(Topic ID: 108377)

The Official Pinside Kevin Kulek Skit-B Predator Discussion

By Xerico

5 years ago

Topic Stats

  • 18,413 posts
  • 823 Pinsiders participating
  • Latest reply 24 days ago by freeplay3
  • Topic is favorited by 187 Pinsiders


Linked Games

Topic Gallery

There have been 1,549 images uploaded to this topic. (View topic image gallery).

20200619_181740 (resized).jpg
20181223_161836 (resized).jpg
E16C0850-4F24-4E9B-AC12-7791B43AF112 (resized).jpeg
Clevon (resized).jpg
72329539_10219705910182373_6362298985876553728_n (resized).jpg
pirateplayersclub (resized).jpg
case against keith.pdf (PDF preview)
_2_16-21030.pdf (PDF preview)
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

Topic index (key posts)

87 key posts have been marked in this topic, showing the first 10 items.

Display key post list sorted by: Post date | Keypost summary | User name

Post #12066 What is PACER and where are you getting the court documents? Posted by c508 (3 years ago)

Post #12502 Links to where Kevin gives "his side of the story". Posted by BillySastard (3 years ago)

Post #12515 Updated court filings. Potential cash coming into bankruptcy estate. Posted by Wolfmarsh (3 years ago)

Post #12528 Good summation of 2 year look back and possible fraudulent transfers. Posted by flynnibus (3 years ago)

Post #12580 More legal pleadings. Posted by Wolfmarsh (3 years ago)

Post #12593 Facts & allegations document for VirtuaPin Posted by c508 (3 years ago)

Post #12801 Photos of Experts of Dangerous Posted by fastpinball (3 years ago)

Topic indices are generated from key posts and maintained by Pinside Editors. For more information, or to become an editor yourself read this post!

You're currently viewing posts by Pinsider znet.
Click here to go back to viewing the entire thread.

#11909 3 years ago
Quoted from Taxman:

No argument. Keith seems to want this right. And maybe he gives ore details to his clients. But it always seems you never get a list or flow-chart showing where these things can or usually go. If you knew from day one it would mean paying a lawyer, years go by, continue this, he declares bankruptcy here, you need another fee there. I just would want to know what to expect. Otherwise along the way you either have to say "I'm in it this far might as well keep going" or "can't keep throwing good after bad I'm out" and wish you never went this far.

You are placing far too much predictability upon the justice system, which is adversarial by nature. Litigation, including this creditor-debtor case, is like a boxing match. Keith can tell you how many rounds it might take; however, he cannot tell you the score of each round in advance of the fight.

Certainly, it would be easier to place your bet if you knew more about the likely result in advance. But, it is unrealistic for anyone to expect an attorney to possess omniscience.

Lawyers who represent plaintiffs are akin to doctors who treat patients. Neither professional can guarantee the result. Moreover, neither professional can guarantee the parameters of the timetable. There are simply too many factors beyond the control of the professional to do so. In the case of the lawyer, the court itself dictates the schedule. A single motion's disposition or other event can have a dramatic effect on the case's calendar and its viability. All the while, there are defense lawyers (or other creditors) trying to achieve an opposite or contrary result. While it's not utter chaos, there are a lot of moving parts and a lot can go wrong, even in a strong case. Think of all of the events which can cause a pinball machine to malfunction. It's the same with litigation.

As far as your pedestrian comment that the justice system is designed to line the pockets of lawyers, I suggest that your comment does a disservice to many lawyers, including Keith. You're Taxman. Is the IRS Code designed to line the pockets of certified public accountants? Of course not. Such sweeping comments disregard the complexity of the specific situation at hand.

For example, Zane Smith, Esq. is representing a dozen or so Zidware customers in the Jpop litigation. Those clients paid Zane a nominal flat fee to join a lawsuit against Zidware/Jpop. Also, Zane is advancing all of the litigation costs. The fee arrangement is a contingency fee plan in which Zane's firm receives a percentage of any judgment or settlement.

Zane's clients are not paying Zane by the hour. Zane's motivation to settle or otherwise favorably resolve the Jpop case is aligned precisely with his clients. Zane wants the case to resolve sooner rather than later. Court and discovery delays are contrary to Zane Smith, Esquire's interest in the same way that his clients' interests are not served by such delays. In other words, the system is not designed by lawyers to line the pockets of lawyers, as you state.

Trying to right the wrongs of the Predator debacle and the Jpop mess are extremely frustrating. I think that everyone on this thread gets that fact. It's easy to be cynical, after all of this time, with customers still waiting for refunds. However, I suggest that your cynicism is misdirected at the one guy who is working hard to help the victims, the victim's counsel, Keith.

#11912 3 years ago
Quoted from Taxman:

Lawyers wrote most of the laws we can't navigate without paying a lawyer. Congress writes the laws. While the percent of lawyers in congress has dropped dramatically to 40% now from 80% about 50 years ago it is still a huge percent and does not reflect the people they are supposed to be representing.
Your pedestrian assumption about my nickname Taxman thinking it is related to the IRS or taxes in anyway is a totally wrong assumption. But funny you should mention that since the job of the IRS is to implement the laws created by (wait for it) that same lawyer packed group in congress. People blame the IRS for making things so complex and convoluted when they should be pointing the finger at the same group who made civil and criminal laws as well as tax laws. Why are they so complex? Because in order to get elected and get favors (akin to lining pockets again) they write special little loopholes into the tax code to appease their constituents.

Funny you should bring in another profession riddled with litigation healthcare with medical malpractice costs for physicians. Legal costs for hospitals and drug companies...
Please don't tell me society has not become over litigious. Common sense laws to fix issues like frivolous lawsuits would be fairly simple. But this would cut down on the need for lawyers and the only people who can make this fix are - lawyers.
When people talk about the legal system being long, slow, broken, ... there is a reason and a group you can point the finger at and they invented the system they have to navigate.

Your comments have some validity as to federal and bankruptcy law. But, they do not apply to state law. Accordingly, your statistics miss the point. My disagreement with you is primarily your unjustified scapegoating of Keith in his role as the lawyer seeking justice for the Predator victims.

First, the number of lawsuits have steadily dropped nationally in the last decade, based on population. It's a fact that in most states the cases which consume a disproportionate share of judicial resources are the major corporations suing each other, e.g. Pennzoil v. Texaco. The Predator debtor-creditor variety of cases are not clogging the court system. Keith's case is little more than the flea on the tail of the dog in terms of perspective. Thus, even though Keith's case is subject to the federal bankruptcy system, it's not the very few frivolous cases preventing it from progressing in a timely manner.

Indeed, Rule 9 is designed to thwart frivolous lawsuits in the federal courts. Lawyers who file such suits can be personally fined. A lawyer has a financial disincentive to file a frivolous suit. All states have Rule 9 counterparts to dissuade frivolous litigation. Like any imperfect system, the law does not eradicate 100% of the frivolous cases. The "too many frivolous lawsuits is destroying our country mantra" is the pablum of certain political interests, which you have swallowed, absent a factual analysis. Statistically, domestic relations cases are far more litigious than collection cases. If you want to reduce the docket, petition your congressional representative to enact different marriage, divorce and custody laws or else appoint and/or elect local judges to modify state common law to effectuate that result.

In New Jersey, much of our backlog is attributable to empty judicial seats as opposed to underlying procedure. The second reason for backlogs in NJ is the exploitation by insurance companies to the detriment of consumers. Insurance companies have an incentive to drag out litigation. Doing so forces plaintiffs to fold by attrition, in many instances. The laws of "bad faith" designed to prevent insurance carrier exploitation are weak nationwide. What is needed to streamline litigation are disincentives for insurance carriers to embark on obstructionism. Such laws would go a long way to help reduce the backlog.

As for the IRS Code analogy, you have proved my point. As you accurately state, Congress writes IRS loophole laws to benefit powerful constituents. Those constituents are corporations like the insurance lobby and pharmaceutical lobby. Congress is not writing those laws at the behest of the CPA lobby so that the accountants can line their pockets (even though some corporate accountants will doubtlessly profit by more complex tax laws). Likewise, Congress will change an environmental law, for example, to cater to the coal lobby. There is no monolithic and powerful group of environmental law lawyers lobbying Congress so that those lawyers can increase their billable hours.

It's so easy to default to false and reductive reasoning when discussing a universally maligned profession, like the legal profession. With all of its thorns, there is no other civil justice system anywhere in the world which equals the American system. Your posts are of the 'The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" sentiment, the often-quoted and typically misunderstood line from Shakespeare's "Henry VI." But, oversimplification and propaganda are often dispelled by fact-checking and understanding the details and nuances.

Scholars know that Shakespeare's dialogue was intended to underscore the crucial positive role of lawyers in society as guardians of justice and the rule of law. That is why Dick the Butcher, the rebel leader's henchman, uttered that famous line. In order to engender anarchy, the first task is to kill all of those who stand in the way of the mob, meaning the guardians of the rule of law, i.e. the lawyers. Keith is one of those lawyers. If you want better updates, then contact him. Personally, I would rather know that Keith is spending his limited time working on the actual case rather than spending his time updating you so that your anxiety level is reduced.

I am not involved in the Predator case, having not preordered this title. I have no personal stake in Keith's case. I don't know Keith nor have I ever communicated with him. As a litigator myself, who has an understanding of the litigation environment and the frustration of Predator victims, I feel compelled to alight upon this soapbox and come to Keith's defense.

#11915 3 years ago
Quoted from Taxman:

My point was never against Keith. I believe he actually wants justice and is doing everything in his power to get it. The fact that he got the court to agree to include him shows he is not just filling out paperwork, but working for the clients. You do not need to defend Keith.
My complaint is with the system he is navigating. It seems to have too many ways to drag things out. As you say using obstructionism. People who deserve justice get less because due to attrition.


#11916 3 years ago

This is a thread which is tracking esoteric legal proceedings. Victims of Skit-B are trying to make sense of developments. I presume that input from experienced litigators would have value, even posts which are longer than most. If you wish to view only posts containing censored photos, devoid of topical information, I suggest that you divert your truncated attention span elsewhere. You do not speak for every victim of Skit-B on this thread. Some folks have a lot of money on the line and appreciate input from us boring lawyers.

#11918 3 years ago

The come-back of last resort. Sheesh! It was your post which sought to speak for all of Pinside, not mine. Please contribute something worthwhile to the discussion of the litigation rather than merely post for a laugh at another's expense. Encourage valuable dialogue. There's a considerable sum of money at stake to our fellow Pinsiders.

#11921 3 years ago
Quoted from MagicMako:

For what it's worth, I appreciate your input ZNET.
I really just want this thing to go away, (not happening for awhile I presume). Still trying to get over the sting of trusting this fricking guy with my money.

Thanks for your post, MagicMako. Although new to this thread, I don’t come to the preorder controversy without experience. I am the Jpop/Zidware preorder customer who filed the first lawsuit against Jpop and Zidware. I did so back in early May 2015 through the Chicago attorney I retained, Zane Smith, Esq. A few weeks later, my claim resolved when Pintasia stepped into the foray, allowing me to withdraw from my lawsuit. However, my name still remains as the lead plaintiff (of about a dozen plaintiffs) on the docket, under my original suit, despite my voluntary withdrawal.

Currently, I am between trials with a little free time. Consequently, on the Magic Girl—RAZA—AIW Facebook member group, I have dedicated some of that time very recently toward forging a resolution. Specifically, I have proposed to broker a mediation effort among the various parties with Jpop/Zidware disputes.

The Pinside Magic Girl thread is riddled with misinformation about the legal process. It occurred to me that I might be of some help to my fellow Pinsiders in clearing up misconceptions about the legal process on this Skit-B thread. The Predator preorder customers are currently in a much different (but arguably better position) than the Zidware preorder customers.

#11931 3 years ago
Quoted from vdojaq:

Yeah, but you might just be an ambulance chaser with an expansive vocabulary trying to impress pinball collectors.

