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.

Seems to me that BoK doesn't really have to prove that the things it reported happened, per se, but that they weren't just libelously printing random slander. If they in good faith reported what was told to them, then surely some of the responsibility for any untruths goes to the sources, not the reporter?

Pretty much that.

The case is not "is Romeo a jerk".

The case is "I had good sources giving me this information and reported in good faith that Romeo is a jerk."

It doesn't matter if all the tournament organizers decided to lie and create a conspiracy against Romeo (even though that wouldn't be at all logical by the organizers). All that matters is that BoK had no reason to believe that they all made this stuff up and reported in good faith on information that he believed was true.

 d-usa wrote:
Pretty much that.

The case is not "is Romeo a jerk".

The case is "I had good sources giving me this information and reported in good faith that Romeo is a jerk."

It doesn't matter if all the tournament organizers decided to lie and create a conspiracy against Romeo (even though that wouldn't be at all logical by the organizers). All that matters is that BoK had no reason to believe that they all made this stuff up and reported in good faith on information that he believed was true.

Exactly, and that's why it's such a large uphill battle for Romeo.

But given the very strange rants on the Wild West Exodus forum and 40k Radio, it seems that he thinks there is some giant persecuting conspiracy of thieves working together against him and the entire gaming community and he's going to expose them all. I'm assuming that's why all of those John Doe's have been listed - possibly to sue them also? Or is there a more sane, legal reason behind that?

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
Seems to me that BoK doesn't really have to prove that the things it reported happened,

This is correct. They are protected by California's anti-SLAPP statutes.

Does this remind anyone else of the issues surrounding US news agencies and TV stations releasing confidential government information that was leaked to them?

 Alpharius wrote:
I never said, or really thought, that he was Romeo's...Sock Puppet.

I wasn't claiming you ever said that, Alph. I'm referring so something back on page 1 or 2 or 5. Sorry for any confusion.

It occurs to me that getting Romeo on the stand, with the right line of questioning from BoK's lawyer, could see him wig out and prove the case for BoK...

 Dysartes wrote:
It occurs to me that getting Romeo on the stand, with the right line of questioning from BoK's lawyer, could see him wig out and prove the case for BoK...

Given the comments made over the last few weeks, I can't see his lawyer wanting him anywhere near the stand or in any way able to be cross examined. I can't even imagine he would want him testifying in a deposition where the other side could question him on the record. But I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV, maybe his lawyer has been the one telling him to go out and say all those things, who knows.

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
Seems to me that BoK doesn't really have to prove that the things it reported happened, per se, but that they weren't just libelously printing random slander. If they in good faith reported what was told to them, then surely some of the responsibility for any untruths goes to the sources, not the reporter?

This is my understanding as well. Nick only needs to demonstrate that he had a good faith reason to believe what he posted was true. Even if the sources weren't truthful they would need to prove that Nick should have known they weren't true. What worries me is the 10 does named in BF's Arizona suit and what he intends to claim against them.

Of course I am not a lawyer, etc... Just pure speculation from the peanut gallery.

Could it be a way to make them take back their affidavits (are they allowed to do that?). You know, 'I'll sue you and force you to come to Arizona etc etc but if you back out and withdraw your support I'll drop you from the case'. Some sort of unspoken bargain rather than a threat? Or are they unable to withdraw their statements, and it's just a threat.

Wouldn't that be blackmail/illegal?

 motyak wrote:
Could it be a way to make them take back their affidavits (are they allowed to do that?). You know, 'I'll sue you and force you to come to Arizona etc etc but if you back out and withdraw your support I'll drop you from the case'. Some sort of unspoken bargain rather than a threat? Or are they unable to withdraw their statements, and it's just a threat.

I'm quite sure that a written affidavit cannot be taken back once submitted to the court. In any case, all the members testifying under perjury are doing so with the very real understanding that lying under perjury is considered a felony and is a jailable offense. I'm quite sure none of them are going to go out of their way to lie and risk their livelihoods for that...

Edit: Edit to fix edit bug...

 Enigwolf wrote:

 motyak wrote:
Could it be a way to make them take back their affidavits (are they allowed to do that?). You know, 'I'll sue you and force you to come to Arizona etc etc but if you back out and withdraw your support I'll drop you from the case'. Some sort of unspoken bargain rather than a threat? Or are they unable to withdraw their statements, and it's just a threat.

I'm quite sure that a written affidavit cannot be taken back once submitted to the court.

I do not think anyone is going to be taking back their affidavits. I also think there's not much of a road to go down. Most of us did not share these stories with Nick. We simply filed affidavits to what parts we knew to be true once they were requested.

Besides the whole perjury thing, I don't think that any of these organizers would screw with Romeo for the lulz or anything like that.

Calling out Romeo and Battlefoam in this manner and posting this dirty laundry out in the open does not do them any favors unless it is true. Battlefoam is a big draw for events as a vendor presence, and having Battlefoam on your list as a vendor/sponsor will draw people to your event.

If Romeo is right and all these people are just lying and willing to screw with a high name sponsor, why would any other company ever think about attending or sponsoring any of their events in the future? If Romeo is right these people are willing to not only face perjury charges, but are also willing to put the future of their events on the line just so they could mess with him.

I doubt that any of these events really make any money, so it's not like they are putting their livelihood on the line here. But the fact that these people would be throwing away everything they have done for the community and risk having every single sponsor walk away from their events in the future just so that they could screw with Romeo if they were making these things up.

I just don't see that happening.

That's cool, I wasn't trying to call anyone into question or anything, I just wasn't sure if that was a viable road in terms of legal process or not. Some kind of unspoken convention rather than law (apparently Aus law is full of conventions which aren't technically laws, I wasn't sure about other countries).

 derek wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
It occurs to me that getting Romeo on the stand, with the right line of questioning from BoK's lawyer, could see him wig out and prove the case for BoK...

Given the comments made over the last few weeks, I can't see his lawyer wanting him anywhere near the stand or in any way able to be cross examined. I can't even imagine he would want him testifying in a deposition where the other side could question him on the record. But I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV, maybe his lawyer has been the one telling him to go out and say all those things, who knows.

Well, unless I've missed some major developments (in a legal system which is, admittedly, quite different from the one I'm trained in, but still...) you certainly can be compelled to testify in civil proceedings, even when it's against your own interest. Your fifth amendment only flies in criminal cases (as it should be) so while you're right this bozo is a major headache to his own attorney anywhere near a witness stand, he won't actually have much of a choice, as long as BoK et al can show he can provide relevant testimony (as opposed to just making an ass of himself without doing so).

Interesting article re: the 5th. But it is 13 years old, so likely been some new case law.

http://apps.americanbar.org/buslaw/blt/blt00may-shield.html

A party is being deposed. Then, a familiar phrase is heard: "I’m taking the Fifth." "On counsel’s advice, I invoke my right under the Fifth Amendment not to answer, on the grounds I may incriminate myself."

Regardless of the formula used to assert it, or the formality of the terms actually used, a lawyer who hears these words while attempting to obtain necessary discovery in a commercial case is likely to feel that the witness is unfairly using this right to cut off a litigant’s need to discover evidence.

Battlefoam filed a counter-suit in Arizona against BoK.


http://www.livingdice.com/8243/battlefoam-versus-blood-of-kittens-update-battlefoam-counter-sues-in-arizona/


Vic

vicpylon wrote:
Battlefoam filed a counter-suit in Arizona against BoK.


http://www.livingdice.com/8243/battlefoam-versus-blood-of-kittens-update-battlefoam-counter-sues-in-arizona/


Vic

Yes, I uploaded the files in this thread a while back. Hayden is trying to move the case from state to federal court.


The recap archive is here: http://ia601800.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.azd.785018/gov.uscourts.azd.785018.docket.html

That's interesting, why does it have

Romeo Filip
Plaintiff
a married man

and

Nicolas Hayden
Defendant
husband

Seems odd that they'd be different when it means the same thing (I know it's quite OT since it has no relevance to the legal proceedings, I just found it funny)

 motyak wrote:
That's interesting, why does it have

Romeo Filip
Plaintiff
a married man

and

Nicolas Hayden
Defendant
husband

Seems odd that they'd be different when it means the same thing (I know it's quite OT since it has no relevance to the legal proceedings, I just found it funny)

I'm guessing it's because Nick's wife is also named in the suit.

