Click Official ELI Links
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support | ELI Legal Representation Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.

Author Topic: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court  (Read 38449 times)

riddickvictim2

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 41
    • View Profile
Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
« Reply #60 on: October 07, 2010, 10:05:50 AM »
Very good question, YARV!

stevep

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
« Reply #61 on: October 08, 2010, 12:44:02 PM »
Looks like Riddick filed a response to the original complaint Wednesday that basically says "not guilty". And it was filed by himself without an attorney. Wondering what that means?

riddickvictim2

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 41
    • View Profile
Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
« Reply #62 on: October 08, 2010, 01:09:48 PM »
Very interesting, stevep.  Thank you.  
What happened to his angel-provided legal team?

Oscar Michelen

  • ELI Legal Warrior
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1301
    • View Profile
    • Courtroom Strategy
Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
« Reply #63 on: October 08, 2010, 03:46:49 PM »
Recall that Riddick is still representing himself.  H & K are only representing the company.

riddickvictim2

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 41
    • View Profile
Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
« Reply #64 on: October 08, 2010, 07:38:03 PM »
Thank you for the clarification, Mr. Michelen.  I makes sense that they would not want Riddick setting precedent on the copyright issues.  I am glad to know that he is on his own for the charges regarding his behavior.

Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Admin-on-Hiatus"
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2763
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
« Reply #65 on: October 09, 2010, 12:24:48 AM »
Hello all, the latest batch of court documents have been uploaded to our documents collection on Scribd. This is a large update because the documents have been accumulating in my "to-do" list.

There are a considerable number of documents to track and read. Unfortunately, Scribd does not allow me to arrange the order of the documents. You will have to rely on the document numbers we have assigned based on date.

http://www.scribd.com/document_collections/2602887

Enjoy!

MatthewC
I'm a non-lawyer but not legally ignorant either. Under the 1st Amendment, I have the right to post facts & opinions using rhetorical hyperbole, colloquialisms, metaphors, parody, snark, or epithets. Under Section 230 of CDA, I'm only responsible for posts I write, not what others write.

stevep

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
« Reply #66 on: October 14, 2010, 07:35:06 AM »
In a (perhaps not so) surprising turn of events, Riddick's attorney, William Stevens of Holland & Knight, yesterday filed a motion with the court...  to withdraw as the attorney in this case. The motion states that the defendants (Riddick's companies) did not meet the conditions on which his engagement was based.

riddickvictim2

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 41
    • View Profile
Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
« Reply #67 on: October 14, 2010, 11:02:37 AM »
It looks like it did not take long at all for Mr. Stevens to discover the truth behind Riddick, his shell companies, and his elaborate yet unsophisticated con game.

Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Admin-on-Hiatus"
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2763
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
« Reply #68 on: October 14, 2010, 12:23:02 PM »
The statement about "conditions" is a bit vague.  The "conditions" might refer to Riddick not able or willing to make payment. I am guessing that most attorneys will not move forward without some kind of advance payment or retainer especially in the case of Riddick.

stevep Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In a (perhaps not so) surprising turn of events,
> Riddick's attorney, William Stevens of Holland &
> Knight, yesterday filed a motion with the court...
>  to withdraw as the attorney in this case. The
> motion states that the defendants (Riddick's
> companies) did not meet the conditions on which
> his engagement was based.
I'm a non-lawyer but not legally ignorant either. Under the 1st Amendment, I have the right to post facts & opinions using rhetorical hyperbole, colloquialisms, metaphors, parody, snark, or epithets. Under Section 230 of CDA, I'm only responsible for posts I write, not what others write.

Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Admin-on-Hiatus"
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2763
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
« Reply #69 on: October 14, 2010, 12:57:27 PM »
These latest documents have been posted into our Scribd documents collection:

http://www.scribd.com/document_collections/2602887

Short and sweet.

MatthewC

stevep Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In a (perhaps not so) surprising turn of events,
> Riddick's attorney, William Stevens of Holland &
> Knight, yesterday filed a motion with the court...
>  to withdraw as the attorney in this case. The
> motion states that the defendants (Riddick's
> companies) did not meet the conditions on which
> his engagement was based.
I'm a non-lawyer but not legally ignorant either. Under the 1st Amendment, I have the right to post facts & opinions using rhetorical hyperbole, colloquialisms, metaphors, parody, snark, or epithets. Under Section 230 of CDA, I'm only responsible for posts I write, not what others write.

Oscar Michelen

  • ELI Legal Warrior
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1301
    • View Profile
    • Courtroom Strategy
Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
« Reply #70 on: October 14, 2010, 02:46:53 PM »
Major blow to Imageline. Its unusual for a firm as reputable and established as H & K to do something like this so quickly.  Normally, a firm won't make an initial appearance until the "conditions" are secure.  They will advise the court of their intentions to appear and ask for some time to finalize the conditions. If I were Bernina's counsel I would pounce on this and see if the whole thing was not a sham by Riddick to delay the matter. Not that he made the whole thing up of course, because obviously H & K did appear, but inquire as to whether Riddick scammed H &K somehow.  The issue could be addressed by the court privately, in camera, as the legal term goes, so any client confidences can be maintained. That way the judge can meet privately with H &K and Riddick to see if there ever was a realistic  ability by Riddick to meet these "conditions."  While it is a victory to have Imageline now scrambling for counsel, if they were my adversary I would definitely ask for more information and not just let this go.

stevep

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
« Reply #71 on: October 21, 2010, 08:12:25 AM »
Looks like Riddick has (for now?) found a new attorney:
http://www.tolpinlaw.com/people/bio2.php

Oscar Michelen

  • ELI Legal Warrior
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1301
    • View Profile
    • Courtroom Strategy
Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
« Reply #72 on: October 21, 2010, 10:49:22 AM »
Looks like he went with a small father and son IP firm. They seem very qualified in the field of IP, but they do not seem to be litigators.  I hope they got a good upfront retainer because they are about to be papered to death by Bernina's lawyers. Riddick may be a difficult client to control as well.  I see him as being someone who calls and emails constantly.

riddickvictim2

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 41
    • View Profile
Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
« Reply #73 on: October 21, 2010, 06:10:43 PM »
Father and son should keep a close eye on their firm's letter head.

Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Admin-on-Hiatus"
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2763
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
« Reply #74 on: October 21, 2010, 07:27:04 PM »
I know it is unprofessional and inappropriate for me to laugh but I couldn't help myself on that comment.  LOL!

riddickvictim2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Father and son should keep a close eye on their
> firm's letter head.
I'm a non-lawyer but not legally ignorant either. Under the 1st Amendment, I have the right to post facts & opinions using rhetorical hyperbole, colloquialisms, metaphors, parody, snark, or epithets. Under Section 230 of CDA, I'm only responsible for posts I write, not what others write.

 

Official ELI Help Options
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support Call | ELI Defense Letter Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.