(Topic ID: 108377)

The Official Pinside Kevin Kulek Skit-B Predator Discussion


By Xerico

4 years ago



Topic Stats

  • 18,269 posts
  • 815 Pinsiders participating
  • Latest reply 33 days ago by Cobra99
  • Topic is favorited by 193 Pinsiders

You

Linked Games

Topic Gallery

There have been 1,540 images uploaded to this topic. (View topic image gallery).

Kulek.pdf (PDF preview)
6-pennywise-has-some-nickelback-funny-meme (resized).jpg
will-ferrell-fillwerrel-i-just-fell-down-the-stairs-holding-31512906 (resized).png
pinsiders (resized).jpg
pasted_image (resized).png
194b3475e0440b8112afc0ac4ad5bf0ed0e8ec3db63fb4b6748a4f2e06a9865b (resized).jpg
31A053C2-4495-4E3E-980F-E5ADEA02F1DE (resized).jpeg
IMG_2933 (resized).JPG
beetlejuice-shrunken head (resized).jpg
2716720260_bc8966f6b1 (resized).jpg
D460F55E-AD42-43C6-91EB-B8162A84A094.gif
Screenshot_20190103-214734_Facebook (resized).jpg
Screenshot_20181108-174321 (resized).png
Fife Appeal Sept 24 2018.pdf (PDF preview)
cat ooo 2.gif
7332539.attach (resized).jpg

Topic index (key posts)

86 key posts have been marked in this topic, showing the first 20 (Show topic index)

There are 18269 posts in this topic. You are on page 310 of 366.
#15451 2 years ago

It just rained like crazy in Michigan. If that location is flooding it's doing it now. When is the walk through?

#15452 2 years ago
Quoted from KeithinMI:

For those who were speaking about hearsay, here's a clarification.
Please don't confuse hearsay with a party admission. Admission of something, under oath or not, is still an admission of something.
By way of example: If you were at your divorce hearing, and said to the Judge: "She can have the bank account because I stole $5 from my best-friend's wallet last week, so I have money", and then you were prosecuted for stealing the $5, that statement would be clearly admissible in the criminal prosecution against you for the $5 larceny from the wallet. Notwithstanding that you made the statement in an unrelated action (the divorce action).
Compared to hearsay which would be: "Bob told me that Joe admitted to him that he took $5" if it is being offered to prove the truth of that statement, eg., that Joe admitted he took the $5. However, if you were only offering that to show that Bob said those particular words, it is not hearsay (not the truth of the statement itself [the stealing of the $5] but merely that the words were uttered [Bob actually said that]).
Hope that makes sense. It's a bit convoluted. About as much as the Rule against Perpetuities.
Additionally, testimony in a deposition is in fact under oath, and subject to penalties of perjury. It can be used to prove (or disprove) something based upon the testimony. "I took the $5" by Joe under oath is sufficient for the person who had their $5 taken to sue Joe to get the money back". It could also be introduced to a judge/jury to show the fact or to "impeach" Joe (if Joe testifies he never took the $5).

This is how I always learned it. In other words, it's not an exception to the hearsay rule because it's not hearsay to begin with.

#15453 2 years ago
Quoted from KeithinMI:

For those who were speaking about hearsay, here's a clarification.
Please don't confuse hearsay with a party admission. Admission of something, under oath or not, is still an admission of something.
By way of example: If you were at your divorce hearing, and said to the Judge: "She can have the bank account because I stole $5 from my best-friend's wallet last week, so I have money", and then you were prosecuted for stealing the $5, that statement would be clearly admissible in the criminal prosecution against you for the $5 larceny from the wallet. Notwithstanding that you made the statement in an unrelated action (the divorce action).
Compared to hearsay which would be: "Bob told me that Joe admitted to him that he took $5" if it is being offered to prove the truth of that statement, eg., that Joe admitted he took the $5. However, if you were only offering that to show that Bob said those particular words, it is not hearsay (not the truth of the statement itself [the stealing of the $5] but merely that the words were uttered [Bob actually said that]).
Hope that makes sense. It's a bit convoluted. About as much as the Rule against Perpetuities.
Additionally, testimony in a deposition is in fact under oath, and subject to penalties of perjury. It can be used to prove (or disprove) something based upon the testimony. "I took the $5" by Joe under oath is sufficient for the person who had their $5 taken to sue Joe to get the money back". It could also be introduced to a judge/jury to show the fact or to "impeach" Joe (if Joe testifies he never took the $5).

