California Case Update

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kier said:
Can't do that, she states personal knowledge of the events.

And misrepresenting the truth in a sworn affidavit to the court is perjury whether you are a lawyer or not.
Click to expand...

Good to know.. May this year be filled with mistakes (gifts) to you guys so that this case and the other are completed, you found victorious and xenforo and get down to the real business at hand of offering us a spectacular platform to build our communities on!

Happy New year Kier!

Jamie
 
Kier said:
Can't do that, she states personal knowledge of the events.

And misrepresenting the truth in a sworn affidavit to the court is perjury whether you are a lawyer or not.
Click to expand...
But, it's only perjury if it is deliberate and intended to mislead about facts material to, or affecting the outcome of the case.

I'm not sure how Ray's *current* employment status is material to the case.
 
It's not only his employment status, but the fact that she said he lived in Southern CA... He may, but from the articles and his own words, he isn't in the States anymore. Basicly she is trying to paint a picture that everything and everyone involved in the case, including xenforo is already in the state of CA so holding the hearing there is logical.

She isn't being completely truthful. xenforo isn't in CA. Ray isn't in CA. Kier isn't in CA. Holding the case there vs the UK isn't logical from any stand point.

This is what I see from my limited view on things and it's what I hope the Judge sees as well. This CA case needs to be dismissed and the case needs to be heard over in the UK.

Jamie
 
2011 I feel will be the year xenforo truly comes into it's own and steps up to another level. After reading all these lies (and what I just said) I can't help feeling IB isn't so much afraid of xenforo now, but rather what it will become. I see them trying to deter that and throw a spanner in the works at every opportunity because they know the longer xenforo is currently developed, the more it gets better and better with each key that is pressed by Mike and Kier. This, they cannot stomach.

Like Ive stated from the start. Great job Mike, Kier and Ashley keep your heads up high and continue to do what you do and that is building a truly great product/community that we are all proud to be part of.
 
Jamie said:
I was thinking the same thing, but didn't know if it didn't exactly apply to the lawyers involved. I know you can be sanctioned or be up to lose your license, but I didn't know if they called it perjury when it's coming from one of the lawyers..

Either way, it's bad for them and good for us. :)

Jamie
Click to expand...

It would be perjury in the UK, because she signed it, and it would not be likely to have been a mistake, is she had read it properly.
 
Jamie said:
This CA case needs to be dismissed and the case needs to be heard over in the UK.
Click to expand...
Let's not forget that the case is already being heard in the UK, in the original law suit at the High Court in London. Of course, IB avoid mentioning that at any point in their Californian action.
 
Kier said:
Can't do that, she states personal knowledge of the events.
Click to expand...
You drink enough of that IB water and you start to believe what you hear as your own facts.
My theory is she actually believes she was there.
Maybe she saw you in her dreams? Oh never mind. Let's not go there. Kinda creeping me out.
BTW- license #4. Go team!
 
Kier said:
Let's not forget that the case is already being heard in the UK, in the original law suit at the High Court in London. Of course, IB avoid mentioning that at any point in their Californian action.
Click to expand...

Another question Kier. Is that actually allowed? Filing two cases in different countries over the same thing? And if the judge is made aware of this do they frown on this type of thing?
 
Shelley said:
Another question Kier. Is that actually allowed? Filing two cases in different countries over the same thing? And if the judge is made aware of this do they frown on this type of thing?
Click to expand...
Of course IB would like people to believe that the English and Californian cases are completely unrelated, though anyone who reads both the UK claim and the US complaint can see that they are substantively identical, and the relief sought is essentially the same. As to the legality of filing the same suit in multiple jurisdictions, see this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_shopping
 
Kier said:
Of course IB would like people to believe that the English and Californian cases are completely unrelated, though anyone who reads both the UK claim and the US complaint can see that they are substantively identical, and the relief sought is essentially the same. As to the legality of filing the same suit in multiple jurisdictions, see this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_shopping
Click to expand...

Interesting, under 'The rules in the US' -

Efforts to dissuade forum shopping

Courts may object to forum shopping for several reasons. It would offend the sense of justice, if the fair resolution of a case should hinge on technical differences from one jurisdiction to the next. More practically, judges feel that their courts are overburdened and fear that having the reputation of a forum favorable to certain types of plaintiffs will increase their work load, thus delaying the timely dispensation of justice in other cases.
Click to expand...

Let's hope the Judge considers the fact that as the UK case was filed first this is nothing but an attempt at forum shopping, which, of course, it is.
 
I'd invite anyone who wants to do so to read and compare the UK Particulars of Claim and the US First Amended Complaint in order to make up their own minds as to whether these should be considered different cases. Both documents are public record.
 
Kier said:
I'd invite anyone who wants to do so to read and compare the UK Particulars of Claim and the US First Amended Complaint in order to make up their own minds as to whether these should be considered different cases. Both documents are public record.
Click to expand...

I've read the US case in full, but I've not seen any links to the UK Particulars of Claim, could you provide one?

I've posted before that some years ago I filed action against a large newspaper group in the UK after selling them a business, they counter-filed against me for twice the sum. My solicitor was somewhat concerned when she read their document, whereas I couldn't stop laughing when I read it, because I could see it was just bulls**t - I bet you've had at least a few laughs from reading what IB has filed.

EDIT: They withdraw their claim about a week before the case, and finally agreed to settle 100% of what I had claimed two days before - here's to you having similar good fortune!
 
DoctorWatsOn said:
I've read the US case in full, but I've not seen any links to the UK Particulars of Claim, could you provide one?
Click to expand...
To my knowledge, so far nobody has requested the UK PoC from the court, so as far as I know it's not currently available online.
 

Since when is IB a California corporation as stated in the above declaration ?​

http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/ (search Internet Brands, Inc. here)​

Business Entity Detail

Data is updated weekly and is current as of Friday, December 24, 2010. It is not a complete or certified record of the entity.

Entity Name: INTERNET BRANDS, INC.
Entity Number: C2124023
Date Filed: 10/23/1998
Status: ACTIVE
Jurisdiction: DELAWARE
Entity Address: 909 N. SEPULVEDA BLVD., 11TH FLOOR
Entity City, State, Zip: EL SEGUNDO CA 90248
Agent for Service of Process: NATIONAL REGISTERED AGENTS, INC.
Agent Address: 2875 MICHELLE DR STE 100
Agent City, State, Zip: IRVINE CA 92606
Click to expand...
 
AnthonyCea said:

Since when is IB a California corporation as stated in the above declaration ?​

http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/ (search Internet Brands, Inc. here)​
Click to expand...

Entity Name:INTERNET BRANDS, INC.
Entity Number:C2124023
Date Filed:10/23/1998
Status:ACTIVE
Jurisdiction:DELAWARE
Entity Address:909 N. SEPULVEDA BLVD., 11TH FLOOR
Entity City, State, Zip:EL SEGUNDO CA 90248
Agent for Service of Process:NATIONAL REGISTERED AGENTS, INC.
Agent Address:2875 MICHELLE DR STE 100
Agent City, State, Zip:IRVINE CA 92606


File Number:2953962Incorporation Date / Formation Date:10/09/1998
(mm/dd/yyyy)
Entity Name:INTERNET BRANDS, INC.
Entity Kind:CORPORATIONEntity Type:GENERAL
Residency:DOMESTICState:DE
 
Kier said:
To my knowledge, so far nobody has requested the UK PoC from the court, so as far as I know it's not currently available online.
Click to expand...

I did, they said they would send my a paper copy.

Also, they did mention, sorry, CTO mentioned the UK case: "Parallel British Proceedings"

1st Page, paragraph 2.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom