14-Jul-2024 19:29 GMT.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
[News] Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003.ANN.lu
Posted on 16-Nov-2003 08:23 GMT by Rich Woods263 comments
View flat
View list
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003 in Washington Federal District Court. Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003 in Washington Federal District Court.

It also looks like Amiga is again without counsel.

"This matter comes before the Court on "Plantiffs' Motion for Judgement and dismissal of Counter Claims for Lack of Representation." Although corporations must be represented by counsel, defendant's failure to retain new counsel has not yet been given rise to a sanctionable failure to prosecute. Plantiff's motion for judgement and dismissal of the counterclaims is DENIED. Defendant must, however, obtain counsel to defend this litigation if it hopes to avoid an adverse ruling on plaantiff's pending motion for summary judgement.

DATED this 7th day of November,2003.

/s/ robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Get it here .

List of all comments to this article
Sorted by date, most recent at bottom
Comment 1T_Bone16-Nov-2003 09:26 GMT
Comment 2Amon_ReRegistered user16-Nov-2003 10:05 GMT
Comment 3Rich Woods16-Nov-2003 10:22 GMT
Comment 4Rich Woods16-Nov-2003 10:24 GMT
Comment 5Amon_ReRegistered user16-Nov-2003 10:31 GMT
Comment 6Kronos16-Nov-2003 10:35 GMT
Comment 7T_Bone16-Nov-2003 10:54 GMT
Comment 8T_Bone16-Nov-2003 11:02 GMT
Comment 9Amon_ReRegistered user16-Nov-2003 11:07 GMT
Comment 10T_Bone16-Nov-2003 11:51 GMT
Comment 11MIKE16-Nov-2003 12:54 GMT
Comment 12Matt Parsons16-Nov-2003 13:09 GMT
Comment 13smithy16-Nov-2003 13:37 GMT
Comment 14Bill Hoggett16-Nov-2003 13:58 GMT
Comment 15cheesegrate16-Nov-2003 14:05 GMT
Comment 16smithy16-Nov-2003 14:27 GMT
Comment 17KenHRegistered user16-Nov-2003 14:33 GMT
Comment 18bbrvRegistered user16-Nov-2003 14:48 GMT
Comment 19KenHRegistered user16-Nov-2003 14:57 GMT
Comment 20Eva16-Nov-2003 15:01 GMT
Comment 21Eva16-Nov-2003 15:03 GMT
Comment 22IanSRegistered user16-Nov-2003 17:49 GMT
Comment 23T_Bone16-Nov-2003 17:52 GMT
Comment 24Daniel Miller16-Nov-2003 17:55 GMT
Comment 25T_Bone16-Nov-2003 18:25 GMT
Comment 26Eva16-Nov-2003 18:34 GMT
Comment 27T_Bone16-Nov-2003 18:35 GMT
Comment 28IanSRegistered user16-Nov-2003 18:38 GMT
Comment 29Tigger16-Nov-2003 19:17 GMT
Comment 30T_Bone16-Nov-2003 19:27 GMT
Comment 31NekoRegistered user16-Nov-2003 19:30 GMT
Comment 32T_Bone16-Nov-2003 19:39 GMT
Comment 33TheRealNapsterRegistered user16-Nov-2003 21:00 GMT
Comment 34Rich Woods16-Nov-2003 21:15 GMT
Comment 35Rich Woods16-Nov-2003 21:22 GMT
Comment 36Rich Woods16-Nov-2003 21:25 GMT
Comment 37T_Bone16-Nov-2003 21:28 GMT
Comment 38Rich Woods16-Nov-2003 21:34 GMT
Comment 39TheRealNapsterRegistered user16-Nov-2003 21:36 GMT
Comment 40T_Bone16-Nov-2003 21:45 GMT
Comment 41TheRealNapsterRegistered user16-Nov-2003 22:00 GMT
Comment 42Rich Woods16-Nov-2003 22:28 GMT
Comment 43Ray A. AkeyRegistered user16-Nov-2003 22:34 GMT
Comment 44Rich Woods16-Nov-2003 22:49 GMT
Comment 45IanSRegistered user16-Nov-2003 22:58 GMT
Comment 46KenHRegistered user16-Nov-2003 23:02 GMT
Comment 47Ray A. AkeyRegistered user16-Nov-2003 23:07 GMT
Comment 48Anonymous16-Nov-2003 23:07 GMT
Comment 49KenHRegistered user16-Nov-2003 23:13 GMT
Comment 50TheRealNapsterRegistered user16-Nov-2003 23:17 GMT
Comment 51TheRealNapsterRegistered user16-Nov-2003 23:23 GMT
Comment 52Ronald16-Nov-2003 23:41 GMT
Comment 53T_Bone17-Nov-2003 00:31 GMT
Comment 54gary_c17-Nov-2003 00:39 GMT
Comment 55NihilVor17-Nov-2003 01:36 GMT
Comment 56Rich Woods17-Nov-2003 02:27 GMT
Comment 57Rich Woods17-Nov-2003 02:28 GMT
Comment 58Rich Woods17-Nov-2003 02:37 GMT
Comment 59Rich Woods17-Nov-2003 02:42 GMT
Comment 60Nate DownesRegistered user17-Nov-2003 03:00 GMT
Comment 61Tigger17-Nov-2003 03:03 GMT
Comment 62TheRealNapsterRegistered user17-Nov-2003 03:10 GMT
Comment 63Rich Woods17-Nov-2003 03:27 GMT
Comment 64TheRealNapsterRegistered user17-Nov-2003 03:38 GMT
Comment 65Rich Woods17-Nov-2003 04:10 GMT
Comment 66Rich Woods17-Nov-2003 04:19 GMT
Comment 67Rich Woods17-Nov-2003 04:20 GMT
Comment 68Rich Woods17-Nov-2003 04:22 GMT
Comment 69Rich Woods17-Nov-2003 04:24 GMT
Comment 70TheRealNapsterRegistered user17-Nov-2003 05:07 GMT
Comment 71TheRealNapsterRegistered user17-Nov-2003 05:09 GMT
Comment 72TheRealNapsterRegistered user17-Nov-2003 05:13 GMT
Comment 73Rich Woods17-Nov-2003 05:23 GMT
Comment 74Rich Woods17-Nov-2003 05:24 GMT
Comment 75Atheist217-Nov-2003 05:30 GMT
Comment 76TheRealNapsterRegistered user17-Nov-2003 05:34 GMT
Comment 77TheRealNapsterRegistered user17-Nov-2003 05:36 GMT
Comment 78Rich Woods17-Nov-2003 06:22 GMT
Comment 79Anonymous17-Nov-2003 06:27 GMT
Comment 80Anonymous17-Nov-2003 06:32 GMT
Comment 81gary_c17-Nov-2003 06:33 GMT
Comment 82Rich Woods17-Nov-2003 06:40 GMT
Comment 83Rich Woods17-Nov-2003 06:43 GMT
Comment 84Rich Woods17-Nov-2003 06:46 GMT
Comment 85TheRealNapsterRegistered user17-Nov-2003 06:51 GMT
Comment 86gary_c17-Nov-2003 06:51 GMT
Comment 87TheRealNapsterRegistered user17-Nov-2003 06:54 GMT
Comment 88Anonymous17-Nov-2003 06:56 GMT
Comment 89Rich Woods17-Nov-2003 07:00 GMT
Comment 90Rich Woods17-Nov-2003 07:01 GMT
Comment 91Rich Woods17-Nov-2003 07:03 GMT
Comment 92gary_c17-Nov-2003 07:03 GMT
Comment 93Rich Woods17-Nov-2003 07:06 GMT
Comment 94TheRealNapsterRegistered user17-Nov-2003 07:07 GMT
Comment 95TheRealNapsterRegistered user17-Nov-2003 07:10 GMT
Comment 96Atheist217-Nov-2003 07:13 GMT
Comment 97Rich Woods17-Nov-2003 07:13 GMT
Comment 98Rich Woods17-Nov-2003 07:16 GMT
Comment 99TheRealNapsterRegistered user17-Nov-2003 07:20 GMT
Comment 100TheRealNapsterRegistered user17-Nov-2003 07:24 GMT
Comment 101Rich Woods17-Nov-2003 07:28 GMT
Comment 102TheRealNapsterRegistered user17-Nov-2003 07:30 GMT
Comment 103Atheist217-Nov-2003 07:33 GMT
Comment 104Rich Woods17-Nov-2003 07:36 GMT
Comment 105TheRealNapsterRegistered user17-Nov-2003 07:39 GMT
Comment 106Rich Woods17-Nov-2003 07:39 GMT
Comment 107Atheist217-Nov-2003 07:42 GMT
Comment 108Rich Woods17-Nov-2003 07:48 GMT
Comment 109TheRealNapsterRegistered user17-Nov-2003 07:55 GMT
Comment 110Atheist217-Nov-2003 07:59 GMT
Comment 111Anonymous17-Nov-2003 08:04 GMT
Comment 112Rich Woods17-Nov-2003 08:31 GMT
Comment 113Christian KempRegistered user17-Nov-2003 08:41 GMT
Comment 114Rich Woods17-Nov-2003 08:44 GMT
Comment 115Rich Woods17-Nov-2003 08:47 GMT
Comment 116Matt Parsons17-Nov-2003 09:06 GMT
Comment 117Rich Woods17-Nov-2003 09:32 GMT
Comment 118IanSRegistered user17-Nov-2003 09:38 GMT
Comment 119Matt Parsons17-Nov-2003 10:30 GMT
Comment 120Rich Woods17-Nov-2003 10:48 GMT
Comment 121Matt Parsons17-Nov-2003 10:51 GMT
Comment 122Amon_ReRegistered user17-Nov-2003 11:55 GMT
Comment 123gary_c17-Nov-2003 13:41 GMT
Comment 124samface17-Nov-2003 14:17 GMT
Comment 125gary_c17-Nov-2003 14:34 GMT
Comment 126samface17-Nov-2003 14:40 GMT
Comment 127Jupp317-Nov-2003 15:47 GMT
Comment 128Matt Parsons17-Nov-2003 15:50 GMT
Comment 129T_Bone17-Nov-2003 16:06 GMT
Comment 130Gregg17-Nov-2003 16:27 GMT
Comment 131samface17-Nov-2003 16:39 GMT
Comment 132samface17-Nov-2003 16:51 GMT
Comment 133TheRealNapsterRegistered user17-Nov-2003 17:03 GMT
Comment 134DaveP17-Nov-2003 17:32 GMT
Comment 135John Block17-Nov-2003 17:43 GMT
Comment 136TheRealNapsterRegistered user17-Nov-2003 17:48 GMT
Comment 137Abuse17-Nov-2003 18:05 GMT
Comment 138Gregg17-Nov-2003 18:10 GMT
Comment 139samface17-Nov-2003 18:17 GMT
Comment 140Gregg17-Nov-2003 18:19 GMT
Comment 141TheRealNapsterRegistered user17-Nov-2003 18:33 GMT
Comment 142smithy17-Nov-2003 19:10 GMT
Comment 143smithy17-Nov-2003 19:14 GMT
Comment 144smithy17-Nov-2003 19:16 GMT
Comment 145Nate DownesRegistered user17-Nov-2003 19:35 GMT
Comment 146-17-Nov-2003 20:02 GMT
Comment 147Darrin17-Nov-2003 20:57 GMT
Comment 148Some Farker18-Nov-2003 03:57 GMT
Comment 149DaveP18-Nov-2003 06:04 GMT
Comment 150Rich Woods18-Nov-2003 06:06 GMT
Comment 151Rich Woods18-Nov-2003 06:08 GMT
Comment 152Rich Woods18-Nov-2003 06:15 GMT
Comment 153Anonymous18-Nov-2003 07:03 GMT
Comment 154samface18-Nov-2003 07:15 GMT
Comment 155greenboyRegistered user18-Nov-2003 07:22 GMT
Comment 156Anonymous18-Nov-2003 07:22 GMT
Comment 157Anonymous18-Nov-2003 07:23 GMT
Comment 158samface18-Nov-2003 07:45 GMT
Comment 159samface18-Nov-2003 07:56 GMT
Comment 160Gunne Steen18-Nov-2003 09:32 GMT
Comment 161samface18-Nov-2003 09:42 GMT
Comment 162Gunne Steen18-Nov-2003 11:11 GMT
Comment 163Jupp318-Nov-2003 11:41 GMT
Comment 164Jupp318-Nov-2003 11:50 GMT
Comment 165samface18-Nov-2003 15:38 GMT
Comment 166Tigger18-Nov-2003 17:28 GMT
Comment 167Rich Woods18-Nov-2003 17:29 GMT
Comment 168Gregg18-Nov-2003 18:44 GMT
Comment 169Vexar18-Nov-2003 18:50 GMT
Comment 170Matt Parsons18-Nov-2003 19:52 GMT
Comment 171Matt Parsons18-Nov-2003 19:52 GMT
Comment 172NekoRegistered user18-Nov-2003 19:53 GMT
Comment 173NekoRegistered user18-Nov-2003 19:54 GMT
Comment 174Jupp318-Nov-2003 20:14 GMT
Comment 175samface18-Nov-2003 21:11 GMT
Comment 176samface18-Nov-2003 21:20 GMT
Comment 177-18-Nov-2003 22:34 GMT
Comment 178Anonymous19-Nov-2003 04:28 GMT
Comment 179Nate DownesRegistered user19-Nov-2003 04:34 GMT
Comment 180Anonymous19-Nov-2003 04:50 GMT
Comment 181acg19-Nov-2003 04:53 GMT
Comment 182Anonymous19-Nov-2003 05:02 GMT
Comment 183samface19-Nov-2003 05:40 GMT
Comment 184gary_c19-Nov-2003 06:48 GMT
Comment 185gary_c19-Nov-2003 06:58 GMT
Comment 186samface19-Nov-2003 07:07 GMT
Comment 187Anonymous19-Nov-2003 07:08 GMT
Comment 188Anonymous19-Nov-2003 07:10 GMT
Comment 189gary_c19-Nov-2003 10:36 GMT
Comment 190gary_c19-Nov-2003 10:39 GMT
Comment 191gary_c19-Nov-2003 10:50 GMT
Comment 192samface19-Nov-2003 11:18 GMT
Comment 193Anonymous19-Nov-2003 12:20 GMT
Comment 194samface19-Nov-2003 12:35 GMT
Comment 195Alkis TsapanidisRegistered user19-Nov-2003 13:06 GMT
Comment 196samface19-Nov-2003 13:07 GMT
Comment 197samface19-Nov-2003 13:09 GMT
Comment 198Alkis TsapanidisRegistered user19-Nov-2003 13:12 GMT
Comment 199Alkis TsapanidisRegistered user19-Nov-2003 13:14 GMT
Comment 200Alkis TsapanidisRegistered user19-Nov-2003 13:15 GMT
Comment 201Alkis TsapanidisRegistered user19-Nov-2003 13:18 GMT
Comment 202Alkis TsapanidisRegistered user19-Nov-2003 13:20 GMT
Comment 203Alkis TsapanidisRegistered user19-Nov-2003 13:21 GMT
Comment 204samface19-Nov-2003 13:26 GMT
Comment 205samface19-Nov-2003 13:31 GMT
Comment 206Alkis TsapanidisRegistered user19-Nov-2003 13:31 GMT
Comment 207samface19-Nov-2003 13:32 GMT
Comment 208samface19-Nov-2003 13:34 GMT
Comment 209Alkis TsapanidisRegistered user19-Nov-2003 13:36 GMT
Comment 210Alkis TsapanidisRegistered user19-Nov-2003 13:36 GMT
Comment 211Nate DownesRegistered user19-Nov-2003 13:38 GMT
Comment 212samface19-Nov-2003 13:41 GMT
Comment 213Alkis TsapanidisRegistered user19-Nov-2003 13:45 GMT
Comment 214samface19-Nov-2003 13:51 GMT
Comment 215samface19-Nov-2003 13:51 GMT
Comment 216samface19-Nov-2003 13:52 GMT
Comment 217Alkis TsapanidisRegistered user19-Nov-2003 13:54 GMT
Comment 218Alkis TsapanidisRegistered user19-Nov-2003 13:56 GMT
Comment 219Nate DownesRegistered user19-Nov-2003 14:03 GMT
Comment 220samface19-Nov-2003 14:11 GMT
Comment 221Nate DownesRegistered user19-Nov-2003 14:15 GMT
Comment 222samface19-Nov-2003 14:16 GMT
Comment 223samface19-Nov-2003 14:19 GMT
Comment 224gary_c19-Nov-2003 14:25 GMT
Comment 225samface19-Nov-2003 14:28 GMT
Comment 226samface19-Nov-2003 14:52 GMT
Comment 227Christian KempRegistered user19-Nov-2003 15:02 GMT
Comment 228Rich Woods19-Nov-2003 15:36 GMT
Comment 229Rich Woods19-Nov-2003 20:51 GMT
Comment 230Anonymous19-Nov-2003 20:52 GMT
Comment 231Rich Woods19-Nov-2003 20:52 GMT
Comment 232gary_c20-Nov-2003 00:12 GMT
Comment 233gary_c20-Nov-2003 02:10 GMT
Comment 234Anonymous20-Nov-2003 05:03 GMT
Comment 235gary_c20-Nov-2003 06:36 GMT
Comment 236Tigger20-Nov-2003 06:55 GMT
Comment 237Rich Woods20-Nov-2003 18:00 GMT
Comment 238Anonymous20-Nov-2003 18:39 GMT
Comment 239samface20-Nov-2003 22:26 GMT
Comment 240samface20-Nov-2003 23:19 GMT
Comment 241Rich Woods21-Nov-2003 10:45 GMT
Comment 242samface21-Nov-2003 13:27 GMT
Comment 243Tigger21-Nov-2003 15:50 GMT
Comment 244Rich Woods22-Nov-2003 01:05 GMT
Comment 245samface22-Nov-2003 14:53 GMT
Comment 246Nate DownesRegistered user22-Nov-2003 20:39 GMT
Comment 247samface22-Nov-2003 23:18 GMT
Comment 248Rich Woods23-Nov-2003 01:08 GMT
Comment 249Rich Woods23-Nov-2003 15:22 GMT
Comment 250samface23-Nov-2003 17:56 GMT
Comment 251Tigger24-Nov-2003 22:22 GMT
Comment 252samface25-Nov-2003 13:58 GMT
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 253 of 263ANN.lu
Posted by Rich Woods on 25-Nov-2003 16:14 GMT
In reply to Comment 252 (samface):
Posted by samface (131.116.254.198) on 25-Nov-2003 14:58:55

In Reply to Comment 251:
A little piece of advise; PLEASE STOP TRYING TO SPEAK ON OTHER PEOPLE'S BEHALF.

Like I said - I'm starting to feel sorry for you.



If Amiga Inc.'s employees are willing to continue working for Amiga Inc. for free in order to to keep the dreams and hopes they had when starting the company alive, who are you to stop them? Yes, two people left Amiga Inc. and

And EXACTLY how is Tigger "stopping them"? And the legal definition of "employee" is one who works for hire and who gets compensated for their work.
You are NOT legally an "employee" if you work for free...Maybe a unpaid volunteeer but that is the antithesis of the definition applied legally for an "employee" - just because you want to call unpaid workers "employees" doesn't make it so.

Your sad lack of even basic business law, contract law is so apparent that everyone is aware of it except you. (ie - YOUR definitions of "left out" and "altered").


sued for unpayed salaries, but what did Amiga Inc. do to stop them? Exactly nothing. They didn't even try defending themselves and let the court issue a

So what was Amiga SUPPOSED to do to stop them? They didn't try defending themsevles because billyboy hasn't a pair of balls between his legs - there WAS no defense in NOT paying your "employees" - get it? It is a criminal act in the state of WA NOT to pay your employees - you have the court docs - the state stautes are enumerate in the court docs which you have.

