| [News] Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit | ANN.lu |
| Posted on 25-Sep-2003 20:26 GMT by Rich Woods | 147 comments
View flat
View list | |
Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit
Although I have known about this action since last weekend I have refrained from posting this info until I had the court documentation available. It has just become available today.
23 MOTION Requesting Leave to Withdraw as Counsel for Defendant by Amiga Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Temp5, ) (Entered: 09/25/2003)
09/19/2003
24 DECLARATION of DIANA S. SHUKIS in Support of 23 MOTION RequestingLeave to Withdraw as Counsel for Defendant, filed by Defendant Amiga Inc. re (Temp5, ) (Entered: 09/25/2003)
09/19/2003
25 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Defendant Amiga Inc re 23 MOTION for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel, 24 Declaration of Diana S. Shukis. (Temp5, ) (Entered: 09/25/2003)
Amiga's attorney's have filed a motion before the Federal Court to withdraw as Attorneys for Amiga - effectively leaving them with no counsel.
This means that they could default on their action(s) and counter-claims.
The documents are available at:
Certificate of Service To Withdraw
Shukis Withdrawl
Withdrawal of Counsel 1
Withdrawal of counsel 2
|
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 51 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by que on 25-Sep-2003 20:06 GMT | "Assuming that this means the end of the line for Amiga Inc is pure speculation, as is assuming that the lawyer will simply be replaced by another one."
Or the case is so silly that the lawyers just leave and take more important ones with higher priority.
What the heck do Buck want with AmigaDEad anyway ? it can't do shit ,or ?
Amiga dumped its classic os and placed all bets on AmigaDEad, but deal after deal just went down the drain anyway, nokia,sendo, etc,genesi want the same shit to happen ?
Doubt the lawsuit is for AmigaDEad anyway , its just probably to ruin the company and kill the competition, because Amigaos4/AmigaOne is a huge problem for them as they target the same geek marked. |
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 52 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 25-Sep-2003 20:08 GMT | In reply to Comment 50 (Anonymous):
> Either way, you will not bully me off this site. If you aren't prepared to
> discuss the topic at hand and would rather have a go at me, why don't you start
> a new forum thread for the purpose?
The problem, wanadoo, is that you're not discussing, you're attacking OUR freedom to discuss, bringing unfactual statements as support of your trolling.
Wanna discuss? You're welcome to do so, but then DO it. |
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 53 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Anonymous on 25-Sep-2003 20:10 GMT | In reply to Comment 52 (Fabio Alemagna):
I am attacking your freedom to discuss? How?
I have never read anything so funny in all my life.
As soon as I posted a contrary view to yours, you were spoiling for a fight, if anyone should be asked to take time out away from ANN at the moment it is you. And take Samface with you. |
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 54 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Gabriele Favrin on 25-Sep-2003 20:12 GMT | In reply to Comment 50 (Anonymous):
>Gabrielle
Since you can't even read correctly a name, I doubt you can
discuss about USA laws issues...
>If I considered your behaviour adult, then I would try to
>learn from you. But I don't.
Then it's clean to me that you consider adults only Amiga
supporters. Tell me, what they do for you? Are them paying
you? You buyed some good product from Amiga Inc or its
affiliates? Ir is it just faith? If it's faith we can't say
anything. It's your own choice.
>I will continue to post here as often as I like and with
No one wants forbid this to you, we are not on Amiga Inc
portal.
>is too scared to sign their name" and a pompous oaf like
>yourself I'd choose the "silly little kid" any time.
Someone who uses his name can be called 'pompous'?
So when you go to vote for france president you don't show
your ID card? ;)
>Either way, you will not bully me off this site. If you
>aren't prepared to discuss the topic at hand and would
You don't discuss topics, you discuss other's opinions
and preparation.
>I just love the way people use this tactic to have a go at
>"Anonymous" posters. If Christian removes the ability to
Tell me, why don't you use your name? What are you afraid
of?
>Stop it Gabrielle, and Fabio, you are embarrassing yourselves.
Please learn how to read.
Have fun, anonymous. |
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 55 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 25-Sep-2003 20:12 GMT | In reply to Comment 53 (Anonymous):
> I am attacking your freedom to discuss? How?
By stating that this whole thread is useless (I'm summarizing, not quoting you directly).
Anyway, you've expressed your opinion, and I expressed mine about yours. Are we going to do that for the rest of the 150+ comments? I hope not, so live with the fact that I believe you're just trolling, as the majority here does, and as the moderators on OSNews do ;) |
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 56 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Bill Hoggett on 25-Sep-2003 20:15 GMT | In reply to Comment 51 (que):
@que
> Or the case is so silly that the lawyers just leave and take more
> important ones with higher priority
That's one of the unlikelier scenarios. However silly the case may be, the judge would not give leave to withdraw for as trivial a reason as that. The lawyers know this.
Let's at least try to be sensible in our speculation if we're going to engage in it at all. |
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 57 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by T_Bone on 25-Sep-2003 20:15 GMT | In reply to Comment 50 (Anonymous):
@ Wanadoo
> I'd choose the "silly little kid" any time.
Congrats.
> Either way, you will not bully me off this site. If you aren't prepared to
> discuss the topic at hand and would rather have a go at me, why don't you
> start a new forum thread for the purpose?
You are the only one here NOT discussing the topic. Every thread you participate in, you do nothing but IGNORE the topic and try to point out flaws you think you've found in everyone's personality, most notably your obsession with Fabio.
> Still, you could of course continue to be an oaf and pollute this one.
You are the source of the pollution, you have made NO contribution to the thread, and offered NO insight. You are here solely to pick fights with people you have a personality clash with.
> I just love the way people use this tactic to have a go at "Anonymous"
It has nothing to do with your name. |
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 58 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Anonymous on 25-Sep-2003 20:16 GMT | In reply to Comment 55 (Fabio Alemagna):
> By stating that this whole thread is useless (I'm summarizing, not quoting you directly).
That is your view of my opinion, and frankly it is ludicrous.
> Anyway, you've expressed your opinion, and I expressed mine about yours. Are we going to do that for the rest of the 150+ comments? I hope not
If you continue to attempt to go off topic and tell me that I should not be
allowed to express my opinion ( which is what in fact you did Fabio ) then by all means, I can carry on all night. However, I am glad you see that it is a futile exercise.
> so live with the fact that I believe you're just trolling, as the majority here does,
And Fabio the great speaks for the majority. !-) So basically, holding a different point of view and pointing out that you are using conjecture on here ( which of course Bill Hoggett also did ) is trolling. Fine. Glad we got that sorted out. So next time you hold a contrary point of view to mine, that is trolling.
Get it yet? |
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 59 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Dom Front on 25-Sep-2003 20:25 GMT | In reply to Comment 58 (Anonymous):
Here you go Fabio, just earning my "right to post a view" according to Gabrielle and Fabios law, I will use the nickname of Dom Front in future.
That even gives you a hint to my location! |
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 60 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Anonymous on 25-Sep-2003 20:30 GMT | In reply to Comment 57 (T_Bone):
No T_Bone
I was here solely to post: http://www.ann.lu/comments2.cgi?show=1064521563&category=unmoderated&number=28#comment
The "fight" started with Fabio having his usual obsession with me and in fact anyone who posts a view that he does not like.
It is all a matter of perspective, I am so sorry for distracting you from your
negative speculation about the events document on merlancia.us with a cynical judgement. |
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 61 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 25-Sep-2003 20:31 GMT | In reply to Comment 58 (Anonymous):
> > By stating that this whole thread is useless (I'm summarizing, not quoting
> > you directly).
> That is your view of my opinion, and frankly it is ludicrous.
You keep using offensive adjectives, and expect kindness in return? You're pretty amusing, you know?
Anyway, let's see, how do you define this post of yours if not provocative and no-point-making?
http://www.ann.lu/comments2.cgi?view=1064521563&category=unmoderated&start=1#message32
You say:
"You think you know the reasons for one lawyer withdrawing, that from what I can see is pure speculation based on your own personal viewpoint."
1) No one knows the reasons, and no one stated he/she knows them.
2) It's obvious that is pure speculation based on one's viewpoints, no one is saing the opposite. You're just pointing out the obvious.
"Who replace? Someone from the same lawfirm perhaps? Maybe another one?"
You clearly haven't read the papers, as you'd know that that's not a possibility. Yet, in the sentence just above that one, you claim that the others are just speculating. Well, at least they speculate on the ground of FACTUAL claims, not imaginated ones as yours.
"Cue round of "oooh Im so witty Im going to post something about only being able to pay them in monopoly money ha ha ha""
You said it, no one else before or after you said it. Do you like so much making up quotes to prove your moot points? That's called intellectual disonesty, pal.
"Or you could go no win no fee. Either or, the hype on here and the spin on how to interpret this bit of court red tape is fascinating. I'm amazed that otherwise intelligent people cannot see this in themselves."
you are saying that what we are doing - that is speculating on this issue - is "fascinating", and it even "amazes" you that inspite of our intelligence we can't see it. So, who's the one saying that what the others think or say or do is "amazing" and "fascinating", of course in the ironical sense of those words?
You, no one else but you.
