@AmigaHeretic

Quote:

AmigaHeretic wrote: Proved that it's a burden to travel 3000 miles "from" New York for the lawsuits to be joinded, when they're infact standing right there in the state of Washington and not actually living or working in NewYork? Wouldn't that be a lie if someone lives and works in washington and says that it will be a burden to travel 3000 miles when infact they will only have to travel ~30 miles?

It would but none of the known employees/owners of Itec actually live or work in Washington and in fact we know Kouri at least does live in New York and given Johns email account, its likely he lives there as well we can probably assume he doesnt live in Washington as well. So noone is lying with there statement that they are in New York and a court case in washington about a contract (2001 contract) they didnt sign is inconvenient to have to litigate against in the extreme.
-Tig

_________________
We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world.

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @AmigaHeretic Quote: AmigaHeretic wrote: Proved that it's a burden to travel 3000 miles "from" New York for the lawsuits to be joinded, when they're infact standing right there in the state of Washington and not actually living or working in NewYork? Wouldn't that be a lie if someone lives and works in washington and says that it will be a burden to travel 3000 miles when infact they will only have to travel ~30 miles? It would but none of the known employees/owners of Itec actually live or work in Washington and in fact we know Kouri at least does live in New York and given Johns email account, its likely he lives there as well we can probably assume he doesnt live in Washington as well. So noone is lying with there statement that they are in New York and a court case in washington about a contract (2001 contract) they didnt sign is inconvenient to have to litigate against in the extreme. -Tig

But Tigger, how can they complain to the judge as "distance" being a reason to dismiss? Penti owns both companies. Started one lawsuit in Washington, then choose to start one lawsuit 3000 miles away.

If anything joining the cases ELIMINATES the 3000 mile burden it doesn't create one as they are suggesting.

_________________
A3000D (16mhz, 2MB Chip, 4MB Fast, SCSI (300+MB), SuperGen Genlock, Kick 3.1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back in my day, we didn't have water. We only had Oxygen & Hydrogen, & we'd just shove 'em together

@AmigaHeretic

Quote:

AmigaHeretic wrote: But Tigger, how can they complain to the judge as "distance" being a reason to dismiss? Penti owns both companies. Started one lawsuit in Washington, then choose to start one lawsuit 3000 miles away.

The 2001 contract says they lawsuit is to be carried out in the State of Washington, so the original lawsuit has to be there. Just because Pentti owns part (or even all) of both companies doesnt mean the lawyers points aren't completely correct. Itec isnt a washington company, Itec didnt sign the 2003 contract in Washington, and Itec isnt a party to the 2001 contract (something Hyperion themselves has claimed).

Quote:

If anything joining the cases ELIMINATES the 3000 mile burden it doesn't create one as they are suggesting.

No it doesnt. Not a single Itec employee lives in the state of Washington, how does it help them to have to be part of a trial that is 3000 miles away involving a contract they didnt sign and regarding trademarks they never owned?
-Tig

_________________
We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world.

@Tigger

Quote:

As the inventor of the Shell Game theory...

I seriously almost fell off my chair laughing with this one.

That sir, is a bold claim.

_________________
A3000D (16mhz, 2MB Chip, 4MB Fast, SCSI (300+MB), SuperGen Genlock, Kick 3.1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back in my day, we didn't have water. We only had Oxygen & Hydrogen, & we'd just shove 'em together

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @AmigaHeretic Quote: AmigaHeretic wrote: But Tigger, how can they complain to the judge as "distance" being a reason to dismiss? Penti owns both companies. Started one lawsuit in Washington, then choose to start one lawsuit 3000 miles away. The 2001 contract says they lawsuit is to be carried out in the State of Washington, so the original lawsuit has to be there. Just because Pentti owns part (or even all) of both companies doesnt mean the lawyers points aren't completely correct. Itec isnt a washington company, Itec didnt sign the 2003 contract in Washington, and Itec isnt a party to the 2001 contract (something Hyperion themselves has claimed). Quote: If anything joining the cases ELIMINATES the 3000 mile burden it doesn't create one as they are suggesting. No it doesnt. Not a single Itec employee lives in the state of Washington, how does it help them to have to be part of a trial that is 3000 miles away involving a contract they didnt sign and regarding trademarks they never owned? -Tig

Tig Itec doesn't HAVE any employees. The only people related or know anything that went on with ITEC are IN the Washington lawsuit... hence why I keep saying it's no burden since the Washington lawsuit is going to go for however long it takes anyway.