Remember, the first rule of Pinside is to be nice and your post is contrary to that tenet. In post #11921, I cited my ongoing efforts to help the Magic Girl, RAZA, AIW preorder customers with their dispute and my status as the only customer since 2015 who has thus far successfully resolved a preorder claim. Clearly, you find my participation in this thread threatening to you. How about you embark on some circumspection and figure out why an "expansive vocabulary" bothers you so much.

For the record, "ambulance chaser" is not a particularly creative term. Surely you can conjure up a more original insult, since that is how you choose to utilize your time posting. The majority of my clients are not typically found in an ambulance. Instead, they are the child victims of sexual abuse. I'm proud of my contribution to the law and to the clients I represent.

Words are my currency and I spend them to convey clarity of thought. I'm sure that you too excel at something. Stand-up comedy is not your forte, though. The ambulance chaser insult is cliche and demonstrates a lazy wit.

I am also proud of my contribution to the pinball community. The next time you visit the Museum of Pinball in Banning, CA, be sure to visit the Walter Day pinball and arcade superstar wing, where you can view my trading card and read about what I've done to help the hobby over these many decades. For now, you can view my Pinside profile photographs to view the trading card. If you send me your address, I'll mail you an autographed card signed "Ambulance chaser who has nothing better to do than to try to impress strangers on a pinball forum with his expansive vocabulary."

#11933 3 years ago
Quoted from vdojaq:

Then you being the lawyer you claim to be made the very easy mistake of glossing over the fact that my statement was you "might be". Fact is, I never called you anything. But I figured just the assimilation of "ambulance chaser" would raise a hair or two on your neck. It appears I was 100% spot on, your diatribe of a rebuttal proves as such.
Sir , I live in fear of no one, so the thought of feeling threatened by you is highly doubtful, actually quite comical. That comment actually paints you as possibly having an inferiority complex. You really do paint a wonderful picture of yourself on a pedestal. I congratulate you on the ability to pat yourself on the back.
The bottom line here is your help with explaining the law with the many questions or assumptions on here with JPop & Kevin is actually quite welcomed. However, we don't need a soap box performance of explanation to stroke your ego every single time. We get it, you have an expansive stable of highly intellectual words you just can't wait to exploit. The problem is it comes off unintentionally as you being quite pompous.
And sorry, I gave up putting trading cards in my bicycle spokes when I was 12.

Why don't we begin again? All constructive input on this thread will be encouraged, even posts which respect good grammar and punctuation. In the future, I will resist the temptation to call you out on your misuse of the word "assimilation." In return, you will refrain from calling me pompous, simply because I write the way I speak.

It's nonsense like this that discourages participation. If we were hanging out at a pinball event, you would be laughing with me about this great hobby and all of the excitement in the room. You wouldn't even notice my manner of speech. What is it about the anonymous internet discussion groups which gives rise to the keyboard commando effect?

I'm a regular guy, just like the rest of us pinheads. It's not like I'm feigning a British accent to sound smart. "Once around the park, James, and then home." See. . .that was an awful British accent. Now, back to Monday Night Football.

1 month later
#12121 3 years ago
Quoted from Brickshot:

Wow, so his lawyer gave no explanation at all for Kevin not showing? Why did the lawyer even bother showing up? I'm assuming Kevin has no money to pay him either so I'm confused why he would go unless Kevin asked him to specifically? But it sounds like nobody can even get a hold of him. Just a weird story. Kevin probably could have gotten away with no legal repercussions but now he has made this a clear criminal matter and it can only get worse for him unless he starts cooperating.

Lawyers are not merely client advocates. They are also "officers of the court." Attorneys owe a duty to the justice system; hence, Kevin's attorney was duty-bound to attend the hearing, even in his client's absence and despite the lack of payment for his time (if applicable). Likewise, attorneys are not permitted to intentionally call a witness at trial to proliferate a lie because doing so would be suborning perjury.

One may analogize this higher obligation to that of a psychiatrist, who is compelled to breach the physician-patient privilege when imminent harm may come to a 3rd-party, if that psychiatrist were to remain silent about the impending threat.

3 weeks later
#12850 3 years ago
Quoted from Whysnow:

isn't there some saying about the most obvious solution is often the correct answer?

Occam's Razor. Can a pirate secure an intellectual property license from FOX? Answer: No.

1 week later
#13077 3 years ago

“By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.”
― Benjamin Franklin
One party at the hearing heeded Franklin's advice and was well-prepared. The other wore the hat of a pirate.

#13190 3 years ago

In most jurisdictions, an attorney of record must file an application/motion to be relieved as counsel. Nonpayment of counsel fees by the client may or may not be sufficient cause to grant the application. I imagine that this unsupported allegation about Kevin's current lawyer having failed to disclose documents will be the subject of a future proceeding. Also, I agree with RobT and Tigerlaw (for the reasons stated by each) that it is highly unlikely that a new lawyer on behalf of Kevin will lay the blame of nondisclosure at the feet of Kevin's former attorney. That particular stall tactic is doomed to fail, in my view.

1 week later
#13656 3 years ago
Quoted from Crash:

Starting at the one hour mark was pure gold. Loved Keith's laser-like precision in asking the important questions and how he left Kevin speechless and stuttering to come up with, "I don't know" and "I believe so..."

Whenever a witness, under oath, uses the phrase "I believe," that witness is
hedging. Often, I hear lay witnesses utilize that phrase, during jury trials. Typically, I remind the jurors, during summation, that their important role in the trial is to be the finders of FACT and that belief is not fact. Another "tell" of hedging is when a witness uses the phrase "I'll be honest with you" or "To tell you the truth." A witness, on the stand, has been sworn to testify honestly. There is no need to underscore selective testimony with those introductory assurances of veracity. The witness does so subconsciously because he/she is about to launch a lie.

#13661 3 years ago
Quoted from YeOldPinPlayer:

You've been watching too many YouTube videos. Those phrases mean different things in different context to different speakers and are not reliable indicators of truth or lies.
If you're treating them as such in a court you should stop, educate yourself, and do your best to correct the mistakes you've caused by injecting your non-scientific personal bias into a court proceeding.

I'm not sure why your post is so caustic in tone. Also, I'm not certain whether you're denying the existence of "tells" in the universe of human interaction.

My post is based upon 33 years as a trial attorney, countless law seminars in the field of cross-examination and also upon relevant psychological studies of human behavior, not upon Youtube videos, as you oddly suggest. It's also important to understand that truth-seeking is both a science AND and an art. If it was merely a matter of science, polygraphs would be dispositive (and they are, of course, not). Thus, I respectfully disagree with your premise.

"Personal bias" is precisely the issue. The witnesses, the jurors, the lawyers and the judge all have it. I have it and you have it. I use mine consciously in an effort to separate fiction from fact. I'm always open to learning. Perhaps you can post some source material to support your unsupported assertion?

Naturally, context is important and some people use those phrases for reasons unrelated to an effort to deceive. But, we're not discussing the use of those phrases outside of a courtroom.

This is the Predator thread. Kevin Kulek just testified under oath. There's a link to that testimony which was posted yesterday. In this thread, the context is a court proceeding, in which Mr. Kulek was under oath. Are you suggesting that the debtor's use of "I believe" in his transparently evasive answers was something other than hedging? If so, please explain.

1 week later
#14041 3 years ago
Quoted from Pintucky:

What a nice response! My message to you could be taken two ways, the same as I accused you of . . . a 'mixed message'. You may have seen it as me being smart-ass to you, (or condescending, as someone else on here accused me of), or just a non-offending discussion of the problems of saying just the right things in English. You took this in great stride, and I appreciate you not thinking I was scolding you.
Oh, how I know what it is like to try and speak or write in another language. I lived in Germany for two years and I quickly learned basic German and could get around without even speaking English. Writing was another thing! Trying to remember the correct spelling and where to place the verb . . .at the end? Doesn't make sense to me (at the time). "To the store, I am going." ??? Still, I was proud of myself for at least being able to communicate on the level of a 6 year old.
I learned how difficult it is to know all about the nuances of word placement in a sentence so as to show 'true intentions' of what you had to say, without causing it to have a confusing meaning or sending a totally different message than you intended.
I REALLY learned how words can play out when we hosted a German Exchange Student for 1 year. This young man was from Frankfurt and he spoke EXCELLENT English, (but with the 'German sound' (rough and gutteral) that we often see in American movies: "Vee haf our vays of dealink wit choo." Well . . . maybe that's more Russian than German. Ha.) We both discovered great differences in the same word in both languages and how the placement can totally change the message. He bought me a book called "English for Runaways". which even the title itself was filled with mixed interpretation. "Runaways" in English definitely did not correspond with what it meant in that German title. Some of the examples were hilarious. Here is about the only one I can remember: A chair turns over on the floor and you utter: "That fucking chair!" In German, (for the most part) you visualize what you hear, and they saw the chair engaged in a sex act!!! Of course, it doesn't take long for either linguist to grasp quickly how it means in both languages. This book was filled with phrases that when interpreted from German to English (and vice-versa) showed the hilarity of literal translation. It is THIS that is the most difficult of all to learn. Colloquialisms!!! This expertise can just about ONLY be conquered by decades of living in both countries and memorizing the delicate difference in meanings.
As you probably know, just the placement of a strong adjective in an English sentence can totally change the meaning from a compliment to a slam! Even right here in Kentucky, the way you SAY things can be taken in various ways. Southerners have a 'music' to their sentences. You can say the exact same sentence two ways, strictly by changing the music (or inflection) in your voice as you deliver the words. You can come off sounding nice, or sendng an offensive message.
Lastly, the first time I talked with Robin on the phone I couldn't believe he was not a native American. That guy REALLY has his English down, speaks in 'neutral' voice which does not reveal he is a 'foreigner', plus his writing in English is SPECTACULAR! He probably expresses himself in English better than most of us do here! His writing is flawless!
Well . . .my friend (hopefully) . . . thanks again for writing a calm and unscathing response. It's all good! I give you an A in English!!!
To everyone else, this is my LAST commandeering of this Kulec thread!!! Thanks for indulging me and ole Dutch Tommy to have a conversation.
Mike in Kentucky

Mike, Your observations reminded me of a story relayed to me by my wife, who landed a musical theater leading role when she was a college freshman, based upon the pronunciation of a single word. The play was "Noises Off," as I recall. Among the character's line was the word: "sorry" (in which a question mark was likely erroneously missing from the script). All of the upperclassman vying for the role pronounced the word as if to apologize.

My wife (a Texas native, whom I would meet over a decade later) was familiar with English dialect and the context of the play's dialogue, even at that young age, enabling her to correctly pronounce the word "sorry" to mean "I don't understand." Consequently, much to the dismay of her veteran cohorts, she was cast in the part.

Additionally, and at the risk of delving too deeply into the philosophy of language in this Predator thread, I have always found that the structure of indigenous language can shed insight upon societal norms of that culture. For example, Russians in their native tongue, would say: "Playing pinball is the boy" whereas Americans would describe the same event as: "The boy is playing pinball."

Arguably, the Russian language sentence does what Communist Russian culture dictates, i.e. it emphasizes the action as the primarily important component of the thought. The fact that a boy is doing the pinball playing is subordinate and incidental to the pinball playing activity itself.

In contrast, the English sentence places the emphasis on the fact that there's a boy as the subject and that this boy is engaged in an activity (playing pinball). As Americans (and unlike Russian culture), we celebrate individual rights and the uniqueness of the individual. The subject (the boy) tends to be the focus of the way in which we, as English-speakers, express our ideas. Our language reflects a profound way in which we hold our world view, even though we never think twice about the link between the two. Enough of this diversion. . .back to reclaiming the booty from the pirate. . .

#14070 3 years ago

Agreed. The tail wagging the dog causation is equally contributory toward that evolution. But, it's the link, as opposed to the causation, that I find most interesting.

Quoted from emkay:I've heard this line of reasoning before. The only problem with it is that the grammatical structures of those languages evolved that way prior to the ideologies you associated with them. One could argue that the form influenced the mentality at least as much as the other way 'round.

2 months later
#15402 3 years ago
Quoted from PaulCoff:

I believe it all would be constituted as "hearsay" and wouldn't be able to be used? Correct me if I'm wrong?

