California Case Update

Status
Not open for further replies.
Document 62-2, page 9, under the heading of Factual Background

Sometime prior to April 6, 2011, Jelsoft hired Darby to serve as the lead developer of Jelsoft's products and was tasked with developing, programming and launching features and functions for future versions of vBulletin. Following Internet Brands' acquisition of Jelsoft in 2007, Darby's job responsibilities remained the same and he continued to be involved in all aspects of the development and improvement of the existing and future versions of vBulletin software, including vBulletin 4.0 and its successors. On April 6, 2006, Darby executed a Statement of Main Terms Agreement, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Click to expand...

For goodness' sake, April 6, 2011 was almost a year after Kier had left vBulletin, no?
Whether a typo or not, this is just ironic to make such a blunder in the very first bullet under "Factual Background".
 
Saeed said:
Document 62-2, page 9, under the heading of Factual Background

For goodness' sake, April 6, 2011 was almost a year after Kier had left vBulletin, no?
Whether a typo or not, this is just ironic to make such a blunder in the very first bullet under "Factual Background".
Click to expand...
To be fair, Kier did work for them some time before April 6, 2011. It was just a lot of time before that. :whistle:
 
Saeed said:
Document 62-2, page 9, under the heading of Factual Background

For goodness' sake, April 6, 2011 was almost a year after Kier had left vBulletin, no?
Whether a typo or not, this is just ironic to make such a blunder in the very first bullet under "Factual Background".
Click to expand...

I'm guessing they meant to put 2001 there. But yeah. One would think that after already having made such blatant mistakes before (Adrian's testimony springs to mind), they would be a bit more careful.

That, or the IB lawyers literally don't give a flying ****, and are just happily wasting everybody's time while writing their checks.

p.s. I have not been able to find that document with the judge's DENIED written on it. Could any kind soul please show me the way?
 
SchmitzIT said:
I'm guessing they meant to put 2001 there. But yeah. One would think that after already having made such blatant mistakes before (Adrian's testimony springs to mind), they would be a bit more careful.

That, or the IB lawyers literally don't give a flying ****, and are just happily wasting everybody's time while writing their checks.

p.s. I have not been able to find that document with the judge's DENIED written on it. Could any kind soul please show me the way?
Click to expand...
I agree, that's probably what they meant. I just find it hard to believe that they're putting a 2006 at the end of the very same paragraph. They probably didn't even bother to read it once again. You're right, just excuses to waste time. What a mockery!
 
SchmitzIT said:
I'm guessing they meant to put 2001 there. But yeah. One would think that after already having made such blatant mistakes before (Adrian's testimony springs to mind), they would be a bit more careful.

That, or the IB lawyers literally don't give a flying ****, and are just happily wasting everybody's time while writing their checks.

p.s. I have not been able to find that document with the judge's DENIED written on it. Could any kind soul please show me the way?
Click to expand...
You'll find it here:
12th September 2011
69 - Order on Ex Parte Application to Shorten Time for Hearing
 
Plaintiff has allege that XenForo Limited is an criminal “enterprise” operated
by Darby, Sullivan, and Busby who allegedly direct Gordon, Frei, and Gokceimam
to commit wire fraud.
Click to expand...

I do hope, for their sake vBSI has proof of this, otherwise they've just opened themselves to a defamation of character lawsuit or libel, whichever is appropriate in US law. Although I suspect they're hedging their bets on that K/M/A don't have the funds to launch a lawsuit.

Not now, but after this is all sorted, personally, I'd go after them for that statement, its shocking.
 
Colin , me and Darren are all living outside of USA . I am hoping to create a law case against them but the cost of that case will be extremely high. Those kind of things should be carefully investigated but i talked with my wife and dad last night and they want me to pursue IB for the words they used against me.

But the best thing to do is first wait what will judge do about IB's claims. If those will be accepted i should wait till the case will be over. I am also checking my options to sue IB within Turkey . If there is any possibility to do that i'll do that also. They maybe thinking that it will be hard to defend outself but they are greatly mistaken.
 
IB sueing individuals outside the US, really achieves nothing to be perfectly honest. You would be surprised just how hard it would be for them if you did nothing, responded to nothing, for them to take action against you as an individual, attempting to use US law within your country... as they would have to lodge it in your country, as whilst countries have extradition, etc, that is for criminal matters, not civil... hence why they are trying to claim criminality at a rough guess.

Trying to sue across borders is a fruitless task, regardless how big any company is... stop answering them and they have to come to you in your country to get anywhere.
 
Anthony Parsons said:
IB sueing individuals outside the US, really achieves nothing to be perfectly honest. You would be surprised just how hard it would be for them if you did nothing, responded to nothing, for them to take action against you as an individual, attempting to use US law within your country... as they would have to lodge it in your country, as whilst countries have extradition, etc, that is for criminal matters, not civil... hence why they are trying to claim criminality at a rough guess.

Trying to sue across borders is a fruitless task, regardless how big any company is... stop answering them and they have to come to you in your country to get anywhere.
Click to expand...

They are already suing in the UK.
 
Shamil said:
They are already suing in the UK.
Click to expand...
Yes, but they are doing that under the UK company... big difference, hence why they kept that just before it expired, as they obviously thought ahead as a "just in case" approach.

If they didn't have that UK company still registered, sueing across borders for individuals is extremely difficult.

VB vs. Xenforo is companies, not individuals... which is different.

Try and sue me for example, from the US to me in Australia... and let me just say, you would endup having to come to Australia, I wouldn't be going to the US... because the US have zero jurisdiction over me as an individual, thus I have no requirement to get on a plane and face a US court... it would have to be criminal and go through extradition processes in order to get me into the US court system... which they just don't do for civil matters.

Where is Mert? Turkey? Goodluck with that one IB!

Hence why I say... individuals shouldn't waste their time or money responding to IB / VB unless they come into their countries uniquely and file within that countries court system. They cannot file in the US against individuals who live in another country... it will go nowhere!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom