Timewarrior2001
Member
If it was only on here I would agree with you 100%
Maybe its a cultural difference I dont know. But i dont see it as acceptable at all.
Sorry if that bothers you.
CONGRATULATIONS TO LINDA & WANDA !
- Thread starter Big Momma Nav
- Start date
If it was only on here I would agree with you 100%
Maybe its a cultural difference I dont know. But i dont see it as acceptable at all.
Sorry if that bothers you.
This is THEIR site and they can do what they want - especially since Aja has no problem lying about this case on her site/blogs. If you don't like it, you don't have to come here and just stick to the shows!
n
Tap_Legion2
Paint Brush Pusher
- Dec 3, 2005
- 435
- 0
- 16
How do you know that she's lying? Her big mistake was not having a lawyer represent her in court..Thats doomed for failure from the start.... plus a small claim of $1,800 for royalties isnt far fetched.
A7
Live to Win
First off, I'm happy for Linda and Wanda. I will not condone nor condemn anyone's comments on this issue, for it is none of my business, anyway.
Over on the Facebook page, there's been a lot of ramblings about this matter. Hell, someone even posted a Hitler parody video about it. Personally, while I enjoy watching Hitler parody videos in general, I kinda thought this particular one was in bad taste. What do you guys think?
Hitler Rants About The Iron Maidens
Over on the Facebook page, there's been a lot of ramblings about this matter. Hell, someone even posted a Hitler parody video about it. Personally, while I enjoy watching Hitler parody videos in general, I kinda thought this particular one was in bad taste. What do you guys think?
Hitler Rants About The Iron Maidens
easy:
1) aja/patty rich blog. sunday July 18, 2010:
http://www.facebook.com/ajakim?ref=search#!/ajakim?v=wall&ref=search
"It's regarding their claim that I lost my lawsuit against them. The truth is that we are awaiting judgement on their appeal "
lie. they are NOT awaiting judgment, the appeal has been decided:
2) from iron maiden website, from July 12, 2010:
07/12/2010 JUDGMENT ENTERED AS A FINAL DISPOSITION AFTER APPEAL AND
TRIAL DE NOVO ON 07/12/10 . FOR (THE IRON MAIDENS) A
PARTNERSHIP CONSISTING OF (MCDONALD, LINDA) AND (ORTIZ,
WANDA) INDIVIVUALLY & SEVERALLY . AGAINST (RICH,
PATRICIA C.) PROFESSIONALLY KNOWN AS ( KIM, AJA) .
PRINCIPAL $ 0.00 , COSTS $ 0.00 , ATTORNEY FEES $
0.00 , AND SUPERIOR COURT COSTS $ 0.00 . TOTAL $ .00 .
PLAINTIFF TAKES NOTHING BY ITS CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT.
PLAINTIFF FAILED TO MEET HER BURDEN OF PROOF.
(note the word FINAL)
------
Aja/Patty clearly caught lying to her "fans" about the case and that the decision is a SMALL CLAIMS PRELIMINARY JUDGMENT (whatever that means).
Now you know why the IM's had to clear this up publicly with PROOF to clear the air? Make sense now?
n
Tap_Legion2
Paint Brush Pusher
- Dec 3, 2005
- 435
- 0
- 16
Why clear something up publicly that the public knew nothing about?
The document was dated on the 12th and MAILED on the 13th...Given the postal services timely fashion of mail delivery, its quite possible that one party received their letter before the other. This very thread was started on the 16th...Its possible she didnt receive her letter until the 19th.
Here's a bit that DRZ curiously left off the main page...notice the dates:
"07/19/2010 REQUEST FOR COURT ORDER AND ANSWER RECEIVED AS TO (RICH,
PATRICIA C.) PROFESSIONALLY KNOWN AS ( KIM, AJA) .
07/19/2010 REQUEST FOR COURT ORDER AND ANSWER RECEIVED AS TO (RICH,
PATRICIA C.) PROFESSIONALLY KNOWN AS ( KIM, AJA) .
07/19/2010 CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL FILED .
07/14/2010 REQUEST FOR COURT ORDER AND ANSWER RE: SC-105 FILED BY
(RICH, PATRICIA C.) PROFESSIONALLY KNOWN AS ( KIM, AJA) .
"
That being said, Aja isnt a lawyer..there are so many there to's and why for's in legaleese that it could be speculated that she either wasnt aware at the time or hadnt properly understood the document received.
At first glance, the document states that she didnt have enough "burden of proof" to warrant any litigation. Again, that fault lies with Aja for not having proper legal counsel. Unfortunate, but true.
Is it possible that she is owed royalties from 3 releases? Absolutely...Especially if it was for such a lowball sum of $1,800...Again, we'll never know the truth and frankly, its really none of our business, which brings us back to the tastless way this was handled....Pasting on every website which the MaidenS are involved.
I see no reason why she can't try again with proper legal counsel and go after the band as a whole instead of two members.
Personally, I don't think $1,800 is worth the headache...Gene $immon$ still owes me $2,000 but I got even by selling a concert poster I was asked to do by the promoter which chapped his thieving ass to no end....Its like Timewarrior said, its really nobody's business but theirs.
The document was dated on the 12th and MAILED on the 13th...Given the postal services timely fashion of mail delivery, its quite possible that one party received their letter before the other. This very thread was started on the 16th...Its possible she didnt receive her letter until the 19th.
Here's a bit that DRZ curiously left off the main page...notice the dates:
"07/19/2010 REQUEST FOR COURT ORDER AND ANSWER RECEIVED AS TO (RICH,
PATRICIA C.) PROFESSIONALLY KNOWN AS ( KIM, AJA) .
07/19/2010 REQUEST FOR COURT ORDER AND ANSWER RECEIVED AS TO (RICH,
PATRICIA C.) PROFESSIONALLY KNOWN AS ( KIM, AJA) .
07/19/2010 CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL FILED .
07/14/2010 REQUEST FOR COURT ORDER AND ANSWER RE: SC-105 FILED BY
(RICH, PATRICIA C.) PROFESSIONALLY KNOWN AS ( KIM, AJA) .
"
That being said, Aja isnt a lawyer..there are so many there to's and why for's in legaleese that it could be speculated that she either wasnt aware at the time or hadnt properly understood the document received.
At first glance, the document states that she didnt have enough "burden of proof" to warrant any litigation. Again, that fault lies with Aja for not having proper legal counsel. Unfortunate, but true.
Is it possible that she is owed royalties from 3 releases? Absolutely...Especially if it was for such a lowball sum of $1,800...Again, we'll never know the truth and frankly, its really none of our business, which brings us back to the tastless way this was handled....Pasting on every website which the MaidenS are involved.
I see no reason why she can't try again with proper legal counsel and go after the band as a whole instead of two members.
Personally, I don't think $1,800 is worth the headache...Gene $immon$ still owes me $2,000 but I got even by selling a concert poster I was asked to do by the promoter which chapped his thieving ass to no end....Its like Timewarrior said, its really nobody's business but theirs.
Man, reading the legal filing is incredible. Props to Phil Campbell for the assist.
So when does Aja go on tour with Tarja Turunen?
(only Nightwish fans are gonna get that joke)
So when does Aja go on tour with Tarja Turunen?
(only Nightwish fans are gonna get that joke)
It does look like the judge simply decided she should have sued the band as a legal entity, rather than Linda and Wanda as individuals. If that is so and she refiled according to the judge's advice she might win again. I say "might" because small claims judges are usually pro tem practicing attorneys filling in part-time and one judge might see it differently than another.
In California a claim of $5,000 or less goes through small claims court and you actually have to represent yourself in small claims IIRC. I managed a small plumbing company and that is what we did with good success.
On the other hand, winning and collecting the judgment are 2 different things. If she did win she'd have to do an asset search and/or a till tap to get the money. You have to hire and pay a marshal to do that.
Even if she simply didn't get the letter (makes no sense judges deliver their verdict in person in small claim cases btw) - i'm sure she would post a notice that she was incorrect about a 'preliminary judgment' and that she did infact LOSE the case.
In other words - snowballs. chance. hell.
A lawyer for a civil case would cost big bucks. I doubt she has the money to go after them for tens of thousands - not to mention - a good chance of winning (ie: proof).
Not sure what request for court order and answer is. My law training stopped b4 that - I doubt it has any effect on the decision though.
n
Timewarrior2001
Member
I loved the bit about the maidens having a negative bank balance.
Further on in the document it mentions the sum of $70,000
Yes i have read it.
No where does it say the case was frivolous (or however you spell it)
Its judged as plaintiff failed in her burden of proof.
As in she couldnt prove they owed the money.
I also understand, but dont like the reasoning behind going after Linda and Wanda. But need smust, if Aja thought there was a case to answer then she has to go after who she beleived were "the iron maidens" Kirsten and Courtney were not part of the band when Aja left.
Any way my beef is with the way the management seem to be gloating over this. Not nice, not professional and very very immature.
I've already said to Linda and wanda that I am relieved its over for them.
In the UK misrepresenting what was judged by a court is an offence and can carry jail time for contempt of court. I am guessing that is not the case in the US.
But trying to assisnate the image and character of Aja is only going to lead to libel and defamation actions. So I stand by my original thoughts, this should have been pulled and replaced with a factual report of the outcome with maybe a professional "glad its all over" personal response.
Further on in the document it mentions the sum of $70,000
Yes i have read it.
No where does it say the case was frivolous (or however you spell it)
Its judged as plaintiff failed in her burden of proof.
As in she couldnt prove they owed the money.
I also understand, but dont like the reasoning behind going after Linda and Wanda. But need smust, if Aja thought there was a case to answer then she has to go after who she beleived were "the iron maidens" Kirsten and Courtney were not part of the band when Aja left.