Legal answer: Admissions against interest in a collateral legal matter, where there is an "identity of interest" or other privity among the parties in the two actions, is generally admissible in a subsequent action as an exception to the hearsay rule. This is particularly true of an "in-court statement" or deposition testimony, where the party is represented.

Here, the doctrine of collateral estoppel may operate to prevent the debtors from taking a contrary position in a later legal proceeding. Of course, criminal actions require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a higher standard of proof than that required in civil actions (preponderance of the evidence or clear & convincing evidence for civil fraud), as I previously posted.

In layperson's language, the Kulek feathers have been plucked and they are knee-deep in the floodplain.

#15404 3 years ago
Quoted from vdojaq:

Tax returns and 1099G would not be hearsay

Technically, tax returns would be written hearsay, under the rules of evidence. However, an exception to the hearsay rule may very well apply to permit the admission of some or all of those documents. Hearsay is among the most complex areas of the law. Some verbal and written statements are known as "hearsay within hearsay" or "double hearsay."

Many lawyers do not understand the concept because they do not try cases or else their practice is limited to bench trials (sans jury).

#15406 3 years ago

A prior inconsistent statement can often be used to impeach, if same is offered for that limited purpose, irrespective of hearsay considerations.

Alternatively, if the prior statement is offered substantively to support "the truth of the matter stated" then the hearsay rule and its exceptions will apply.

#15433 3 years ago
Quoted from Jam_Burglar:

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence "Hearsay" is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
The tax returns consist of statements made by the declarant, and therefore aren't hearsay.

Tax returns are a written form of hearsay. The declarants, who filed those returns are out-of-court declarants. The tax returns themselves are not self-authenticating. A proponent would have to establish a proper evidentiary foundation to overcome an inevitable hearsay objection. Ultimately, tax returns may be admitted under the business records exception to the hearsay doctrine. Precedent exists for this proposition, under the Federal Rules of Evidence, as follows:

In taxpayer dispute, IRS tax records, concerning tax lien notification, were admissible under the business records hearsay exception in Haag v. United States, 485 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2007); Fed. R. Evid. 803(6); see also, e.g., United States v. Moore, 923 F.2d 910, 914-15 (1st Cir. 1991); United States v. Hayes, 861 F.2d 1225, 1228-29 (10th Cir. 1988).

As for hearsay within hearsay, I frequently object to documents containing such material, including tax returns. Indeed, the tax returns themselves are often not discoverable in litigation, even in the case of a lost wage claim. Rather, only specific earnings information is subject to disclosure.

Arcane legal doctrine aside, in the Kulek matter, the pertinent question is whether their tax returns could potentially be used against them in subsequent civil or criminal matters. The concise answer is in the affirmative. Most lawyers here on this forum appear to agree with that proposition.

Just 6 months ago, a few impatient pinsiders on this thread were complaining that the justice system is designed to line the pockets of lawyers. Still others criticized Keith for filing claims in multiple courts. As I recall, at least one pinsider posted the old canard that all lawyers are ambulance chasers. I found myself defending the albeit imperfect justice system, the legal profession and Keith Nathanson, Esq. specifically.

I want to publicly thank Keith for demonstrating the kind of tenacity and legal acumen that makes our profession proud. The vast majority of pinsiders here also deserve credit for maintaining a level-headed approach to this legal quagmire. The pinsiders who have taken the time to post the audio recordings and court documents should be commended for contributing greatly toward demystifying the legal process and thereby reducing the anxiety of those with a financial stake.

#15439 3 years ago
Quoted from vdojaq:

No, as I recall I think I just called YOU an ambulance chaser!
But let's not bring up the past.....

Fair enough. I'm glad to know that you're still reading this ambulance chaser's posts.

#15457 3 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.

2 weeks later
#15768 3 years ago
Quoted from Dalbok:

Dunning-Kruger Effect (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect)
I just heard/about this term this week. As soon as I read it, it made me think about the Kulek's and this situation.

This is why the old adage has merit: those who know don't tell whereas those who tell, don't know.

3 months later
#17309 2 years ago
Quoted from Coyote:

What laywer uses a gmail account, and doesn't have their own named host set up? .. That puts faith in me.

