SDS Court case

[atacpdx]

<div class='quotetop'>(exoray @ Sep 26 2006, 04:57 PM) [snapback]1326731[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>

Can ANYONE show proof that TE was the "expert" referred to (no name was stated in the court papers)? Or, is this just mindless speculation because he used the word "Expert" in his screen name and has also stated that he is a consultant for LFL?[/b]

TE did give a written testimony supporting the motion for judgement...

But, as I have clearly stated the case was all wrapped up at that point, AA skipped town, all that was left was to plug in the dollar amount and that was done based soley on the original complaint filed by LFL and an estimate of continuing violations...
[/b][/quote]


THANK YOU Flynn for answering me... I never saw that document, but I would agree with your characterization.

 

[SithLord]

<div class='quotetop'>(atacpdx @ Sep 26 2006, 11:49 AM) [snapback]1326680[/snapback]</div>

Do we have proof Matt is "selling out" AA? Also, some things to consider.....

You and others keep posting as if it is fact he is a part of AA's woes yet I still have seen ZERO proof offered here...WHY?

Bottom line, even if SATAN himself is aiding LFL, AA has no one to blame but himself for his current woes. All the conjecture, mudslinging, invoking of hobby demons (you know the names) etc. won't change that fact. I suspect that whether it is TE, JEZ or a few others, if we looked close, we'd find some rather unique and somewhat unsavory connections to AA or this case in one way or another. This thread was about the legal case. If you guys want to blow hot air without proof, start a "My friend has shady connections to the AA case he doesn't want known so I'm misdirecting and obfuscating while the AA haters rally and stick pins in AA dolls" thread....

okay?.? :angel
[/b]

Matt was trying to cut deals with AA. Now he's assisting LFL in a case against AA. What proof do you want, exactly? Make a list.

If you want to find more unsavory connections to AA, please go ahead and look for them and report your findings here. But for now, this is about AA and TE.

 

[Tyler Durden]

<div class='quotetop'>(Darkknight0667 @ Sep 26 2006, 12:51 PM) [snapback]1326725[/snapback]</div>

Can ANYONE show proof that TE was the "expert" referred to (no name was stated in the court papers)? Or, is this just mindless speculation because he used the word "Expert" in his screen name and has also stated that he is a consultant for LFL?
[/b]

Ditto that. Emphasis on the "proof" part.

 

[exoray]

<div class='quotetop'>(atacpdx @ Sep 26 2006, 11:59 AM) [snapback]1326735[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>(exoray @ Sep 26 2006, 04:57 PM) [snapback]1326731[/snapback]

<div class='quotetop'>

Can ANYONE show proof that TE was the "expert" referred to (no name was stated in the court papers)? Or, is this just mindless speculation because he used the word "Expert" in his screen name and has also stated that he is a consultant for LFL?[/b]

TE did give a written testimony supporting the motion for judgement...

But, as I have clearly stated the case was all wrapped up at that point, AA skipped town, all that was left was to plug in the dollar amount and that was done based soley on the original complaint filed by LFL and an estimate of continuing violations...
[/b][/quote]


THANK YOU Flynn for answering me... I never saw that document, but I would agree with your characterization.
[/b][/quote]

I should have all the documents in a day or so and they will be posted for all to read...

 

[SithLord]

<div class='quotetop'>(atacpdx @ Sep 26 2006, 12:43 PM) [snapback]1326711[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>(SithLord @ Sep 26 2006, 04:14 PM) [snapback]1326693[/snapback]

Gytheran, you fail to realize that if AA acknowledged the C&D, then legally he would be acknowledging the rights of LFL and there would be no point in persuing action against LFL for the rights. :confused
[/b]

Ummmmm hello....logic? Did logic just leave the 'verse? Hello?????? Cue Twilight zone theme.....

Sithlord by what twisted, impossible to follow, zapped on crack logic do you reach that statement?

AA has not "pursued" his supposed rights to the trooper stuff at any point in this drama.

To pursue something implies you are the one doing the chasing...not the one being chased.

When last I checked, the one being chased was doing the fleeing. :thumbsup

Seriously, had AA "pursued" his perceived rights, he'd be the one suing LFL. In fact during his opportunity to stand his ground and "pursue" his right to produce, he no showed. Your statement above is a twist/re-write of history of comical proportions. It is like a kid who failed to show behind the school gym for a fight later saying "I sure showed that bully. I pursued him relentlessly and kicked his backside." At best AA's legal maneuvers thus far could be called dodging or delaying. Hardly pursuing though. And before you throw the same tired "you just hate AA" crap at me, remember, I neither like nore dislike AA or his "camp" but rather have a professional interest/curiousity/enjoyment in analyzing the legal case itself.

By the way, Sithlord, Jez, LA or whoever, still waiting for the links / proof connecting TE to this drama in any way shape or form....Are those crickets I hear?
[/b][/quote]


Perhaps you and Gytheran should first read the quote by Gytheran that I was responding to: :rolleyes


<div class='quotetop'></div>

(Gytheran @ Sep 26 2006, 09:37 AM) *

Had it been me, I would have halted sales immediately following the C&D. THEN, I would look into securing the rights over the material, if I truly felt I had ownership. Somehow this makes more sense than causing the mess he has put himself in.

[/b]

<div class='quotetop'>(Gytheran @ Sep 26 2006, 12:50 PM) [snapback]1326724[/snapback]</div>

[
:lol

If TE is assisting LFL, I would wager TE is not in a "very difficult position". :lol
[/b]

:lol Right....although I meant "conflict of interest"

 

[Lord Abaddon]

He has openly told respected members of the RPF that he is indeed working with, and for, LFL on the case. If they want they can post here otherwise those that have said so (and I did originally say "if true") I trust enough to know they are telling the truth.

And no matter how you swing it, whether AA is shot down or not, the fact is that TE has "turned against his own" in his actions. Like I said...who's next?

 

[atacpdx]

Sithlord you can post in that arrogant tone till the cows come home or you could have done what Flynn did so easily and answered my question :rolleyes

As for what this thread is about, I am an adult, of above average intelligence and am well aware of what this thread is about. Are you?

Exoray is correct in his analysis of TE's apparent contribution to the case. His letter given during the judgement phase is really inconsequential to whether or not AA lost that case. It appears he gave testimony based on what Flynn has now said. Hardly a crucifying offense. Unlicensed bootleggers often give assistance of 1 type or another to LFL or license holders. That is nothing new. It is also nothing new for license holders and LFL to turn a blind eye on some bootleggers and not others. Bottom line is LFL put forth a strong, multi-pronged arguement that covered many bases, using many assests including apparently TE, so as to give themselves maximum chance of victory. That is, (like most things LFL / Lucas does) smart. Sucks for AA but he chose to ignore the C&D and he chose to default and give LFL the easy win. Ultimately this case and this thread is about 1 thing and 1 thing only. Andrew Ainsworth and his judgement or lack thereof.

 

[Gytheran]

<div class='quotetop'>(Lord Abaddon @ Sep 26 2006, 12:11 PM) [snapback]1326748[/snapback]</div>

And no matter how you swing it, whether AA is shot down or not, the fact is that TE has "turned against his own" in his actions. Like I said...who's next?
[/b]

Melodramatic nonesense... Who in this hobby ranks anywhere close to as big a target as AA? TE wasn't even close to AA in terms of exposure.

The man(AA) painted a big red bullseye on his ass and expected LFL to look the other way... :rolleyes

SL, you still have yet to explain how this:
<div class='quotetop'></div>

if AA acknowledged the C&D, then legally he would be acknowledging the rights of LFL and there would be no point in persuing action against LFL for the rights.[/b]

...makes any sense whatsoever...

Care to clue us in to what you are thinking?

 

[exoray]

<div class='quotetop'></div>

TE has "turned against his own" in his actions. Like I said...who's next?[/b]

Again I ask what about the other RPF/501st members who helped LFL?

I have seen MANY people on this forum turn against TE and other members prior to this, so I guess by your standards they "turned against his (thier) own" as well?

Kind of ironic in that the lawyer that sucessfully defended another armor maker (and other others) was turned against by this same community isn't it? Damned if you do damned if you don't.

 

[Art Andrews]

While AA certainly wasn't "one of us," TE's sour grapes are pretty evident in this situation. Using his so called "expertise" to do his best to crucify the man who snubbed him is not only hypocritical but also childish. The fact of the matter is, it was TE who got AA interested in the helmets by filling his head full of dollar signs and then when AA chose not to work with him, TE has done nothing but try to bring AA down. The bitterness and pettiness of such an underhanded act is simply sad, and only further solidifies TE's fetid character. It is interesting to see so many defending TE in this matter when I truly believe if it was anyone else they would have been drawn and quartered.

 

[Lord Abaddon]

<div class='quotetop'>(exoray @ Sep 26 2006, 12:39 PM) [snapback]1326764[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>

TE has "turned against his own" in his actions. Like I said...who's next?[/b]

Again I ask what about the other RPF/501st members who helped LFL?

I have seen MANY people on this forum turn against TE and other members prior to this, so I guess by your standards they "turned against his (thier) own" as well?

Kind of ironic in that the lawyer that sucessfully defended another armor maker (and other others) was turned against by this same community isn't it? Damned if you do damned if you don't.
[/b][/quote]


I'm not talking about petty one-on-one squabbles or instances of egotism prevailing in an argument. And bringing up the "Voldemort Defense" doesn't apply here at all.

I'm talking about someone deliberately, for their own financial and personal gain, going to a license holder and putting forth evidence against someone who has done exactly the same as they have done for years and yet having not only less of an honest leg to stand on, but one that can emesh others in the communities he comes from. Also that will directly affect "real world" actions (remember, that's supposed to be a no-no area).

Also for Gytheran's comment:

<div class='quotetop'></div>

Melodramatic nonesense... Who in this hobby ranks anywhere close to as big a target as AA? TE wasn't even close to AA in terms of exposure.[/b]

I don't disagree, not at all. AA did put a bull's eye on himself and also waved a red cape when the bull charged. Whatever happens in that case happens. However as for "targets" that depends on what LFL decides is a target. Again, what's to say that they won't turn to TE and go "So, wanna keep your deal? Then who would you say is the next person who's putting all those things on eBay?" Maybe TE didn't think things like that would happen...but they definitely could and his cooperation sets precedent.

<div class='quotetop'>(Brak's Buddy @ Sep 26 2006, 01:05 PM) [snapback]1326780[/snapback]</div>

While AA certainly wasn't "one of us," TE's sour grapes are pretty evident in this situation. Using his so called "expertise" to do his best to crucify the man who snubbed him is not only hypocritical but also childish. The fact of the matter is, it was TE who got AA interested in the helmets by filling his head full of dollar signs and then when AA chose not to work with him, TE has done nothing but try to bring AA down. The bitterness and pettiness of such an underhanded act is simply sad, and only further solidifies TE's fetid character. It is interesting to see so many defending TE in this matter when I truly believe if it was anyone else they would have been drawn and quartered.
[/b]

Perfect comment and completely true.

 

[SithLord]

<div class='quotetop'>(Gytheran @ Sep 26 2006, 01:32 PM) [snapback]1326758[/snapback]</div>

SL, you still have yet to explain how this:
<div class='quotetop'>

if AA acknowledged the C&D, then legally he would be acknowledging the rights of LFL and there would be no point in persuing action against LFL for the rights.[/b]

...makes any sense whatsoever...

Care to clue us in to what you are thinking?
[/b][/quote]


Sure, let's say LFL sees AA's website and sends him a C&D. He can acknowledge it by closing down the website or he can continue to sell product. If he continues to sell product, he's sending a message that he does not recognize the C&D, implicit in that is that he has the right to sell that product. If he ceases to sell the product, which is implicit in him closing the website, then he has acknowledged the C&D. By acknowledging the C&D, he sets a precedent, namely that he acknowledges the rights of LFL to the product he wants to sell. Now...fast foward to the time when LFL sends out the complaint. Let's say that AA pulled his website because of the C&D but then restarts it later on. If he did that, LFL could include that in the complaint and that would work against AA. Why would AA acknowledge the C&D if he thought he had rights to the product? You can't have it both ways.
So I was just replying to Gytheran's hypothetical situation...namely what if AA responded to the C&D and then himself "pursued" :lol LFL?

I hope that makes sense....it's a bit like the idea of addressing jurisdiction or not, or addressing the claims or not. By not addressing something, you send a specific message in a legal context.

 

[exoray]

<div class='quotetop'>(SithLord @ Sep 26 2006, 11:32 AM) [snapback]1326705[/snapback]</div>

Because of this legal action, they might be destroyed. That's the real sad thing here if it comes to that. And there is also a deep irony there as well. We will never know the real answers.....and excuse my french but that sucks.
[/b]

Well that is all in AA's hands now, maybe you should tell him to turn over them "original" molds ASAP so that they don't get destroyed out haste... If you honestly believe them to be orignal, I'm sure once in LFL hands if they are the real deal they will find a home in the archives...

From the Judgement...

<div class='quotetop'></div>

Defendants' failure to respond and defend constitutes an admission that these statements are true.[/b]

<div class='quotetop'></div>

"After a default has been entered by the court clerk, the well-pleaded factual allegations of the complaint are taken as true..."[/b]

<div class='quotetop'></div>

As a result of Defendants' decision not to appear and defend, these allegations are also deemed true.[/b]

<div class='quotetop'></div>

A defendant's failure to respond to a complaint indicates that "the likelihood that any genuine issue may exist is, at best, remote"[/b]

<div class='quotetop'></div>

Defendants ignored the opportunity to present a defense, choosing to disobey this Court's Summonses.[/b]

<div class='quotetop'></div>

Further, Defendants, by choosing to default rather then appear and defend, are "deemed to have admitted the truth of Plaintiff's averments,"[/b]

This is why AA lost in the Judge's own words, this whole spin that TE did this and this is based on nothing but, well NOTHING.

There is nothing but speculation on TE's involvment at this time, nothing... And after reading over the Judgement it's pretty damn clear the Judge didn't give one care in what TE or any of the other testimonies said except for the finacial lose in licensing rights...

AA lost because he admited to the courts (by his default) that every single claim by LFL was indeed FACT and he had no defense... Since he was represented in the US by a legit law firm and rumours that he was consulting with top legal firm(s) abroad, he would have known full well what default would lead to...

 

[SithLord]

<div class='quotetop'>(exoray @ Sep 26 2006, 02:36 PM) [snapback]1326800[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>

Defendants' failure to respond and defend constitutes an admission that these statements are true.[/b]

<div class='quotetop'></div>

"After a default has been entered by the court clerk, the well-pleaded factual allegations of the complaint are taken as true..."[/b]

<div class='quotetop'></div>

As a result of Defendants' decision not to appear and defend, these allegations are also deemed true.[/b]

This is why AA lost in the Judge's own words, this whole spin that TE did this and this is based on nothing but, well NOTHING.

There is nothing but speculation on TE's involvment at this time, nothing... And after reading over the Judgement it's pretty damn clear the Judge didn't give one care in what TE or any of the other testimonies said except for the finacial lose in licensing rights...

AA lost because he admited to the courts (by his default) that every single claim by LFL was indeed FACT and he had no defense... Since he was represented in the US by a legit law firm and rumours that he was consulting with top legal firm(s) abroad, he would have known full well what default would lead to...
[/b][/quote]


Just because the legal system interprets it to be true, doesn't make it true. You know that, Exoray, as well as anyone here. "Taken as being true"....is not the same as "factually true".