You cannot even understand the court docs let alone have an useless and nonsensical "opinion".




default judgement in the former employees favor. That tells me that they are NOT trying to rip their employees off and that everyone working for them has the choice to leave whenever they like.

Read the court documents again - and again - and again - or try having bolton peeck's little daughter explain it to you. They committed CRIMINAL ACTS in NOT paying their "employees" - we'll use the LEGAL definition of employees and not yours.



You see, I imagine a group of people with a great idea for a business and a great opportunity for this idea with both funding and a once in a lifetime offer to purchase the intellectual property of a legacy. This group of people starts up a small company, well aware of the risks involved. About 2 or 3 years later, two people get tired of waiting for the great success to come along and leave. The rest of the group does nothing to stop them, not even when those two takes legal action against them. Do you still think of these people as evil employers trying to rip their employees off?

So how is the rest of the group supposed to stop them? Chain them to their cubicles?

Rip their "employees" off? The court decided they DID "rip off" several employees - it's right there in the court docs - sammyface. The same docs I had - the same docs it took you 6 months to get - will it take you 6 months to BEGIN to understand what you have in black and white in front of you?



What pisses me off is people like you, doing everything you can in order to kill the dreams and hopes of these people because you are ignorant enough to listen to certain other people with a certain agenda or because you simply are a part of that agenda and therefore will make use of every opportunity of slagging off at the competition. Why would these people even be a threat to you

Yeah - the judge and the lawyers certainly have an agenda in protecting the rights of the former Amiga employees! How DARE they sue Amiga to try and get paid.



to begin with? Unless they really did something towards you in person, I really don't see why you should speak on their employees behalf, complain on

He commentd on the court ocs and the LAWYERS AND JUDGE "spoke" on the employees behaalf with the judgements.


their customers behalf, and paint a picture of them as the evil scum of the earth. You do NOT know the whole story and the complete scenario of events leading to their current situation, please stop filling in the gaps with whatever suits your distorted views.


Tell us the whole story sammyface since apparently you know more than the courts an the lawyers.



Yes, Amiga Inc. doesn't have much income at the moment and are currently doing

Not much income at the moment - is this the best you can reason with? So apparent and irrefutable and you state the obvious.


everything they can in order to get another round of funding. It's not the

Another round of funding! Love it! When was the Last round of funding since you KNOW the whole story?


first time they have been in this situation and they have been able to sort it out before. However, you make it sound like it would be evil for a company to not be successful all the time and that they are doing this for the sake of making people's life miserable. For christ sake, how much sense would that make? I'm sorry but they don't work for free because they don't think that
their business plan has an enormous potential and they sure as he** don't work for free because they have a plan to rip off the Amiga community. They work for

They work for free or don't work for free? You want to work for free because the company you "work" for doesn't want to pay you?


free because they are determined to achieve what they were originaly set out to achieve and they work for free because they intend to repay everything they owe, both to themselves and the community. Why are you so determined to do everything you can to stop them?


Yeah - and Ryan is going to "repay" the $335K judgement also. EVERYONE INTENDS to pay - sammyface - IF AND WHEN you pay tells the story.

Everything to stop them - billyboy and the rest of the crew have stoppedd themselves.

I cannot believe that a person greater than the age of 18 has such a low level of comprehension and is so totally inable to form judgements based upon facts.

Well recess is over - time for you to go back and play in the sandbox with the rest of the kiddies.
Jump...
#254 samface
TopPrevious commentNext commentbottom
List of all comments to this article (continued)
Comment 254samface25-Nov-2003 18:57 GMT
Comment 255samface25-Nov-2003 19:05 GMT
Comment 256Tigger25-Nov-2003 22:17 GMT
Comment 257samface26-Nov-2003 00:27 GMT
Comment 258samface26-Nov-2003 00:47 GMT
Comment 259Tigger26-Nov-2003 03:43 GMT
Comment 260Tigger26-Nov-2003 05:19 GMT
Comment 261samface26-Nov-2003 09:01 GMT
Comment 262Tigger26-Nov-2003 14:20 GMT
Comment 263Tigger26-Nov-2003 14:20 GMT
Back to Top