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.

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).

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/A/Affidavit.aspx

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalResources/CivilLitigation/LawArticle-1157/Cross-Examination-on-an-Affidavit-Chambers-On-Trial.aspx


http://www.duhaime.org/LegalResources/CivilLitigation/LawArticle-288/Affidavits-The-How-To-Guide.aspx

Please stay on topic.

carboncopy wrote:
Thanks for the info czakk, you rock.


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.

Re: Injunction, I hadn't noticed that.

The injunction is mentioned briefly here on dakka: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/256851.page (Page 1 and Page 2)
It also gets mentioned in the Outrider case: Exhibit A - page 4 http://www.livingdice.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/8-1.pdf

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:

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CivilCourtCases/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CV2013-007123


Edit that link seems not to be working.

Screen shot of the docket in Arizona.

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.

*(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ram_has_Touched_the_Wall#Historical_and_cultural_background)

I see thank you both for your answers.

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):

https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=221916133

Mickey, that just leads to a login/connection page for me. I'm assuming you need to be connected to him to see that?

I'm assuming this is him here:
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/nicholas-hayden/62/39b/831

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.

carboncopy wrote:
Mickey, that just leads to a login/connection page for me. I'm assuming you need to be connected to him to see that?

I'm assuming this is him here:
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/nicholas-hayden/62/39b/831

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).

Thank you Carboncopy much appreciated.

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.

Tycho wrote:

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.

Tycho wrote:

"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.

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?

Battle Foam has a statutory agent for service, it's Mr. Filip:

http://starpas.azcc.gov/scripts/cgiip.exe/WService=wsbroker1/names-detail.p?name-id=L15422060&type=L.L.C.

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.

Ah! Thanks! That makes sense.

Tycho wrote:

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.

weeble1000 wrote:

Tycho wrote:

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...