California Case Update

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ashley Busby was always listed as a director of XenForo Ltd at UK Companies House...

Surely that's an employee...

EDIT: No new documents have been filed with Companies House since July. I'm not sure how quickly they need to be notified of changes to directors nor how frequently they update their WebCheck service...
 
Thanks Jake.
There was a lot of effort earlier this year to get Ashley OFF the list of Defendants: that completed successfully in May. So he doesn't have to make a statement, as things stand now.
Stating Ashley is "not an employee" can mean he's a self employed consultant, a volunteer unpaid consultant or a number of other statuses. All it means is he is not directly paid by XF with any resulting UK tax and NI deducted by XF for him before he is paid.

So this snippet doesn't mean anything about Ashley's involvement? commitment to XF.
What does show his position is answering sales tickets, as Jake says.
 
Chris Deeming said:
I just read up:

Being a director does not, of itself, make that person an employee of the company.
Click to expand...
Quite. You can be a director and shareholder in a company, collecting dividends of the profits, without being an "employee."

I am the sole owner and director of my business, but I am not an employee of it. The company does not operate PAYE (Pay As You Earn) and does not pay me a salary. :)
 
That's fine then. To echo what Jake said:
Jake Bunce said:
Let that be the end of this nonsense.
Click to expand...

Basically nothing has changed. Ashley has never been an employee and technically has always been a third party, and he has always been a director of the company. I don't see anything here that has changed.
 
Will said:
Well it says he is "third party" before that. So yes, it would mean he is not employed by Xenforo. But it doesn't mean he left.
Click to expand...

But the declaration stating that he's giving his deposition in a few weeks states that he IS an employee of Xenforo.

There seems to be an inconsistency here...?
 
RobParker said:
But the declaration stating that he's giving his deposition in a few weeks states that he IS an employee of Xenforo.

There seems to be an inconsistency here...?
Click to expand...

Reading it again, it seems that VB claim he is an employee and want to depose him but Pam claims he isn't an employee.
 
As others have pointed out, 'employee' is a distinct legal term and it's not necessary for Ashley to be an employee to have had (or continue to have) involvement with XF.

Everything Pam said is probably legally and technically correct - Ashley might well not be an employee in the legal sense, even if colloquially people might use that term. This is why you have lawyers ;)
 
tickedon said:
As others have pointed out, 'employee' is a distinct legal term and it's not necessary for Ashley to be an employee to have had (or continue to have) involvement with XF.

Everything Pam said is probably legally and technically correct - Ashley might well not be an employee in the legal sense, even if colloquially people might use that term. This is why you have lawyers ;)
Click to expand...

My point was that one set of lawyers explicitly called him an employee, the other that he explicitly wasn't. Unless the lawyers are each using different definitions then someone is wrong.
 
RobParker said:
My point was that one set of lawyers explicitly called him an employee, the other that he explicitly wasn't. Unless the lawyers are each using different definitions then someone is wrong.
Click to expand...

Nothing new there, welcome to every legal argument ever had.
 
RobParker said:
My point was that one set of lawyers explicitly called him an employee, the other that he explicitly wasn't. Unless the lawyers are each using different definitions then someone is wrong.
Click to expand...
As far as I see it: IB sued both XenForo and KAM individually. Ashley as an individual got off free - so it makes sense for IB to try and keep him in it by saying he's an XF employee and so should still be involved in the lawsuit.

However, the XF lawyer says he's not, in fact, an employee and thus should not be part of the lawsuit at all.

So IB is just trying to keep him forced in the lawsuit, while XF is saying "he's not an employee and thus should not be targetted." Hence the different naming.
 
I must admit, this whole case has been a real eye opener for me on how the.."justice" system works in the USA and possibly other countries.

Presumably intelligent to very intelligent people, go to school, college, then on to university, to study law, they leave, start or join a law firm, only for companies like IB, to hire them to not only destroy small startup companies, based on nothing but greed and jealousy, but indeed, to severely stress out and cause immense grief to the owners and their families/friends.

I find that really disturbing and why in this day and age, that's allowed and is "legal", is beyond me.
 
Getting off topic here, but there is no such thing - in the real world - as justice and fairness. If XF loses, or shut down because of this mess, it doesn't mean they were wrong - or right - or that justice was done.

I know that's a hard lesson, but it's the way of the world. One self-help dude wrote a nice piece about it - called the Justice Trap. Here is a blogger piece on the main points:
http://purequalities.blogspot.com/2010/04/day-15-justice-trap-ch-8-dyer.html
 
AdamD said:
I must admit, this whole case has been a real eye opener for me on how the.."justice" system works in the USA and possibly other countries.

Presumably intelligent to very intelligent people, go to school, college, then on to university, to study law, they leave, start or join a law firm, only for companies like IB, to hire them to not only destroy small startup companies, based on nothing but greed and jealousy, but indeed, to severely stress out and cause immense grief to the owners and their families/friends.

I find that really disturbing and why in this day and age, that's allowed and is "legal", is beyond me.
Click to expand...

It's actually quite true in most countries which have a functional legal system. I am from India, and here too when someone really wants to make someone else's life hell, they sue them with whatever charges they can think of. Suing people legally only takes money... So if you are rich and and can afford them you can destroy people's lives through the courts.

Yes it's a shock when one realizes it but is quite true.
 
Well, I just had the pleasure of being summoned for jury duty and going through the selection process...and actually being picked. The one thing I can tell you is that if xf's lawyers portray this David and Goliath to the jury (if this goes to jury trial), it will be in the bag and xf will win. Everyone hates big companies and will go with the little guy it seems. And no one likes big corp bullies. Should have a decent advantage towards xF just based on that. Based on "evidence"...well we haven't seen it all it seems so I really don't know. And you know any potential juror that knows anything about computers will likely get the 'x'.
 
AzzidReign said:
Well, I just had the pleasure of being summoned for jury duty and going through the selection process...and actually being picked. The one thing I can tell you is that if xf's lawyers portray this David and Goliath to the jury (if this goes to jury trial), it will be in the bag and xf will win. Everyone hates big companies and will go with the little guy it seems. And no one likes big corp bullies. Should have a decent advantage towards xF just based on that. Based on "evidence"...well we haven't seen it all it seems so I really don't know. And you know any potential juror that knows anything about computers will likely get the 'x'.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you already have your mind made up before the trial even begins. Hopefully it's not a case of David vs Goliath or you really should excuse yourself.
Unless you are not one of everyone and will have an open mind.
 
AdamD said:
I must admit, this whole case has been a real eye opener for me on how the.."justice" system works in the USA and possibly other countries.

Presumably intelligent to very intelligent people, go to school, college, then on to university, to study law, they leave, start or join a law firm, only for companies like IB, to hire them to not only destroy small startup companies, based on nothing but greed and jealousy, but indeed, to severely stress out and cause immense grief to the owners and their families/friends.

I find that really disturbing and why in this day and age, that's allowed and is "legal", is beyond me.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The US has too many lawyers and that's because the stupid government has brainwashed the parents into thinking that their kids should always go to college, even if they have a creative plan and/or would learn more on the work floor. So the kids get worthless liberal art degrees or worse become a lawyer instead of learning a trade and creating a business. Everything in the US is working against small business, including big corporations, government, and the voters. And then people wonder why the economy recovers so slow (if at all). A bit off-topic maybe but I thought worth mentioning.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom