that were being made since he doesn't have to file anything :-\
Aerethan wrote:
If you can't take criticism, retailing to the geek market is the wrong business for you. We are by far the most critical consumers there are.
Interestingly enough, from this it does seem that GW certainly has chops, no? We've been criticizing and flaming them for the past decade, and they still continue to take actions that piss us off (price hikes, Khornedozer, etc.) and yet we still keep coming back.
carboncopy wrote:
Entertainment.
This. So this. Exalted for taking the time to summarize that concluding list.
The thing with GW is that they don't really have a face. They don't have a PR person that I'm aware of. They had a FB page, and when things got heated instead of blowing up they simply bowed out and closed it. GW might be some faceless corporation, but by being so they avoid public embarrassment being made by some single voice that represents them. They simply do what they do, and don't talk about it.
Wow! Just popped back in to check on this. I'd have to agree that it certainly looks like quite the victory for BoK! The article stays up, Nick admits to no wrong-doing, offers no apology AND gets the symbolic payment from Battlefoam. I'm sure Romeo is furious.
I have a question for the legal types -
Does this set any kind of precedent, or would the case have actually had to be heard in court before that can happen? I'm just wondering what (if any) effect this might have going forward if a similar situation were to arise with other companies/podcasters/bloggers.
Tycho wrote: Does this set any kind of precedent, or would the case have actually had to be heard in court before that can happen?
No legal precedent here.
It doesn't set a precedent, but it does show how off the wall and unsubstantiated Battlefoam's claims were. For solid precedent you generally have to have a case decided at the appellate level, generally better in Federal Court than State Court (depending on what you are dealing with of course), and the precedent is stronger in the circuit in which the decision was made, but appellate level decisions are generally given weight outside of the circuit out of which the decision came. Supreme Court decisions are of course the strongest.
gunslingerpro wrote: Settled case implies that neither side was entirely sure going to the mattresses was the best option.
Now, about this 20% off 4th of July sale...
Settling does not actually mean anything about going to were mattresses are. The innocent party could have agreed to settle because they did not have an interest in being there in the first place (probable). Maybe the case would have uncovered something that the innocent party didn't want known. Maybe blue butt monkeys appeared and told the innocent party to call it.
Either of these is just as likely as your mattress scenario. I, however, am going to the mattress right now. Egyptian cotton sheets are calling my name (WIN! LOVE YA MA!).
gunslingerpro wrote: Settled case implies that neither side was entirely sure going to the mattresses was the best option.
Now, about this 20% off 4th of July sale...
Settling does not actually mean anything about going to were mattresses are. The innocent party could have agreed to settle because they did not have an interest in being there in the first place (probable).
gunslingerpro wrote: Settled case implies that neither side was entirely sure going to the mattresses was the best option.
Now, about this 20% off 4th of July sale...
Settling does not actually mean anything about going to were mattresses are. The innocent party could have agreed to settle because they did not have an interest in being there in the first place (probable).
Aren't we saying the same thing?
Not unless you meant something different to what you wrote in your first post.
Assuming I've got my ducks in a row, BoK only went to court proceedings to force BF to put up or shut up regarding the legal threats/demands in the initial C&D letter. From the legal points in this thread and the depositions posted by BoK, they seemed to have backed up all bar one (tattoo guy) of the claims made in the post that kicked all of this off - BF's depositions were mostly from members of staff, and as far as I recall didn't actually seem to refute what BoK claimed with independent witnesses.
If BF's lawyers pointed out to Romeo that if they went to court they were going to get their backside handed to them on a silver platter - as did not seem improbable - leading to a settlement request that nullified the original C&D threat without needing to go to trial, then BoK wins without needing the additional hassle of a trial. This doesn't mean that BoK might not have thought about taking it "to the mattresses", but if you can get what you want without more work, why not go for it?
Dysartes wrote: Not unless you meant something different to what you wrote in your first post.
Assuming I've got my ducks in a row, BoK only went to court proceedings to force BF to put up or shut up regarding the legal threats/demands in the initial C&D letter. From the legal points in this thread and the depositions posted by BoK, they seemed to have backed up all bar one (tattoo guy) of the claims made in the post that kicked all of this off - BF's depositions were mostly from members of staff, and as far as I recall didn't actually seem to refute what BoK claimed with independent witnesses.
If BF's lawyers pointed out to Romeo that if they went to court they were going to get their backside handed to them on a silver platter - as did not seem improbable - leading to a settlement request that nullified the original C&D threat without needing to go to trial, then BoK wins without needing the additional hassle of a trial. This doesn't mean that BoK might not have thought about taking it "to the mattresses", but if you can get what you want without more work, why not go for it?
So wait, exactly what I said? It was not the best option for either party. Hence they settled. Why is this confusing?
![[Disk]](/dakkaforum/templates/default/images/icon_disk.gif){kind=icon}
Embarassed now!