Want more? I hope not, this should suffice for the rest of the thread, wanadoo. |
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 62 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 25-Sep-2003 20:32 GMT | In reply to Comment 59 (Dom Front):
> I will use the nickname of Dom Front in future.
Oh dear, why?! Wanadoo was so nice!! Put it back, please. |
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 63 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 25-Sep-2003 20:33 GMT | In reply to Comment 60 (Anonymous):
> The "fight" started with Fabio having his usual obsession with me and in fact
> anyone who posts a view that he does not like.
Sorry? Care to point out in which post I showed "my obsession" with you? LOL :) |
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 64 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Dom Front on 25-Sep-2003 20:40 GMT | In reply to Comment 61 (Fabio Alemagna):
@Fabio
OK, you wish to continue. Here goes.
>> > By stating that this whole thread is useless (I'm summarizing, not quoting
>> > you directly).
>> That is your view of my opinion, and frankly it is ludicrous.
> You keep using offensive adjectives, and expect kindness in return?
I expect no kindness, I do not find "ludicrous" offensive. You have clearly exaggerated my point of view for your own ends and I find that ludicrous. Also, given at this point you used offensive adjectives on me several times before this ( and in a far more insulting tone ) you should not expect "kindness in return".
"Anyway, let's see, how do you define this post of yours if not provocative and no-point-making? "
I never said it was not provocative. I do however see it making a point.
> "You think you know the reasons for one lawyer withdrawing, that from what I can see is pure speculation based on your own personal viewpoint."
Right Fabio. Here you are, you talk on here as if you KNOW what the possible alternatives are ( or rather most of the thread had done up to this point ) the reality check is that it is just speculation.
>2) It's obvious that is pure speculation based on one's viewpoints, no one is saing the opposite. You're just pointing out the obvious.
So in other words, you agree with me. How does pointing out the obvious limit your freedom of speech?
> "Who replace? Someone from the same lawfirm perhaps? Maybe another one?"
> You clearly haven't read the papers, as you'd know that that's not a
> possibility.
I see no rationale, no reasoning in the papers therefore I cannot see how you can conclude that this MUST be the case. Feel free to provide some meat on the bone ( like federal laws that apply eh Rich? ). THAT is called debate. How you launched into me was NOT debate, it was what has taken us on this merrygoround.
> Yet, in the sentence just above that one, you claim that the others are just speculating. Well, at least they speculate on the ground of FACTUAL claims, not imaginated ones as yours.
Where do I imagine facts. I merely pose a question.
> "Cue round of "oooh Im so witty Im going to post something about only being able to pay them in monopoly money ha ha ha""
> You said it, no one else before or after you said it. Do you like so much making up quotes to prove your moot points? That's called intellectual
disonesty, pal.
No. It is called making a prediction, given the previous parts of the thread had included stupid comments about paying them in food coupons I do not think this is wildly out of the ballpark.
> you are saying that what we are doing - that is speculating on this issue - is "fascinating", and it even "amazes" you that inspite of our intelligence we can't see it.
OK, lets be clear, it amazes me that you cannot see your own speculation as being spin based purely in your own personal motivation, despite your intelligence.
> You, no one else but you.
So? What do you think you have proven?
> Want more? I hope not, this should suffice for the rest of the thread, wanadoo.
I don't think you have more Fabio, before you attempt to cut up the rest of my posts on this thread you should take a look at who lead us here. You, no one but you. |
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 65 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by catohagen on 25-Sep-2003 20:42 GMT | In reply to Comment 63 (Fabio Alemagna):
>Sorry? Care to point out in which post I showed "my obsession" with you? LOL :)
well, it seems you do have an obsession to be the center of threads, why not
take your "fights" and "obsessions" elsewhere, none of this offtopic talk between 2 people does belong here. |
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 66 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Anonymous on 25-Sep-2003 20:43 GMT | In reply to Comment 63 (Fabio Alemagna):
"What we see is your poor attempt at emulating samface.
There's a news, we're discussing it and speculating on it. If you don't care about it, you're invited to not post useless and meaningless comments who only state the obvious surrounded by wannabe anonymous trolling.
Btw, nice one on OSNews, saw you got moderated ;)"
Need more Fabio? Or do you consider yourself engaging in debate? You are obsessed enough to watch the proxy machine I go through ( which happens to be on a popular France Telecom connection - big deal ) and monitor movements from that address. |
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 67 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 25-Sep-2003 20:47 GMT | In reply to Comment 66 (Anonymous):
> Need more Fabio?
And what do you think you proved? I was complaining about you NOT making ANY points but stating that what we're doing is futile (again, this is a summary). you said you can have opinions, so why can't *I* have opinions about your posts?
> Or do you consider yourself engaging in debate? You are obsessed enough to
> watch the proxy machine I go through ( which happens to be on a popular France
> Telecom connection - big deal ) and monitor movements from that address.
I don't monitor anything, wanadoo, I know that whoever posts with an IP which begins with 80.9 and has the same writing style as yours it's you. So far I've been spot on, haven't I? :)
As for the other reply, I really don't see the point in further arguing, as said I've expressed my opinion and you've expressed yours. If you want yet again the last word, I'll let you have it, as always. |
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 68 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Dom Front on 25-Sep-2003 20:51 GMT | In reply to Comment 67 (Fabio Alemagna):
Fabio
I have never said you could not have opinions about my posts, you were the one claiming that I was somehow trying to restrict *your* freedom of speech when in fact it was you trying to censor me.
I think we can agree that we are both entitled to hold opinions, and even opinions on opinions and indeed post them on forums.
PS: In fact you haven't always been right, there have been several posts on here of late you have attributed to me that were nothing to do with me. However posting under the nick of "Anonymous" you take the rough with the smooth. |
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 69 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Rich Woods on 25-Sep-2003 20:53 GMT | In reply to Comment 67 (Fabio Alemagna):
Probably a good idea not even to respond to him. Unless he wants to answer his own posts!?!?! |
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 70 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by T_Bone on 25-Sep-2003 20:54 GMT | In reply to Comment 64 (Dom Front):
>> You clearly haven't read the papers, as you'd know that that's not a
>> possibility.
> I see no rationale, no reasoning in the papers therefore I cannot see how you
> can conclude that this MUST be the case.
(sigh)
> Feel free to provide some meat on the bone
It's written in plain english, you just have to READ it. Really.
Hint: Two lawyers and a "Law Firm" are requesting permission to withdraw, look closely.
> ( like federal laws that apply eh Rich? ). THAT is called debate.
No, we should NOT be required to "Spoon feed" you these details. I read them, Fabio read them, everyone in the thread read them, yet you obviously havent, and we have to waste time we *could* be debating, just to fill you in on the details you couldn't be bothered to read in preparation for the thread. You've come unprepared.
Untill you can come to the discussion prepared, we're really not doing anything here but getting you caught up. |
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 71 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by T_Bone on 25-Sep-2003 21:23 GMT | In reply to Comment 70 (T_Bone):
Alright Alright, I'll spoonfeed you anyway. :D
Another lawyer from that law firm wont take over, because the firm itself is withdrawing, see post 15, if not the linked PDF's. |
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 72 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Dom Front on 25-Sep-2003 21:30 GMT | In reply to Comment 71 (T_Bone):
I admit to reading it too quickly. This
"THIS COURT HEREBY orders, adjudges and decrees that Diana S. Shukis, Stephen P. VanDerhoef and Cairncross & Hempelmann..."
...read as...
"THIS COURT HEREBY orders, adjudges and decrees that Diana S. Shukis, Stephen P. VanDerh of Cairncross & Hempelmann..."
...quite embarassing. But my question still stands, exactly what is so significant about this - and what is the Federal Law implication that Rich Woods alludes to? |
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 73 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by wanadoo user on 25-Sep-2003 21:43 GMT | | i think this is good news. lawyer is withdrawing because amiga inc is winning the case she is for better jobs. |
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 74 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by JoannaK on 25-Sep-2003 21:50 GMT | In reply to Comment 72 (Dom Front):
(IANAL)... But I think couple first posts on Amiga.org thread
summarise it quite well.
http://amiga.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=11344&forum=22
I know there are some lawyers howering around here.. but not yet seen
any comments concerning this latest turn on this case. |
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 75 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Anonymous on 25-Sep-2003 21:52 GMT | In reply to Comment 74 (JoannaK):
Thank you, amazing the difference in quality of debate - compare the first 15 posts on here with there. |
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 76 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by JoannaK on 25-Sep-2003 22:19 GMT | In reply to Comment 75 (Anonymous):
Well.. I think it's mostly due fact that most of the 'red trolls' have
publicly announced leaving Amiga.org... So what people are remain (and
joining) can take these things much more sensible way.
In here though.. Same people keep trashing around... Ofthen though
being anonymous and using proxies to make numerous appearances. |
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 77 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Eva on 25-Sep-2003 22:39 GMT | In reply to Comment 39 (Anonymous):
80.9.224.41
LOL Bouma dog use at least a proxy :D |
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 78 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Eva on 25-Sep-2003 22:41 GMT | In reply to Comment 50 (Anonymous):
You are the only pathetic child here, daer a*******.net friend.
Read the documents is something that you can't manipulate.
ANd please stop your live in a paralell world, that exists only in AMigaInc and Hyperion Marketing. |
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 79 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Eva on 25-Sep-2003 22:45 GMT | In reply to Comment 54 (Gabriele Favrin):
--------
>I will continue to post here as often as I like and with
No one wants forbid this to you, we are not on Amiga Inc
portal.
--------
Eheheh this is the difference that this anononymous Bouma dog can't understand because he was formed to repeat all days the same thing "AmigaInc is always good and right. Who don't believe in it is a miscredent!" |
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 80 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Eva on 25-Sep-2003 22:48 GMT | In reply to Comment 64 (Dom Front):
Ehehe here the poor alone people are oonly the good Bouma dogs like you m8.
Read the documents as ALL OTHER ANN READER WILL DO and accept the reality. Soon your amable .net portal will be censored COMPLETLY. |
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 81 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by hooligan/dcs on 25-Sep-2003 23:02 GMT | In reply to Comment 80 (Eva):
@Eva
I know I have said this 1000 times before.. but you just dont seem to get it.
You think you could be able to do sentences which would a bit more constructive? Notice: I don't mean tone down the "idealism", just wear your comments so that they can be respected. Now you simply look like a troll and nobody reads your comments. I skipped a few and read the last one... without even seeing I know what kind of comments they were.
You're not only making yourself fool, by your actions the whole Pegasos community is treated like you.
Critisism is always for good, it usually strenghten the victim. But common sense should dictate when enough is enough. |
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 82 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Bill Hoggett on 25-Sep-2003 23:06 GMT | In reply to Comment 77 (Eva):
@Eva
Why don't you put a sock in it? The last thing this thread needs is another bunch of mindless insults.
@All
Cripes folks! Can't you guys just accept you have opposing views and let it go at that? Are the personality clashes - and that's all they are - really necessary? |
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 83 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by JoannaK on 25-Sep-2003 23:07 GMT | In reply to Comment 76 (JoannaK):
Ok... Let me Rephrase that one.. Along couple other 'well known non
anonymous individuals' who would be banned (or at least posting
restricted) from sites requiring logins... |
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 84 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Ronald on 26-Sep-2003 00:16 GMT | This "Wanadoo" is hilarious! He was calling me a troll yesterday and going on and on with his rambling. I criticized Amiga Inc then all of a sudden I was a Genesi payed fanatic on a "jihad" to "destroy" Amiga Inc.
I'm looking forward to getting myself a HyperionOne Lite with HyperionOS 4. :P |
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 85 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by EyeAm on 26-Sep-2003 00:34 GMT | | "This too shall pass." :) |
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 86 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Rich Woods on 26-Sep-2003 00:59 GMT | In reply to Comment 72 (Dom Front):
Posted by Dom Front (80.9.225.25) on 25-Sep-2003 23:30:08
...quite embarassing. But my question still stands, exactly what is so significant about this - and what is the Federal Law implication that Rich Woods alludes to?
----------------
I allude to the Federal Rules and Procedures that are followed in ANY Federal court.
I asked for YOU to tell me why a Federal judge is just NOT going to allow Amiga to continue to stall and play games and waste the court's time.
There is NO reason to allow one set of attornies to withdraw and another to take over except for valid reasons which are outlined in the federal guidelines.
Don't ask to tell you where, what and whom.
The rules are WAY over your head - you cannot understand the simple stuff, the other is MUCH too complex for your understanding. |
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 87 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Rich Woods on 26-Sep-2003 01:29 GMT | In reply to Comment 72 (Dom Front):
(d) An attorney or party who without just cause fails to comply with any of the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, or these rules, or orders of the court, or who presents to the court unnecessary motions or unwarranted opposition to motions, or who fails to prepare for presentation to the court, or who otherwise so multiplies or obstructs the proceedings in a case as to increase the cost thereof unreasonably and vexatiously, may, in addition to, or in lieu of the sanctions and penalties provided elsewhere in these rules, be required by the court to satisfy personally such excess costs, and may be subject to such other sanctions as the court may deem appropriate.
---------------------
This should be simple enough to understand. This is just a part of an attorney's obligations to the court.
Besides Amiga's "insolvency", billyboy's constraints on the court makes the attorneys look bad - a reason for withdrawal could be billyboy's flaunting of court rules and procedures. |
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 88 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Rich Woods on 26-Sep-2003 01:33 GMT | In reply to Comment 72 (Dom Front):
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/
Go to town kid. Plenty of stuff to catch up on.
Maybe YOU can quote the applicable rules that must be followed concerning the withdrawal of attorney's from a 8+ month old case.
I can't make it any EASIER than this. |
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 89 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Rich Woods on 26-Sep-2003 01:46 GMT | In reply to Comment 88 (Rich Woods):
Knowing that he won't be able to find the info himself I've posted part of the governing rules. Not that he'll understand it but others will.
