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.

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.

Agreed.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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. . .

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

Only in Pinconning, MI. . .

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.

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

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.

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.