***The last thread was locked due to it going off topic and engaging in personal attacks. Please stay on topic***
Nicolas Hayden vs. Battle Foam and Romeo Filip.
What has come before
This was fairly well covered in the last thread, but here is a very brief summary. BoK wrote a blog post. Battle Foam sent a C&D. The C&D came with a demand to pay legal fees and respond by a certain point of time or else a law suit would be filed. BoK instead obtained representation and filed for declaratory relief.
Mr. Filip has done two podcasts where he discusses the lawsuit. Show 60 of 40kradio, at around the 60 minute mark, and at the 11th Company. It is clear he is passionate about his business and is upset at the blog post. He makes some interesting statements about how he views the C&D letter that was sent to Mr. Hayden, and about old school business values.
Litigation
According to the court's docket Battlefoam has filed an answer, a cross-complaint, and a motion to stay or dismiss. The court has scheduled a hearing for the motion on the 1st of July. Clearly Mr. Filip is not backing down. We are missing the actual filings. Hopefully one of the parties makes them available publicly, or someone else gets them from the courthouse.
Answer:
An answer is a response by the defendant. Basically it will admit or deny the elements in the complaint, and then go on to plead Battle Foam’s defence and lay out material facts supporting that defence.
Cross-Complaint:
A cross complaint is a new cause of action. It is effectively a new lawsuit arising out of the same basic facts or connected to the first lawsuit. It appears to be targeting Mr. Hayden and a Jane Doe. From the court’s docket we can see that a new cross-defendant has been added, a Jane Doe Hayden.
Perhaps going after a relative of Mr. Hayden's either for deeper pockets, or to up the potential consequences and costs of litigation? Mr. Filip hasn't mentioned anyone else as defaming him in either of his two interviews.
Motion to Stay / Dismiss due to forum non conveniens:
This is a motion by Battlefoam asking the California court to not hear the case. Battle Foam will argue that the proper court to hear this case is one in Arizona. If you read through Mr. Hayden's initial complaint you'll see a jurisdiction section where he argues why California has proper jurisdiction. This is jurisdiction simpliciter - the court can hear the complaint (it's not the tax court for example which has no business hearing this sort of claim). Forum non conveniens is a slightly different argument, it says, yes the court could hear the case, but it shouldn't because there is better / more convenient / more proper venue elsewhere.
Forum non conveniens is a common law doctrine allowing a court to decline to hear a case if the court finds that the lawsuit is more appropriately and justly tried in a different location. It is latin for inconvenient court / forum not agreeing. It is a highly discretionary power, the court can choose to decline to hear the case or not hear the case as it sees fit. Courts generally consider (although the specifics vary from state to state country to country):
The residence of the parties
The location of evidence and witnesses
Public policy
The relative burdens on the court systems (in the US)
The plaintiff's choice of forum
How changing the forum would affect each party's case.
It is interesting to note that Battle Foam is capable of engaging in litigation in states other than Arizona and has done so in the past. In fact, only a few years ago it argued against having its lawsuit against Outrider Hobbies heard in Arizona, preferring to have it heard in New Hampshire:
In the alternative, [Outrider Hobbies] moves the court to transfer venue to the District of Arizona. [Battle Foam] objects and asserts that this court may properly exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Wade.
Also interesting to note that a cross-complaint has been filed. Civil procedure is an arcane and tricky business that changes from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In my jurisdiction it would be hard to argue forum non conveniens while at the same time filing a cross-complaint against a third party in that jurisdiction. But California almost certainly has different rules – perhaps filing the motion for the stay allows the filing of other pleadings.
If we get to see the filings it should be explained in them.
Lastly, now that a complaint has been filed by Battle Foam, Mr. Hayden may have recourse to California's anti-SLAPP statute.
***The last thread was locked due to it going off topic and engaging in personal attacks. Please stay on topic***
H.B.M.C. wrote: Can someone at least explained, without hyperbole, why a C&D was sent over a blog post?
I've seen the blog post described as venomous, but haven't been able to read it myself because it was taken down. The C&D itself says the blog post falsely stated that Mr. Filip did the following:
threatened customers
lied to current and former customers and business partners
consistently defaulted on business arrangements
I don't know BoK's readership numbers, but if a few hundred people saw it, that's something to be concerned about. If you heard about these claims from a bunch of your customers or business partners, I could see being interested in putting a stop to it. In a small hobby, and in business your reputation is important.
Mr. Filip and his lawyer chose to take a fairly aggressive stance in their C&D, but you don't have to write your first one that way. We also don't know if Mr. Filip contacted Mr. Hayden prior to the C&D to ask him to take down the post.
Thanks for the summary of where the case is up to, czakk.
Trying to get the case relocated is an interesting gambit, but I'd imagine his lawyers would have to have a pretty compelling case for that to happen, no?
Trying to get the case relocated is an interesting gambit, but I'd imagine his lawyers would have to have a pretty compelling case for that to happen, no?
Especially considering a previous wish to have court cases held outside of Arizona. Would that precedent of being willing to travel from Arizona influence the court's decision as to whether or not BF's place of residence (which is Arizona right? I could be misunderstanding this) is an issue worth sending it back to Arizona for.
czakk wrote: I've seen the blog post described as venomous, but haven't been able to read it myself because it was taken down. The C&D itself says the blog post falsely stated that Mr. Filip did the following:
threatened customers
lied to current and former customers and business partners
H.B.M.C. wrote: Can someone at least explained, without hyperbole, why a C&D was sent over a blog post?
I've seen the blog post described as venomous, but haven't been able to read it myself because it was taken down. The C&D itself says the blog post falsely stated that Mr. Filip did the following:
threatened customers
In the 40k Radio interview Romeo says that people are welcome to come talk to him on his porch, but that they may get punched in the face. (I'd nail down the exact quote but the streaming interface is a bit too awkward to navigate.) I suppose that isn't quite evidence since it happened after the blog post that started this (and it also isn't directed against customers so much as against some arbitrary person Romeo finds offensive.)
Does anyone know of any forum posts, interviews, or the like where Romeo has done similar things? For the other two bullets (lying and defaulting)?
Romeo did threaten forum users in the Infinity forum, though. I don't know if they're considered customers but it is true that he has threatened people.
heartserenade wrote: Romeo did threaten forum users in the Infinity forum, though. I don't know if they're considered customers but it is true that he has threatened people.
Do you happen to have a link to the thread (or an archive of it?) I don't doubt you (frankly, I don't doubt any of the claims are true,) but I'm curious to see evidence. Or at least evidence that someone pretending to be Romeo did this stuff... I'm not going to hunt down logs to try and determine it really is him.
heartserenade wrote: Romeo did threaten forum users in the Infinity forum, though. I don't know if they're considered customers but it is true that he has threatened people.
Do you happen to have a link to the thread (or an archive of it?) I don't doubt you (frankly, I don't doubt any of the claims are true,) but I'm curious to see evidence. Or at least evidence that someone pretending to be Romeo did this stuff... I'm not going to hunt down logs to try and determine it really is him.
Not sure if there is more than one to refer to...but the one which I recall would have been back in December 2012...it was deleted from the official forums, but subsequently was restarted on dozens of other forums. I am guessing that enough circumstantial evidence remains in that regard that it would be allowed. It all sort of stemmed from the O-12 podcast from the same period that he went into a rant about Infinity the game.
If no one else has it saved, I believe the comments were significant enough to cause me to save the thread...though, it would be one of thousands of files in the period...so hopefully I won't need to search my archives for it.
heartserenade wrote: Romeo did threaten forum users in the Infinity forum, though. I don't know if they're considered customers but it is true that he has threatened people.
Do you happen to have a link to the thread (or an archive of it?) I don't doubt you (frankly, I don't doubt any of the claims are true,) but I'm curious to see evidence. Or at least evidence that someone pretending to be Romeo did this stuff... I'm not going to hunt down logs to try and determine it really is him.
I believe he made threats via e-mail. It was posted on the last thread about this same subject. As was said in the first post, it's locked now. Lemme go find it.
Or, you know, not. Things like that were exactly what got the last thread locked. --Janthkin
I had read the article on BOK. There is another article on there that talks about Battlefoam's practices - the more legal and verifiable instances, but this article focused on Romeo's public and business practices. It basically talked about several situations involving Romeo that are probably fairly well-known. The few that I remember it talking about were:
*An event where Battlefoam was offering prizes. It turned out to be more than expected and Romeo became upset. He supplied the prize bags, but no foam.
*A customer had ordered a bag (or had a bag repaired). Romeo had agreed to bring the bag to an event for the customer to save on shipping. Romeo didn't and then insisted the customer pay for shipping on the bag. The customer argued with him for some time to get Romeo to honor the previous agreement.
*I believe the whole Infinity forums situation was on there also.
Like I said, probably nothing that hasn't been discussed before, or things that weren't big enough to come into the community eye. I'm guessing the article is probably mostly or completely true, but Romeo is betting that Nick doesn't have evidence to back it up, since a lot of it is word of mouth. The biggest one for me is the whole Infinity forum debacle and although the thread has been deleted there are still people who remember it and have saved snippets of it.
I find it funny how so few people read the article (or cared). And now after the C&D has been sent, it's only going to bring more attention to these past accounts. I think it would have been wise to not demand the $2500 in attorney fees in the C&D. It probably would have resulted in a more quiet and peaceful solution.
carboncopy wrote: I think it would have been wise to not demand the $2500 in attorney fees in the C&D. It probably would have resulted in a more quiet and peaceful solution.
The problem with Shock and Awe tactics is that sometimes the results are shockingly awful.
carboncopy wrote: I had read the article on BOK. There is another article on there that talks about Battlefoam's practices - the more legal and verifiable instances, but this article focused on Romeo's public and business practices. It basically talked about several situations involving Romeo that are probably fairly well-known. The few that I remember it talking about were:
*An event where Battlefoam was offering prizes. It turned out to be more than expected and Romeo became upset. He supplied the prize bags, but no foam.
*A customer had ordered a bag (or had a bag repaired). Romeo had agreed to bring the bag to an event for the customer to save on shipping. Romeo didn't and then insisted the customer pay for shipping on the bag. The customer argued with him for some time to get Romeo to honor the previous agreement.
*I believe the whole Infinity forums situation was on there also.
Like I said, probably nothing that hasn't been discussed before, or things that weren't big enough to come into the community eye. I'm guessing the article is probably mostly or completely true, but Romeo is betting that Nick doesn't have evidence to back it up, since a lot of it is word of mouth. The biggest one for me is the whole Infinity forum debacle and although the thread has been deleted there are still people who remember it and have saved snippets of it.
I find it funny how so few people read the article (or cared). And now after the C&D has been sent, it's only going to bring more attention to these past accounts. I think it would have been wise to not demand the $2500 in attorney fees in the C&D. It probably would have resulted in a more quiet and peaceful solution.
Agreed. That is the sad irony of this legal debacle. It has brought this to the attention of a LOT more people, myself included. It wasn't a good PR move in my opinion.
TLDR version: people on that thread talking about what Romeo did in that deleted Infinity thread where he reacted violently on criticisms and allegedly threatened people (and those people shared copy-pastes of the e-mails Romeo sent).
TLDR version: people on that thread talking about what Romeo did in that deleted Infinity thread where he reacted violently on criticisms and allegedly threatened people (and those people shared copy-pastes of the e-mails Romeo sent).
Ahh yes, that thread has another instance on there I remember:
Then you have the case of Romeo promising a lifetime discount for anyone tattooing Battlefoam on their body. Well one sad individual did such a thing and Romeo denied ever making the offer. So, with email trail in hand the tattooed man got into a haggling argument over the percentage of the discount, with I think a final agreement settling at 30% off.
Wow, Romeo is doubling down. This will probably end badly for Battlefoam. It is not as if BoK has crappy lawyers.
Romeo could have let this thing drop, and in a perfect world I would hope that his lawyers gave him good advice about how to proceed given the circumstances. However, no matter what you say, if the client wants to do it...
That said, I very often find that attorneys are quite reluctant to tell a client what they really think about a lawsuit. That's part of the reason I have a job.
Filing a lawsuit is like going to war. Once you start shooting it is hard to stop, and in the end everyone gets hurt. This thing could have ended with little more than elevating levels of military preparedness. BoK used some inflammatory rhetoric, Battlefoam conducted military exercises in response, BoK fueled jets and made a statement condemning BF in the UN, and BF responded by sinking a warship and putting its ICBMs on alert.
It is now a shooting war, and in my mind, Romeo was the first one to go hot.
@carbon copy: So being an impartial person here some of your statements I feel are miss placed especially the one in regards to prize support. I'm not sure at what point in recent years that events felt they were owed prize support but I find statements such as yours rather disturbing. It is nice of him to give anything for free and to hold suit against him for not giving the foam with the bag is rather menial. I can understand where some will have issues with him but I think some people are overly critical of him. You don't have to like romeo but he has a killer staff that is super helpful and nice and they make a great product. Also I will say this he is patinate about gaming and his company as so many of us are, and on a one on one he's a great guy I have found SK even though he is rough around the edges I say cut the guy a break.
czakk wrote: I've seen the blog post described as venomous, but haven't been able to read it myself because it was taken down. The C&D itself says the blog post falsely stated that Mr. Filip did the following:
threatened customers
lied to current and former customers and business partners
consistently defaulted on business arrangements
Thank you for explaining.
Next question though:
Are any of the above three items true?
That's what the litigation and C&D are all about, and will be decided in court.
Empchild wrote: @carbon copy: So being an impartial person here some of your statements I feel are miss placed especially the one in regards to prize support. I'm not sure at what point in recent years that events felt they were owed prize support but I find statements such as yours rather disturbing. It is nice of him to give anything for free and to hold suit against him for not giving the foam with the bag is rather menial. I can understand where some will have issues with him but I think some people are overly critical of him. You don't have to like romeo but he has a killer staff that is super helpful and nice and they make a great product. Also I will say this he is patinate about gaming and his company as so many of us are, and on a one on one he's a great guy I have found SK even though he is rough around the edges I say cut the guy a break.
As stated, I'm only going off of memory of what I read in the article. These aren't my accounts. I think the point of the article wasn't just that there was no foam in the free bags, but the situation as a whole and how it was handled by Romeo.
But I agree, I think it was all pretty menial, which I'm surprised such a legal move was made by Battlefoam, and with such an extravagant demand of legal fee compensations. Please keep in mind BoK isn't holding suit for the alleged business practices, but are merely filing to have the court say the article isn't defamatory.
Dysartes wrote: Thanks for the summary of where the case is up to, czakk.
Trying to get the case relocated is an interesting gambit
One thing I noticed in my very cursory look at anti-SLAPP stuff is that Arizona's seems to apply only to speech involving the government. California's is broader and can apply to speech involving topics of public interest as well as speech involving the government.
The Arizona anti-SLAPP statute applies to legal actions involving “a party’s exercise of the right of petition.” A.R.S. § 12‑751 defines “exercise of the right of petition” as
any written or oral statement that falls within the constitutional protection of free speech and that is made as part of an initiative, referendum or recall effort or that is all of the following:
Made before or submitted to a legislative or executive body or other governmental proceeding.
Made in connection with an issue that is under consideration or review by a legislative or executive body or any other governmental proceeding.
Made for the purpose of influencing a governmental action, decision or result.
To challenge a lawsuit as a SLAPP, you need to show that the plaintiff is suing you for an "act in furtherance of [your] right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue."Although people often use terms like "free speech" and "petition the government" loosely in popular speech, the anti-SLAPP law gives this phrase a particular legal meaning
...
3. any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest...
....
Many different kinds of statements may relate to an issue of public interest. California courts look at factors such as whether the subject of the disputed statement was a person or entity in the public eye, whether the statement involved conduct that could affect large numbers of people beyond the direct participants, and whether the statement contributed to debate on a topic of widespread public interest.
California's statute may apply to the situation, Arizona's definitely would not.
If California's statute covers this situation think we can expect to see the following happen:
1) Mr. Hayden or Ms Jane Doe Hayden files a motion to strike the cross-complaint.
2) Discovery ceases (if it has started).
3) Court hearing on the motion within 30 days of filing.
According to the DMLP site the following happens at the motion:
1) Mr. Hayden has the burden of showing that his speech is covered by the statute (public interest, public topic, public eye)
2) If Mr. Hayden is successful, Mr. Filip then has the burden of producing evidence to support his lawsuit and show he has a minimal chance of success. This is a stretch on my part, but if you listen to the 11th Company podcast, Mr. Filip mentions sworn affidavits from folks quoted in the article. That might come into play here.
If Mr. Hayden's motion to strike is considered to be a waste of time, he can be ordered to pay costs to Mr. Filip. If the lawsuit is deemed to be a SLAPP suit, Mr. Filip will pay costs to Mr. Hayden. Is Mr. Filip in the public eye and is Battle Foam a topic of public interest? In side the hobby I would say yes, but I don't think anyone outside would know or care about the matter.
Some other stuff I don't know about 1) If there is a motion to strike, will the court move the hearing on Mr. Filip's motion to stay or dismiss to the same day as the hearing on the motion to strike?
2) What happens to the action for declaratory relief if the motion to strike is successful?
carboncopy wrote: Ahh yes, that thread has another instance on there I remember:
Then you have the case of Romeo promising a lifetime discount for anyone tattooing Battlefoam on their body. Well one sad individual did such a thing and Romeo denied ever making the offer. So, with email trail in hand the tattooed man got into a haggling argument over the percentage of the discount, with I think a final agreement settling at 30% off.
After I closed the last thread, I received the below PM from a newly-registered user, who wanted to post it in the (now-locked) thread. I make no claims as to the source, other than to note that the user's information does not match with any BF-related accounts on Dakka.
bftbg79 wrote:Greetings all who are reading this. It has been brought to my attention that Tasty Taste from Blood of Kittens has included me a post, lashing out at Battlefoam/Romeo. I do not subscribe to his site, know him personally, or even have him on my Facebook as a random con-goer I have met. With that being said, I could not pick him out of a lineup much less did I ever give interview to him about being the “Battlefoam tattoo guy”. If I had been interviewed, I doubt, to use Tasty Tastes words, “this sad individual” would not have found a place in his posting. Romeo and I met at Adepticon several years ago. The 40k radio, lifetime boota membership had been going on, if you tattooed the logo onto your body. So I jokingly threatened to get a Battlefoam tattoo on my arm, since it did a far superior job keeping my mini’s safe, as opposed to the other bags I had been using. He then said to me that if I got said tattoo he would give me a discount for life. This intrigued and amused me, so we discussed it further. We had a good laugh, and then went about our convention business. Two months later I shoot Romeo an email, with picture of the tattoo. He calls me up, excited, makes good on his promise of a lifetime discount. There was no, again to use Tasty Taste’s words, “haggling argument”. Later that month I call in for my first order. This is where there seems to be the most confusion. Romeo had not written anything down, or told his staff how much of a discount I was to be getting. The staff originally thought it was just a 365 day a year Golden Boota discount. So a back and forth amongst Romeo and his staff began to establish the amount. During this time, both Romeo and his staff, were professional, polite, and never told me no. In the end, something that was discussed half in jest and agreed upon over a handshake was honored by Romeo. There was no argument, no hard feelings, or any mistreatment. Romeo could have very well claimed no such agreement was made, or just played ignorance to the deal. Instead he made good on his word, and honored the original agreement without any complaint or resistance on the matter. So I apparently fail to see the issue here. If I had to find fault on any of this, it was that Romeo and I did not write down the initial agreement. Does this make Romeo a bad person? Hardly. Given the circumstances, I fail to see how this can be part of this argument to vilify someone. Romeo and Battlefoam have come out in spades on this matter and I have never had issue with either service or products. I cannot vouch for anything else in Tasty Tastes post as I was not there to witness any of it, nor have I spoken directly with anyone who was there. It would look poorly on me to do so, and discredit me if I did not follow up on stories or facts. What I do have the authority to speak on is that the one part involving me, and how it was twisted. It was insulting to me, and goes to show why I don’t follow this individual’s online posting. I do not intend to speak further on this matter outside of legal proceedings, as, quite frankly, there is now no further need to do so. Now if you excuse me, I am going back to the hobby we all share and enjoying myself.
Some jurisdictions have rules that allow a defendant to seek a security for costs order from out of state corporate plaintiffs. Essentially it forces the plaintiff (cross-complainant in this case) to pay money into court prior as a bond for costs in case they lose. Because it ties up actual money for the duration of the trial it can be a strong deterrent to going through with a lawsuit.
It also deters entities with little or no cash on hand from filing lawsuits. So you can't just set up a corporation to sue people, put in just enough money to pay lawyers and then walk away and not pay if you are unsuccessful. Not that this is the case with Battle Foam, it is just one of the reasons the rule exists.
I'll do a quick search and see if California has that rule.
(a)When the plaintiff in an action or special proceeding resides out of the state, or is a foreign corporation, the defendant may at any time apply to the court by noticed motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to file an undertaking to secure an award of costs and attorney's fees which may be awarded in the action or special proceeding...
(b)The motion shall be made on the grounds that the plaintiff resides out of the state or is a foreign corporation and that there is a reasonable possibility that the moving defendant will obtain judgment in the action or special proceeding...
(c)If the court, after hearing, determines that the grounds for the motion have been established, the court shall order that the plaintiff file the undertaking in an amount specified in the court's order as security for costs and attorney's fees.
...
(g)An order granting or denying a motion for an undertaking under this section is not appealable.
carboncopy wrote: Ahh yes, that thread has another instance on there I remember:
Then you have the case of Romeo promising a lifetime discount for anyone tattooing Battlefoam on their body. Well one sad indivdual did such a thing and Romeo denied ever making the offer. So, with email trail in hand the tattooed man got into a haggling argument over the percentage of the discount, with I think a final agreement settling at 30% off.
After I closed the last thread, I received the below PM from a newly-registered user, who wanted to post it in the (now-locked) thread. I make no claims as to the source, other than to note that the user's information does not match with any BF-related accounts on Dakka.
Taking the user at face value, it wouldn't nescessarily further claims of defamation or libel. The "facts" dont always have to be true, just believed to have been true. The tattoo story was circulating before the BoK blog post, so they might have been passing on what they believed to be true (as opposed to other things that are demonstratably true like prior lawsuits, forum posts and what not).
On the forum post issue...
Spoiler:
Posted Today, 05:37 PMEnough is enough. I have sat back and let you guys get under my skin for way to long. You all ask why a person that should be looking at this as a professional and a business person not taking the high road? The fact is that you can’t take the high road with people that are low lives. Yes, I called some of you low lives, Killionaire. The fact that some of you have the INTERNET balls to sit on a forum and talk crap about me, and our show is a total joke. To then come back and say that I used our podcast to voice our opinions and that was stooping to low is laughable. So you all get to bash me behind my back and on public forums but I can’t do it on our own show. Get a clue and get a life. We asked for your suggestions, we never asked for your hate or disgusting comments. Let me break a few more things down for you. I did this show for the love of the game, something that many of you have stripped away completely. To be honest I don’t even care to play Infinity anymore because it means I may actually run into some of you at a tournament. The vile you all spew at hard working people is a complete joke and crime. This whole thing started when I accepted an invitation by my friends to come on D6G to help with their show. I had 10 mins to prep for that interview and no I did not have my rule book with me. And no, I don’t know all the Infinity rules, and NO WE ARE NOT THE GOD DAMB OFFICIAL PODCAST OF ANYTHING! How many more times do we have to say that. Quit using that as your excuse to defend BS post that attack me personally. I welcome you to attack me in person at any number of events I attend each year. Fact is that none of the loud mouth trolls on here ripping me apart would even peep a word in person. That’s the problem with forums and this one in particular. Infinity tries to make itself sound better than the rest but good members allow for bad members to turn this into another 40k forum. Trolling the hosts of a free show that you choose to download and then ripping the main host when he replies back and gives you his side. Get real. And for the ones that want facts. Here they are. ____________________________________Chromedog - Posted 27 December 2012I did like their descriptor of Romeo.The Sham-WOW! of foam.(Over here, we find those adverts (and the Sham-WOW! guy) incredibly irritating though. More likely to drive customers away than attract them.)I like the D6G podcast, but the main reason I listen to O-12 is because of Kip and Tom, NOT Romeo. ___________________________________I did not know that selling your products and letting the world know about your hard work is considered a bad thing. ---------------------------------------------------------E-Warden – Posted 29 December 2012I'm in full agreement with the Romeo issue. Unfortunately I think he detracts from the 0-12 podcast and I'm from here (NY.)____________________________________Thanks for the support E-Warden, nothing like jumping on the bandwagon and crapping on people when they are down. ____________________________________Hindenburg – Posted 30 December 2012Bringing players to a game on false pretenses because you can't facts straight isn't exactly great. Especially when you make mistakes that make it seem like a WORSE game. ____________________________________Really, a worse game. Because I get a fact wrong people will find Infinity to be a worse game. Come on with the drama already.____________________________________Killionaire – Posted 30 December 2012And as usual, Romeo gets more or less every single thing wrong that comes out of his mouth.____________________________________As usual Killionaire your running around on every forum you can sniffing my panties. Hey clown, feel free to call, email, skype, or better yet say something to me in person. I know you’re the biggest internet tough guy there is. Your BS artist ass has been talking crap about me for years on every forum that your mom lets you sign up for. Please, please for the sake of everything holy. Come see me at any convention I am at. Email me your name or just post it so everybody knows who you are. You by far are the driving force in this whole thing. You have been creating drama on me for so long I can’t even remember. Oh, and I have a few favors called in to find out who you are. In due time my friend in due time. ____________________________________As for the other posts I hope you got enough evidence Rivethead, not that I owe you anything. Not that you’ll actually see things from all sides. Not that you’ll help put the flames out instead of adding fuel. As for moving forward I have. Thanks for the memories and thanks to the following members.ChromedogE-WardenHindenburgRivetheadKillionaireYou just killed O-12. Take pride in knowing you personally shut down a good thing for the game of Infinity. Crickets trolls, crickets. We have better things to do with our off time.
Pardon the formatting, that was pulled out of my index file and the thread itself is on a back up drive. Didn't even recall him calling out Chromedog at the time, I assume it will be the same Chromedog who is a member here too.
Hey clown, feel free to call, email, skype, or better yet say something to me in person. I know you’re the biggest internet tough guy there is. Your BS artist ass has been talking crap about me for years on every forum that your mom lets you sign up for. Please, please for the sake of everything holy. Come see me at any convention I am at. Email me your name or just post it so everybody knows who you are. You by far are the driving force in this whole thing. You have been creating drama on me for so long I can’t even remember. Oh, and I have a few favors called in to find out who you are. In due time my friend in due time.
To blame others for your actions especially forum posts is like another way of saying "I am not responsible for my actions: you are!"
He is also setting himself up for risk of someone "wanting" him to hit them with witnesses and being thrown in jail. I suspect it is just talk or we would have heard of some jail time earlier.
Well, with this guy it is like buying music from artists that are nasty pieces of work: can you separate the person from the product?
All this mess inspired me to make my own foam miniature carriers FOR MY OWN USE and I can assure no lasers were involved.
I think a lot of people need to lay off him a bit to be honest. Look Romeo is ummm eccentric to say the least but he loves the hobby as much as the rest of us. The only major difference is he owns a large company that we all know of and is the lime light a little more. This is not to condone his actions in that post in any way but I am sure we all have said things on forums in the heat of the moment instead of taking the time to settle down and think about everything first. I know for one that I have said many negative things that I should not have and I know some of you can attest to that, but does that make me a bad person..no it just makes me human. It is easy for us to forget ourselves when we are typing as the barrier we are behind tends to skewer the reality of our words but we have to remember that we are a hobby as a whole and in that one large community.
Do I think Romeo is a bad person, none what so ever, nor did I ever think I would be defending him openly in this format but I think as of late people have been more aggressive towards businesses due to the issues coming from G.W and the angst towards them. In the end we can sit there and criticize him and say we would never do that ourselves but the reality is it's different when you don't have one small forum doing it but in fact have a whole world poking at you. No matter who you are you will take it personally and though he is a business owner and should be prepared for such criticism he is still a human being and no matter what the latter will trump the first one every time.
I tend to agree with that Emp... Romeo doesn't do himself any favors writing stuff like that, that's for sure, but it isn't fair to discount all the positive things he does just because you don't like him.
He is definitely a polarizing figure in the hobby, but it has become 'en vogue' to go absolutely nuts on him more than anyone else that I know of. Even Ward, Kirby and Mandelbaum don't get the level of vitriol and aggression Romeo does.
This makes it very difficult for threads on him to exist here as they all seem to very rapidly get to the point where rule #1 is irretrievably out the window. I hope that doesn't happen here. His actions and policies can be discussed without condemning him without reservation as 100% no good people.
I also like the guy because of his support for Toys for Tots. His forum runs a big auction every year. He has donated a lot of models over the years, and the posters there invest time in painting models and units for the charity auction, including Rik and Kyle from the 40k Radio show.
MajorTom11 wrote: I tend to agree with that Emp... Romeo doesn't do himself any favors writing stuff like that, that's for sure, but it isn't fair to discount all the positive things he does just because you don't like him.
He is definitely a polarizing figure in the hobby, but it has become 'en vogue' to go absolutely nuts on him more than anyone else that I know of. Even Ward, Kirby and Mandelbaum don't get the level of vitriol and aggression Romeo does.
This makes it very difficult for threads on him to exist here as they all seem to very rapidly get to the point where rule #1 is irretrievably out the window. I hope that doesn't happen here. His actions and policies can be discussed without condemning him without reservation as 100% no good people.
Much angst over a box maker. Pistol cases superior...figure cases inferior!
MajorTom11 wrote: I tend to agree with that Emp... Romeo doesn't do himself any favors writing stuff like that, that's for sure, but it isn't fair to discount all the positive things he does just because you don't like him.
He is definitely a polarizing figure in the hobby, but it has become 'en vogue' to go absolutely nuts on him more than anyone else that I know of. Even Ward, Kirby and Mandelbaum don't get the level of vitriol and aggression Romeo does.
To be fair though, and this is just from what I've observed, the guy isn't doing himself any favours either. To put it simply, it takes two to tango or, perhaps, where there's smoke there's often fire.
While definetely berating and aggressive in tone, I don't see much threatening in Romeo's post. I'm sure there may be other examples, but he really just comes across as someone who feels targeted.
Mayhap my experience with law enforcement has colored my view, but the case doesn't seem to have much in terms of legs either way.
MajorTom11 wrote: I tend to agree with that Emp... Romeo doesn't do himself any favors writing stuff like that, that's for sure, but it isn't fair to discount all the positive things he does just because you don't like him.
He is definitely a polarizing figure in the hobby, but it has become 'en vogue' to go absolutely nuts on him more than anyone else that I know of. Even Ward, Kirby and Mandelbaum don't get the level of vitriol and aggression Romeo does.
This makes it very difficult for threads on him to exist here as they all seem to very rapidly get to the point where rule #1 is irretrievably out the window. I hope that doesn't happen here. His actions and policies can be discussed without condemning him without reservation as 100% no good people.
I disagree entirely. First, it is not unfair to say that his negative behaviour mitigates, arguably to the point of elimination, any positive actions he may have taken. As an obviously hyperbolic analogy; you could be a charity-working, poor-helping, completely selfless saint of a man, but if it then emerged that this hypothetical you beat your spouse nobody would or should have any qualms about condemning you as an entire entity; bad people can do nice things, it doesn't mean they aren't bad people.
Second, I think it's disingenuous to cast criticism of the man as fashionable hipsterish dislike; as far as I know, the only crimes Ward has committed are against the English language, while Romeo has publicly and repeatedly threatened physical violence against people. From what I have read(and these are his own words mind, not hearsay), he behaves like a walking YouTube comment thread. Imagine for a moment what would happen if Kirby or Ward responded to criticism of their actions by accusing their detractors of "stalking [them]" to "sniff [their] panties", demands that anyone who has something negative to say about him face him in person and preemptively calls them cowards as he is convinced they will refuse to do so, and then stated that they were making efforts to locate their detractors' identities and addresses along with veiled threats.
People would be calling for their heads on spikes, and I suspect quite a few of Romeo's defenders would be part of that mob. Considering that most of the comments I've read regarding his behaviour amount to "wow, he's a bit of a d-bag eh, I think I'll buy from [competitor] instead", acting like he's become a fashionable hate figure beyond even someone accused of repeatedly ripping people off is a bit much IMO.
In this instance, it seems very much like his behaviour could cost him, since his legal footing is questionable at best, and it rather seems to me like he expected BoK to back down in the face of some chest-thumping.
You know being honest I have a hard time countering that point of view. You are correct in your distinctions between them and their actions... it doesn't change my in-person impression of him but I also would have a great deal of difficulty reconciling the person I spoke to with that post... I can't blame people for feeling as you do based on posts like that either. Fair enough.
Regardless though, I would wonder how posts like the one quoted earlier would influence the case, if at all. Would a judge care about that in regards to the specific claims made by BoK, or only want to address the specific allegations BoK made and only those specific allegations?
The BoK guy liked him well enough as a person, but didnt like the methods which he did business under. Cant blaim him too much either, and considering what has now happened 3 years later, well...
The rest is interesting too. Also, in case people missed the final outcome of Foam Wars 2010 (not the outcome of the case or the Sabol issues or the Warstore tie in...but the patent claim itself)...it was rejected:
Sean_OBrien wrote: The rest is interesting too. Also, in case people missed the final outcome of Foam Wars 2010 (not the outcome of the case or the Sabol issues or the Warstore tie in...but the patent claim itself)...it was rejected:
Sean_OBrien wrote: The rest is interesting too. Also, in case people missed the final outcome of Foam Wars 2010 (not the outcome of the case or the Sabol issues or the Warstore tie in...but the patent claim itself)...it was rejected:
Sean_OBrien wrote: The rest is interesting too. Also, in case people missed the final outcome of Foam Wars 2010 (not the outcome of the case or the Sabol issues or the Warstore tie in...but the patent claim itself)...it was rejected:
Granted, you would never know by looking at the Battle Foam site...still says patent pending and all that.
A "final" rejection at the patent office isn't truly final, and most patent applications are rejected at least once after filing.
This patent application actually issued as a patent in July of 2012; it's patent no. 8,229,589.
Thanks Janthkin, although I would like to add that in general The USPTO will patent a ham sandwich.
Oh, come on now. They wouldn't patent a ham sandwich. They'd patent the *process* by which ham is laid on a piece of sliced bread (Slice A). Slice A is placed upon a plate, napkin, or other surface. The first piece of ham (Ham Initial) is then placed upon Slice A. Further pieces of ham are then laid upon the previous. Upon the completion of laying the final piece of ham (Ham Final) on Slice A, a final slice of bread (Slice B) is to be laid upon the final piece of ham (Ham Final). This completes the process of creating a ham sandwich.
czakk wrote: It is interesting to note that Battle Foam is capable of engaging in litigation in states other than Arizona and has done so in the past. In fact, only a few years ago it argued against having its lawsuit against Outrider Hobbies heard in Arizona, preferring to have it heard in New Hampshire
Would you be willing to hypothesize on why this sort of forum shopping is desirable for BF in similar cases? Is there anything wrong with forum shopping, in general? I find it confusing they would pick the venues that they have selected.
Talizvar wrote: Well, with this guy it is like buying music from artists that are nasty pieces of work: can you separate the person from the product?
Yes. I buy BF bags because they are really well made. I buy BF custom foam because they're currently the only show in town for the foam sizes I need. I buy pluck foam from SD when possible because it's cheaper. None of my decisions have anything to do with how Romeo does or does not behave.
czakk wrote: It is interesting to note that Battle Foam is capable of engaging in litigation in states other than Arizona and has done so in the past. In fact, only a few years ago it argued against having its lawsuit against Outrider Hobbies heard in Arizona, preferring to have it heard in New Hampshire
Would you be willing to hypothesize on why this sort of forum shopping is desirable for BF in similar cases? Is there anything wrong with forum shopping, in general? I find it confusing they would pick the venues that they have selected.
Well this is what the judge in the Outrider Hobbies case said:
The reason Battle Foam decided to sue Wade in this forum - nearly 2,700 miles from both its principal place of business and Wade’s residence - is unclear. This, however, is undeniable: short of filing in the District of Alaska, Maine, or Puerto Rico, Battle Foam would have been hard pressed to find a more distant and inconvenient federal forum in which to require Wade to appear (the same is true for any potential witnesses - nearly all of whom one might reasonably infer are beyond this court’s civil subpoena power, including Mr. Kavourias). Wade believes this suit and, in particular, Battle Foam’s choice of forum, are part of a larger, ongoing pattern of harassment that he says has been directed toward him.
If you think about it, forcing a small business owner to pursue a case in a far flung jurisdiction makes a certain sort of sense if you have the money to hire a local attorney. In this case Mr. Wade seemed up to the challenge and did quite well for himself as a pro se defendant.
Forum shopping (especially for defamation) is an issue because it encourages the plaintiff to select a jurisdiction based on juridical advantage rather than where they actually suffered their harm. The classic example would be suing someone for defamation in the UK instead of the US - the UK's defamation law is crazy. This is why the americans passed the SPEECH act which prevents the enforcement of foreign defamation judgments (in certain circumstances).
It's also why you see patent trolls filing suits in a particular district in the US, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Plaintiff friendly judges and a set of local rules that speeds up trials.
In the current case, hearing it in either California, or hearing it in Arizona makes sense. Tasty Taste is in California and publishes his blog there. Battle Foam is based in Arizona. Obviously showing up to court is going to cost more for who ever is out of state. State law on defamation might be different as well. I don't know what Mr. Hayden does for a living, but explaining to your boss that you have to fly to Arizona to be part of a defamation trial for your hobby blog could be tricky.
I don't know about the local civ pro rules in either state, but Battle Foam may have been able to preempt Mr. Hayden's motion for declaratory relief (and initial selection of California as the venue) by filing their lawsuit and then sending the C&D letter. That way when the motion of declaratory relief goes in they can show up at court in California and say "M'Lady / M'lord, we've already got a lawsuit going on in Arizona. You should stay this because its duplicative etc...".
TLDR version: people on that thread talking about what Romeo did in that deleted Infinity thread where he reacted violently on criticisms and allegedly threatened people (and those people shared copy-pastes of the e-mails Romeo sent).
That forums (words, words words words words) icon is awesome
MajorTom11 wrote: I tend to agree with that Emp... Romeo doesn't do himself any favors writing stuff like that, that's for sure, but it isn't fair to discount all the positive things he does just because you don't like him.
He is definitely a polarizing figure in the hobby, but it has become 'en vogue' to go absolutely nuts on him more than anyone else that I know of. Even Ward, Kirby and Mandelbaum don't get the level of vitriol and aggression Romeo does.
This makes it very difficult for threads on him to exist here as they all seem to very rapidly get to the point where rule #1 is irretrievably out the window. I hope that doesn't happen here. His actions and policies can be discussed without condemning him without reservation as 100% no good people.
Much angst over a box maker. Pistol cases superior...figure cases inferior!
No one calls Soundwave unchrasimatic!
I read the original BoK article and that molehill was dripping with growth hormone to get that blown out of proportion. You'd have thought they were breaking Watergate 2.0. A few internet toughguy posts do not a scandal make.
Typing up a transcript now. For the most part, it's really not that bad and makes you realize that while Romeo certainly could have handled it better--it mostly comes from being frustrated over how nitpicky people were being.
"I think I read somewhere once..."
"I heard he was the devil..."
"Maybe he said this one..."
"After reading your fantasy I'm never buying BattleFoam"
"He made a joke comment about punching someone on his porch so he's clearly a bad man"
People get a grip.
BattleFoam is an awesom product. Fact.
Romeo is human like the rest of us and gets hurt when people flat out lie about him. Fact.
40kRadio is a bunch of guys talking about 40k like many of us do over a pint or two so you need to have your big boy pants on. Fact.
BoK likes to write sensationalist rumours and went too far this time and finally someone is bringing him to task. Fact.
Will Romeo win? Who knows with a legal system like we have today but I sure hope so, he deserves to.
The short of it is (as corroborated by everyone who has met the guy), Romeo is massively approachable and as he said just get on Skype and talk to the guy. He WILL talk to every single one of you. Until you have done so don't hide behind a false Internet persona scared of the boogy man who punches people on his porch! Seriously talk to him and make your own decisions. At the very least he is doing POSITIVE things for the community as opposed to snide side swiping and undermining the hobby many of us love.
As for the legal case... Again I think all of us can name a number of legal cases which have not gone the right way as many whic have. Read the BoK website and can you honestly say you would be happy if his vitriol was directed at you? Romeo is taking a stand which many of us couldn't afford to.
If anything we should be building a donations fund to help Romeo as he is not getting free legal cover unlike Mr Hayden.
I don't know if I'd call it "awesome", really. It's pretty good, but it feels awful pricey for what it is. As far as I'm concerned Sabol is just about right as far as price:quality ratio goes. It does the job and leaves you with extra cash to buy more models. I'd still like to get Battlefoam (I do have the Space Hulk trays but that's it), but I don't quite have the money to burn, and if I do I'd rather buy more models...which I'll regret because I can't transport them all.
As far as the lawsuit, it feels kinda pointless suing BoK. I get why Romeo doesn't like it, but I think it would have been better for business if he just quietly refuted whatever claims he was making and leave it at that. Imagine how dickish BoK would look if the guy who was supposedly wronged by Romeo just came out himself and said "No, that's not how it happened...", like he supposedly already did, and set the record straight without Romeo having to drag the whole thing to court. People would just shrug it off as BoK doing what BoK does (which from what I can tell isn't much better than blatant gak-stirring) and I doubt it would have done much harm at all to Romeo/Battlefoam in the end.
"I think I read somewhere once..."
"I heard he was the devil..."
"Maybe he said this one..."
"After reading your fantasy I'm never buying BattleFoam"
"He made a joke comment about punching someone on his porch so he's clearly a bad man"
People get a grip.
BattleFoam is an awesom product. Fact.
Romeo is human like the rest of us and gets hurt when people flat out lie about him. Fact.
40kRadio is a bunch of guys talking about 40k like many of us do over a pint or two so you need to have your big boy pants on. Fact.
BoK likes to write sensationalist rumours and went too far this time and finally someone is bringing him to task. Fact.
Will Romeo win? Who knows with a legal system like we have today but I sure hope so, he deserves to.
The short of it is (as corroborated by everyone who has met the guy), Romeo is massively approachable and as he said just get on Skype and talk to the guy. He WILL talk to every single one of you. Until you have done so don't hide behind a false Internet persona scared of the boogy man who punches people on his porch! Seriously talk to him and make your own decisions. At the very least he is doing POSITIVE things for the community as opposed to snide side swiping and undermining the hobby many of us love.
As for the legal case... Again I think all of us can name a number of legal cases which have not gone the right way as many whic have. Read the BoK website and can you honestly say you would be happy if his vitriol was directed at you? Romeo is taking a stand which many of us couldn't afford to.
If anything we should be building a donations fund to help Romeo as he is not getting free legal cover unlike Mr Hayden.
Maybe you were brought up to think that threatening people with physical violence is an appropriate response to people critiquing something you've made, but some of us still think that's pathetic. And "you're a stalker who follows me around sniffing my panties, I dare you to say that to my face, by the way I know people who're looking for you in RL so watch your back" is not a joke, it's vitriolic dross.
As for how awesome a dude he is; whatever. I've known plenty of people who're "awesome dudes", great fun to talk to, and as friendly as anyone could be, right up until the moment they decide they don't like something you've said or done, and then they turn into the biggest d-bags imaginable. Building a "nice guy" persona isn't difficult, it's how people behave in difficult circumstances that tells you about their character.
Yea yea its my first post, I've lurked long enough. No i am not some shell of someone else pretending to be someone else.
Now I've listened to 40kradio for a long time and have been a member since the first few shows when Spencer ran it(Probably won't be much longer). That said I don't support any of this at all. I've met Romeo a few times at adepticon and its all about moving product, so I can't say I know him outside of pitching sales. I've listened to the recent show with his take on the matter, and thanks the the OP listened via the 11th company podcast. I don't think either lend him any help and made me feel like BoK should win. The actions in different matters won't help either. The infinity blow up was minor compared to his against MLB with his bat fiasco. Its an interesting read. As for Arizona vs California to hear the case, I feel it should remain in Cali. I see no reason for it to be moved to Arizona other then to try and skirt the anti-SLAPP if i am reading into this right.
To me it comes down to Bully vs Bully and don't really care who wins or loses. The result is just gonna further someones hate towards the other regardless.
Surely that's the best reason to fight this so that we can hopefully give others the courage to fight the hate mongers.
Any company at a convention that is there to sell product. If thy are not then they are clearly not business people and I doubt they will be around in a decade or so like like the larger companies like Mantic, Battlefront, KR, who are also about selling product because they understand how to make a business work. And yes they 'push' product like anyone else because that's the point (anyone at Salute this year will corroborate that).
Charity is awesome but it doesn't keep food on your employees families tables.
For me it's about standing up for what's right even if that makes me unpopular because I'm not following the crowd or people do not know all the details of what goes on behind the scenes. That's why I use the same forum name whichever forum I am on. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but personally I am not afraid to account for my words and actions wherever I post.
MickeyP2K wrote: Surely that's the best reason to fight this so that we can hopefully give others the courage to fight the hate mongers.
...
For me it's about standing up for what's right ....
Hi Mickey, you seem to have very strong opinions on this. Do you have any information on the case, such as what was said in the article, info on what actually happened in the incidences described in the article, or other info that has persuaded you to take such a strong view?
Yes i did read the article at the time and I know Romeo personally and all the guys who were actually present at the events in question.
Basically some of the events had not only staff but also freebootaz present so we know exactly what was said or more importantly, not said and not done.
The trick here is exactly as Romeo as many others have said this guy knows he is posting rumours at best and 'snazzing' it up to be sensational (not considering the damage he may do to people's families and reputations). There is a reason the tabloids in the UK sell well and Mr Haydon is just doing the same thing. The tabloids get sued and may have to pay out but that's their business model. Mr Hayden sadly never built that into his hence he still has a day job and is now trying to claim 'freedom of speech' but freedom of speech does not allow you to publish malicious, business damaging lies.
So the only part of the article that you have info on is the prize support instance? Were you at the event and witnessed this or is your info from Romeo and/or his friends?
Do you have info on any of the other instances in the article? To me the prize support instance isn't as "defamatory" as some of the others.
The point is I am close friends with a number of the guys who were there and have a good relationship with the others (albeit not as close). So I can either take their word or the word of a known 'sensationalist'.
If only one element is a lie by Mr Hayden then he is totally at fault because he is claiming his whole article is 100% true.
Therefore I think it's fair to say if just one element can be proven false there's a good chance the rest will be too.
I do see where you are heading and you are clearly very clever my good fellow but its turtles all the way down.
Nope, nothing clever about it. Just seeing if you had actual first-hand info and not something that you heard from a guy who heard from another guy.
I believe that a few of the instances in the article to be absolutely true. Does that mean I infer that everything to be true. Not at all. I'm sure at least some of the BoK article is "I heard from a guy, who heard from another guy, who was there". Poor journalism, yes ... full defamation, probably not.
Sorry you misconstrue my words into I heard from a guy who hear from another guy. I'll keep it real short and to the point:
The guys who are providing first hand evidence and written statements were there and heard the whole thing. They are my buddies as well as Romeo.
What I'm saying is not "I read a few things and believe them to be true". I'm saying I believe a number of people who all have the same story and do not have a track record of making things up as opposed to a single guy who has a track record for sensationalising things at best.
Add to that all my experiences of Roneo are of him as a genuinely nice guy who is trying to do positive things for the gaming community rather than using hate and bile to try to make a little bit on money on the side of a day job.
I'm sure if you talk to him on Skype you will find the same to e true. In fact I would suggest you talk to his directly before attempting to twist others words.
I think I've said my piece. Unless there is any further fantasy anyone would like to discuss I'll apologise to the local mods but I feel such character assassination attempts deserve a counter from people who actually know the target. Pick up the phone and speak to the guy. He has offered it to every single one of you.
To hide behind a keyboard and continue to fire shots is just... Well I'm sure everyone can come up with a suitable phrase.
All I can suggest for us the gamin community is do not be sheep just following the crowd. Have the strength to stand up and ask the questions of those more vocal elements. The Internet seems to be generating a voice for people with no intention of furthering the hobby many of us love.
Denounce them, shun them or at least question them an we will have a stronger community for it.
But how about the O-12 Infinity breakdown? That still stands as highly unprofessional at best, and anyone would have a hard time denying it is untrue. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's one of the main points being tackled in said article?
Iirc one of his key gripes was that Romeo was the owner of Wild West Exodus and he was specifically trying to stop people signing up to the kickstarter. Overall the diatribe was trying to defame Romeos businesses buy making a number of accusations. That was his apparent intention.
In all honesty I've not read the Infinity forum but I'm sure we've all had moments in forums where temper has gotten the better of us. That doesn't make us evil just passionate.
The point here is whether you agree with someone's actions or not that does not give someone the right to then take fantasies and try to spin them up as truth to damage someone's business, reputation, their employees and their employees livelihoods.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Mods btw please let me know if you need this back and fourth to stop but while there are questions or negative views I only feel it only fair to provide balance.
I am very happy to discuss offline if you prefer, you have my email or can contact me via Yakface who will be able to get my contact details from Romeo, or I think he may still be a member of our forum.
That'll do, I think. The point of this thread is not to discuss people's impressions, but to discuss the pending litigation & facts directly related to it. Given that the actual text of the post that was removed is not available, there is no reason to get into a protracted discussion of what it might have said.
MickeyP2K wrote:The point is I am close friends with a number of the guys who were there and have a good relationship with the others (albeit not as close). So I can either take their word or the word of a known 'sensationalist'.
If only one element is a lie by Mr Hayden then he is totally at fault because he is claiming his whole article is 100% true.
MickeyP2K wrote:
All I can suggest for us the gamin community is do not be sheep just following the crowd. Have the strength to stand up and ask the questions of those more vocal elements. The Internet seems to be generating a voice for people with no intention of furthering the hobby many of us love.
I'd be happy to read Mr. Filip's Reply and Counter Claims if he wants to get his message out. He should post them up somewhere. If he's worried about basically republishing the blog post (presumably it is quoted in the filings) he could always redact the quoted portions.
I have a few questions for the legally adept folks...
How well do signed affidavits hold up if they come from people who you have close relationships with (family or friends)? Do outsider affidavits carry more weight? Do they take into account evidence of previous inauthentic affidavits in other cases, such as what the judge warned against with "Jim Kavourias" in the Battlefoam vs. Outrider case?
http://ia700309.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nhd.35017/gov.uscourts.nhd.35017.9.0.pdf
Also, at what point does legal actions, such as C&Ds, or frivolous suing, become harassment and an Injunction Against Harassment can be filed?
carboncopy wrote: I have a few questions for the legally adept folks...
How well do signed affidavits hold up if they come from people who you have close relationships with (family or friends)? Do outsider affidavits carry more weight?
Also, at what point does legal actions, such as C&Ds, or frivolous suing, become harassment and an Injunction Against Harassment can be filed?
Re affidavits: A lot of affidavits are going to be sworn by people with close personal relationships to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Usually your friends / family / or business associates are going to be the ones who saw what happened, or have knowledge about the dispute. Totally normal.
Usually if there is a close relationship, you'd be upfront about it - most of the time you begin establishing who the person is, where they live, their job, their relationship to the case etc... Concealing an interest is where you would see the finder of fact getting suspicious (failing to mention you were business partners, or someone was your brother etc..).
There are usually procedures for cross examining on an affidavit, and then later calling a person for an examination for discovery or as a witness during trial. The judge hearing the case still gets to weigh the evidence and can accept or reject an affidavit in whole or in part. People try to stuff hearsay, opinion and what not into affidavits and that should be ignored for the most part.
In my jurisdiction one of the side effects of this is you can't have your lawyer swear an affidavit in support of a motion he will be making to the court on your behalf. It would be embarrassing for the Court to question the veracity of the affidavit while the lawyer was in front of them. In other jurisdictions this can have the effect of turning the lawyer into a material witness, allowing them to be cross examined.
The previous case involved an email not an affidavit. Mr. Kavourias never said anything under oath.
With respect to the merits, in support of its assertion that “Foam Corps” is deceptively similar to its “Battle Foam” mark and, therefore, is causing confusion among the consuming public, Battle Foam submitted what it says is an e-mail it received from a man named Jim Kavourias:
My name is Jim and I’m writing you because I have run
into a problem. I recently got some custom cut foam
for my army transport. When my foam arrived I was
surprised to see that the quality of the foam was much
less then what you post on your site. I ordered
several troop trays and I am mainly upset with the
quality of the glue and overall design. When I placed
my order I spoke to a man named Brian from foam corps.
He explained to me that “all battlefoam trays” are the
same quality and that my order would come out perfect.
At this point I am completely baffled since I had no
idea that these are not battlefoam trays. Your company
needs to place some kind of disclaimer pointing this
out to us customers. All foam looks the same to me and
when other companies are telling us that their trays
are the same and that they sell battlefoam it makes
things very hard. I tried to call the company I bought
it [from] but the sales guy told me to contact you.
Please help as I feel cheated here and foam corps or
battlefoam or whatever needs to make things right.
And although the judge had some comments about the email, there wasn't really a finding of fact that it was bogus:
It is, of course, possible that the fifth round pick of the
Florida Marlins in the 2000 draft is both a fan of Diablo bats
and a collector in the war gaming miniature market who is
familiar with Battle Foam’s products. It is also possible that
the baseball player who provided the testimonial for Diablo bats
and the confused customer who contacted Battle Foam simply share
the same name. A third possibility is decidedly less savory and,
hopefully, is not the case here.
....
As currently developed, the record in this case contains
some suggestion that Battle Foam’s evidence of consumer confusion
regarding the parties’ respective marks may be suspect.
It would be something to keep in the back of your head as counsel, but not something you could just walk into court and throw down. It's not really relevant to the current dispute so you would need an angle. If a finding of fact had been made about fraud on the court, that would be a different story.
Re frivolous suing:
Common law courts tend to be very plaintiff friendly - it takes quite a lot to be declared a vexatious litigant. The idea being the courts want people to be able to go to court to solve their problems.
Here are some examples of what consitutes vexatious litigation taken from Onischuk v Alberta, 2013 ABQB 89 (http://canlii.ca/t/fsvjq), a case in Alberta, where the plaintiff demanded that "defence counsel and the judiciary submit to various forms of “lie detection exams” and the administration of a “truth serum” drug."
The local rules of court say this (note the use of the word persistent):
[I]nstituting vexatious proceedings or conducting a proceeding in a vexatious manner includes, without limitation, any one or more of the following:
(a) persistently bringing proceedings to determine an issue that has already been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction;
(b) persistently bringing proceedings that cannot succeed or that have no reasonable expectation of providing relief;
(c) persistently bringing proceedings for improper purposes;
(d) persistently using previously raised grounds and issues in subsequent proceedings inappropriately;
(e) persistently failing to pay the costs of unsuccessful proceedings on the part of the person who commenced those proceedings;
(f) persistently taking unsuccessful appeals from judicial decisions;
(g) persistently engaging in inappropriate courtroom behaviour.
And the common law has interpreted those rules / added on to those rules in the following way:
The courts[1] have repeatedly identified the following characteristics as indicia of vexatious proceedings:
(a) the bringing of one or more actions to determine an issue which has already been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction constitutes a vexatious proceeding;
(b) where it is obvious that an action cannot succeed, or if the action would lead to no possible good, or if no reasonable person can reasonably expect to obtain relief, the action is vexatious;
(c) those brought for an improper purpose, including the harassment and oppression of other parties by multifarious proceedings brought for purposes other than the assertion of legitimate rights;
(d) generally, cases where the grounds and issues raised tend to be rolled forward into subsequent actions and repeated and supplemented, often with actions brought against the lawyers who have acted for or against the litigant in earlier proceedings, or the judiciary involved in rulings on previous cases;
(e) the failure of the person instituting the subsequent proceedings to pay the costs of unsuccessful earlier proceedings; and
(f) conduct in persistently taking unsuccessful appeals from judicial decisions.
The rules will change depending on where you are of course. There are also usually rules of professional conduct that say lawyers should not let themselves be used to file a vexatious lawsuit, or be involved in an abuse of the legal system (for example, sending legal threats solely to harass people).
--------------
Having your lawyer write a C&D in response to someone posting what you believe to be a bunch of nasty baseless lies about your business is perfectly normal and not vexatious though.
So it sounds like unless there is some kind of more official ruling it's hard to use previous info brought to court. Perhaps it was beneficial for Battlefoam that that case was essentially thrown out due to improper venue?