Side note, but I am curious since it was brought up. I was recently in an accident where the other driver admitted fault to me after the accident, and also told me "I was looking at a piece of paper to see if I had written a phone number down" as reasoning why he drifted into my lane. Then, days later, his insurance company told me that he said "he didn't remember what happened" and they "weren't going to take my word for it." Would me telling the insurance company about his admission to looking at a piece of paper be hearsay? I would think so, but now after the analogy above, I'm not so sure.

#15454 2 years ago
Quoted from maffewl:

Side note, but I am curious since it was brought up. I was recently in an accident where the other driver admitted fault to me after the accident, and also told me "I was looking at a piece of paper to see if I had written a phone number down" as reasoning why he drifted into my lane. Then, days later, his insurance company told me that he said "he didn't remember what happened" and they "weren't going to take my word for it." Would me telling the insurance company about his admission to looking at a piece of paper be hearsay? I would think so, but now after the analogy above, I'm not so sure.

Yes

#15455 2 years ago
Quoted from maffewl:

Side note, but I am curious since it was brought up. I was recently in an accident where the other driver admitted fault to me after the accident, and also told me "I was looking at a piece of paper to see if I had written a phone number down" as reasoning why he drifted into my lane. Then, days later, his insurance company told me that he said "he didn't remember what happened" and they "weren't going to take my word for it." Would me telling the insurance company about his admission to looking at a piece of paper be hearsay? I would think so, but now after the analogy above, I'm not so sure.

Gotta record everything nowadays. Video or it didn't happen (sad to say)

#15456 2 years ago

... but also subject to the "admission of party opponent" exception to the hearsay rule. Might be time to tell the insurance co that their client's "uh, I don't remember" won't beat your clear recollection of a heartfelt apology in court, and that you're looking for counsel.

#15457 2 years ago
Quoted from Jam_Burglar:

This is how I always learned it. In other words, it's not an exception to the hearsay rule because it's not hearsay to begin with.

Keith is discussing admissions. If by "it's" you mean the Kulek tax returns, the tax returns are indeed hearsay to begin with.

The tax returns are only admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule, e.g. admission against interest. Think of hearsay as a closed ball gate, which can be opened if the right targets are activated.

In post #15433, I provided multiple citations which deem tax returns to be hearsay, but admissible as a hearsay exception, i.e. the business records hearsay exception, under the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Now that I've bored everyone (including myself. . .this stuff really isn't all that interesting), allow us to return to the regularly scheduled program. If an important hearsay issue arises in the future, we can engage in a concrete discussion, at that time.

#15458 2 years ago
Quoted from maffewl:

Side note, but I am curious since it was brought up. I was recently in an accident where the other driver admitted fault to me after the accident, and also told me "I was looking at a piece of paper to see if I had written a phone number down" as reasoning why he drifted into my lane. Then, days later, his insurance company told me that he said "he didn't remember what happened" and they "weren't going to take my word for it." Would me telling the insurance company about his admission to looking at a piece of paper be hearsay? I would think so, but now after the analogy above, I'm not so sure.

It may depend on the state but in my state, yes, his statements would be admissible (not hearsay because they are party admissions).

Also, you're not in Court so there's no harm telling his insurance carrier what he said.

#15459 2 years ago
Quoted from ZNET:

Keith is discussing admissions. If by "it's" you mean the Kulek tax returns, the tax returns are indeed hearsay to begin with.

I think by "it's" Jam_Burglar was referring to party admissions - not Kulek's tax returns.

#15460 2 years ago
Quoted from CNKay:

Water was up to ribcage in living room and you guys keep talking about water in the basement. ???
Sounds like she is definitely trying to devalue the property. Which is silly as if(when) they give it up, the more it's worth the more the debt can be resolved.

Ha, do you trust the Kulek's to give an honest disclosure when selling? Never mind, it will go to the bank and like others have stated minus the copper.

#15461 2 years ago
Quoted from KeithinMI:

For those who were speaking about hearsay, here's a clarification.....

blah blah lawyer blah school blah.

Just answer the goddamn question counselor....did she orally answer you or not!

#15462 2 years ago

Some deer cams would be great to capture the copper and boiler being removed from the property.

#15463 2 years ago
Quoted from TheLaw:

How many times must she tell you...THEY LED SEPARATE LIVES!

Oh, I thought she said they led separate "lies". Sorry, my bad.