No one is saying (at least I think no one is saying) that TE is responsible for the action LFL took against AA. But if TE has assisted LFL in attempting to establish that AA does not have the original molds nor was responsible for creating the original designs....it therefore remains to be determined if TE took that initiative to discredit AA's contribution to the production, or whether LFL asked TE to assist them on that initiative. From my own personal point of view, if LFL has to rely on TE, then they really have nothing themselves to go on. LFL simply wants to secure rights to the imperial helmets that AA created and this is their only recourse.

Where was the front of the TIE fighter pilot helmet in McQuarries designs? Where was the Death Star Gunner helmet? How can McQuarrie's designs be translated into something that can actually be fabricated and worn?
McQuarrie himself said that the stormtrooper onscreen was a characature of his design...ie: not his design. LFL has turned a blind eye to the contribution of AA...those contributions make the Imperial Empire what we see it as today.









<div class='quotetop'>(exoray @ Sep 26 2006, 02:36 PM) [snapback]1326800[/snapback]</div>

AA lost because he admited to the courts (by his default) that every single claim by LFL was indeed FACT and he had no defense...
[/b]

AA and his lawyers smartly decided to let it go into default because they lost the jurisdiction argument...unfairly.
Their only recourse would be to take it to the UK...which is where it is going now....it's not over yet .

A claim is not fact, especially by virtue of the case going into default when the other side was not presented...but it's convenient for you and others here to say "because he did not present it, it doesn't exist".

 

[Star Wars Helmets]

<div class='quotetop'>(exoray @ Sep 26 2006, 04:57 PM) [snapback]1326731[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>

Can ANYONE show proof that TE was the "expert" referred to (no name was stated in the court papers)? Or, is this just mindless speculation because he used the word "Expert" in his screen name and has also stated that he is a consultant for LFL?[/b]

TE did give a written testimony supporting the motion for judgement...

But, as I have clearly stated the case was all wrapped up at that point, AA skipped town, all that was left was to plug in the dollar amount and that was done based soley on the original complaint filed by LFL and an estimate of continuing violations...
[/b][/quote]

Excellent spin there exoray.

So basically we're agreeing that TE did stick the knife into AA. But you're saying the damage was already done, so its okay.

But he still stuck it in.

Cheers

Jez

 

[exoray]

<div class='quotetop'>(SithLord @ Sep 26 2006, 01:58 PM) [snapback]1326809[/snapback]</div>

But if TE has assisted LFL in attempting to establish that AA does not have the original molds nor was responsible for creating the original designs....[/b]

Anything to back that up? LFL didn't have to astablish anything, AA handed it to them on a silver tray, case closed...

<div class='quotetop'></div>

it therefore remains to be determined if TE took that initiative to discredit AA's contribution to the production, or whether LFL asked TE to assist them on that initiative.[/b]

From a legal stand point TE's "opinion" would have little bearing on these claims he wasn't there in '76 and '77, it would only be "hearsay" and wouldn't hold much water if stated...

<div class='quotetop'></div>

From my own personal point of view, if LFL has to rely on TE, then they really have nothing themselves to go on.[/b]

Wrong, they didn't rely on TE, he gave a testimony based on his "opinons" and first hand knowledge after the case went to judgement, it was over already, what part of that don't you understand?

The extent of his involvment is VERY minimal at best {{{ Start Speculation}}} more then likely limited to being a third party used for comparison of the SDS helmet to the real deals, and possibly the differences in the two... This is only a guess but he could also testify to what he saw in the archive in regards to possibly molds? {{{ End Speculation }}} Since the case NEVER went to the Discovery stage evidence beyond written testimony was and will never be submitted, thus the need for a third parties testimony if you want to "sneak" in some evidence you could have provided if it did go that far...

