[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 Woods | 263 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 |
Motion for Summary Judgement Against Amiga to be Heard on Nov 21, 2003. : Comment 253 of 263 | ANN.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. |
|
List of all comments to this article (continued) |
|
- User Menu
-
- About ANN archives
- The ANN archives is powered by #AmigaZeux. It was updated daily (news last: 22-Oct-2004; comments last: 18-May-2005).
ANN.lu was created, previously owned and maintained by Christian Kemp, www.ckemp.com.
- Contribute
- Not possible at this time!
- Search ANN archives
- Advanced search
- Hosting
- ANN.lu was hosted by Dreamhost. Sign up through this link, mention "ckemp" as referrer and he will get a 10% commission on any account you purchase.
Please show your appreciation for any past, present and future work on ANN.lu by making a contribution via PayPal.
|