In this case, could other incidences of character be used to build a case (on either side), or would they be primarily sticking to that article and incidences in that article. For instance, would BoK be able to build off of Romeo's previous correspondences under Diablo Bats, and/or would Battlefoam be able to build off of BoK's articles about non-Romeo, non-Battlefoam subjects?
In re: Frivolous Suing
Bryan Wade posted on the Popehat article ( http://www.popehat.com/2013/05/02/battlefoam-learns-why-legal-threats-can-be-dangerous/ ) that he had an Injunction Against Harassment enacted, so I'm guessing that there was more to this than just the lawsuit? I'm assuming a culmination of things that he listed and maybe things not listed.
I'm also interested in the addition of Jane Doe Hayden. Possibly a spouse or other family member. I'm assuming they would have to be allegedly involved in some way.
If you want a little bit more on affidavits, duhaime's law dictionary is a decent place to start. It's focused on British Columbia but it is geared towards layfolk. The lawyer who writes it can be a bit flip at times, but he's no tyro, used to be the lawyer for our prime minister (well ex prime minister).
I'm also interested in the addition of Jane Doe Hayden. Possibly a spouse or other family member. I'm assuming they would have to be allegedly involved in some way.
I can't find it in the court's system. There is a J-1102-CV-200900562 which involves a protective order in Casa Grande and someone named Romeo Filip. An injunction against harrassment is a type of protective order in Arizona.
Re Jane Doe: Off the top of my head it would be a parent that Mr. Hayden lives with who has a homeowners insurance policy and may have an umbrella policy to cover legal liabilities. Deeper pockets.
Mr. Filip has filed a complaint in Arizona, no Jane Doe listed there though:
Thank czakk for the on topic, impartial information. You'll have to forgive me but could you explain a bit more what was meant by:
"Re Jane Doe: Off the top of my head it would be a parent that Mr. Hayden lives with who has a homeowners insurance policy and may have an umbrella policy to cover legal liabilities. Deeper pockets."
MickeyP2K wrote: Thank czakk for the on topic, impartial information. You'll have to forgive me but could you explain a bit more what was meant by:
"Re Jane Doe: Off the top of my head it would be a parent that Mr. Hayden lives with who has a homeowners insurance policy and may have an umbrella policy to cover legal liabilities. Deeper pockets."
It really was just off the top of my head, but when you see relations being added to a civil suit and it doesn't look like they were involved at all, you think insurance or deeper pockets. If you want damages, don't sue someone with zero assets, find a way to sue their parents.
Some homeowner's insurance policies cover legal liabilities for things like libel. An umbrella policy is a type of extra insurance policy that extends or adds to your existing homeowner's insurance.
Normally homeowner's insurance covers the homeowner and any children under 21 who live in the home. Sometimes the homeowner's children who live at home and are 21 or older and attend university are also covered.
I don't know if Mr. Hayden fits into any of those categories, but it was just a thought.
MickeyP2K wrote: Thank czakk for the on topic, impartial information. You'll have to forgive me but could you explain a bit more what was meant by:
"Re Jane Doe: Off the top of my head it would be a parent that Mr. Hayden lives with who has a homeowners insurance policy and may have an umbrella policy to cover legal liabilities. Deeper pockets."
Often, your homeowner's insurance covers far more than simply your house & possessions - it may also cover the liabilities incurred by the actions of those who live there, e.g., your kid breaks a neighbor's window with a baseball; your homeowner's insurance likely covers it.
Provided that is what is going on (and we won't know for sure until someone posts the filings):
It also increases the hassle factor for Mr. Hayden. He might have time to deal with a lawsuit over WH40k foam inserts, but his folks probably don't.
An insurer might also be more inclined to settle in BF's favour than someone represented by a fiery eyed pro bono true believer free speech lawyer whose motto is "murum aries attigit"*. Especially if the amount in question is relatively low.
Thanks for the links czakk. Very good articles and cool site overall.
I would hope the Jane Doe is a mistake or something that is automatically added in, for Battlefoam's sake. The PR backlash for suing some kid's parents for insurance money could be quite bad.
Just to be clear Mr Nicholas Hayden is not a kid. And I doubt he lives with his parents and is running this all from their basement going by the following public domain information (which I think is relevant and maybe changes who we think Jane Doe is):
You're right, he looks to be late 20's or 30's. There's a link to the bloodofkittens twitter page there. And there are videos of him giving reviews and doing interviews there, so that's got to be him. I thought this guy was trying to hide behind the name "Tastytaste"? I found him in a couple of internet searches.
You're right, he looks to be late 20's or 30's. There's a link to the bloodofkittens twitter page there. And there are videos of him giving reviews and doing interviews there, so that's got to be him. I thought this guy was trying to hide behind the name "Tastytaste"? I found him in a couple of internet searches.
He's not trying to hide behind the name Tastytaste. Much like I'm probably not trying to hide behind Alfndrate, Nick probably isn't trying to hide behind his TT username. I mean he's tasteytaste on BoK, Dakka, probably the internet in general. I've known at least Nick's first name since I started listening to the Independent Characters, who are friends of sorts (I remember Carl saying he was participating in Nick's 1504 tournament).
I don't think anyone hides persay although Blood of Kittens is anonymised in the WhoIs domain registry so he is clearly keen not to be seen as the owner of said domain. Must have just forgotten about linked in.
Lets face it though if we expose ourselves to the community in such a fashion, especially such a tech savvy community then it's pretty tough to lock everything down.
Surely that's the best reason to fight this so that we can hopefully give others the courage to fight the hate mongers.
"watch this guys ... called shot to the kneecaps ... Natural 20! Bam!" Direct from the 40kradio podcast talking about the lawsuit. You can't fight hate with hate and more threats. Between Romeo's fairly aggressive language and things like the whole "Come to my porch and we'll talk and maybe you'll get punched in the face because that's old school business" comment, I think Romeo would have a hard time claiming this is about fighting hate mongers.
Now, before the mods get mad at the above paragraph, that DOES tie directly to this case. These are not things I 'Heard someone heard he said". They are things he actually said in a pod cast about this lawsuit. My question for the legal folks is this - Marc Randazza (certified first amendment bad ass and BoK's attorney) has already mentioned having archived that podcast. How might that be used in court in this case? I guess I could see how they might use it to try and paint Romeo's character in a certain light, but is there anything beyond that that would actually tie in to the rest of the case? Would that even be admissable?
EDIT:
And while I'm sure Romeo's attorney was vomiting into his trash can when he heard that podcast, is there anything he can do to mitigate the potential damage?
Mickey, that's one of Romeo's main points, that he hides behind the name Tastytaste, as if he's intentionally doing it so he can slander people. He repeats it over and over again in both the 40k podcast and the 11th company podcast.
I'm looking at Blood of Kitten's youtube channel and I see a number of years of video where he interviews people and does tournament coverage, and he appears in a number of them. His face is right there. They even call him Nick at times. I don't know what his intention is, but I've used private whois to avoid junk mail and emails. It's worth the extra couple bucks and sometimes it's free.
On a side note, I'm actually very surprised. To be honest, I haven't read/watched much from BoK, because from what I've heard, I expected a lot more negativity from him, but I see a lot of community oriented videos and articles, and not really much negative diatribe at all. Even the more critical ones have disclaimers on the bottom of them.
Surely that's the best reason to fight this so that we can hopefully give others the courage to fight the hate mongers.
My question for the legal folks is this - Marc Randazza (certified first amendment bad ass and BoK's attorney) has already mentioned having archived that podcast. How might that be used in court in this case? I guess I could see how they might use it to try and paint Romeo's character in a certain light, but is there anything beyond that that would actually tie in to the rest of the case? Would that even be admissable?
Damages, off the top of my head. Even if he's never said something like this before and the blog posting was completely false, if Mr. Filip is arguing that the BoK damaged his business, and one of the statements that damaged the business was "Romeo threatens people", having a podcast that goes out to customers and potential customers where he says something along the lines of 'come to my porch, but watch out, you might get punched in the face' is not good.
Similar to if you were suing someone for injuring you in a car accident, but post a bunch of pictures up on facebook of you running a marathon the next day. Even if the guy did hit you with his car, you don't seem to be that hurt.
Mr. Filip also has (in the eyes of the court) a duty to mitigate the damages he suffered. Going on air and talking about the blog posting and drawing attention to it, doesn't mitigate damages (although at that point the posting had been taken down).
And if it comes down to a he said she said credibility issue, where Mr. Hayden says "I heard him threaten someone on x date, at this Convention" and Mr. Filip says "no I didn't", having that podcast is not good. I'm assuming the protection order in Casa Grande will also get dragged up as well.
Lastly, going on the podcast and saying something that resembles a threat sort of makes that portion of the lawsuit sort of pointless (and a waste of money).
Thanks czakk! Those are interesting points. It almost seems like that podcast alone could potentially cost him the case. Is there anything Romeo's lawyer can do about it?
I'm wondering if that 40k radio podcast could be considered defamation in and of itself? He seems to paint a picture of Nick a certain way and makes certain claims, labeling them as true or quotes, when most likely they aren't. The picture that is painted there definitely doesn't seem to match what I've gathered looking at Nick's stuff.
The 11th Company podcast is a lot more objective. Maybe he had more time to calm down or had a talking to by his lawyer.
The 11th Company podcast is a lot more objective. Maybe he had more time to calm down or had a talking to by his lawyer.
Agreed. That was a much more calm and level headed (civil even) description of the C&D. Which makes it even funnier if you actually read the C&D (which is crazy aggressive in it's wording and demands). If the C&D had been worded the way Romeo spoke in the 11th Company Podcast, I almost have to wonder if things would even have come to this.
If I were the judge in the case, I'd declare that the case would be settled via a DUEL! Well, a best of five set of games, Warmachine/40k/Infinity/Whatever. Winner of the most games wins the trial, then both of them are slapped for getting into an internet sissyfight.
"watch this guys ... called shot to the kneecaps ... Natural 20! Bam!" Direct from the 40kradio podcast talking about the lawsuit. You can't fight hate with hate and more threats. Between Romeo's fairly aggressive language and things like the whole "Come to my porch and we'll talk and maybe you'll get punched in the face because that's old school business" comment, I think Romeo would have a hard time claiming this is about fighting hate mongers.
Do you know what episode of 40kradio and about at what time marker he goes into that?
It was show 60 (the episode just before the most current) and I could be wrong but as I recall the diatribe starts at about the 60 minute mark. It runs most of the show tho so it's hard to miss. They deleted (wisely imo) a lot of the comments about that show that linked to specifics about Tue case tho so I wouldn't be surprised if they had a edited version up now.
I'm intensely curious about the Jane Doe piece. If, as others suggest, it is one of Nick's relatives, then this just further cements the bullying impression I now have of Romeo. I read the earlier articles on BoK, laughed and then continued to buy from Battlefoam. In fact I was one of the great referrers, happily showing off my bags and talking them up. Actually have five bags as I used to buy new foam (and eventually a new bag) as I acquired new units.
If anything this should of been handled offline as a phone call. Instead at first it was a comical bit of drama for the 40k scene. Now as I read through this chain of posts it ceases to amuse me and actually embitters me. Whether or not Battlefoam wins the case, they have lost a customer and rather than being an evangelist for their product I will heartily recommend against them and for whichever competitor I switch to.
Well I was wondering why a reply had been filed for Battle Foam but not Mr. Filip personally:
DEFENDANT ROMEO FILIP ADDS ATTORNEY DEVIN SREECHARANA
NOTICE OF/TO MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS FILED BY ROMEO FILIP
MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF THE SUMMONS FILED ON COMPLAINT FILED 04/08/2013 OF NICOLAS HAYDEN BY ROMEO FILIP REPRESENTED BY DEVIN SREECHARANA
--------
When you start a lawsuit, you generally have to serve the complaint on the defendant personally (or if they duck service, by a reasonable alternative, sometimes you have to ask permission from a court to serve someone other than in person).
It is usually easier to serve a corporation than it is to serve an individual. Corporations generally have to have a registered address, and you just mail the documents via registered mail to them. Battle Foam would have been easy to serve.
Now probably this has something to do with getting the case moved to Arizona.
-edit- Ah ha!
California has something called a motion to quash service of summons based on lack of jurisdiction (so the issue isn't proper service, its back to the jurisdiction thing):
418.10. (a) A defendant, on or before the last day of his or her
time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good
cause allow, may serve and file a notice of motion for one or more of
the following purposes:
(1) To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction of the court over him or her.
What is a statutory agent?
A Statutory Agent is an individual or a business entity that the corporation
or LLC appoints for the purpose of accepting service of process (lawsuit papers or legal documents) for the entity. The agent is called a “statutory” agent because a statute requires that the entity appoint someone for this purpose. If, for example, a lawsuit is filed against the entity, the Statutory Agent will be the one who is served (receives the papers on behalf of the entity), and then the Statutory Agent should give the papers to the entity. The law requires that corporations and LLCs maintain a statutory agent with a valid Arizona street address (not a P.O. Box or personal mail box) on the records of the Arizona Corporation Commission at all times, and the failure to do so will subject the entity to being administratively dissolved. Official notices from the Arizona Corporation Commission will be sent to the statutory agent.
Well I was wondering why a reply had been filed for Battle Foam but not Mr. Filip personally:
DEFENDANT ROMEO FILIP ADDS ATTORNEY DEVIN SREECHARANA
NOTICE OF/TO MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS FILED BY ROMEO FILIP
MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF THE SUMMONS FILED ON COMPLAINT FILED 04/08/2013 OF NICOLAS HAYDEN BY ROMEO FILIP REPRESENTED BY DEVIN SREECHARANA
For the legally challenged of us, what does that mean exactly?
It means Romeo is playing venue games. It means that he is going to war over this and fighting with every weapon at his disposal. The point is to make it harder for Hayden. The point is to make it harder for him so Romeo can 'win' the lawsuit which for him apparently means causing as much grief for Hayden as possible.
Romeo could have allowed this situation to simply resolve. He could have not responded to the lawsuit, allowed the court to dismiss it, talked to Hayden on the side and resolved this situation like a mature adult. I think it is clar by now that Romeo's objective is to hurt Hayden as much as possible, which seems to be consistent with his MO when it comes to criticism.
You might say, "this is about his business. Hayden deserves it. It is the principle." Romeo may be thinking the same thing. But lawsuits, especially lawsuits like this, don't make anybody happy. They get ugly, they get contentious, they suck up your time and money, and in the end the outcome is probably not what you expect and not very satisfying. It is sad to see this happening. I see stuff like this all of the time, only with giant corporations instead of a tiny niche company and a blogger. In the end it is just about people being mad at each other.
But Romeo started this. Let's not forget that. I don't give a hill of beans what Hayden said. Romeo decided to threaten a lawsuit and demand money. Romeo decided to double down. Romeo decided to go to the mattresses. This is Romeo's fault, and it will not serve him well, even if he manages to win. Think about that Mr. Filip, and add one more lost customer to the growing list.
Well I was wondering why a reply had been filed for Battle Foam but not Mr. Filip personally:
DEFENDANT ROMEO FILIP ADDS ATTORNEY DEVIN SREECHARANA
NOTICE OF/TO MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS FILED BY ROMEO FILIP
MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF THE SUMMONS FILED ON COMPLAINT FILED 04/08/2013 OF NICOLAS HAYDEN BY ROMEO FILIP REPRESENTED BY DEVIN SREECHARANA
For the legally challenged of us, what does that mean exactly?
It means Romeo is playing venue games.
Yeah, I think the relevant section in the California rules of civ pro is 418. It is likely just another venue argument.
It is slightly different than the motion for forum non conveniens. Battle Foam does business in California, so the court probably would find that it has jurisdiction over Battle Foam. Forum non conveniens says 'hey you might have jurisdiction over me, but there is another better court to hear this case'.
Lack of jurisdiction is a different argument. Mr. Filip is probably saying he has no connection with California. You would probably look at residence, bank accounts, has he done business in California etc.. Sent letters to California...
czakk wrote: Lack of jurisdiction is a different argument. Mr. Filip is probably saying he has no connection with California. You would probably look at residence, bank accounts, has he done business in California etc.. Sent letters to California...
Isn't there some sort of requirement to pursue the case at whichever jurisdiction the damage was alleged to have been done?
czakk wrote: Lack of jurisdiction is a different argument. Mr. Filip is probably saying he has no connection with California. You would probably look at residence, bank accounts, has he done business in California etc.. Sent letters to California...
Isn't there some sort of requirement to pursue the case at whichever jurisdiction the damage was alleged to have been done?
Frequently there is more than one jurisdiction that has the power to hear a case. Say Mr Lookyloo, a resident of Florida is on vacation in the Big Apple, seeing the sights of New York. A driver, Mr Leadfoot from Ontario also on vacation hits Mr. Lookyloo with his car. Mr. Lookyloo could probably sue in either, New York (where the accident happened), Ontario (where the tortfeasor is from), or Florida (where the victim is suffering as he recovers).
On a related point - what ever court Mr. Lookyloo sues Mr. Leadfoot in might end up applying New York tort law (where the accident happened) to decide the matter. This is called choice of law and is different than jurisdiction.
There is however, a requirement to pursue the case in a court that has jurisdiction over the matter. He couldn't sue Mr. Leadfoot in Japan or Botswana.
Jurisdiction is:
(a) the power of the court to to hear the subject matter (granted by statute and the constitution)
(b) personal jurisdiction over the parties.
In this case (a) is tort law (defamation) with the added fillip of it being a request for declaratory relief. Most courts have the power to hear tort law cases. (A tax court couldn't). In my jurisdiction declaratory judgments are a form of equitable relief and in the US I think it is a form of relief granted by statute. So certain courts may not have the jurisdiction to grant a declaratory judgment. (Small claims court tend not to be able to do these sorts of things).
In this case (b) is Mr. Hayden, Mr. Filip and Battle Foam LLC. Mr Hayden is clearly within the jurisdiction of a California court (he's Californian). Battle Foam LLC is also likely within the jurisdiction (does business in california, probably attends cons in California etc..). Also by filing a cross complaint Battle Foam has also probably attorned itself.
You may notice that Mr. Filip is not listed as a plaintiff on the cross complaint in California, but is listed on the complaint he filed in Arizona. Likely to avoid having attorned himself in California.
If you read Mr. Hayden's complaint, you'll see his argument as to why the court in California has jurisdiction over Mr. Filip. If we had Mr. Filip's motion we could see why he feels it doesn't.
Different courts have different views on who they have jurisdiction over. Lord Denning MR said this back in the day:
No one who comes to these courts asking for justice should come in vain. He must, of course, come in good faith. The right to come here is not confined to Englishmen. It extends to any friendly foreigner. He can seek the aid of our courts if he desires to do so. You may call this "forum shopping" if you please, but if the forum is England it is a good place to shop in, both for quality of goods and the speed of service
He clearly though his courts had jurisdiction over pretty much anyone who wanted to show up. I don't know if California runs the same way - I believe Canadian courts have a much lower threshold for accepting jurisdiction over foreign plantiffs than you do in the States (something to do with the due process clause in your constitution iirc).
Spoiler:
Attorn: Formally acknowledged the jurisdiction of the court. Basically unless you file some specific forms of motions (like a motion to quash a summons) if you show up in court you've shown it has jurisdiction over you.
Equitable Relief: A type of legal remedy that comes from the Courts of Chancery instead of the Common Law. Equity is the law of the human conscience. The courts of chancery used to be a completely separate court system run by powerful clerics. Way back in the day you used to petition the Chancellor (who kept the King's Conscience) to intercede in a matter where the King's Law would produce an injustice. You could also petition in english instead of latin, which helped make the chancery a bit more accessible.
In most common law jurisdictions the two courts were merged - superior courts are courts of law and equity. Some courts however are still just courts of law (tax courts tend to be only law, small claims courts tend not to be able to award equitable remedies).
If you have ever watched the TV series the Tudors, Sam Neil's character - Cardinal Wolsey - was King Henry's Chancellor. He was in charge of the Courts of Chancery back in the day. Once Cardinal Wolsey gets the axe, Thomas More takes over, and barristers start running the chancery courts.
When I read through the Outrider (sp?) findings it seemed that the NH court looked unfavorably upon the attempt to have it tried there. Does any of that "history" make its way into a courts decision (I.e. Would CA court consider past history when determining whether or not battlefoam is venue shopping again)?
Marcus Scipio wrote: When I read through the Outrider (sp?) findings it seemed that the NH court looked unfavorably upon the attempt to have it tried there. Does any of that "history" make its way into a courts decision (I.e. Would CA court consider past history when determining whether or not battlefoam is venue shopping again)?
New Hampshire generally looks unfavorably upon lawsuit shenanigans (barring casino bases lawsuit shenanigans, of course). Live Free or Die and all that.
So having picked up the phone (have any of you guys actually done this yet or are we just armchair commentating again?) and spoken to Romeo about this, clearly there are details I cannot divulge, but the short of it is Mr Hayden was given numerous opportunities to deal with this off line and without financial impact but instead he decidied to go all nutter butters rather than deal with his lies like a grown up.
Mr Hayden brought all this on himself and Romeo is in a position where unless we as a community wish to allow certain members to spread malicious lies and destroy businesses serving the gaming community, then we need to take a stand and make sure the less scrupulous know there are consequences to trying to destroy other people's staff's and their families livelihoods in the hunt for website and forum traffic.
No one will walk away from this without a bill but sometimes you just gotta stand up for what is right. When liers will not listen to reason then you are left with no option but to go legal.
The jurisdiction issue is an interesting one and I look forward to seeing what happens in practice.
MickeyP2K wrote: So having picked up the phone (have any of you guys actually done this yet or are we just armchair commentating again?)
Most people aren't going to call a company and ask "hey, you've got this pending legal action and I'm just some dude who saw something on the intarwebz, can you let me know what's going on?
Because, if the business in question has any sense, it'll say "No Comment and Please Don't Ask Again".
Ultimately we have a situation of an Internet Rumor Monger doing Internet Rumor Monger things vs an other legitimate business run by a guy with an apparent reputation for losing his temper in the most juvenile of ways directly at people on internet forums. WIthout greater access to information or the being an element of the justice system, all anyone here can do really is armchair comment and laugh at the sillyness along the way.
So having picked up the phone (have any of you guys actually done this yet or are we just armchair commentating again?) and spoken to Romeo about this, clearly there are details I cannot divulge, but the short of it is Mr Hayden was given numerous opportunities to deal with this off line and without financial impact but instead he decidied to go all nutter butters rather than deal with his lies like a grown up.
Mr Hayden brought all this on himself and Romeo is in a position where unless we as a community wish to allow certain members to spread malicious lies and destroy businesses serving the gaming community, then we need to take a stand and make sure the less scrupulous know there are consequences to trying to destroy other people's staff's and their families livelihoods in the hunt for website and forum traffic.
No one will walk away from this without a bill but sometimes you just gotta stand up for what is right. When liers will not listen to reason then you are left with no option but to go legal.
The jurisdiction issue is an interesting one and I look forward to seeing what happens in practice.
Mickey - I know you're a mod on the 'bootas forum, and it's admirable that you want to stick up for a friend, but you would do better to just let him speak for himself rather than giving this thread (which was almost at the bottom of the page today) a bump by bringing it back up to defend him. I haven't seen the BoK article that caused this (it's obviously still down until the matter gets resolved), but I also haven't heard BoK casually physically threaten anyone. Cannot say the same for Romeo. That's not "armchair commenting". That's talking about things that have actually happened. So in light of that, the points you're making are going to be hard for most to swallow imo.
I think that last part is going to be more crucial/interesting to the results of all of this than the jurisdiction issue. I think it's going to be tough for BF's legal council to argue that BoK is somehow severely damaging their reputation and business when, in the same 40kradio podcast, it is mentioned that BF has sold millions (or made millions - I can't remember the exact quote) AND the threat of physical violence against detractors is brought up multiple times. Randazza is going to have a field day with that.
MickeyP2K wrote: So having picked up the phone (have any of you guys actually done this yet or are we just armchair commentating again?) and spoken to Romeo about this, clearly there are details I cannot divulge, but the short of it is Mr Hayden was given numerous opportunities to deal with this off line and without financial impact but instead he decidied to go all nutter butters rather than deal with his lies like a grown up.
LOL, so you didn't read the S&D sent by Romeo to Hayden, then. The one where he demand money and a letter he can put up on his site saying Hayden was wrong, saying I'll sue you if you don't play ball. Yup, very adult of Romeo. But I really love the part were you say clearly the thing I can't divulge, dose that mean Romeo was dumb enough to tell you things he shouldn't be telling anyone about the court case, is that what your saying? Because anything else you be able to tell us.
MickeyP2K wrote: So having picked up the phone (have any of you guys actually done this yet or are we just armchair commentating again?)
Did you ask him if he'll be posting his motions and his answer to the complaint / his cross complaint up? It would spare us having to a) rely only on what was posted by Mr. Hayden and b) the cost of getting them photocopied at the court house.
Vakthai - Generally i agree its not going to be worth calling a random company and asking about legal battles but hey if you want to understand Romeos point of view I'm sure he'll talk to you.
Tycho - thank you for corroborating I'm not Romeo and to be fair the advice! The trick is wider ranging and I'm sure when all this is over it will be more clear.
Noir - you are only seeing a story half way through because it suits Nicholas Hayden to start half way through for the sympathy vote.
Czakk - I'm sure it will all come out in good time.
Absolutions - I'm not intending to offend anyone but suggesting that rather than armchair speculation pick up the phone and find out the facts for your self. Nicholas Hayden posted lies (whether he knew it or not). It will be very interesting to see who his sources are... Has he posted his sources and evidence yet do we know?
Noir - you are only seeing a story half way through because it suits Nicholas Hayden to start half way through for the sympathy vote.
So I missed Romeo calling people out, saying come to my place, but you might get hit, and a few other "events". For some reason I thought I watched the podcast, thanks for letting me know I didn't. Would of never figured it out myself, or maybe you should stop speculation on what other know. Plus, I sure Romeo would of told you thing to make his said look better, no one would do something like that right?
Mickey, I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish here. If you have new information or thoughts on the case, then you're welcome to post it. If Romeo sent you out or you're trying to help Romeo manage his reputation, then this isn't the thread to do it.
I've heard Romeo's side of the story on the 40k podast, so a telephone call won't help and would be a waste of both of our times. If Romeo really wants to manage his reputation and reach out to us he could stop hiding and post in an open discussion on the forum.
You are absolutely right it's a thread to discuss the legal case and the point is there were opportunities before the elements Mr Hayden has chosen to post which are not in the public domain.
And I also believe its worth understanding where Mr Hayden got his information.
Without these two elements it makes any speculation on the legal position of both parties very difficult to ascertain.
I would imagine that any halfway competent legal counsel would advise a party in this lawsuit not to post and talk about it online.
I am not surprised to see Romeo Proxies defending him here,
From everything that is in the public domain (old forum posts by all parties, statements made during podcasts, legal documents that were shared) it is fairly easy to make up your own mind. Romeo is free to share his own legal documents that he filed, they are public record after all, to help make his case if he wants to.
Other than that we are just a bunch of internet screen names talking about this case, one being an anonymous "hey guys, I'm friends with Romeo and I talked to him on the phone, you got everything wrong. okaythanksbye" that has a lot less impact on my opinion than things Romeo has said and my personal limited interactions with him.
Do Romeo a favor as a friend and let this thread fall of page 1.
Various OT posts deleted. There may have been some good content in them, but it was lost in the OT vitriol.
If it's not clear: I don't care about your opinions of either party's personality; it's off-topic. Calling other users names? OT at a minimum, quite possibly rude.
Believe it or not, it is possible to have an opinion in favor of one or the other party without being a sock-puppet.
I'm not really very anonymous I'm very active on my own forums (mentioned kindly by Tycho above) and a regular at GW events in the UK (usually wearing a UK Bootaz T-Shirt). Like Romeo I'm very happy to meet and talk to people at events or online.
Here's me looking very happy with a new Glaive... Please don't take the Alpharius T-Shirt to mean anything... There's only one of me and I'm not Alpharius
Anyway back on topic: You are absolutely right I should do Romeo a favour and let this lie (excuse the pun!) now but my final question to those who have perhaps read all the material do we know who Mr Haydens sources are? I can't find them anywhere and would love to know the evidence in favour of Mr Hayden's version of events.
I'm sure it's the same as Romeo's sources: "people he knows" or people involved with those incidences.
For the infinity forum debacle, I'm sure he can get any number of people who witnessed that. The fallout of it is still around the internet too.
I'm sure the event prize support instance will come down to what people perceived. I'm not sure of details on the event, but if anyone was raising their voice, or heard certain things, people may have perceived the situation in a different light than Romeo.
If the bag shipping incident was in the article, I believe that complaint was posted on a forum. He could screenshot that and/or talk to the guy.
The tattoo guy, well it will come down to the tattoo guy, and if there was any public communication about it.
I'm still curious about the whole Jane Doe tactic. If the speculation from earlier posts, that it is a parent, is correct, then regardless of how great a buddy he might be to Mickey2P I think he is going about this in quite an unsavory way.
Would one of the legal folks let me know if that is something we'll see cleared up in one of the forthcoming documents?
Having been in a much more serious legal dispute than is discussed here, I can say this: If these guys cannot settle this immediately and out of court they are not being served well by their respective attorney's, or one or both them are incredibly bull headed and stupid.
Just to answer a few of the points raised and to add the context to any legal suppositions based upon them:
- I think blowing up on forums when it feels your not being listened to or you are very unhappy with what you see is just a side effect of being on forums. I'm sure anyone reading this thread often will have seen people getting very upset with each other on both sides of the coin. It happens, I've done it before as I'm sure have many.
- Prize support I agree with you it's most likely to be a disjoin between what was believed to be agreed at worst. Again not really something to get too upset about when a company is giving away free stuff IMHO.
- Bag shipping issues I know BattleFoam pride them selves on looking after the customer and to be fair before I even knew Romeo I had an incorrect tray sent to me by mistake and they shipped a replacement to me next day and didn't even ask for the old one back. I did however talk to their customer service rather than go on a forum. Clearly with such a large customer base they are bound to have the odd person feeling hard done by but that's just an economies of scale issue and is true of all businesses. If people ever get the wrong stuff from BF or feel it is not up to scratch then just call customer service. Raging on a forum will not get you what you want... Depending on what you want of course.
- The 'tattoo guy' was not over the moon at being misrepresented and called 'names' on the original BoK article but as that's all in legal at the moment I think he will be unable to speak for himself until this is all put to bed.
- Jane Doe is not one of Nicholas Hayden's parents.
- As for Nicholas Haydens attacks on other aspects of Romeos business and interactions with people at events he will struggle to find evidence and I look forward to Mr Haydens 'sources' being outed as they have not only tried to cause pain to the normal employees (just guys like us) but have also gotten Mr Hayden into a lot of trouble which I'm sure he doesn't appreciate right now.
Romeo can be exceptionally passionate about pretty much any business venture he undertakes. And yes he said if you go to talk to him and you start throwing insults he said you might get a bop on the nose but he said that in the context of he'd be happy to talk to anyone on his porch so long as they are having a sensible adult conversation. I bet he'd even supply the beer (he better as it's his porch!). I think that's true of all of us is it not? Taking a snippet of a quote out of context is not helping the legal theme of this thread it just riles people further.
I also appreciate you could read this as there is no evidence to support him either (at least until all the legals are concluded) which is why I feel it necessary to stand up (even if I am only one voice) as a character witness and say he's a good guy and more importantly his staff are good people and do not deserve to have their jobs put at risk because of rumour and supposition. If business drops then so does the ability to keep people employed which in the current economic climate is something no body deserves.
I think Necros' comment illustrates perfectly why Romeo is right to defend his reputation. Bad reputations do follow you and if nobody has the courage to stand up and say when things are wrong how can one ever defend ones reputation?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
xraytango wrote: MickeyP2k, I notice that you are in the UK, and seeing how vigorously you are defending RF's actions (as a good friend would do, good for you) and knowing that BF has just opened a distribution point there, leads me to ask this question: Are you involved in any business, financial, or promotional way with RF or BF LLC? Because that would explain a great many things that you have said if you indeed have a stake in the well-being of RF and BF LLC.
That is a great question and no I am not. I would love to be involved and working in the games industry (be it GW, BF, Battlefront or otherwise) but alas I am just a passionate gamer like many of you. To be fair the salaries in the gaming industry would not be enough for me to support my family which is the main hindrance. And BF:UK is about 150 miles from where I live as I live near Warhammer World... My Mecca!
In the interests of full disclosure though I am a Mod on the Freebootaz Forum (the worlds biggest "no hate" 40k forum) which is closely affiliated with 40k Radio.
This is how I have an inside line to (and strong friendships with) many of the people who were at adepticon and other events/places in question and the guys who were present (regardless of their personal feelings about RF/BF) have made their statements and they will be taken into account in the proceedings.
I will not disclose details of a case in progress because as you are all aware that could be exceptionally damaging hence I can only say I am a character witness and a voice of 'reason' (IMHO at least).
Okay, thanks, I was just wondering. Don't worry about disclosing any details, we don't want them, the public court documents will be quite enough for us. I look forward to reading more of them.
Good answer, I congratulate you sir on standing up for your friend.
Taking a snippet of a quote out of context is not helping the legal theme of this thread it just riles people further.
Except that no one's really taking it out of context and that (imo) is where Romeo's own credibility runs into issues. He actually said that if your taking adversarial views that he disagrees with you will "get punched in the face". When one of the primary accusations from BoK (and the only accusation I'm aware of since, again, I haven't seen the original offending article) is that Romeo has threatened people, and you have a podcast where he threatens people, multiple forum posts where he threatens people, and a separate legal issue that arose because (wait for it ...) Romeo threatened someone, it suddenly becomes difficult to look upon that particular charge with skepticism. I'm NOT saying anything BoK said is true mind you. Prior to Romeo bringing this up on his own podcast I had never even heard of BoK and a lot of that site seems kind of silly to me. I'm just saying that in light of the evidence we DO have, it's tough to just hop on the BF bandwagon if that makes sense.
Plus, even if you can somehow justify that Romeo said that in jest, you'd still have to explain "called shot to the kneecaps ...". I think that's going to be the biggest issue in the court case as well.
Again taken out of context what can you do but make up conclusions not present in the full transcript. Even then you need the intimation behind how the words were said to get the full picture so I'm not sure there's much point arguing that other than anything taken out of context can be twisted to fit any purpose... Like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbWgUO-Rqcw (sorry I just love that clip )
I'd just recommend people listen to the show themselves and the full text to understand the meaning behind the words.
I should add I don't think I would have said anything publicly during an active case but like I said he's a passionate guy.
I have been trying to find the posts from across the years on this very site that are eyewitness and first hand accounts of RF's behavior, but alas my google-fu is weak.
Maybe someone else that is better at the internet can look it up and enlighten the class.
And put it in a new thread so as to not clutter this one up
Mickey, it's not going to come down to what Romeo intended by his actions, but if the events happened or at least Nick was led to believe happened. Beyond that, point of view of what happened, or critique of the events, are protected under the first amendment.
carboncopy wrote: Mickey, it's not going to come down to what Romeo intended by his actions, but if the events happened or at least Nick was led to believe happened. Beyond that, point of view of what happened, or critique of the events, are protected under the first amendment.
My understanding (albeit limited admittedly) is that the first amendment does not allow one to wilfully falsify facts damaging to another? I apologise profusely if I'm wrong there.
If that is the case then it's down to legal teams to prove/disprove who knew what and who has what evidence to support their views. That's not anything we can work out here.
It it important to know just Where this legal action is going to take place. If it case takes jurisdiction in California, chances are that the case not be a winnable one.
Janthkin wrote: Various OT posts deleted. There may have been some good content in them, but it was lost in the OT vitriol.
If it's not clear: I don't care about your opinions of either party's personality; it's off-topic. Calling other users names? OT at a minimum, quite possibly rude.
Believe it or not, it is possible to have an opinion in favor of one or the other party without being a sock-puppet.
I'm not sure how various posters could have misunderstood my words, but apparently they did. A whole page's worth of OT digression removed.
Next poster who drags us off-topic is going to have to find something else to do over Memorial Day weekend, as they won't be posting on Dakka.
Had a nice rant going on prior to seeing Janthkin's last post. Lets just say it was about how everyone on the 40kradio forums is drinking the Kool-aid and I've woken up.
Now onto the the meat of what I want to post about. Until we know exactly what Romeo has in is filings we can only speculate. However, again thanks to previous postings by Outrider(now taken down), the Infinity blow up and Romeo's POV on 2 podcast, His blow up towards MLB with a different company, it does not help Romeo's image nor reputation regardless. Until that time BoK will be seen as in the right(for the most part). If BoK thought what he was reporting as right and truthful, it will be hard to disprove that. Just like how Scientologist believe their beliefs are right. You don't see them Sueing the Catholic Church...
my question for this case to this point is, thanks to mickey's stance. Would there not be a conflict of interest if mickey is a material witness(forgive me if i misread a post saying his is) or any other mod of the 40kradio forum, as some have said they are.
carboncopy wrote: Mickey, it's not going to come down to what Romeo intended by his actions, but if the events happened or at least Nick was led to believe happened. Beyond that, point of view of what happened, or critique of the events, are protected under the first amendment.
My understanding (albeit limited admittedly) is that the first amendment does not allow one to willfully falsify facts damaging to another? I apologise profusely if I'm wrong there.
If that is the case then it's down to legal teams to prove/disprove who knew what and who has what evidence to support their views. That's not anything we can work out here.
We can, however, look at the information that we have on each side, and draw our own conclusions - and I know which way my own reading of the information leans.
We can discuss what that information is. (And, for the most art, we are.) And we can discuss how many times similar situations have arisen with one side or another.
We can also make assessments as to whether those conclusions affect the way we spend our hard earned money.
For me, it has. Regardless of how the court hearing pans out I have held a trial of the mind, and one side or the other has been found, if not guilty, then wanting.
That said, yes, freedom of speech does allow for the possibility of slander and/or libel. Since it was published in a public manner it can be taken to trial, and if proven to be libel (published or broadcast) then consequences can be handed out.
On the other hand, there have been enough similar incidents that it seems to me that the preponderance of information favors one side....
You see, it needs to be proven false... and if proven true....
Plus, even if you can somehow justify that Romeo said that in jest, you'd still have to explain "called shot to the kneecaps ...". I think that's going to be the biggest issue in the court case as well.
To be fair, I certainly saw the "called shot to the kneecap", not as a threat to perform that particular physical action, but rather as a way of saying; "That should teach you a lesson".
The particular remark is taken from the comic "Knights of the Dinner-table" in which "called shot to X" is a stable (usually groin, kneecap or ear ). It is sometimes even followed by the very same; "Natural 20!". Romeo could also have said; "Boom! Headshot!" to use a FPS in-game meme. He could have said; "He shots! He scores!" to use a sports meme. He chose to use a RPG meme.
Saying that particular remark constitutes a threat of said action is IMHO not warranted at all.
Please note, I am not impressed by the way Romeo have been acting in the past (if stories are to be believed of course), but I am a strong proponent of being fair, and this seemed an unfair presentation of events to me.
To be fair, I certainly saw the "called shot to the kneecap", not as a threat to perform that particular physical action, but rather as a way of saying; "That should teach you a lesson".
The particular remark is taken from the comic "Knights of the Dinner-table" in which "called shot to X" is a stable (usually groin, kneecap or ear ). It is sometimes even followed by the very same; "Natural 20!".
Romeo could also have said; "Boom! Headshot!" to use a FPS in-game meme.
He could have said; "He shots! He scores!" to use a sports meme.
He chose to use a RPG meme.
Saying that particular remark constitutes a threat of said action is IMHO not warranted at all.
I'm well aware of where the comment came from (the comic actually took it from D&D players years ago). That's not really the point at all. Like I said before, the real point is that when one of the allegations against you is that you threaten people, and you are claiming defamation based on that allegation, you CANNOT under ANY circumstance say ANYTHING that could even potentially possibly in any way shape or form be construed as threatening and still have a case. Do I literally think Romeo is going to seek out Hayden and actually kneecap him? No. I think that's highly unlikely. Do I literally think that if I bump into Romeo at a con and we have a disagreement that I'm going to get punched? Possibly. On the other hand, when the legal standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" and the charge being claimed as liable is "Romeo sometimes physically threatens people" and I have one of his own podcasts where (more than once) he makes statements that could be construed as threats, I start to find it hard to completely believe that that particular charge is actually slanderous.
Tycho wrote: On the other hand, when the legal standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" and the charge being claimed as liable is "Romeo sometimes physically threatens people" and I have one of his own podcasts where (more than once) he makes statements that could be construed as threats, I start to find it hard to completely believe that that particular charge is actually slanderous.
The legal standard here isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt." That's only the standard for criminal cases.
Thats a good point regarding standard for coming to a conclusion in this matter. Broadly speaking, of course:
Beyond a reasonable doubt applies in criminal cases.
Preponderance of evidence applies in civil cases.
For this situation...
What standard of evidence is required to prove the libel claim?
More specifically, what standard is needed to show the contested statements on BoK are (1) true, or true enough, vs. (2) believed to be true (i.e. intent)?
Adam LongWalker wrote: It it important to know just Where this legal action is going to take place. If it case takes jurisdiction in California, chances are that the case not be a winnable one.
Again. I will state. If this case is tried in California, the Case will probably be dismissed.
Out of everything being talked about, this, right now is the most important step concerning this case. Everything else is a moot point at this point.
If this case gets tried out of the California Legal System and be tried in another state, such as Arizona, then the case could be a more viable one.
Regardless of whom is right or wrong this is the key element of the case. Where it is going to take place, California or Arizona.
Adam LongWalker wrote: It it important to know just Where this legal action is going to take place. If it case takes jurisdiction in California, chances are that the case not be a winnable one.
Again. I will state. If this case is tried in California, the Case will probably be dismissed.
Just so I'm clear in my head - dismissed in whose favour, or just chucked out without resolution?
I'm not a legal guy, and feel free to jump in czaak, but I believe it's like this:
BoK filed in California to deem the article as non-defamatory. In very simple terms, if BoK "wins" here he essentially "wins" the case, and would basically stop Romeo from going any further with a defamation suit. His article would be deemed non-defamatory and he could more freely place it up online with a court ruling to back it up.
Why California is important, is because it has stronger free speech laws than Arizona (specifically the Anti-SLAPP law), so it would make it easier to rule the article as non-defamatory.
I think it's still an uphill battle for Romeo in either state, but California is a much steeper hill.
This case is a lose lose for Battle Foam, If he wins he'll be facing the Streisand effect. If he loses you can be sure copies of the article will be repeated everywhere.
Janthkin wrote: I'm not sure how people continue to miss that BattleFoam didn't FILE the case. They are the defendant, not the plaintiff.
I'm not sure how you can forget that BF filed th C&D letter FIRST, and requested reimbursement for the defimation. The case w filed by BoK in response to what BF did, not the other way around.
Janthkin wrote: I'm not sure how people continue to miss that BattleFoam didn't FILE the case. They are the defendant, not the plaintiff.
I'm not sure how you can forget that BF filed th C&D letter FIRST, and requested reimbursement for the defimation. The case w filed by BoK in response to what BF did, not the other way around.
BF did not 'file' anything first. They just sent a C&D, no courts were harmed in its delivery.
BR didn't file the first complaint, but BF has filed two. BF, Mr. Filip, and his miniatures company filed a suit in Arizona, and BF filed one in California (the cross-complaint). The cross-complaint can survive the death of Mr. Hayden's request for declaratory judgment.
In California:
Mr. Filip is a defendant.
Battle Foam is both a defendant and a plaintiff in California (well, cross complainant).
Mr. Hayden is both a plaintiff and a cross defendant.
Ms. Jane Doe Hayden is a cross defendant.
Presumably the Arizona one will be stayed until the California stuff sorts itself out.
In Arizona
Mr. Filip is a plaintiff.
Battle Foam is a plaintiff.
Outlaw Miniatures is a plaintiff
Mr. Hayden is a defendant.
Ms. Jane Doe Hayden is not a party.
Janthkin wrote: I'm not sure how people continue to miss that BattleFoam didn't FILE the case. They are the defendant, not the plaintiff.
Battlefoam took first "legal action" by sending a Cease and Desist, threatening suit and making demands (removal of article, money, and posting an affidavit). In defense of this (and probably to get choice of venue) BoK filed the first "suit" in California to deem the article non-defamatory.
Janthkin wrote: I'm not sure how people continue to miss that BattleFoam didn't FILE the case. They are the defendant, not the plaintiff.
Battlefoam took first "legal action" by sending a Cease and Desist, threatening suit and making demands (removal of article, money, and posting an affidavit). In defense of this (and probably to get choice of venue) BoK filed the first "suit" in California to deem the article non-defamatory.
I'm aware of all of that. But there are numerous comments in the thread that mention not understanding what BF's "gain" is here.
Oh I see what you mean. I think R3con was talking about the whole situation as a whole, not just this initial suit. Depending on what happens in the initial suit, if it were to go in Battlefoam's favor, I would think Battlefoam would follow through with a counter-suit, force the article to be taken down, and try to get compensation for damages.
Janthkin wrote: I'm not sure how people continue to miss that BattleFoam didn't FILE the case. They are the defendant, not the plaintiff.
Battlefoam took first "legal action" by sending a Cease and Desist, threatening suit and making demands (removal of article, money, and posting an affidavit). In defense of this (and probably to get choice of venue) BoK filed the first "suit" in California to deem the article non-defamatory.
I'm aware of all of that. But there are numerous comments in the thread that mention not understanding what BF's "gain" is here.
Battlefoam still took the first action.
The BoK article could have been ignored.
Instead, Battlefoam decided to send a C&D, which is overreacting, but easy to comply with.
Battlefoam eas the one to demand a takedown of the article, monetary restitution, an affidavit, and a C&D. That is what people are citing as the first metaphorical "shot". BoK simply filed a legal 'put-up-or-shut-up'.
BoK may have created this situation, but Battlefoam escalated it to the point of no return.
The BoK article could have been ignored.
Instead, Battlefoam decided to send a C&D, which is overreacting, but easy to comply with.
Battlefoam eas the one to demand a takedown of the article, monetary restitution, an affidavit, and a C&D. That is what people are citing as the first metaphorical "shot". BoK simply filed a legal 'put-up-or-shut-up'.
BoK may have created this situation, but Battlefoam escalated it to the point of no return.
Look, you can spin this quite a few ways. BoK didn't have to post the article they did. They didn't have to comply with the C&D, insofar as they did, by removing the article. They didn't have to file a declaratory judgment suit.
But my only point here is that it's useless to critique BF for being party to a lawsuit where they have nothing to gain; they didn't file the lawsuit, but they can't ignore it.
They didn't comply with the C&D. The C&D inexplicably demanded an arbitrary amount of money and a public apology, and they have yet to comply.
Battlefoam could have just requested a takedown with threat of legal action. Instead, they decided to escalate the situation tremendously.
It's not spinning. If I find something about me on a blog that is defamatory, I could issue a C&D regardless of whether the information is true or not. However, if I demand money and an apology alongside that, I no longer hold the victim card.
Janthkin wrote: They didn't have to comply with the C&D, insofar as they did, by removing the article.
Absolutionis wrote: They didn't comply with the C&D. The C&D inexplicably demanded an arbitrary amount of money and a public apology, and they have yet to comply.
And who said anything about being a victim?
I have no dog in this hunt. Again, my only point is that BattleFoam didn't file the first lawsuit, and so critiquing them as if they somehow chose to be party to that particular lawsuit is pointless.
Perhaps I should clarify that my [point is that Battlefoam was the one to first escalate the matter to the courts. They could have done what every other celebrity does when someone writes about them and ignore it.
With the decalaratory judgment suit, I don't think BoK has any intent on following through with the reparations or the affedivit.
Janthkin wrote: They didn't have to comply with the C&D, insofar as they did, by removing the article.
Absolutionis wrote: They didn't comply with the C&D. The C&D inexplicably demanded an arbitrary amount of money and a public apology, and they have yet to comply.
And who said anything about being a victim?
I have no dog in this hunt. Again, my only point is that BattleFoam didn't file the first lawsuit, and so critiquing them as if they somehow chose to be party to that particular lawsuit is pointless.
No dog in this hunt? When BF is a major supporter of this website? bs.
We're all representatives of this site.
In addition, he doesn't get to pick and choose who advertises.
You're ascribing potential malice where there isn't any.
rigeld2 wrote: Janthkin doesn't get money for being a mod...
He is still a representative of this site. Money is not the only compensation one gets for doing something.
I suppose there is the joy of having additional motives ascribed to my every action, regardless of whether those motives are valid or not....
It's been said before, and I'll say it again here - the owners/administrators of the site place NO restrictions on the moderators, as regards how we moderate topics, beyond enforcing the forum rules. Advertisers receive no particular consideration; I handle threads involving them exactly the same as threads involving other individuals.
What I dont get is why BF even issued a C&D and then just tried to settle the issue quietly before BOK filed the legal action.
As soon as something like this is started it is going to be very public and then frighten off some potential customers.
By issuing a C&D with onerous conditions BF seems to have shot themselves in the foot and escalated some crappy posting on a little forum that many of us would never have come into contact with.
What would BF have to gain from starting down this path?
fullheadofhair wrote: What I dont get is why BF even issued a C&D and then just tried to settle the issue quietly before BOK filed the legal action
We don't know for certain what was done prior to sending the C&D. There are some suggestions earlier in the thread, though, that it wasn't the beginning of the conversation between the parties.
And let's keep armchair psychiatric diagnoses out of the conversation; they cannot possibly do anything but drive us off-topic.
The BoK article could have been ignored.
Instead, Battlefoam decided to send a C&D, which is overreacting, but easy to comply with.
Battlefoam eas the one to demand a takedown of the article, monetary restitution, an affidavit, and a C&D. That is what people are citing as the first metaphorical "shot". BoK simply filed a legal 'put-up-or-shut-up'.
BoK may have created this situation, but Battlefoam escalated it to the point of no return.
Look, you can spin this quite a few ways. BoK didn't have to post the article they did. They didn't have to comply with the C&D, insofar as they did, by removing the article. They didn't have to file a declaratory judgment suit.
But my only point here is that it's useless to critique BF for being party to a lawsuit where they have nothing to gain; they didn't file the lawsuit, but they can't ignore it.
If I run my car into you and you sue me for it my actions are still the cause of the lawsuit even if you did not file the suit. It is disingenuous at best to suggest that BF did not cause this lawsuit to appear.
But I will rephrase my statement if it makes you more comfortable. "What has BattleFoam to gain from such a hostile C&D letter?" That article was all but forgotten, many had no clue that it even existed. I had no idea that Romeo had blown up on infinity players or had podcasts rants of ill repute. So instead of shutting down criticism all that has been accomplished is dragging out his own dirty laundry to be examined. Especially after watching all the backlash for GWS's C&D's how could one think this was a good idea?
I would laugh if my own inactive blog was to be given an C&D like that, mine is incorporated sue it and MI40k goes bankrupt, I think there's 40 bucks in the business account.
And even when you win a case you really don't "win" god knows I've taken enough non payers to court and all you end up with is a judgment that you'll never see a dime of anyways.
How does one set about calculating damages in this typoe of case? When a C&D is issued and the wider community becomes aware of the contents of the original issue and decides not to deal with Romeo who gets the blame for that?
How do you calculate monetary damages? I am curious as to what if the BOK specific claims was judged wrong in the examples given but then Romeo's previous reputation was judged true would there be any losses?
fullheadofhair wrote: How does one set about calculating damages in this typoe of case? When a C&D is issued and the wider community becomes aware of the contents of the original issue and decides not to deal with Romeo who gets the blame for that?
How do you calculate monetary damages? I am curious as to what if the BOK specific claims was judged wrong in the examples given but then Romeo's previous reputation was judged true would there be any losses?
Damages are a tricky and technical subject and it is going to vary widely based on the jurisdiction. Most of the time the plaintiff has the burden of proving they suffered damage on top of showing they were defamed. Sometimes that will be reversed by statute or case law.
Very very generally speaking you have:
1) Special Damages / Actual Damages - these would be business losses, a contract falling through due to the posting, a huge dip in sales etc.. A little bit more objective than say hurt feelings.
2) General Damages - damage to reputation, hurt feelings, etc.. (very hard to calculate, very subjective).
3) Punitive Damages - damages the court awards due to outrage at the defendants conduct over and above everything else. Much rarer.
AgeOfEgos wrote: That's Mvbrandt from Nova and Bigred from BOLS isn't it?
So are these in effect witnesses to the items that Romeo says are false and slanderous?
1) A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.
(2) In making its determination, the court shall consider the pleadings, and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability or defense is based.
Looking at the statute, there are two things going on:
First a defendant has to show that their speech is covered by the section (constitutionally protected and connected to public interest).
If that hurdle is met, then the plaintiff has to show that there is a probability they will prevail. If the plaintiff can't show a probability they will prevail lawsuit is dead and a SLAPP-back costs motion might be brought.
So the affidavits could be going to either of those two issues (public interest or undermining a defamation claim / establishing a defence). Could be as simple as someone saying "Battle Foam is sort of famous in our community."
We'd know for sure if some friendly Californian went to the court house and photocopied the records...
I'm wondering if they can get this motion hearing re-scheduled to before the motion on forum non-conveniens (one of the attempts to move the case to Arizona).
DECLARATION OF NICHOLAS HAYDEN FILED RE: IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
DECLARATION OF CARL TUTTLE FILED RE: IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
DECLARATION OF LARRY VELA FILED RE: THE FACTS THAT I STATE HEREIN,...
DECLARATION OF CHANDLER LEE FILED RE: THE FACTS THAT I STATE HERIEN...
DECLARATION OF JON WOLF FILED RE: THE FACTS THAT I STATE HEREIN...
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL BRANDT FILED RE: THE FACTS THAT I SATE HEREIN...
DECLARATION OF LAURA M TUCKER FILED RE: IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF NICOLAS HAYDENS SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
DECLARATION OF ROBERT BAER FILED RE: IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
Re Marcus Scipio, in theory yes.
we know Carl is from IC podcast.
BigRed and JWolf of Bols,
MVBrandT- Nova head
Duke/Chandler- Feast of Blades Head
Spikey Bits- Vendor at Most big US cons.
Laura Tucker is the only name i dont recognize.
the way i can see these people all connected to this is they all deal with some form of major US cons, whether they are a sponsor, vendor, or are part of council of operations for them. They all possibly deal with Romeo directly, looking for prize support/sponsorship. From what we've gathered from those that had seen BoK post, there was mention of lack of commitment or failure to produce agreed upon prize support for the proper returns. (forgive me if that is wrong- I believe I read that in this thread or the previous locked one) Now that being said, we know little of the actual agreements of which prize support or sponsorship is given.
bginer wrote: Wow, pretty much a 'who's who' of the TO's and interwebs personalities.
Agreed. Quite the representation of community leaders there. I'm particularly curious as to the Spikey Bits' testimony, given that they're another vendor too.
I was discussing the case with a friend who really wanted to read the original article. Decided to give the wayback machine another try, and in the course of my playing around this morning found this...
Having looked for it in the past I can confirm it was gone when the hubbub started.
In any event, one question and one comment.
Question - if this is back out there does this mean the two sides have come to some resolution?
Comment - I think I know what the old sworn depositions are about now... The who's who of tourny organizers corresponds to the listing of tournaments screwed over by battlefoam in the article.
Wow, you're right it's back up. Thanks for the memory refresh. There's a lot in there that I forgot about and probably wouldn't have reread without this case happening. Streisand effect anyone?
BoK reposting this *could* mean a resolution has been reached, but more likely it means they took the article down until they got all their ducks in a row (with the above filings), and now put it back up. I'm assuming they wouldn't want to go into the hearings (on Free Speech) with it down, because it could look like an admission of guilt. That's my non-legal-minded guess of course.
So today is the first time I've had a chance to read the BoK article as well and I have a question. Romeo has said several times that one of his issues with the BoK article was that it (falsely according to Romeo) accused him of intimidating/threatening people. After having read the article, I didn't see anything like that. Was I looking right at it and just missing it or is it really not there?
It's in the Infinity section. Here is a quote from the article:
"In response Romeo when on (now deleted flame war) the forum threatening to come out and beat the [profanity] out certain board members for their comments."
Marcus Scipio wrote: Comment - I think I know what the old sworn depositions are about now... The who's who of tourny organizers corresponds to the listing of tournaments screwed over by battlefoam in the article.
This is what I wondered, and I think you might be right.
Tycho wrote: So today is the first time I've had a chance to read the BoK article as well and I have a question. Romeo has said several times that one of his issues with the BoK article was that it (falsely according to Romeo) accused him of intimidating/threatening people. After having read the article, I didn't see anything like that. Was I looking right at it and just missing it or is it really not there?
Finally, Romeo went psychotic tirade on the Infinity forums.
It all started when Romeo complained about being gakky at Infinity on 40k Radio.
That elicited the Corvus Belli forums members to troll Romeo trash talking.
In response Romeo when on (now deleted flame war) the forum threatening to come out and beat the gak out certain board members for their comments.
BoK reposting this *could* mean a resolution has been reached, but more likely it means they took the article down until they got all their ducks in a row (with the above filings), and now put it back up. I'm assuming they wouldn't want to go into the hearings (on Free Speech) with it down, because it could look like an admission of guilt. That's my non-legal-minded guess of course.
Appreciate the response, guess I was too hasty in hoping some settlement had been reached. But am also hoping one our legal minded folks would also weigh in...
That's what all the fuss is about? Meh... I've seen more confrontational threads here on dakka than that blog post.
I was also surprised. It wasn't nearly as inflamatory (imo anyway) as the super aggressive C&D made it out to be. In trying to put myself in Romeo's shoes, I guess I can see where he could get upset about the prize support issues (assuming BoK really does have it wrong - we have no way of really knowing), but even that seems like it could have been much more easily handled by a simple email/IM/blog post ...
EDIT:
In fairness it's possible Romeo DID try to handle it without lawyers. Again, we have no way of knowing.
That's what all the fuss is about? Meh... I've seen more confrontational threads here on dakka than that blog post.
I was also surprised. It wasn't nearly as inflamatory (imo anyway) as the super aggressive C&D made it out to be. In trying to put myself in Romeo's shoes, I guess I can see where he could get upset about the prize support issues (assuming BoK really does have it wrong - we have no way of really knowing), but even that seems like it could have been much more easily handled by a simple email/IM/blog post ...
EDIT:
In fairness it's possible Romeo DID try to handle it without lawyers. Again, we have no way of knowing.
I think it's more of because people are inclined to listen to a blog post on a reputable, well-known (within the community, that is) site such as BoK, as opposed to a forum post, despite the fact that both of them are merely opinion pieces. A blog post on such a site would appear to be "semi-official" and have a decent amount of truth within it (although whether this is actually the case is a completely different story), whereas forums can sometimes be full of trash talk. It's an image/appearance thing.
I think it's more of because people are inclined to listen to a blog post on a reputable, well-known (within the community, that is) site such as BoK, as opposed to a forum post, despite the fact that both of them are merely opinion pieces. A blog post on such a site would appear to be "semi-official" and have a decent amount of truth within it (although whether this is actually the case is a completely different story), whereas forums can sometimes be full of trash talk. It's an image/appearance thing.
Yeah, I can definitely see your point on that. I guess the point I'm (clumsily) trying to make is that I'm surprised this got to this point at all.
That's what all the fuss is about? Meh... I've seen more confrontational threads here on dakka than that blog post.
I was also surprised. It wasn't nearly as inflamatory (imo anyway) as the super aggressive C&D made it out to be. In trying to put myself in Romeo's shoes, I guess I can see where he could get upset about the prize support issues (assuming BoK really does have it wrong - we have no way of really knowing), but even that seems like it could have been much more easily handled by a simple email/IM/blog post ...
EDIT:
In fairness it's possible Romeo DID try to handle it without lawyers. Again, we have no way of knowing.
I think it's more of because people are inclined to listen to a blog post on a reputable, well-known (within the community, that is) site such as BoK, as opposed to a forum post, despite the fact that both of them are merely opinion pieces. A blog post on such a site would appear to be "semi-official" and have a decent amount of truth within it (although whether this is actually the case is a completely different story), whereas forums can sometimes be full of trash talk. It's an image/appearance thing.
I'm not sure I'd consider TT THAT reputable. He has some good stuff up there at times, but he's been a real Troll in the past. I remember that on some of the opinion pieces he posted on the old site layout with the comments section, it was often more interesting to read the 'RAGE' output in the comments than the article!
This isn't the only article he's posted about BF in general and Romeo personally IIRC either.
That's what all the fuss is about? Meh... I've seen more confrontational threads here on dakka than that blog post.
I was also surprised. It wasn't nearly as inflamatory (imo anyway) as the super aggressive C&D made it out to be. In trying to put myself in Romeo's shoes, I guess I can see where he could get upset about the prize support issues (assuming BoK really does have it wrong - we have no way of really knowing), but even that seems like it could have been much more easily handled by a simple email/IM/blog post ...
EDIT:
In fairness it's possible Romeo DID try to handle it without lawyers. Again, we have no way of knowing.
I think it's more of because people are inclined to listen to a blog post on a reputable, well-known (within the community, that is) site such as BoK, as opposed to a forum post, despite the fact that both of them are merely opinion pieces. A blog post on such a site would appear to be "semi-official" and have a decent amount of truth within it (although whether this is actually the case is a completely different story), whereas forums can sometimes be full of trash talk. It's an image/appearance thing.
I'm not sure I'd consider TT THAT reputable. He has some good stuff up there at times, but he's been a real Troll in the past. I remember that on some of the opinion pieces he posted on the old site layout with the comments section, it was often more interesting to read the 'RAGE' output in the comments than the article!
This isn't the only article he's posted about BF in general and Romeo personally IIRC either.
Just opining...
I agree. But as I said, it's an image/appearance thing. If you don't know the history, you'd think otherwise.
Ouch after reading the filings I'm not sure what BF can really claim. It is pretty damning and it backs up most of the article. I thought the BF claims were weak to begin with but to be able to back up the claims just seems to leave them completely dead in the water.
Do BF actually have any realistic options from this position?
Best part of the filings so far: A TMP thread on p. 65 of Tucker's (Randazza's clerk) declaration.
bsrlee wrote:Maybe they look similar after several passes thru' Babbelfish or one of the other on-line translation services? The ones that change 'Throat-Warbler-Mangrove' into 'Luxury Yacht'.
Maybe this discussion will make it into the court records to show how ridiculous most people think this is?
After Listening to 40K Radio Ep60 again, I wonder if BattleFoam can porve in a court of law the guy who post defamority stickers of BattleFoam is indeed BoK, as they claimed in the podcast.
The BoK filings seems be to be solid with lots of well know guys in the 40k community backing BoK's claims.
wufai wrote: After Listening to 40K Radio Ep60 again, I wonder if BattleFoam can porve in a court of law the guy who post defamority stickers of BattleFoam is indeed BoK, as they claimed in the podcast.
The BoK filings seems be to be solid with lots of well know guys in the 40k community backing BoK's claims.
I wouldn't put it past Romeo to have done that himself.
At one time in this thread or the other, people questions why people are defending BoK. After reading the filings made public we can justify said defense of BoK. From what I've read I was right in the assumption of prize support/sponsorship being the main link for these folks.
After reading Brandts filing, I think that may have been the nail in the coffin. With Baer's filing being able to back it up, just does not help Romeo at all.
Question that may be a tad off topic: If the findings of this suit goes in favor of BoK/Hayden, do you think there will be repercussions nationwide at events to limit BF or not even offer vendor relations?
Streisand effect indeed. These affidavits are not pretty.
I can't help but think this is a major self-inflicted injury regardless of how the case goes, an enormous unforced error. Exactly the kind of publicity you don't want when a major chunk of your business is essentially at the whims of a fickle and litigious larger company.
Ouze wrote: Streisand effect indeed. These affidavits are not pretty.
I can't help but think this is a major self-inflicted injury regardless of how the case goes, an enormous unforced error. Exactly the kind of publicity you don't want when a major chunk of your business is essentially at the whims of a fickle and litigious larger company.
Wow. Just wow, some of those affidavits. A whole lot of other charges could potentially be brought to court against Romeo I think?
Automatically Appended Next Post: One thing to take note of in the affidavits is that multiple of them make claims to Romeo being a "public figure". Romeo has claimed that the blog post was tortious/slanderous; in US law, an exception is granted to public figures (i.e. celebrities or politicians, for example) where they cannot claim that a tortious/slanderous act was held towards them. By having multiple testimonies that Romeo is a public figure/well-knonw in the community, it is providing basis for him not being able to use the law of torts.
These filings are eye opening indeed. Two things I couldn't fault Romeo/Battlefoam's business sense for were quality products and ingratiating himself and his products with gaming web personalities like TOs/website owners/mods/bloggers by making sure they're very happy with their orders.
Did Romeo think the bait and switch was ok or yelling at somebody's mom was acceptable behavior especially when you are acting in a personal context?
Assuming the people's statements are true, then Romeo did these things. So, does that mean he thinks this is ok behavior? Since he repeats the same behavior, most likely these aren't isolated examples and are indicative of his SOP.
I assume Romeo's line of thinking was something like:
"If I send a C&D letter to TT, he will remove the post, which is what I want."
TT pushed back and has some evidence that the blog post is somewhat based on fact.
I'm not sure what Romeo best option is. Maybe he says something like: "I get passionate about my business and I've made some mistakes in the past. From this point on, I'll stop haggling with competitive players and organizers about prize support".
Did Romeo think the bait and switch was ok or yelling at somebody's mom was acceptable behavior especially when you are acting in a personal context?
Assuming the people's statements are true, then Romeo did these things. So, does that mean he thinks this is ok behavior? Since he repeats the same behavior, most likely these aren't isolated examples and are indicative of his SOP.
I assume Romeo's line of thinking was something like:
"If I send a C&D letter to TT, he will remove the post, which is what I want."
TT pushed back and has some evidence that the blog post is somewhat based on fact.
I'm not sure what Romeo best option is. Maybe he says something like: "I get passionate about my business and I've made some mistakes in the past. From this point on, I'll stop haggling with competitive players and organizers about prize support".
Yelling at someone in public, especially the event organizer, moreso if it was a woman, is simply not okay. It just goes to demonstrate immaturity and unprofessionalism. Before this case, I was going to buy Battlefoam, and then I decided to hold off on it because of the court case. After reading that one affidavit, I've decided that I will not support nor buy any products of a person who thinks it's okay to yell at or physically manhandle a woman publicly until she's in tears. That's just not cool. This is really Streisand effect; the affidavits were pretty damning and they paint him in a really bad light. At this point in time, I think Romeo's best option is to offer a public apology to the community, and personally apologize to those individuals he had tried to dupe/manipulate and offended.
Those affidavits are just brutal. Brilliant case of the Streissand effect. The original blog post might have been ignored by some people, or dismissed as BS, but with those sworn statements, I think the evidence is pretty damning. Manhandling an event organiser, berating her until she cries? Really mature, just like the several times he's apparently used the bait and switch tactic for prize support.
Enigwolf wrote: One thing to take note of in the affidavits is that multiple of them make claims to Romeo being a "public figure". Romeo has claimed that the blog post was tortious/slanderous; in US law, an exception is granted to public figures (i.e. celebrities or politicians, for example) where they cannot claim that a tortious/slanderous act was held towards them. By having multiple testimonies that Romeo is a public figure/well-knonw in the community, it is providing basis for him not being able to use the law of torts.
Good point. I wonder how the courts would view the case then.
Another thing I noticed was in the second e-mail to BoK, the lawyers claimed that the losses incurred due to the blog post were quantifiable, and at around $2,000 per day. How on earth could they have worked that out?
I have to say, it's really not looking good for Romeo.
I had wondered why events like the 11th Co. GT didn't have Battlefoam as a sponsor. Now I know.
At this point Romeo should retire from being the public face of Battlefoam. He built a solid business from the ground up, but unfortunately he has now also built a substantial amount of ill will mostly directed at him personally and not the product. He should hire a professional public relations type to be the face in the videos and deal with events. A public mea culpa should be the first step too.
-Shrike- wrote: Those affidavits are just brutal. Brilliant case of the Streissand effect. The original blog post might have been ignored by some people, or dismissed as BS, but with those sworn statements, I think the evidence is pretty damning. Manhandling an event organiser, berating her until she cries? Really mature, just like the several times he's apparently used the bait and switch tactic for prize support.
Streisand effect indeed, the NOVA incident is something I wish I'd know about prior to my last (which it literally will be) BF order from last year, I'd have gone with one of their competitors instead. That kind of behavior is simply intolerable in today's society, and for all the talk about handling things old school, he may want to research what the "Old school" solution to putting your hands on a woman is (merely an observation on the irony of previous statements). I can look past internet tough guy acts, and trying to be the Edison of foam, because the non-Romeo people from BF I've interacted with have been stand up people, with good customer service skills but that is just something that is so far past okay, that it makes me sick thinking I ever gave that person my business.
As to the testimonials about being a public figure, I think it was said early on by one of the lawyer types that the slander case would be hard to prove exactly because of the fact that Romeo is a very public figure within the community, and that those are legal statements to pertaining to that. You can categorize many well known members of the community (like those that submitted the affidavits) as public figures I'm sure.
1) Please explain why you believe GW's AUS pricing strategy is fair to the Australians?
2) Would you accept (from your foam customers) a promise to pay in cash, but after you shipped the trays / bags to them they change the deal and offer you coupons instead?
3) How about your customers show up and manhandle your employees and get them to cry, does that help the transaction?
I really wish that civility and "do on to others ..." would become en vogue again in society. I'm old enough to remember (and have made large deals) based on somebody's word and a handshake.
Romeo did a podcast segment (I don't remember which podcast it was on) where he talked about being honorable and not attacking somebody's business. Based on the affidavits, I guess that doesn't apply to his business deals and interactions.
Arschbombe wrote: He should hire a professional public relations type to be the face in the videos and deal with events. A public mea culpa should be the first step too.
After the Infinity forums RomeoRage incident, he did publicly apologize and then try to eliminate all evidence of the event occurring. As for the other incidents, it'd be tremendously disingenuous to only apologize for everything after being undeniably caught both legally and socially; note that up until now, his response has been to aggressively deny any allegations in a legal threat, 40k Radio accusations, and by releasing the sockpuppets.
As for public PR, that's what all these one-shot sockpuppets that keep crawling out of the woodwork are doing. Mention Romeo three times in a forum and someone will register a new account to tell you how much of an amazing guy he is. He stated on 40kRadio that he encourages all listeners to go register on forums and such and defend the Battlefoams.
Romeo sees himself as an old-fashioned businessman. He is the face of the business, and that's the way he built it. With his reaches into O-12 Broadcast, 40kRadio, and WWE, it's unlikely he has any plans to downplay his personal celebrity anytime soon. He's built up too much just to let it all fall.
Absolutionis wrote: Romeo sees himself as an old-fashioned businessman. He is the face of the business, and that's the way he built it. With his reaches into O-12 Broadcast, 40kRadio, and WWE, it's unlikely he has any plans to downplay his personal celebrity anytime soon. He's built up too much just to let it all fall.
I'd love to see Romeo in a wrestling ring - can we set Brock Lesnar on him?
Sekai wrote: Wow. Some of those details that are coming out are even worse than what Blood of Kittens wrote. It's crazy how this is turning out!
Aye, this is now a pretty major embarrasment to Romeo. It's doubtful whether if it'll affect his business on a selling-bags-to-individual-gamers level (we're pretty forgiving as a community, and the quality of BF products appears to be very good) but it'll probably hurt his chances of working together with a lot of event organizers in the future.
His prize vouchers have always rubbed me a bit anyway.
"Here is a $100 voucher, except its not really a voucher it's a 'buy one get one' kind of deal. So congrats on your win, but unless you give me $100 up front I am not giving you any kind of prize..."
So, is this going to end in a backroom deal so Romeo can save face?
I'm glad I have KR, but to be honest, Romeo has always seemed pretty cool when I talk to him at events, then again, bruce banner is probably pretty easy going most of the time,
I have one battlefoam case, for my landraider, it scratches it, no lie, he told everyone at adepticon in 2012 that "these are lies spread by my competitors."
About the only time he's rubbed me the wrong way. I am interested in his FFG x wing cases, so I hope he doesn't go out of business.
All in all, perhaps a short loss of of sales. But after all the gnashing of teeth about how other companies do worng to their customers, competitors, detractors, and colleagues, I doubt any damage is permanent.
gunslingerpro wrote: All in all, perhaps a short loss of of sales. But after all the gnashing of teeth about how other companies do worng to their customers, competitors, detractors, and colleagues, I doubt any damage is permanent.
Agreed, more damage will have been done to his "face" and PR bubble than his bottom line. If he'd step down or maintained radio silence for a while, it'd blow over all the faster, but he doesnt seem to have that kind of personality.
(assuming the court that eventually handles them allows them in, some is here say but I'm not sure how relevant that is in this case)
After all these Tournament/Convention issues is Battlefoam still welcome at events involving these TOs?
or is it a case of it being so important to get big name vendors (and prize support) that TOs are willing to give them a second chance as on the face of it this sort of behaviour would seem to rapidly reduce the number of events they'd be welcome at
This is the best advertising KR multicase, Sabol Designs, and Outrider Hobbies could ever buy!
Well after all the bait and switch done to several acquaintances, The Foam Wars, and now The Blog Wars...
I will NEVER buy anything from Battlefoam, shame too due to they do produce a quality product
Just finished listening to the 40K radio blog. and yet again 20 miniutes defending them selfs. and saying that all that has been said about threats and everything are all lies.
Plus they spent 10 miniutes in the beginning having a bit of a dig at DSR. by having someone pretend to be a girl on skype.
cerbrus2 wrote: Just finished listening to the 40K radio blog. and yet again 20 miniutes defending them selfs. and saying that all that has been said about threats and everything are all lies.
Plus they spent 10 miniutes in the beginning having a bit of a dig at DSR. by having someone pretend to be a girl on skype.
Of course Romeo is going to defend himself, anyone put in this situation, especially when lawyers get involved has to defend his innocence, etc... or else they kinda lose their case
cerbrus2 wrote: Just finished listening to the 40K radio blog. and yet again 20 miniutes defending them selfs. and saying that all that has been said about threats and everything are all lies.
Plus they spent 10 miniutes in the beginning having a bit of a dig at DSR. by having someone pretend to be a girl on skype.
Of course Romeo is going to defend himself, anyone put in this situation, especially when lawyers get involved has to defend his innocence, etc... or else they kinda lose their case
Most people would just shut the hell up about it. And I can't believe that his lawyer didn't tell him to do exactly that.
And the dig at what happened with DSR is just icing on the donkey-cave cake.
Horrible to say, but as a finance guy I never quite understand what the legal side of the house does. Frankly I am waiting for czakk, my new favorite Dakkadakka poster, to explain to me what liablity under SLAPP is and whether or not there are caps on it.
Marcus Scipio wrote: Horrible to say, but as a finance guy I never quite understand what the legal side of the house does. Frankly I am waiting for czakk, my new favorite Dakkadakka poster, to explain to me what liablity under SLAPP is and whether or not there are caps on it.
in any action subject to subdivision (b) [the motion to strike], a prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover his or her attorney’s fees and costs.
If the motion to strike the counterclaim is successful then under the antiSLAPP provisions Mr Hayden can recover his legal costs (fees and disbursements) from Mr. Filip. I'm not familiar with how California does things but usually a costs award doesn't cover all legal costs, typically it ranges from 40-60% of what you actually paid.
The pro bono aspect also presents a wrinkle - some jurisdictions don't let lawyers working pro bono recover fees, they can only recover disbursements (because the client hasn't incurred legal fees). [edit]it appears that California does allow fees to be awarded for pro bono work [/edit]
At the end of the day, it's just going to be a lot of wasted money and a damaged reputation. It's gone from some vague allegations posted on a blog with a stupid name to tournament organizers saying things under oath.
Automatically Appended Next Post: --------------
Oh, and Mr. Hayden is trying to have the suit Battle Foam et al filed in Arizona removed from the state court and put into the federal court system. Naming Ms Jane Doe appears to be an attempt to sue Mr. Hayden's wife.
Oh, and Mr. Hayden is trying to have the suit Battle Foam et al filed in Arizona removed from the state court and put into the federal court system. Naming Ms Jane Doe appears to be an attempt to sue Mr. Hayden's wife.
Mocking DSR for falling victim to a depressingly common form of fraud is generally pretty douchebaggy, but about on par what I expect from 40k Radio, or as I've taken to dubbing them, "the jackass channel". In fact, General Douchebaggy should be Romeo's new moniker. It works on multiple levels, see.
cerbrus2 wrote: Just finished listening to the 40K radio blog. and yet again 20 miniutes defending them selfs. and saying that all that has been said about threats and everything are all lies.
Plus they spent 10 miniutes in the beginning having a bit of a dig at DSR. by having someone pretend to be a girl on skype.
Of course Romeo is going to defend himself, anyone put in this situation, especially when lawyers get involved has to defend his innocence, etc... or else they kinda lose their case
That's what lawyers are for. It's bad form to mouth off about pending legal cases without their express consent, since nothing you're likely to say is going to make your lawyers' job any easier. Especially if you're a notorious hothead like Romeo.
So, reading through those documents, is the battlefoam party actually stating that the damage they incurred to sales is 75k-180k? In that time? I'd love to see what amounts of money they take in on a yearly bases.
but if you think of the sums mini based KS projects are bringing in, and that Battlefoam did seem to be the go-to case company for many of them (as well as sales to individuals) you might just belive it if you thought that companies hearing the allegations would no longer deal with them for future KS projects
of course the biggest mini KS campaign player CMON had stopped partnering with Battlefoam already after CMON said they didn't receive all the cases they'd ordered for Sedition Wars even when it' had been substantially delayed (giving more time than initially expected to supply said cases)
Im not sure how they would of come up with a sum of 2k losses per day, because of a blog post. I think Romeo is a total idiot. but there is nothing wrong with battle foam, and it is one of the best products out there. So I'm not going to cut my nose off to spite my face, just because i disagree with the practices performed by its owner.
I think that the guys at 40K radio are going to end up getting them self's in a lot of hassle. Constantly down putting people on there shows. Stating all sorts of reasons why none of what they have been accused of is true. Now this strikes me as strange as any lawyer no matter how bad they are, would of told Romeo and the rest of his 40k radio presenters to not mention anything with regards to the situation, as anything they say on a public downloadable Podcast will bite them in the backside in a courtroom. And it only takes some one to say something that doesn't match up and its game over.. Instead of this they have ended up threatening B.O.L.S by saying they will make phone calls and get company's like Mantic to stop advertising with them. The whole deal with the DSR guys was just a complete joke. It would not of been to bad if they where funny with it but they where just being idiots and giggling like little girls.
of course the biggest mini KS campaign player CMON had stopped partnering with Battlefoam already after CMON said they didn't receive all the cases they'd ordered for Sedition Wars even when it' had been substantially delayed (giving more time than initially expected to supply said cases)
Careful! That's the kind of reporting that got BOK sued.
Starweaver wrote:So, reading through those documents, is the battlefoam party actually stating that the damage they incurred to sales is 75k-180k? In that time? I'd love to see what amounts of money they take in on a yearly bases.
See, it's the semantics of the wordings that they used. They're likely referring to raw revenues (sales), as opposed to the profits (sales minus costs).
cerbrus2 wrote:Now this strikes me as strange as any lawyer no matter how bad they are, would of told Romeo and the rest of his 40k radio presenters to not mention anything with regards to the situation, as anything they say on a public downloadable Podcast will bite them in the backside in a courtroom. And it only takes some one to say something that doesn't match up and its game over.. Instead of this they have ended up threatening B.O.L.S by saying they will make phone calls and get company's like Mantic to stop advertising with them. The whole deal with the DSR guys was just a complete joke. It would not of been to bad if they where funny with it but they where just being idiots and giggling like little girls.
I'm wondering if his lawyer is even aware... I'm imagining the classic courtroom situation where the lawyer gets completely caught off-kilter by something his client did, and has the "OMG you fething idiot" face.
czakk wrote: Oh, and Mr. Hayden is trying to have the suit Battle Foam et al filed in Arizona removed from the state court and put into the federal court system. Naming Ms Jane Doe appears to be an attempt to sue Mr. Hayden's wife.
How is she relevant - did she appear somewhere I missed?
czakk wrote: Oh, and Mr. Hayden is trying to have the suit Battle Foam et al filed in Arizona removed from the state court and put into the federal court system. Naming Ms Jane Doe appears to be an attempt to sue Mr. Hayden's wife.
How is she relevant - did she appear somewhere I missed?
Well, this is my two cents understanding (from someone who has had very basic law education); I don't believe that BoK is an LLC, therefore (like the Resin Forge scare), if Battle Foam were to sue for damages, they could find Mr. Hayden and his wife's property (as they are a legally-bound partnership) to be liable for payment if they cannot produce the reparations. Having an Limited Liability Corporation (LLC), as its name describes, essentially "shields" your personal property from any lawsuits.
There as been a new post by Romeo, basically recalling his version of events with Brandt and JWolf/Bigred. The summary of the post is basically stating the affidavits gathered by Hayden do no more then dig a hole for himself and those they are done by. The meat of it came off more of the He said/ she said of highschool drama for the Nova event and Bols not pulling any TT article. As it is a private forum I wont post the full thread, but offer news that romeo has spoken to those drinking his kool-aid about this.
Now onto other matters at hand in this thread.
With what 40kradio does via the podcast comments, I feel if those are to become Evidence of certain actions, they need to stop doing them to look good. DSR got cat fished, but i wouldn't put it against themselves to have pulled it all on their own on purpose(story for another time). Making fun of that just adds fuel. Looking at Te'o Cat fishing, did major news networks make fun of it? No, they were professional about it.
as per damages, If Romeo does pull off a "win" i can see the judge awarding no damages or very minor amount. The TO's say Romeo doesn't truly pay for his vendor space thanks to promise of prize support, so there for he isnt losing money. I didn't follow the WWE kickstarter, I know it got funded, however if it was over funded by tens of thousands, can Romeo claim hayden's attempts to hinder that worked?
The WWE kickstarter made over $300,000 while it's goal of success was set at $20,000. That's well over 1,000% of their goal. Maybe a case can be made that the BoK article actually helped them be successful.
Physh wrote: There as been a new post by Romeo, basically recalling his version of events with Brandt and JWolf/Bigred. The summary of the post is basically stating the affidavits gathered by Hayden do no more then dig a hole for himself and those they are done by.
Once again, I'm amazed he's not been advised to keep his trap shut. "Those people are all liars!" is a terrible defense against half a dozen people prepared to testify to their version of events under the pain of perjury. It's like getting the last word in is more importantly to Romeo than anything else, including being sued.
carboncopy wrote: The WWE kickstarter made over $300,000 while it's goal of success was set at $20,000. That's well over 1,000% of their goal. Maybe a case can be made that the BoK article actually helped them be successful.
Not sure if serious...
Also, wasn't Wild West Exodus' Kickstarter over before all of this stuff?
carboncopy wrote: The WWE kickstarter made over $300,000 while it's goal of success was set at $20,000. That's well over 1,000% of their goal. Maybe a case can be made that the BoK article actually helped them be successful.
Not sure if serious...
Also, wasn't Wild West Exodus' Kickstarter over before all of this stuff?
No, it went live during the middle of it. I got Mod flack for mentioning the blog post in the thread. It was during that period when they were trying to deny that Romeo was apart of it, and that battlefoam didn't have a ton of sockpuppets on Dakka.
I have no memory of this breaking during the WWE KS though - weird!
There were several comments in the WWE comments section of the Kickstarter during the progress linking to the article and talking about it. It was dismissed easily by the more vocal backers as sensationalist garbage.
It's amusing that you think that the article went up after the Kickstarter. Most people didn't know about it until Romeo Romeoraged about it publicly and gained it notoriety.
carboncopy wrote: The WWE kickstarter made over $300,000 while it's goal of success was set at $20,000. That's well over 1,000% of their goal. Maybe a case can be made that the BoK article actually helped them be successful.
Not sure if serious...
Also, wasn't Wild West Exodus' Kickstarter over before all of this stuff?
Only partially. One of the claims of the C&D is that the article cost them kickstarter funding, but yet they made over 1000% of the funding goal they set.
carboncopy wrote: The WWE kickstarter made over $300,000 while it's goal of success was set at $20,000. That's well over 1,000% of their goal. Maybe a case can be made that the BoK article actually helped them be successful.
Not sure if serious...
Also, wasn't Wild West Exodus' Kickstarter over before all of this stuff?
Only partially. One of the claims of the C&D is that the article cost them kickstarter funding, but yet they made over 1000% of the funding goal they set.
How would they even calculate that? It's kinda telling that they would even make this claim.
Makes me wonder where's Romeos UK friend is, the one who likes to call him up to ask for his version of the story -_- But I guess his version is "they're all liars, lying liars, all of them"
Doing things like calling people part of a user-hits-obsessed conspiracy, saying tons of sworn affidavits are all lies, and calling a charity a tax shelter .... not exactly the brightest thing in the world by the BF side of things. No comprende.
MVBrandt wrote: Doing things like calling people part of a user-hits-obsessed conspiracy, saying tons of sworn affidavits are all lies, and calling a charity a tax shelter .... not exactly the brightest thing in the world by the BF side of things. No comprende.
Agreed.
I was shocked from what I read in your affidavit. As a consumer they may make excellent bags, but I'll be buying from elsewhere.
MVBrandt wrote: Doing things like calling people part of a user-hits-obsessed conspiracy, saying tons of sworn affidavits are all lies, and calling a charity a tax shelter .... not exactly the brightest thing in the world by the BF side of things. No comprende.
Agreed.
I was shocked from what I read in your affidavit. As a consumer they may make excellent bags, but I'll be buying from elsewhere.
It was shocking when it happened; it stemmed from a misunderstanding / miscommunication on t-shirts, which we talked about in the affidavit ... 40kR went all T-SHIRT MISUNDERSTANDING RAWR, and ... seems to have not realized the affidavit agreed with them, but pointed out the verbal/physical contact and badgering yada yada, that was done in front of dozens of gamers. *shrug*
I just don't understand the mental outlook of the guy behind the behavior. He could so easily gain SO much good will just by saying "my bad" in the beginning, instead of constantly escalating into more and more flak. It's not like we all sought out the opportunity to make legal statements, after all. Maybe I'm just spoiled mature by my own past mistakes ... saying "my bad" as a con organizer is pretty much par for the course each year over SOMETHING or other.
MVBrandt wrote: Doing things like calling people part of a user-hits-obsessed conspiracy, saying tons of sworn affidavits are all lies, and calling a charity a tax shelter .... not exactly the brightest thing in the world by the BF side of things. No comprende.
Agreed.
I was shocked from what I read in your affidavit. As a consumer they may make excellent bags, but I'll be buying from elsewhere.
Same. In my opinion Sabol remains the best balance between quality and price. It may not be super fancy with laser-cut foam and everything, but it gets the job done and lets you spend more of your money on models.
Sining wrote: Makes me wonder where's Romeos UK friend is, the one who likes to call him up to ask for his version of the story -_- But I guess his version is "they're all liars, lying liars, all of them"
Romeo, as of yesterday, is still insisting that these claims are "lies".
This is the last post on this topic for a number of reasons.
Reason 1 - Wild West Exodus has nothing to do with Battle Foam or Romeo when it comes to legal matters.
Reason 2 - Just because only one side of the story has officially been made public does not mean there is not a second part of the story that will be brought to light very soon.
Reason 3 - Letting one side dig themselves a giant hole by getting false statements from puppets of the BS blog is and has been part of the plan all along.
Reason 4 - All of the statements provided so far as fact are lies and will be proven in court in time. These so called industry names have a whole lot to lose because of these false statements. They are banking on us trowing in the towel because they are being represented for free while we pay money. Funny thing is that they will all be liable in the end.
Reason 5 - When the dust settles on this matter a whole lot of people will be exposed for being some of the biggest thieves in the business. The people you once trusted will be seen for what they are. Liars and thieves out to get your hard earned dollars at the expense of anyone stupid enough to believe them.
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.
That is the reason we are fighting so hard to unveil this web of lies. It may cost us thousands of dollars while he gets free legal work and donations. In the end the goal is to bring truth to an industry that is hidden by lies and manipulation of its customers.
As of now this topic will not be permitted on this forum. This is a dram free forum and I would ask that all mods lock these threads as soon as they are started. Going forward legal matters will be discussed in legal courtrooms. They will not be discussed on a gaming forum looking to grow a great game.
Thank you for understanding.
Bolded emphasis mine. It's relevant to Romeo's claim that the BoK article cost the Kickstarter "thousands of dollars in revenue".
If Battlefoam is successful in claiming that BOK caused 'damages' to their kickstarter, can I sue the National Weather Service and FEMA for the damages to mine in relation to Hurricane Sandy?
Sining wrote: Makes me wonder where's Romeos UK friend is, the one who likes to call him up to ask for his version of the story -_- But I guess his version is "they're all liars, lying liars, all of them"
Romeo, as of yesterday, is still insisting that these claims are "lies".
This is the last post on this topic for a number of reasons.
Reason 1 - Wild West Exodus has nothing to do with Battle Foam or Romeo when it comes to legal matters.
Reason 2 - Just because only one side of the story has officially been made public does not mean there is not a second part of the story that will be brought to light very soon.
Reason 3 - Letting one side dig themselves a giant hole by getting false statements from puppets of the BS blog is and has been part of the plan all along.
Reason 4 - All of the statements provided so far as fact are lies and will be proven in court in time. These so called industry names have a whole lot to lose because of these false statements. They are banking on us trowing in the towel because they are being represented for free while we pay money. Funny thing is that they will all be liable in the end.
Reason 5 - When the dust settles on this matter a whole lot of people will be exposed for being some of the biggest thieves in the business. The people you once trusted will be seen for what they are. Liars and thieves out to get your hard earned dollars at the expense of anyone stupid enough to believe them.
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.
That is the reason we are fighting so hard to unveil this web of lies. It may cost us thousands of dollars while he gets free legal work and donations. In the end the goal is to bring truth to an industry that is hidden by lies and manipulation of its customers.
As of now this topic will not be permitted on this forum. This is a dram free forum and I would ask that all mods lock these threads as soon as they are started. Going forward legal matters will be discussed in legal courtrooms. They will not be discussed on a gaming forum looking to grow a great game.
Thank you for understanding.
Bolded emphasis mine. It's relevant to Romeo's claim that the BoK article cost the Kickstarter "thousands of dollars in revenue".
Wait, is Romeo claiming in the same post both that he had nothing to do with WWX and that it cost his kickstarter (WWX) thousands? Isn't that a wee bit contradictory?
He claims that:
a) Romeo has no relation to WWE aside from being the owner.
b) BoK's claim that Romeo is directly involved with WWE has cost WWE thousands of dollars.
I just don't get the incredibly inflammatory stuff in that post by Romeo, is he that sure he'll win somehow, or has he just broken from reality? Because calling them all liars and what not is just as bad as what he says BOK was doing isn't it?
Sining wrote: Makes me wonder where's Romeos UK friend is, the one who likes to call him up to ask for his version of the story -_- But I guess his version is "they're all liars, lying liars, all of them"
Romeo, as of yesterday, is still insisting that these claims are "lies".
This is the last post on this topic for a number of reasons.
Reason 1 - Wild West Exodus has nothing to do with Battle Foam or Romeo when it comes to legal matters.
Reason 2 - Just because only one side of the story has officially been made public does not mean there is not a second part of the story that will be brought to light very soon.
Reason 3 - Letting one side dig themselves a giant hole by getting false statements from puppets of the BS blog is and has been part of the plan all along.
Reason 4 - All of the statements provided so far as fact are lies and will be proven in court in time. These so called industry names have a whole lot to lose because of these false statements. They are banking on us trowing in the towel because they are being represented for free while we pay money. Funny thing is that they will all be liable in the end.
Reason 5 - When the dust settles on this matter a whole lot of people will be exposed for being some of the biggest thieves in the business. The people you once trusted will be seen for what they are. Liars and thieves out to get your hard earned dollars at the expense of anyone stupid enough to believe them.
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.
That is the reason we are fighting so hard to unveil this web of lies. It may cost us thousands of dollars while he gets free legal work and donations. In the end the goal is to bring truth to an industry that is hidden by lies and manipulation of its customers.
As of now this topic will not be permitted on this forum. This is a dram free forum and I would ask that all mods lock these threads as soon as they are started. Going forward legal matters will be discussed in legal courtrooms. They will not be discussed on a gaming forum looking to grow a great game.
Thank you for understanding.
Bolded emphasis mine. It's relevant to Romeo's claim that the BoK article cost the Kickstarter "thousands of dollars in revenue".
It is worse over on 40kRadio's forums. Reason 5 is more or less what his "rant" is about. A lot of the members their support him because they have a hatred of BoLS, Dakka, BoK. I've long been on the fence of which side I enjoy better, public or private forums, and needless to say by what I post here in this thread I'd rather be part of the public. The community there is getting stale and its hard to find fresh stuff to talk about without it being repetitive. As to Reason 5, there is a claim that BoLS, specifically BigRed, makes money on a per view basis and is said that he steals it. Never knew google adsense was a crime. Its not like BoLS has a business to support its webpage, servers due to traffic, and forum.
Again with WWE making more then what was needed, I hardly find that a judge will be awarding damages for loss of income on 1) a game that hasn't come out yet and 2) a kickstarter, which is 100% funded via donation.
Side note here, Find it funny that WWE has a free forum and 40kradio does not.
Looks like this will be pretty entertaining. I can't wait to see what filings Romeo has because even if it comes down to he said she said, there's a LOT more people that corroborate the perception that Romeo's a bit of a jerk; to put it politely, than there probably are of Romeo saying 'this never happened the way it happened'.
I mean, who can they get to testify that what was said wasn't true? It seems like it'd only be Romeo himself; or someone who's working for battlefoam because I don't think a normal tournament attendee would cut it.
Also, in the end, it still doesn't seem to solve the issue of Romeo being a public figure; especially since the guy likes to go onto so many forums amd mouth off, which means that a certain amount of things can be said about him without constituting defamation or libel.
![[Disk]](/dakkaforum/templates/default/images/icon_disk.gif){kind=icon}