(f) Appearance and Withdrawal of Attorneys
(1) Whenever a party has appeared by attorney, he cannot thereafter appear or act in his own behalf in the cause, or take any step therein, unless an order of substitution shall first have been made by the court, after notice to the attorney of such party, and to the opposite party; provided, that the court may in its discretion hear a party in open court, notwithstanding the fact that he has appeared, or is represented by attorney.
(2) When an attorney dies, or is removed or suspended, or ceases to act as such, a party to an action for whom he was acting as attorney must, before any further proceedings are had in the action on his behalf, appoint another attorney or appear in person, unless such party is already represented by another attorney. Where there has simply been a change or addition of counsel within the same law office, an order of substitution is not required.
(3) The authority and duty of attorneys of record shall continue until there shall be a substitution of some other attorney of record, except as herein otherwise expressly provided, and shall continue after final judgment for all proper purposes.
(4) (A) No attorney shall withdraw an appearance in any cause, civil or criminal, except by leave of court. Leave shall be obtained by filing a motion or a stipulation for withdrawal or, if appropriate, by complying with the requirement of CrR 5(d)(2). A motion for withdrawal shall be noted in accordance with CR 7(d)(2) or CrR 12(c)(7) and shall include a certification that the motion was served on the client and opposing counsel. A stipulation for withdrawal shall also include a certification that it has been served upon the client. The attorney will ordinarily be permitted to withdraw until sixty days before the discovery cut off date in a civil case.
(B) If the attorney for a corporation is seeking to withdraw, the attorney shall certify to the court that he or she has advised the corporation that it is required by law to be represented by an attorney admitted to practice before this court and that failure to obtain a replacement attorney by the date the withdrawal is effective may result in dismissal of the corporation's claims for failure to prosecute and/or entry of default against the corporation as to any claims of other parties. |
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 90 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Joe "Floid" Kanowitz on 26-Sep-2003 02:19 GMT | In reply to Comment 23 (Fabio Alemagna):
Fabio said,
> However, at this point it must be said that if the lack of money is
> the reason for which the attorneys withdrawed, and it's not the fact
> that they believed they couldn't win, then nothing can be said about
> Amiga Inc.'s position in the case (that is, whether they were right
> or wrong): as we all know, often people who are right are forced to
> abandon the case because they can't afford it, in fact this is the
> most common remark that is made to the USA legal system.
This definitely isn't standard procedure for 'abandoning' a case. Either one doesn't get started in the first place, or the attorney would throw in some sort of motion for settlement, or some other document that basically informs the court 'There's no problem here, my client's going to agree or at least say he agrees at this juncture because it's cheaper than fighting it, sorry for wasting your time.' Rules of procedure; you don't drive away when the cop tries to pull you over because you intend to pay the ticket.
It was my understanding that lawyers generally take (civil) cases with fingers crossed and the intention of billing forever. The procedure exists to flee early, but this is balanced by the code of conduct they're required to follow to retain membership on the state bar. (Of course, to see dismissal from same, someone has to get together a legal malpractice suit, which is why there remain -- quoting someone in the business -- so many "scumbag attorneys" in practice. ;)) If the client goes broke with a case in progress, counsel retains a professional obligation to help him unf**k his matters or avoid making them worse, be it by referral to someone cheaper, rapid closure of the outstanding action (settlement, dismissal, whatever's quickest and least damaging), whatever.
A plumber isn't supposed to open a sewer line into your basement and drive off 'til you've mailed him a check. You'd expect him to leave the problem no worse than he found it, and if there's a billing dispute, he probably won't work for you again, or even file suit to claim his pay. Same deal with lawyers, they just 'luck out' providing a service mostly needed by people in financial crisis. (If everyone had unlimited wealth, what would be left to argue about? Just the occasional crime of passion.)
Now, if the client's been offered adequate counsel ("You're out of cash, from everything you've shown me, I'd take the settlement," for example) and refuses, the attorney is in a better position to wash his hands, though I'd expect he'd want or have to make their position clear to the bench. The obligation does imply a little "HAL 9000" leeway; if the client wants to do something the attorney as knowledgable counsel knows is damaging, he's supposed to Do Whatever the Right Thing Is, and either end up satisfying the client ("See? Told you it'd all work out!"), or with good ammunition for the malpractice suit if it comes to that.
That's the ideal; people in reality -- clients, attorneys, judges -- all tend to suck, or we wouldn't hate life so much. ;)
---
Okay, to specifics. Here's the state RPC:
http://courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.list&group=ga&set=RPC
... Section 1.15 is what we care about if we want to care.
