@Dandy

Quote:

@damocles Quote: damocles wrote: @Dandy Quote: So you are saying swearing an oath at any US court is worthless, as no other US court takes the oath serious? After Clinton lied in Federal court Was it a sworn oath?

Yuppers.

Quote:

Quote: damocles wrote: ...who is going to do what about a statement done in State Court that can be argued that may or may not have been correct terminology? Are we talking about a "statement" or about an "sworn oath" here?

AFAIR, it was all under oath.

Quote:

From what you write I take that there must be two different types of sworn oaths in the US: One that is valid only at State courts and one that's valid at Federal courts.

You have to understand about the US legal system, there are two venues, State and Federal. The laws cover only cover that specific venue. The fun is when there is overlap so there is the possibility that a person goes to two trials and have to server prison time in both state and federal facilities because they not only broke state laws, but also federal laws. State courts can only enforce state laws, federal courts can only enforce federal laws.


Quote:

Federal US courts don't accept an oath sworn at US State courts.

You have failed to understand that in the US, we have a two tier system each having their own laws. Each state is like a mini country with it's own laws and regulations. Federal regulations and laws over ride the state laws when it's covered under the powers to the US Government granted to them by the US Constitution. That is why state governors have so much power, they are a mini president in their own state since they are empowered by their states laws.

_________________
Dammy

@fairlanefastback

Quote:

@damocles Quote: You think WA State Attorney General's Office cares? It's all different venues (ie different laws for state and different laws for federal) so it's pretty meaningless. The application of the law is one matter, but the fact that you are swearing under oath to a court to tell the truth IS taken very seriously by any court. A different court may interpret what was said differently, they may have statutes with differing requirements at different levels of goverment yes to determine what applies and what does not. But if there is sworn testimony under oath from a previous court case, no matter the level or venue, if its considered pertinent it is going to be seriously considered to see if its applicable to the statutes and circumstances of the current case.

Never said it couldn't be entered into the case as evidence. I am saying perjury is very tough to prosecute and the US courts can't do it when it's committed under state venue. Hillary Clinton got away with it because the Special Prosecutor decided it was too difficult to charge her under the White Water investigations. US courts may not enforce state laws is my point. It's tough enough to get the US AG to prosecute violations federal laws as they are written from my personal experience.

Quote:

Quote: if AI loses, will be the appeals circuit so your looking at four years if they push it all the way up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of the United States of America would never agree to hear this case. It has no far reaching implications in law, it represents no grand social issue, it involves little money in the grand scheme of things. And do you really think Amiga Inc. would want the full spotlight of public scrutiny that a U.S. Supreme Court case would bring on them? I don't.

Reread what I said in the above, I said, "IF THEY PUSH IT" which they are entitle too. I agree it would be highly unlikely for the USSC would hear it, but AI-DE has the right to petition the USSC to hear it if they lose. I am pointing out the appeals process could tie this matter up for years, four would be pretty fast IMO.

I doubt AI is going to lose this case in the first place. That would be the best possible news since things will happen at that point in time. Hyperion wins (which I doubt), the process will continue with appeals going forth and no OEM is going to touch it in fear of getting called into this litigation.

_________________
Dammy

@AmigaBlitter

Gateway is now owned by Acer. It would be interesting to call corporate and see if they even realize they now own Amiga.

Plaz

@AmigaBlitter

what do you think amino didnt buy in 1999 from gateway that you could talk to them about now?

_________________

@Derfs

Quote:

Derfs wrote: @AmigaBlitter what do you think amino didnt buy in 1999 from gateway that you could talk to them about now?

I think what he meant was that IF the transfer of AInc(W)'s assets has not been legal and therefor is null and void, all the Amiga rights could have fallen back to Gateway, once AInc(W) was dissolved.

And Gateway might sell them to Hyperion now, if they were asked by them.

At least I think he meant it along these lines...

_________________
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)

@damocles

Quote:

Never said it couldn't be entered into the case as evidence. I am saying perjury is very tough to prosecute and the US courts can't do it when it's committed under state venue. Hillary Clinton got away with it because the Special Prosecutor decided it was too difficult to charge her under the White Water investigations. US courts may not enforce state laws is my point. It's tough enough to get the US AG to prosecute violations federal laws as they are written from my personal experience.

No one was talking about prosecuting McEwen for perjury. The point made was that what he said in a legal deposition for a previous case is in evidence in the current case and that the content of it will be properly considered given the cirucumstances of the current case (unless the judge decides differently).

No one is saying that US Federal courts are going to enforce state laws. They aren't, but they are going to likely consider sworn testimony from a previous state case if they think its pertinent to the current case at hand.

Quote:

Reread what I said in the above, I said, "IF THEY PUSH IT" which they are entitle too. I agree it would be highly unlikely for the USSC would hear it, but AI-DE has the right to petition the USSC to hear it if they lose. I am pointing out the appeals process could tie this matter up for years, four would be pretty fast IMO.

No need I read it right the first time. Why talk about the impossible though? Should we talk about what would happen to the state of Amiga "IF" aliens came down and kidnapped Bill McEwen and Pentti Kouri too?

_________________
Pegasos2 G3 running AOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.0
Amikit user, tinkering with Icaros VM (AROS)
EFIKA owner
Amiga 1200

@thread

There's one fact. Hyperion has nothing to hide. They're saying the original contract speaks for itself. A.inc/KMOS has a lot of to hide. Unfinished docs, unsigned docs, false dates... They are trying to hide/scam a lot.

Let A.inc W and Hyperion to develop two products at their own expense. Then take Hyperions product away from their hands with stupid contract. And take A.inc W's product driving them insolvent. And sell those two products to far east for example to make high profits without spending any money yourself into development. So how are you going to put KMOS into bankrupt if you gave them a lot of money. Find another Kent center to spend all money to them and you're insolvent. Because Kouri is a chairman in all of those A.inc shell game companies and he is also the first secured creditor of all those. He can put KMOS bankrupt and take everything from them as being the first secured creditor. Easy money. And those millions of KMOS money is not Kouri's money but money from his Polish buddy companies. Kouri wins. Everybody else loses. If anynody can remember exact dates, was it when A.inc/KMOS decided to give less money to Kent center quite same time when they realised this Hyperion court case is not going to be "slam dunk" to them. So it wasn't time to put KMOS insolvent but they needed more money for the lawyers.

_________________
Rock lobster bit me. My Workbench has always preferences. X1000 + AmigaOS4.1 FE
"Anyone can build a fast CPU. The trick is to build a fast system." -Seymour Cray

@Tomppeli

I would not be so quick to assume "everybody else loses".

Ryszard Krauze, his "Polish buddy" as you put it is on the Management Board of Amiga:

http://www.bioton.pl/en/about/article/show/99

and the Board of Directors of Hakia (another Pentti firm):

http://company.hakia.com/team.html

So now when you are at the time the head of Prokom and you decide to invest Prokom money in Hakia and in Amiga (back in 2005) and then you sign up with both of those firms. which you may have a very legitimate reason to do so, to protect Prokom's investment. At the same time it does beg the question of how much (if any) personal compensation you are getting as salary for your two new additional management positions. Its not improbable to think he might be getting a very nice compensation from each each year.

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 24-Jun-2008 at 04:33 PM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 24-Jun-2008 at 04:10 PM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 24-Jun-2008 at 04:07 PM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 24-Jun-2008 at 04:06 PM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 24-Jun-2008 at 04:05 PM.

_________________
Pegasos2 G3 running AOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.0
Amikit user, tinkering with Icaros VM (AROS)
EFIKA owner
Amiga 1200

@Dandy

Quote:

Dandy wrote: @Derfs Quote: Derfs wrote: @AmigaBlitter what do you think amino didnt buy in 1999 from gateway that you could talk to them about now? I think what he meant was that IF the transfer of AInc(W)'s assets has not been legal and therefor is null and void, all the Amiga rights could have fallen back to Gateway,

how, when they already sold them? i dont get my car back for any reason after i sell it, as it isnt mine any more.

Quote:

once AInc(W) was dissolved.

which they wernt, as hyperion are in a court case with amino as we speak.

Quote:

At least I think he meant it along these lines...

i would rather he answer it

_________________

@Derfs

Quote:

which they wernt, as hyperion are in a court case with amino as we speak.

The WA court case is Amiga Delaware (formerly KMOS) vs. Hyperion, not Amino (Formerly Amiga Washington - Formerly Amino) vs. Hyperion.

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 24-Jun-2008 at 04:13 PM.

_________________
Pegasos2 G3 running AOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.0
Amikit user, tinkering with Icaros VM (AROS)
EFIKA owner
Amiga 1200

@fairlanefastback

Quote:

fairlanefastback wrote: @Derfs Quote: which they wernt, as hyperion are in a court case with amino as we speak. The WA court case is Amiga Delaware (formerly KMOS) vs. Hyperion, not Amino (Formerly Amiga Washington - Formerly Amino) vs. Hyperion.

There is also a Hyperion vs. Amino case in Washington...

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: @fairlanefastback There is also a Hyperion vs. Amino case in Washington...

Ah..

This one I am guessing:

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-wawdce/case_no-2:2007cv01761/case_id-147356/

Any progress on this one?

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 24-Jun-2008 at 05:08 PM.

_________________
Pegasos2 G3 running AOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.0
Amikit user, tinkering with Icaros VM (AROS)
EFIKA owner
Amiga 1200

@fairlanefastback

Quote:

No one was talking about prosecuting McEwen for perjury.

No one actually said, but that was where Dandy was headed to in his replies.

Quote:

The point made was that what he said in a legal deposition for a previous case is in evidence in the current case and that the content of it will be properly considered given the cirucumstances of the current case (unless the judge decides differently).

Sure, and all McEwen has to say that he misspoke as he was confused on the legal definition. Perfect out and that defuses the situation.

Quote:

No one is saying that US Federal courts are going to enforce state laws. They aren't, but they are going to likely consider sworn testimony from a previous state case if they think its pertinent to the current case at hand.

I agree but I think some people are giving such things far too much weight in the matter.

Quote:

No need I read it right the first time. Why talk about the impossible though? Should we talk about what would happen to the state of Amiga "IF" aliens came down and kidnapped Bill McEwen and Pentti Kouri too?

Now your confusing possible with highly improbable. Is there legal recourse in the federal venue that will allow the SCOTUS to rule on a lower federal court's decision? Of course. Alien abductions real? Unproven and highly unlikely. That is of course if AI-DE loses, which I highly doubt. I doubt Ben will be able to find any US lawyer to front their highly expensive appeal process should Hyperion lose.

_________________
Dammy

@damocles

Quote:

Sure, and all McEwen has to say that he misspoke as he was confused on the legal definition. Perfect out and that defuses the situation.

Actually, if memory serves, Bill made a point in the deposition to say he didn't want to make a mistake on legal definitions and so the opposing lawyer took him through asking questions that he could answer about the finances from direct personal knowledge as an executive for the firm. So there is no issue whatsoever about what Bill, who everyone knows is not a lawyer, thinks about possibly related legal terms. What does matter is given the exchange of questions and answers in that deposition will the judge and/or jury in the current case, either from the judge being a judge or from the jury based on instruction of law by the judge feel that what Bill said equates to be insolvency. Also, juries don't tend to like slick willie businessmen (a perception that could be easily had if you read that deposition IMO), and if they even get a hint of this aspect of Amiga Washington's fiances during the case I think it will be a big issue for Amiga Delaware.

Quote:

Now your confusing possible with highly improbable. Is there legal recourse in the federal venue that will allow the SCOTUS to rule on a lower federal court's decision? Of course. Alien abductions real? Unproven and highly unlikely.

No the proper comparison is alien abductions are highly unlikely and Amiga wanting to be in the full spotlight national media attention in a U.S. Supreme Court case is highly unlikely and the U.S. Supreme Court bothering to hear such a case is nearly impossible. The thought that it would ever go to that level isn't even worth discussing because its more likely that a giant asteroid will smack into the Earth killing us all first. I can see them taking this to the United States court of appeals if they lose, but higher than that to the U.S. Supreme Court, no way.

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 24-Jun-2008 at 06:08 PM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 24-Jun-2008 at 06:06 PM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 24-Jun-2008 at 06:03 PM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 24-Jun-2008 at 05:57 PM.

_________________
Pegasos2 G3 running AOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.0
Amikit user, tinkering with Icaros VM (AROS)
EFIKA owner
Amiga 1200

@Derfs

Quote:

Derfs wrote: @Dandy Quote: Dandy wrote: @Derfs I think what he meant was that IF the transfer of AInc(W)'s assets has not been legal and therefor is null and void, all the Amiga rights could have fallen back to Gateway, how, when they already sold them? i dont get my car back for any reason after i sell it, as it isnt mine any more.

If you buy a stolen car (without knowing that it was stolen) you will have to give it back to the original owner without compensation, once he claims ownership and can come up with a proof for that.

You may of course sue the person who sold you the stolen car and try to get your money back this way - but there is no provision that the original owner has to compensate you in any way.

The same is valid for counterfeit money.

At least that's the legal situation here in Germany.

Quote:

Derfs wrote: Quote: once AInc(W) was dissolved. which they wernt, as hyperion are in a court case with amino as we speak. ...

Of course they were.
They have recently (a few months ago) been reinstated - go, read document #66 and then come back...

Quote:

document #66 states: Document #66; P 3/18; l 5-6: "10. Amiga Washington remained insolvent from April 24, 2003 through the date of its administrative dissolution by the state of Washington on September 30, 2004."

Last edited by Dandy on 25-Jun-2008 at 07:12 AM.

_________________
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)

@damocles

Quote:

damocles wrote: @fairlanefastback Quote: No one was talking about prosecuting McEwen for perjury. ... No one actually said, but that was where Dandy was headed to in his replies.

As it is normal here in Germany, that if it is discovered that a person committed perjury, this person gets prosecuted by the state attorney automatically.

In the case at hand I can see two possibilities:

1) Mc Ewen told the truth and AInc. was insolvent. In this case AInc could be in big troubles.
2) Ainc wasn't insolvent. In this case Mc Ewen had knowingly and of sound mind committed a perjury and should be sent to jail.


Quote:

damocles wrote: Quote: The point made was that what he said in a legal deposition for a previous case is in evidence in the current case and that the content of it will be properly considered given the cirucumstances of the current case (unless the judge decides differently). Sure, and all McEwen has to say that he misspoke as he was confused on the legal definition. Perfect out and that defuses the situation. ...

I don't know the situation in the US - but here you get informed by the judge about the legal consequences of committing perjury before you swear the oath.

And this is exactly to prevent people from making weak excuses...

_________________
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)

@Dandy

Quote:

If you buy a stolen car (without knowing that it was stolen) you will have to give it back to the original owner without compensation, once he claims ownership and can come up with a proof for that.

In Sweden the one who bought it owns the stolen goods if it was bought in 'good faith', and the sum the goods was bought with is not suspectingly low, even if you can prove that the goods is yours. I guess other countries can have similar laws.

@Plaz

Any volunteers? Someone that can do even a summary of the situation. I wonder if we find a braveheart to contact Acer.

_________________
retired

@Dandy

Quote:

Dandy wrote: @Derfs If you buy a stolen car (without knowing that it was stolen) you will have to give it back to the original owner without compensation, once he claims ownership and can come up with a proof for that.

so you are saying gateway sold stolen goods, or amino stole the goods from gateway? an interesting take on the lack of evidence to support this.

Quote:

Quote: which they wernt, as hyperion are in a court case with amino as we speak. Of course they were. They have recently (a few months ago) been reinstated - go, read document #66 and then come back...

so even though hyperion say this and have not proved it ( i think even in german law, as you keep quoting it, the burden of proof is on the prosecution) you are taking this as fact? how about you read 68 - paragraphs 10 and 11, and come back.

Last edited by Derfs on 25-Jun-2008 at 10:13 AM.

_________________

@AmigaBlitter

could you answer post #224 please?

Last edited by Derfs on 25-Jun-2008 at 10:12 AM.

_________________