Worse still, his lawyer's email appears to be koklaw@gmail.com. Is it really necessary to use one's initials as an advertisement that your law practice advocates exclusively for dicks?

Only in Pinconning, MI. . .

1 month later
#17515 2 years ago
Quoted from Trekkie1978:

Are civil cases in NJ on audio too?
I had to go on the stand as a witness a couple weeks ago...I would love to hear the closing arguments to that case.

Most civil trials in NJ are audiotaped to preserve the proceedings for appeal. Typically, a duplicate of the tape can be purchased. Upon request and receipt of a deposit, the transcription can also be obtained.

If you're really interested, I suggest that you call the lawyer(s) to identify which day(s) they presented their respective summations and also obtain the docket number and case caption from them or from your subpoena.

If the lawyer has an outline, he/she might even send you a copy. Request a copy from the court transcriber of the audio only (disc or perhaps cassette in some counties) for the specific day(s) only.

1 month later
#17736 2 years ago
Quoted from Pintucky:

While I would much rather dis on Kevin, I've just got to ask.
Do people in Massachusetts call soda/soft drinks/pop another name which is "Tonic"?
When we used to visit my cousins in Boston back in the 1960's, they referred to all the soda/soft drinks/pop as Tonic. And they pronounced it Ta-WAN-ick.
Anyone living there know what I'm referencing?
I was born in Boston in 1947 and the family instantly moved to Kentucky, where I've been ever since. I am a Damn Yankee-Italian-Hillbilly-Redneck now, and lovin' it!
Mike in Kentucky

Yes. I attended Brandeis University in Waltham, MA, near Boston (1977 - 1981). My college classmates from the area used the term "tonic" back then.

#17741 2 years ago
Quoted from DanQverymuch:

I missed Forceflow's note, didn't mean to flaunt it...

I didn't see Forceflow's post either. Notwithstanding, some threads, like those involving Kulek and Jpop, require more organic diversion than others, to offset the pain inflicted by these eponymous villains.

2 months later
#17884 2 years ago
Quoted from benheck:

Here's a fun exercise you guys could work on. "Where did the money go?"
It wasn't a million, more like 500k. So...
120k+ to cabinet guys.
50-75k likely to Mythbusters.
30k house
10-20k for all the completed sculpts
2k x however many cab and PF sets he had (6-10 was the rumor)
Plus what else?

Perhaps it's time for a new game: Preorder Misadventures---Pirates of the Pinconning?

The player starts with a score of 500,000. Modes create losses whereas completed objectives recoup losses.

Flood the recreational vehicle multiball. Do it during Halloween, while mom is out-of-town, for double score. Climb the ramp to snap a photo of the faceless villain.

Swap the playfield and you're transported to a different scam, where the graphics are dimly lit. Bash the twidling thumbs to illuminate the art until the artists are paid.

Promoted items from the Pinside Marketplace
From: $ 18.00
Apparel - Men
Pinside Shop
$ 12.00
Yorktown Arcade Supply
$ 10.00
Apparel - Unisex
Lee's Parts
$ 7,299.00
$ 4.00
Z-connector (24 pin) Out of stock
Professor Pinball
$ 79.95
Cabinet - Shooter Rods
Super Skill Shot Shop
$ 95.00
Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
$ 11.00
$ 99.99
Lighting - Other
Lighted Pinball Mods
$ 25.00
$ 29.99
$ 78.00
Cabinet - Sound/Speakers
ModFather Pinball Mods
$ 99.99
Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
Lighted Pinball Mods
$ 225.00
Lighting - Interactive
Professor Pinball
$ 999.00
Flipper Parts
$ 200.00
Lighting - Interactive
Professor Pinball
$ 84.95
Cabinet - Shooter Rods
Super Skill Shot Shop
$ 26.00
Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
The MOD Couple
$ 54.99
Cabinet - Shooter Rods
Lighted Pinball Mods
From: $ 19.95
Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
PinBoss Mods
$ 36.00
Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
bB Customs
$ 14.95
Various Novelties
$ 40.00
Gameroom - Decorations
Arcade Arts

You're currently viewing posts by Pinsider znet.
Click here to go back to viewing the entire thread.

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