Given all that, any combination of the following could hold:
- Shukis and firm could be being a touch derelict here. ("Could" in the simple sense of possibility.)
- The case could be eating enough attorney resources that they figure they have nothing to lose at this point.
- AInc. may've told them to shove it.
- Were it negotiated in any way, the "has not responded" seems a little weird. I'd expect counsel to cover their posterior against malpractice by noting support or consent if it existed. No idea on court procedure, though, it could just be boilerplate in lieu of sworn statement.
- All the above point to some confidence that nobody'll bother or be able to bother with malpractice claims. (Could be that they feel they're covered under that RPC 1.15, could just be a lack of extraordinary skill, impossible to say how much anyone cares.)
Having prodded around a bit more (why does this always feel like stalking?), Shukis seems pretty cool, if not very grizzled. If I can try to think like a lawyer here (the pain! the pain!), that probably explains the lack of supporting documentation. It's a goofy, drawn out, low profit case, and it looks like this is just a 'feeler' to see if the judge will let the counsel off the hook.
If AInc. has resources left, one assumes they'd be 'peripherally' aware of it (while taking pains not to look emotional one way or the other), and figure they can wing it as a delaying benefit while retaining counsel that could be cheaper and more motivated.
If they only have the $100, then yeah, they're probably a little screwed. Sort of makes the 'license tax' seem worth it if it means we get to see this through to a proper conclusion. ;) |
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 91 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by dammy on 26-Sep-2003 02:45 GMT | In reply to Comment 23 (Fabio Alemagna):
> However, at this point it must be said that if the lack of money is
> the reason for which the attorneys withdrawed, and it's not the fact
> that they believed they couldn't win, then nothing can be said about
> Amiga Inc.'s position in the case (that is, whether they were right
> or wrong): as we all know, often people who are right are forced to
> abandon the case because they can't afford it, in fact this is the
> most common remark that is made to the USA legal system.
Since that law firm is also abandoning the law suit against Genesi SARL, that screams, atleast to me, they had no reasonable expectation of winning that law suit. Since we know that Amiga Inc has $100 or so in the bank account, the only reasonable explaination for that law firm to initiate a law suit against Genesi for Amiga Inc would be contingence fee. If there was a reasonable chance of Amiga Inc collecting against Genesi, the law firm would have more then likely hung around in hopes of atleast getting it's 40% cut from any monetary awards. Which would give Amiga Inc a perfect way of repaying the law firm for defending Amiga Inc against Genesi. Especially since the law firm would be the one giving Amiga Inc the final check (after they recieved if from the other firm's law firm), minus fees.
Dammy |
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 92 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Joe "Floid" Kanowitz on 26-Sep-2003 02:52 GMT | In reply to Comment 87 (Rich Woods):
Rich Woods quoted a bunch of the federal rules of conduct...
If you're keeping score, know when the discovery cutoff is or was set?
The Federal code probably applies here more than the state, I wasn't thinking too hard. Having observed a malpractice case once (I was along to haul some exhibits for the counsel for the claimant), which is what it takes to test these principles in absence of gross misconduct (something that'd make the judge actively stand up and take action), those end up in front of bored juries, and the arguments can get pretty vague or just plain specious anyway. (Claimant reads off the WA code of conduct, say, defense objects that the Federal rules are slightly different, bench carries it... but the jury doesn't exactly forget what was babbled at them or keep great track of what does/doesn't apply.)
Since, given the other analysis, I doubt it'll come to malpractice, either AInc. takes the delay, gets another attorney, and buys another month or two to get product out the door (and revenue/investment for support)... Or they don't reserve counsel, get a default judgement, and immediately file bankruptcy if they can find a lawyer who'll take pay in Mediaterminals.
> Besides Amiga's "insolvency", billyboy's constraints on the court
> makes the attorneys look bad - a reason for withdrawal could be
> billyboy's flaunting of court rules and procedures.
Somewhat agreed, but I bet the bench has seen far worse, so I'd be surprised if he does more than curl his lip. Funny how we have to wait for some 'judgement' to pretend we can predict the judgement.
(Oh, wait, isn't that how it's supposed to work?) ;) |
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 93 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Rich Woods on 26-Sep-2003 03:14 GMT | In reply to Comment 92 (Joe "Floid" Kanowitz):
Posted by Joe "Floid" Kanowitz (69.0.53.91) on 26-Sep-2003 04:52:24
In Reply to Comment 87:
Rich Woods quoted a bunch of the federal rules of conduct...
If you're keeping score, know when the discovery cutoff is or was set?
-------------------
It's over. August 3rd - with both attornies I believe IIRC agreeing to extend the deadline - I think it was in a motion somewwhere so the court I guess agreed to it.
04/04/2003 12 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Lasnik setting Trial Date and Related Dates
pursuant to LR 16. Trial set for 12/1/03 ; Deadline to Join Additional Parties
is 5/1/03 ; Disclosure of expert testimony due: 6/4/03 ; Discovery Motions to be filed by <date not set> ; Discovery deadline set for 8/3/03 ; Dispositive
Motions to be filed by 9/2/03 ; Settlement conf. per CR 39.1(c)(2) by 10/2/03 ;
39.1 designation effective 11/1/03 ; Motions in Limine deadline 11/3/03 ; Agreed
Pretrial Order set for 11/19/03 ; Trial briefs and exhibits to be submitted by
11/26/03 Court trial set for 2-4 days. (cc: counsel, Judge, KL) (VK) (Entered:
04/04/2003)
---------------
The Federal code probably applies here more than the state, I wasn't thinking too hard. Having observed a malpractice case once (I was along to haul some
A lot better than some others! But yes - this is a Federal Civil Action so the Federal Rules of the WA District Ct (9th Circuit) would apply.
> Besides Amiga's "insolvency", billyboy's constraints on the court
> makes the attorneys look bad - a reason for withdrawal could be
> billyboy's flaunting of court rules and procedures.
Somewhat agreed, but I bet the bench has seen far worse, so I'd be surprised if he does more than curl his lip. Funny how we have to wait for some 'judgement' to pretend we can predict the judgement.
-------------
There was a suit by Christina Czerwinsk for child support for Ryan. 10 VOLUMES of paperwork - and the suit ran over 5 years. The court said something along the lines of if there ever was a case for over-litigation this one was it.
They did get a little heavy in their remarks.
The father of Ryan pulled quite a few tricks - lack of discovery, paperwork, income statements, refusal to communicate with attornies - was pretty bad in flaunting and thumbing your nose at the court.
--------------
(Oh, wait, isn't that how it's supposed to work?) ;)
The rich get richer and the poor get poorer! |
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 94 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Anonymous on 26-Sep-2003 03:41 GMT | In reply to Comment 25 (takemehomegrandma):
NO, please keep us in suppence. This is the best butter and popcorn stuff I've seen yet. |
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 95 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Anonymous on 26-Sep-2003 03:42 GMT | In reply to Comment 28 (Anonymous):
Oh, as Opposed to everyone else's conjecture. |
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 96 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Joe "Floid" Kanowitz on 26-Sep-2003 04:00 GMT | In reply to Comment 93 (Rich Woods):
Woohoo, brief interlude of sane discussion!
Rich Woods said,
> It's over. August 3rd - with both attornies I believe IIRC agreeing
> to extend the deadline - I think it was in a motion somewwhere so the
> court I guess agreed to it.
Aha. Thought I'd read that but didn't want to dig for it. Just to make sure everyone gets it, that implies the judge will at least have to scratch his head over it (where do these metaphors keep coming from?), since they're past the first "within 60 days" mark. Zero chance of it slipping off with a rubber stamp and no conscious thought, not that there would've been much anyway. (Judges are supposed to keep track of this stuff, that's part of what they're there for.)
So the outcome gives us a sliver of a glance at what he's thinking. Counsel goes, it's the good ol' bleak uncertainty until we find out if there are fresh lawyers. Counsel stays, something's caught his eye that he doesn't want to see it go straight to default.
Can't argue with anything in that reply. |
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 97 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by hammer on 26-Sep-2003 04:42 GMT | | Popcorn… munch, munch.... waiting for Ratio decidendi... |
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 98 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Don Cox on 26-Sep-2003 05:21 GMT | In reply to Comment 91 (dammy):
"we know that Amiga Inc has $100 or so in the bank account,"
Bill McEwen said there was $100 in the checking account. He said nothing about other accounts the company may have. |
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 99 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Anonymous on 26-Sep-2003 05:46 GMT | In reply to Comment 76 (JoannaK):
@JoannaK
You mean people stop trying to provoke the "red trolls" on Amiga.org because they are not reacting?
I wonder what of the second half of your comment applies to the first 15 comments in this thread. Who of Emeric SH, takemehomegrandma, Rich Woods, Dammy, Bill Hoggett, Kronos, Tyro and T_Bone? |
|
| Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 100 of 147 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by T_Bone on 26-Sep-2003 05:50 GMT | In reply to Comment 98 (Don Cox):
Yes he did, he was asked for a complete profile of Amiga Inc's financial status. This isn't the first court to do so either. He has repeatedly told the individual courts that they have no money. If he's keeping accounts secret when asked in court to disclose them, he's breaking the law. |
|
| Anonymous, there are 147 items in your selection (but only 97 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 147] |
|
- 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.
|