#15464 2 years ago
Quoted from KeithinMI:

Hope that makes sense. It's a bit convoluted. About as much as the Rule against Perpetuities.

Listen up ambulance chaser. Let's not be dragging us in the estate planning industry into the mud with yourselves. The Rule against Perpetuities is simple; you create the trust in South Dakota where the rule doesn't exist.

I have been working closely with the Kuleks and the house (pool in the basement and all) is in a dynasty trust. It will be enjoyed by Kevin's descendants much longer than 21 year after the last of his of children passes away.

#15465 2 years ago

You might want to clearly mark your post as sarcasm.. otherwise you're going to be creamated

Quoted from captainadam_21:

Listen up ambulance chaser. Let's not be dragging us in the estate planning industry into the mud with yourselves. The Rule against Perpetuities is simple; you create the trust in South Dakota where the rule doesn't exist.
I have been working closely with the Kuleks and the house (pool in the basement and all) is in a dynasty trust. It will be enjoyed by Kevin's descendants much longer than 21 year after the last of his of children passes away.

#15466 2 years ago

The time for tears has well passed. I can take some pleasure from her whines, but ultimately, i'm still out $4750, so all of her BS means nothing to me.

#15467 2 years ago
Quoted from KeithinMI:

About as much as the Rule against Perpetuities.

My absolute least favorite part of law school was Property and this frikkin rule....sheesh.

#15468 2 years ago

anyone have the quick link to VirutaPin's post about not producing cabinets for Skit-B unless they had a license? Been searching forum but can't locate

thanks

#15469 2 years ago
Quoted from NoahFentz:

Hi Guys!
I just wanted to drop in and say that I would not be building cabinets and printing and applying decals for a project that's not fully licensed!
Anyone that knows me knows I won't even consider touching unlicensed projects!
Speculation can now rest.
Pre-owners can certainly look forward to receiving their PREDATORS.
Thank you.

-1
#15470 2 years ago

ROBIN !!! , Mods. Help!!!

Keith I am no search expert for sure but I believe if you use Google to search pinside you get much better results than using the pinside search tool for some reason.

And there is some special way. Ie site:pinside.com then argument. ??? This part not clear on at all.

#15471 2 years ago
Quoted from KeithinMI:

anyone have the quick link to VirutaPin's post about not producing cabinets for Skit-B unless they had a license? Been searching forum but can't locate
thanks

It is all here:
https://pinside.com/pinball/forum/topic/the-official-pinside-skit-b-predator-discussion?tu=noahfentz

You can click on the "years ago" part next to the post number to get the actual dates.

#15472 2 years ago

for clarification, the top line Canon lenses are "L" series and are often white barrelled for the longer focal lengths.

This is my personal favorite lens:

back to your regularly scheduled programming...

Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-II-USM-Lens (resized).jpg

#15473 2 years ago
Quoted from KeithinMI:

anyone have the quick link to VirutaPin's post about not producing cabinets for Skit-B unless they had a license? Been searching forum but can't locate
thanks

#15474 2 years ago
Quoted from KeithinMI:

anyone have the quick link to VirutaPin's post about not producing cabinets for Skit-B unless they had a license? Been searching forum but can't locate
thanks

And here's a link to the specific post:
https://pinside.com/pinball/forum/topic/the-official-pinside-skit-b-predator-discussion/page/10#post-2076728

#15475 2 years ago
Quoted from KeithinMI:

anyone have the quick link to VirutaPin's post about not producing cabinets for Skit-B unless they had a license?

Don't forget that Scat-B could have shown any piece of paper to VP and said it was a license. It's not like VP has a licensing office to interpret a contract and follow up on it's authenticity. It's not like 20th Fox has a 24hr hotline that you call.

Same if a sign shop makes a Mustang GT sign for a dealership. The sign shop has no way of knowing if the dealership is truly licensed.

#15477 2 years ago
Quoted from vid1900:

Don't forget that Scat-B could have shown any piece of paper to VP and said it was a license. It's not like VP has a licensing office to interpret a contract and follow up on it's authenticity. It's not like 20th Fox has a 24hr hotline that you call.
Same if a sign shop makes a Mustang GT sign for a dealership. The sign shop has no way of knowing if the dealership is truly licensed.

Except it didn't happen that way...Noah said later that he'd never seen the license, just believed Kevin's lies.

"I talked with Kevin through the 'approval' process, and everything he said was very credible. Right down to submitting the new art, after changes, for approval.
I'm obviously not the only one that's been duped here. I stated I would not work on an unlicensed product, and I stand by that. I was 100% convinced this thing was licensed."

#15478 2 years ago

To be honest, I think the issue at stake her is "You were given money to produce stuff. Where is the money, or where is the stuff."

11
#15479 2 years ago
Quoted from vid1900:

Some deer cams would be great to capture the copper and boiler being removed from the property.

I think based on the quick-witted testimony we've heard from the Kuleks thus far, it's a safe bet those pipes are not copper but lead.

14
#15480 2 years ago

New documents up in the VirtuaPin related case, including some audio.

Here is the link to the audio: https://soundcloud.com/user-800669943/1ap2017-02002-20170504-133936

One of the new documents is an affadavit from Paul, where he admits getting the case information.

31-2_paulsaffidavit.pdf

Another couple of related documents are Keith's motion for sanctions and a brief from Keith in response to Paul's motion to set aside the default judgement. It basically says Paul's defense that they weren't properly served is ridiculous, and his lawyer doesn't understand the law he tried to use as a defense.

33.pdf

33-3.pdf

14
#15481 2 years ago

Did this lawyer really just say he doesn't think anyone would say he mumbles? I can't understand half of what he's saying.

14
#15482 2 years ago
Quoted from TheLaw:

Did this lawyer really just say he doesn't think anyone would say he mumbles? I can't understand half of what he's saying.

"It's hard to bargle nawdle zouss(?)
With all these marbles in my mouth"
bargle (resized).jpg

#15483 2 years ago

Man, this guy is just driving around in the cornfield. Ehhh, never responded to my voicemail. Ehhh, was gonna but waited for a response to my email. Ehhh, I know you don't have to but thought it would be common courtesy. Didn't want to cause undue prejudice, uhhh. We incurred expenses, uhh, relied on the debtor.

What kind of lawyer talks or thinks like this?

#15484 2 years ago
Quoted from emkay:

What kind of lawyer talks or thinks like this?

Nobody said he was a good lawyer.

#15485 2 years ago
Quoted from Wolfmarsh:

New documents up in the VirtuaPin related case, including some audio.
Here is the link to the audio: https://soundcloud.com/user-800669943/1ap2017-02002-20170504-133936
One of the new documents is an affadavit from Paul, where he admits getting the case information.

Another couple of related documents are Keith's motion for sanctions and a brief from Keith in response to Paul's motion to set aside the default judgement. It basically says Paul's defense that they weren't properly served is ridiculous, and his lawyer doesn't understand the law he tried to use as a defense.

Thx. Can i get a synopsis in laymans terms?

#15486 2 years ago

Did I read the numbers correctly? Kevin paid Paul $96,821 as 20% down for 250 cabinets. Unless my calculator is wrong that means the full payment would be ($96821/.2) = $484,105 for 250 cabinets. Or $1,936.42 per cabinet. I could be wrong, but that seems like a lot of money just for a cabinet. By the time you add wiring, power supplies, boards, parts and accoutrements, where was the profit going to be?

Just trying to wrap my head around this latest tidbit.

ken

#15487 2 years ago

Oh come on Keith...I thought we all agreed no carguments in 2017

Quoted from Whysnow:

Thx. Can i get a synopsis in laymans terms?

It seems the default judgment was thrown out, but Keith/estate will be paid at least $900.

#15488 2 years ago
Quoted from Whysnow:

Thx. Can i get a synopsis in laymans terms?

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm also a layman. Here is how I understand it, someone correct me if I am wrong.

Paul received the notice he was part of the adversarial proceeding and never responded. The judge issued a default judgement against him for the CNC machine and a bunch of money.

Only then did he think it was serious enough to respond, and his lawyer claims that they were served improperly. Paul's lawyer is asking for the opportunity to basically cancel the default judgement and give him a chance to respond.

Listening to the audio, the judge does set aside the default judgement which will give Paul a chance to defend himself. He did also grant Keith some money for the work Keith has had to go through because of their stupidity.

Seems as though we will see a case actually get argued for this part of it.

#15489 2 years ago

$1900/cab seems a bit high but it's not far from the ballpark. They're a lot more expensive than people realize... that armor and metal adds up fast.

It goes back to the problem that even if Kevin had the legal right to make these he would have run out of money looooooong before finishing them all.

At which point he would have been at least a honest failed business like Jpop, instead of the outright fraud he is.

#15490 2 years ago
Quoted from TheLaw:

Did this lawyer really just say he doesn't think anyone would say he mumbles? I can't understand half of what he's saying.

Ha!.....I just got to that part!

#15491 2 years ago
Quoted from benheck:

$1900/cab seems a bit high but it's not far from the ballpark. They're a lot more expensive than people realize... that armor and metal adds up fast.
It goes back to the problem that even if Kevin had the legal right to make these he would have run out of money looooooong before finishing them all.
At which point he would have been at least a honest failed business like Jpop, instead of the outright fraud he is.

Jpop is considered an honest failed business?

#15492 2 years ago
Quoted from benheck:

$1900/cab seems a bit high but it's not far from the ballpark. They're a lot more expensive than people realize... that armor and metal adds up fast.

Yeah if you go on virtuapin's website and build a decaled WPC cab from scratch with trim, glass, ground braid, basically everything but computer boards and playfield, it's almost $2k. Still, Kevin did not exactly get a bulk discount.

#15493 2 years ago
Quoted from Yellowdog:

By the time you add wiring, power supplies, boards, parts and accoutrements, where was the profit going to be?

Remember when Kevin declared Skit-B a nonprofit?

#15494 2 years ago
Quoted from jayhawkai:

Remember when Kevin declared Skit-B a nonprofit?

Well yeah, Fox required him to get his 503(c)(3) before they'd grant his license so he MUST be a nonprofit right?

Instead of pinball, he should've gotten into dominoes.

#15495 2 years ago
Quoted from genex:

for clarification, the top line Canon lenses are "L" series and are often white barrelled for the longer focal lengths.
This is my personal favorite lens:

The Canon 1200mm gives me the reach I need when peering into other's lives.

My boss says Canon only make 2 of these a year, because the crystal for the optic takes forever to grow.

canon-ef-1200mm-f-5-6-l-usm-lens-above-city (resized).jpg

Untitled-9_6 (resized).jpg

10
#15496 2 years ago
Quoted from vid1900:

The Canon 1200mm gives me the reach I need when peering into other's lives.
My boss says Canon only make 2 of these a year, because the crystal for the optic takes forever to grow.

Have you considered just buying a Hubble?

#15497 2 years ago
Quoted from TheLaw:

Did this lawyer really just say he doesn't think anyone would say he mumbles? I can't understand half of what he's saying.

The lawyer not understanding why people thinks he mumbles reminds me of this one...

#15498 2 years ago
Quoted from TheLaw:

How many times must she tell you...THEY LED SEPARATE LIVES!

http://www.albertandharold.co.uk/48.html - old british comedy classic. They literally built a wooden wall between them in the house they lived in!

divided2 (resized).jpg

#15499 2 years ago
Quoted from Roostking:

Jpop is considered an honest failed business?

Compared to Kevin, yes.

#15500 2 years ago
Quoted from benheck:

Compared to Kevin, yes.

Do you think Kevin kept more money than JPop paid to himself in "salary"? I'm not so sure, JPop on the whole took in a lot more money...he had more to blow.

Promoted items from the Pinside Marketplace
$ 399.95
$ 34.99
Cleaner
Pinball Pro
$ 20.00
$ 20.00
Various Other Swag
Project Pinball Charity
$ 23.75
Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
The MOD Couple
From: $ 5,599.95
Pinball Machine
Pinball Pro
$ 15.00
Playfield - Decals
Metal-Mods
$ 76.95
Cabinet - Shooter Rods
Super Skill Shot Shop
$ 229.99
Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
PinballBulbs
$ 445.00
Cabinet - Armor And Blades
MI Pinball Refinery
$ 26.95
$ 48.00
Cabinet - Other
ModFather Pinball Mods
$ 214.99
$ 28.00
Playfield - Other
Pin Monk
$ 10.00
Cabinet - Decals
Docquest Pinball Mods
$ 48.00
Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
ModFather Pinball Mods
$ 142.00
Boards
nvram.weebly.com
From: $ 175.00
Gameroom - Decorations
Pinball Photos
$ 20.00
Lighting - Other
Professor Pinball
There are 18269 posts in this topic. You are on page 310 of 366.

Hey there! Got a moment?

Great to see you're enjoying Pinside! Did you know Pinside is able to run thanks to donations from our visitors? Please donate to Pinside, support the site and get anext to your username to show for it! Donate to Pinside