Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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?

 Breotan wrote:

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).

Maybe they could do the case in New Hampshire?

or China.

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.

Something sounds fishy about your post... "Hey guys, trust me I spoke to Romeo, he says that he's not the bad guy in this."

Seriously? Much like we're anonymous voices on the internet, the same holds true for you.

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?

MickeyP2K wrote:


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.

Out of curiosity who is BOK?

 Spacewolfoddballz wrote:
Out of curiosity who is BOK?

It's the name of the blog run by Mr. Hayden, blood of kittens.

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.

Etc. etc.

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.

czakk wrote:

 Spacewolfoddballz wrote:
Out of curiosity who is BOK?

It's the name of the blog run by Mr. Hayden, blood of kittens.

Thank you

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