 Specs wrote:

 motyak wrote:
That's interesting, why does it have

Romeo Filip
Plaintiff
a married man

and

Nicolas Hayden
Defendant
husband

Seems odd that they'd be different when it means the same thing (I know it's quite OT since it has no relevance to the legal proceedings, I just found it funny)

I'm guessing it's because Nick's wife is also named in the suit.

Correct. One Jane Doe Hayden was named in the proceedings.

Interesting, I wasn't aware that would change something that small. I love legal things, I appreciate the fiddlyness (it's a technical term)

Yep, Romeo's apparently not afraid of getting elderly mothers or wives involved -_-

Sining wrote:
Yep, Romeo's apparently not afraid of getting elderly mothers or wives involved -_-

Right, he knows exactly who's in charge of the household.

Thought it had to deal with the fact that Nick wasn't a separate entity from BoK, so Nick's wife could be drawn into any legal reparations that would be owed should he lose this suit.

 Alfndrate wrote:
Thought it had to deal with the fact that Nick wasn't a separate entity from BoK, so Nick's wife could be drawn into any legal reparations that would be owed should he lose this suit.

I know off topic but this lawsuit should once again help people understand that if you are running a blog and you have not spent the 50 bucks or so it takes to create a corporate shell then you should.

 Alfndrate wrote:
Thought it had to deal with the fact that Nick wasn't a separate entity from BoK, so Nick's wife could be drawn into any legal reparations that would be owed should he lose this suit.

Correct. Nick's wife and him are considered an "entity" that's liable for the damages, in layman's terms, similar to how a company would be one. Typically, one would establish an LLC, or Limited Liability Corporation, which shields your personal property by limiting the target of suits and the damages that they can claim to be whatever the LLC holds.

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Thought it had to deal with the fact that Nick wasn't a separate entity from BoK, so Nick's wife could be drawn into any legal reparations that would be owed should he lose this suit.

Correct. Nick's wife and him are considered an "entity" that's liable for the damages, in layman's terms, similar to how a company would be one. Typically, one would establish an LLC, or Limited Liability Corporation, which shields your personal property by limiting the target of suits and the damages that they can claim to be whatever the LLC holds.

This actually makes me wonder... Blood of Kittens (if it were an LLC) wouldn't have anything more than the small bit of Advertising money it could get (to keep the site up and running), the content of the website, and the url/domain name itself... I'm wondering if Romeo went after Nick in such a way because he knew that he could actually do things to hurt Nick and really hurt Nick (not physical violence).

Time to reign in the discussion, folks. If you're not discussing the contents of the court filings, you're likely off-topic.

And in particular, let's keep unprovable speculation on motives out of the thread.

Alfndrate wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Thought it had to deal with the fact that Nick wasn't a separate entity from BoK, so Nick's wife could be drawn into any legal reparations that would be owed should he lose this suit.

Correct. Nick's wife and him are considered an "entity" that's liable for the damages, in layman's terms, similar to how a company would be one. Typically, one would establish an LLC, or Limited Liability Corporation, which shields your personal property by limiting the target of suits and the damages that they can claim to be whatever the LLC holds.

This actually makes me wonder... Blood of Kittens (if it were an LLC) wouldn't have anything more than the small bit of Advertising money it could get (to keep the site up and running), the content of the website, and the url/domain name itself... I'm wondering if Romeo went after Nick in such a way because he knew that he could actually do things to hurt Nick and really hurt Nick (not physical violence).

Typically when a filing is made in this manner, it's used for the filing party to claim as much in damages as they can (including compensation for legal and travel fees, if the court deems it such). Having an LLC basically stops them from claiming even enough damages to recompensate their legal fees, I believe. I don't know if Romeo had this intention or not (and as Janthkin has requested, it should not be discussed), but it is a certain possibility.

Janthkin wrote:Time to reign in the discussion, folks. If you're not discussing the contents of the court filings, you're likely off-topic.

And in particular, let's keep unprovable speculation on motives out of the thread.

Janth, would it be on-topic to be discussing and clarifying the finer nuances legal terms and tactics as such being utilized in the case for those unfamiliar with legal matters?