If you like I can provide ACTUAL links to all ITEC employees pay stubs that aren't Bill M. or Penti. Maybe that would provide clarification on ITEC employee status?

LINKS TO ALL ITEC EMPLOYEE PAYSTUBS (CURRENT & PAST that aren't Bill or Penti):







----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_________________
A3000D (16mhz, 2MB Chip, 4MB Fast, SCSI (300+MB), SuperGen Genlock, Kick 3.1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back in my day, we didn't have water. We only had Oxygen & Hydrogen, & we'd just shove 'em together

@Tigger

Quote:

As the inventor of the Shell Game theory

Hmm...I wonder how Seehund will take this news.

#6

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*

@Tigger

Quote:

Itec isnt a party to the 2001 contract

Only according to Itec's Lawyers interpretation of the 2003 contract.
This is a point of dispute, which has to be settled by the judge, until then it is not a fact.

_________________
Peter Swallow.
A1XEG3-800 [IBM 750FX PowerPC], running OS4.1FE, using ac97 onboard sound.

"There are 10 types of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't."

@number6

There are enough Seehund in this very thread, aren't there?

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @Dandy ... You dont have to have a court declare you insolvent, its just the easiest way to prove it. I'm not sure why you think it amazing that a contract can form a joint venture no matter what clause you are talking about.

I'm not thinking it's amazing that a contract can form a joint venture - I think it's amazing how you seem to think that a Joint venture can legally be formed in a subordinate clause of an entirely different contract about an entirely different matter.

Quote:

Tigger wrote: Quote: Dandy wrote: ... Eigther that, or if the contrary is prooven, I would expect the court sends him to jail for a while... If you read the testimony, it points to McEwen not knowing the definition of insolvency according to US law. ...

Ignorance is no excuse at court.


Quote:

Tigger wrote: Quote: I think a court would look at the situation to see if it was accurate, after he swore it under oath. And then the court eigther finds out that his statement was accurate, or it finds out that he was perjuring. If the latter, he has to be sent to jail (thats what would happen here in Germany). ... but you dont want to actually look at the AI situation (see below)

Why should I?
It does not matter in this correlation...

Quote:

Tigger wrote: you are just saying AI is insolvent because McEwen said it, not actually looking at the assets vs the debts,

No.
I'm not "just saying AI is insolvent because McEwen said it" - I'm saying AI is insolvent because McEwen swore it at court under oath.

And as I said above:
Ignorance is no excuse at court.

Quote:

Tigger wrote: ... Quote: Sorry, Tig - I wasn't talking about this crap... But thats what decides whether McEwen was accurate or not with his statement.

The judge will decide - lets just wait and see...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @Dandy Quote: Dandy wrote: WTF are you talking about? ... My comment is that only about 600 of those 1800 (maybe less) actually have qualified to get the $50 back. To get the money you have to have bought an AmigaOne with OS 4. ...

I have absolutely no idea which kind of coupons you are referring to - the conditions for the one I bought clearly were that I get a 50¤ rebate if I eigther buy an AmigaOne or OS4 or an AmigaOne bundled with OS4.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Tigger

Quote:

Tigger wrote: @Swoop ... First of all technically the rebates are for AmigaOne and OS 4.0, so there arent going to be anymore Amigaones, so the majority of the people are out of luck.

Luck?
Do you think this is a lottery?

And please stop spreading FUD:

Technically the rebates are for an AmigaOne or OS4 or an AmigaOne bundled with OS4.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@fairlanefastback

Quote:

fairlanefastback wrote: @AmigaHeretic They could come up with a system of different colored hats. So when each guy is talking for a particular entity at a particular time in the courtroom they have to change their hat as they change who they are speaking for at that exact moment. Then the same guy could even get in an argument with himself so long as he keeps changing his hat back and forth. And they could claim they just all have multiple personality disorder.

Yeah - but then there are those who are colour-blind...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@AmigaHeretic

Quote:

AmigaHeretic wrote: @Tigger Quote: As the inventor of the Shell Game theory... I seriously almost fell off my chair laughing with this one. That sir, is a bold claim.

Sorry its a true statement. I wrote the big article on Amiga.org in 2003 and the follow up in 2004, I also am the author of the timeline thats been cross posted on all the websites. I wrote about all the AI lawsuits when they were occurring not like the gentlemen now who had no interest in the cases then when the community possibly could have done some good but now want to bring them up as if they are either new or relevant to the current case.
-Tig

_________________
We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world.

@AmigaHeretic

Quote:

AmigaHeretic wrote: Tig Itec doesn't HAVE any employees.

Thats a bold (and inaccurate) statement. At very least we have John Grzymala who is the corporate secretary of Itec as we've seen before and as we've seen in document #73. And John is a person Hyperion is likely to want to question on the case since he's been involved since the before the Itec contract was signed.
-Tig

Last edited by Tigger on 12-Nov-2007 at 12:54 PM.

_________________
We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world.

@number6

Quote:

number6 wrote: @Tigger Quote: As the inventor of the Shell Game theory Hmm...I wonder how Seehund will take this news.

He's going to say I'm right, in fact his first comments about it point to my original news article on the subject.
-Tig

_________________
We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world.

@Dandy

Quote:

Dandy wrote: @Tigger Luck? Do you think this is a lottery? And please stop spreading FUD: Technically the rebates are for an AmigaOne or OS4 or an AmigaOne bundled with OS4.

Even if thats true, and I've had people tell me its not. There has been no seperate OS4 sold as of today, so my point still stands. There were 1800 coupons sold and so far only about 600 people have qualified to get those rebates (maybe less), giving the money for all 1800 isnt going to happen in a US court there is no precedent for it.
-Tig

_________________
We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world.

@Swoop

Quote:

Swoop wrote: @Tigger Quote: Itec isnt a party to the 2001 contract Only according to Itec's Lawyers interpretation of the 2003 contract. This is a point of dispute, which has to be settled by the judge, until then it is not a fact.

Actually thats Hyperions opinion as well, they say that Itec is not the successor of AI on the contract, that means they aren't a party of the contract. Pure and simple.
-Tig

_________________
We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world.

@Dandy

Quote:

Dandy wrote: @Tigger I'm not thinking it's amazing that a contract can form a joint venture - I think it's amazing how you seem to think that a Joint venture can legally be formed in a subordinate clause of an entirely different contract about an entirely different matter.

Did you read the article I posted about 2 party contracts? The contract is between two parties, the fact that involves 3 companies (or 5 companies or even 7 companies as one of those here in cabinet does) doesnt make it not a 2 party contract. If you are implying that Hyperion and Eyetech should have more formalized there relationship in another document, prior to signing this, I'd agree, but I think Hyperion should have punted this contract a month or so in when the source code didnt show up, AI should have punted it years ago when the OS didnt get done and I dont even want to get into what Alan should have done.

Quote:

Quote: If you read the testimony, it points to McEwen not knowing the definition of insolvency according to US law. Ignorance is no excuse at court.

To commit perjury you have to knowingly lie under oath in the US, since the lawyer led him to the answer and his later comments point to the company not being insolvent under Title 11, even Ben Hermans could get him out of this trouble (and in fact Ben claimed this very thing in Oct of 2003).

Quote:

The judge will decide - lets just wait and see...

Yes and the judge will use US law to decide that, so not looking at the actual laws that apply here doesnt help your case.
-Tig

_________________
We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world.

@Tigger

Just for the record, what are your predictions for:

1. Amino vs. Hyperion case

2. Itec's joinder in the Washington case

@COBRA

Quote:

COBRA wrote: @Tigger Just for the record, what are your predictions for: 1. Amino vs. Hyperion case

I think the case will (and should) be thrown out as forum shopping. Amino may however be joined in the original case which is what I think Hyperion should have tried in the first place, it makes much more sense then trying to join Itec. Who Hyperion has repeatedly claimed isnt the successor of AI(W).

Quote:

2. Itec's joinder in the Washington case

I think Itecs motion will be granted and frankly I think it should be granted. The big question is whether the judge will remove Itec from the case or throw it to New York, he probably should remove Itec but with all the drama going on, I wouldnt be that suprised if he moves it to New York.
-Tig

_________________
We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world.