He has no first hand knowledge of what went down in '76 and '77 so anything he said in these regards would be voided by the courts as "hearsay" But, he might very well have first hand knowledge of discrepancies in regards to AA's testimony and claims since he has had one on one contact...

And you can jump up and down all day and scream foul, but from a real non-objective point of view HE IS one of the few people around that is anal and has the knowledge to spot the minute differences between helmets, inside and out and has inside knowledge of the real deals that very few do, due to his owing and handling multiple real deals... Like it or not he is one of a few people that the court would deem a real "expert" witnesses in regards to the helmets, since he has a history to back his knowledge...

<div class='quotetop'></div>

LFL simply wants to secure rights to the imperial helmets that AA created and this is their only recourse.[/b]

What? Please...

<div class='quotetop'></div>

Just because the legal system interprets it to be true, doesn't make it true. You know that, Exoray, as well as anyone here. "Taken as being true"....is not the same as "factually true".[/b]

Sure I do but this topic is about the SDS legal trial and in that regards they are one in the same, no difference any longer in the Courts eyes...

You are free to believe what you want, but I have yet failed to see any "work in progress" pictures or evidence crediting AA with any design besides his word, all I see is finished or near finished vacuum pulls, and nobody including LFL denies he wasn't involved in the vacuum pulling process...

 

[Gytheran]

<div class='quotetop'>(SithLord @ Sep 26 2006, 01:28 PM) [snapback]1326796[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>(Gytheran @ Sep 26 2006, 01:32 PM) [snapback]1326758[/snapback]

SL, you still have yet to explain how this:
<div class='quotetop'>

if AA acknowledged the C&D, then legally he would be acknowledging the rights of LFL and there would be no point in persuing action against LFL for the rights.[/b]

...makes any sense whatsoever...

Care to clue us in to what you are thinking?
[/b][/quote]


Sure, let's say LFL sees AA's website and sends him a C&D. He can acknowledge it by closing down the website or he can continue to sell product. If he continues to sell product, he's sending a message that he does not recognize the C&D, implicit in that is that he has the right to sell that product. If he ceases to sell the product, which is implicit in him closing the website, then he has acknowledged the C&D. By acknowledging the C&D, he sets a precedent, namely that he acknowledges the rights of LFL to the product he wants to sell. Now...fast foward to the time when LFL sends out the complaint. Let's say that AA pulled his website because of the C&D but then restarts it later on. If he did that, LFL could include that in the complaint and that would work against AA. Why would AA acknowledge the C&D if he thought he had rights to the product? You can't have it both ways.
So I was just replying to Gytheran's hypothetical situation...namely what if AA responded to the C&D and then himself "pursued" :lol LFL?

I hope that makes sense....it's a bit like the idea of addressing jurisdiction or not, or addressing the claims or not. By not addressing something, you send a specific message in a legal context.
[/b][/quote]


Like I said in a previous reply... whether or not AA acknowledged the C&D has absolutely no bearing on whether or not he has the "right" to sell Stormtrooper helmets. You follow the C&D so the big bad company doesn't sue your ass off... AA just didn't get the memo, apparently.

 

[darthgoat]

 

[SithLord]

<div class='quotetop'>(Gytheran @ Sep 26 2006, 03:21 PM) [snapback]1326827[/snapback]</div>

Like I said in a previous reply... whether or not AA acknowledged the C&D has absolutely no bearing on whether or not he has the "right" to sell Stormtrooper helmets. You follow the C&D so the big bad company doesn't sue your ass off... AA just didn't get the memo, apparently.
[/b]

I didn't say that it did. What I've been saying is that he did not because he believes he has the rights.

 

[exoray]

<div class='quotetop'></div>

So basically we're agreeing that TE did stick the knife into AA. But you're saying the damage was already done, so its okay.[/b]

Talk about putting a spin on it...

I have no idea what TE said...

If he said the truth then nope I don't and won't hold it against anyone for telling the truth regardless of how much it might hurt...

If his testimony was nothing short of kicking a down man with false statments then I would object...