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 36602 times)

Oscar Michelen

  • ELI Legal Warrior
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1301
    • View Profile
    • Courtroom Strategy
Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
« Reply #75 on: October 29, 2010, 10:15:33 PM »
that was classic but true

bullyriddick

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
« Reply #76 on: November 03, 2010, 05:37:30 PM »
don't want to sound too smart, but in my post 1.5 years ago in one of many exchanges with Mr. Riddick on this forum, I accused him of maintaining shell site which for long period of time was defunct but always came with "Major web site upgrade coming in ......". I remember his answer back then was that his designer is sick and that new site will be up in few months. I knew he was not telling the truth because I was following his site since 2008 when he started to harass me with his emails.

I guess he thought that the first thing a victim of his letter would do is to check out Internet to see what kind of company he has to deal with. Although he didn't have a website, he decided to create a single web page, making illusion to potential victim that the site is just about to be reopened. I followed "works" on his site for 1 year and during that time message about upgrade changed several times, with different dates. The single page is the same though.

In the meantime, Mr. Riddick started cybersquatting company Islandview, buying among others 100's of silly domains for presidential elections in 2008. He did this rather late though and my guess is that this business went down the drain as well. I remember back then that he hired one of those online press release distributors, so his new venture would look serious enough (press release about his new company opening for business was published on many websites). However, anyone familiar with internet and domains, knows that this kind of business can be started with $1000, even less, so his big profile was more of a joke despite big words in his messages to media.

I am 99% sure that Mr. Riddick operates shell companies and that he does not have a single healthy, profitable business with physical assets. He does not own anything except maybe some copyright to outdated, ugly clipart, which certainly is not the reason to harass anybody.

Greetings to all Riddick victims on this forum and many thanks to Oscar and Matthew for their courage and effort.

YetAnotherRiddickVictim

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
« Reply #77 on: November 03, 2010, 05:59:35 PM »
Bullyriddick,

He has a number of subpages you can find through google.

http://www.google.com/search?&ie=UTF-8&q=site:imageline2.com

bullyriddick

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
« Reply #78 on: November 04, 2010, 11:48:12 AM »
yes, but you cannot navigate from the main page. the site is defunct with only working link, as far as I can see, "More" which leads you to initiatives which never appeared online. If you read the text there one can think, wow, there are half-dozen high profile projects in the making, but of all these things, you can only find with great effort some unfinished pages scattered all over place. I think he was never serious about this stuff, but instead he created these pages to impress the victim with big mouth. There was nothing real behind any of it.

riddickvictim2

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 41
    • View Profile
Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
« Reply #79 on: November 04, 2010, 05:50:34 PM »
You draw conclusions but please understand that you are merely scratching the surface of what many victims, and this website, have uncovered.  
What is frightening about Riddick, is that he is arrogant enough to believe that those initiatives would ever work in the first place.  His significant investment in totally worthless domain acquisitions is proof that he really believes in his delusions, and if you are relentless in your search, you will see that they are many.  
Who on earth would purchase domains that contain expiration dates as part of the domain name?  Yet Riddick purchased such worthless domains by the hundreds.  Sure, most have since expired but I can assure you, he owned them at one time.
Keep digging, Bullyriddick.  There is a very disturbing iceberg below the surface.

Oscar Michelen

  • ELI Legal Warrior
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1301
    • View Profile
    • Courtroom Strategy
Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
« Reply #80 on: November 05, 2010, 12:38:07 AM »
Good posts guys

YetAnotherRiddickVictim

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
« Reply #81 on: November 27, 2010, 03:38:01 AM »
Sounds like Riddick is having more trouble. Heard from a case follower that Riddick's lawyer submitted 5 affirmative defenses and the judge has taken some level of issue with 4 of them.

Oscar Michelen

  • ELI Legal Warrior
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1301
    • View Profile
    • Courtroom Strategy
Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
« Reply #82 on: November 29, 2010, 10:45:49 PM »
Yes, the judge has ordered Riddick's lawyers to supplement their affirmative defenses - in federal Court you can't just allege an AD that could get the lawsuit dismissed, you have to be specific enough and support it with facts so the plaintiff will know what  your basis for it is. For ex., you can't just say "The court lacks jurisdiction." it has to be  something like "The defendant was not served at his actual residence" Also, if you have an AD that can cause a dismissal, your supposed to move for dismissal or show your adversary and ask them to withdraw.  While this may sound complicated to a layperson, this is basic stuff to a practitioner and is inexcusable.  Thats why the court is frustrated.  The judge gave the new lawyers until 12-9-10 to make a motion to dismiss based on the ADs or they will be deemed forfeited.  That was for 3 of the ADs. As to another one, the court ruled it was inconsistent with the allegations in the complaint.  Again, just denying something is the routine part of an answer - a denial. You  cannot reallege a denial of one of the elements of the plaintiffs case as an AD. For ex., if a complaint alleges in a paragraph that " The defendant infringed on the plaintiff's copyright." You simply can deny that in a paragraph in your  answer.  You cant then have an AD that says "The defendant did not infringe on plaintiff's copyright."  This is another sign of inexperience on the part of Riddick's counsel.

More bad news for RIddick - on the case that I am representing folks he (and Imageline) is suing  in Georgia, his lawyer there has moved to be relieved as well. Will keep you posted!

stevep

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
« Reply #83 on: January 15, 2011, 09:07:46 AM »
Yesterday, Bernina's lawyers filed a response to counter-claims made by Imageline and Riddick (defendants) which was very well done. This paragraph from their response sums up the case well:

One or more of the Defendants has engaged, or is engaging in, misuse of copyright
with regard to its registrations by attempting to improperly leverage its limited monopoly over
compilations of clip art images in order to gain control of the unprotectable underlying images.
Specifically, one or more of the Defendants has engaged in a practice of identifying potential
users of unprotectable individual images, which may or may not even be included in the
registered compilations, and extorting and threatening them with legal action based on the
registrations if they do not make demanded payments and/or become a “strategic partner” with
Defendants. Essentially, Defendants are attempting to use compilation registrations to cover the
underlying unprotectable images and force companies like Bernina to either settle or incur
litigation expenses.

stevep

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
« Reply #84 on: March 07, 2011, 07:20:26 AM »
Riddick's new attorneys filed a motion on Friday to be removed from the case. Their motion states, "Defendants have been unable to meet the conditions on which the movants’ representation of them was based. In light of this failure, movants are unable to continue to provide legal services to Defendants."

A hearing is set for Wednesday on this request to be removed. Thus, it would appear Riddick will be once again looking for a new attorney. Anyone left willing to take the case?

stevep

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
« Reply #85 on: March 10, 2011, 12:11:41 PM »
Looks like Riddick needs a new attorney once again. This was just posted on the court's website:

Motion to withdraw as attorney is granted. Motion hearing held on 3/9/2011. Attorney Mark R Bagley and Brett M.
Tolpin terminated. Status hearing set for 3/17/2011 at 09:15 AM

Oscar Michelen

  • ELI Legal Warrior
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1301
    • View Profile
    • Courtroom Strategy
Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
« Reply #86 on: March 16, 2011, 03:28:18 PM »
I expect he will get the Florida lawyers I am litigating against to represent him in Chicago. They also took a over a Georgia case I am defending against Riddick when he lost the lawyer who was representing him in that case.

stevep

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
« Reply #87 on: March 17, 2011, 01:02:48 PM »
Looks like Riddick (defendant) didn't show up in court today...

"Honorable Milton I. Shadur: Status hearing held on 3/17/2011. Failure of defendant to appear either personally or through counsel at the next status hearing will result in the striking of the counterclaim and answer. Status hearing set for 4/1/2011 at 09:00 AM"

riddickvictim2

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 41
    • View Profile
Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
« Reply #88 on: March 22, 2011, 04:19:29 PM »
What does this mean exactly?  What "actually" happens if he is a no show on 4/1, in layman's terms?

Oscar Michelen

  • ELI Legal Warrior
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1301
    • View Profile
    • Courtroom Strategy
Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
« Reply #89 on: March 22, 2011, 04:45:25 PM »
His pleadings will be stricken and Bernina will win automatically!

 

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.