Any way my beef is with the way the management seem to be gloating over this. Not nice, not professional and very very immature.
I've already said to Linda and wanda that I am relieved its over for them.
In the UK misrepresenting what was judged by a court is an offence and can carry jail time for contempt of court. I am guessing that is not the case in the US.
But trying to assisnate the image and character of Aja is only going to lead to libel and defamation actions. So I stand by my original thoughts, this should have been pulled and replaced with a factual report of the outcome with maybe a professional "glad its all over" personal response.
Timewarrior2001
Member
They can do what they want to a point, libel and defamation will only land the management back in court. Just because you own a webside doesnt mean you can ride roughshod over all laws. you are bound by the laws of the land and international law.
That attitude sounds like "its my ball and if you dont do as I say you cant play with it"
There is a duty of care to report accurately and without personal abuse.
I honestly think DRZ failed here.
And morally the initial report was just wrong in so many ways.
yes I could just leave here, but what does that achieve? I dont get to follow the news of the band etc. I have a right, as does anyone, to criticise what I think is unfair. If i get banned for that, then so be it. It wont change how I think and feel and tobe honest would be petty.
You will notice I have not criticised Linda or Wanda anywhere on my posts, I have never made any comment about the band other than I am worried by these events of fighting between ex members.
I try to be reasoned with what I say and my "you just dont get it comment" was out of sheer frustration.
I just dont see why the management couldnt have posted somethign simple like "YES the judge found in our favour" and published the documents.
Much easier and would not have attracted the criticism.
Doodoobubbachuck
Maidens' drums
Libel and defamation of character - yep, that's what she is doing alright.
Thanks for the continued support to those who do get it. We appreciate it and your understanding of this whole unfortunate epsiode that is soon to be over and in the past. Up the Irons!
Thanks for the continued support to those who do get it. We appreciate it and your understanding of this whole unfortunate epsiode that is soon to be over and in the past. Up the Irons!
I personally did not see this as a character attack or inappropriate. Perhaps because I was working for the band at this time and was curious to see the results of what was just greed on the part of the former member.
Make no mistake, the former member is a pure suka pizda (Russian words there, if you must know). She already took more than her fair share from the band prior to filing this suit to get more. Sorry if this should not be aired, really not my buisness, but just how greedy can one person get!?!?!?
I guess I lost all respect at the timing of her original demand for more money, right before playing for the troops in Iraq!! Thank God there are people like Debbie (that stepped in at a moments notice) who get it. Ask any of the Maidens and I bet they would have done that for free. It was a USO show!!! She quit, yet still wants money for nothing??? Get a job!
That is my rant and feel free to delete. The Maidens and Management took alot of derrmo (Russian) for the handling of their last "issue". I think this "issue" was handled very professionally and just the facts were stated. I sensed no gloating, but then again my view is biased.
I am very happy for the Maidens and I will gloat for them because I have been so f*#!ked by the Court system many times in my life.
This is welcome news to my eyes and ears.
This is just how I see this.
Make no mistake, the former member is a pure suka pizda (Russian words there, if you must know). She already took more than her fair share from the band prior to filing this suit to get more. Sorry if this should not be aired, really not my buisness, but just how greedy can one person get!?!?!?
I guess I lost all respect at the timing of her original demand for more money, right before playing for the troops in Iraq!! Thank God there are people like Debbie (that stepped in at a moments notice) who get it. Ask any of the Maidens and I bet they would have done that for free. It was a USO show!!! She quit, yet still wants money for nothing??? Get a job!
That is my rant and feel free to delete. The Maidens and Management took alot of derrmo (Russian) for the handling of their last "issue". I think this "issue" was handled very professionally and just the facts were stated. I sensed no gloating, but then again my view is biased.
I am very happy for the Maidens and I will gloat for them because I have been so f*#!ked by the Court system many times in my life.
This is welcome news to my eyes and ears.
This is just how I see this.
I'm not the smartest tool in the shed, but I think she went after the members of the band that hold down day jobs...just a guess.
I lost all respect for her the moment I heard she wanted to get paid to get SUPPORT the troops.
ouch!
n
Umm..no, the judge simply decided that she shouldn't get any money because she had no proof that we owed her any. Linda and I, on the other hand, brought documents, bank statements, tax records (Sorry, but I LOST money on the band in 2008 and 2009 thanks, in large part, to Ms. Rich), as well as witnesses (management, the rest of the band, our merch mistress, and former members were there to testify against her) as proof that she was not and is not owed anything. Thanks.
Okay, I'm curious then. If this was an appeal, then the first judge ruled in her favor, is that correct or not? I'm just asking. If the first judge DID rule in her favor, then she must have had something that caused him to do so.
Is it untrue that there was a previous verdict in her favor and that this was an appeal that was ruled in your favor?
You should understand that this would create some confusion, especially on the heels of Sara saying she was wronged in her firing too. When Sara said that I recall saying that the "true" story would be told, but that you had to do a show that weekend first. AFAIK nothing more was said on that subject either. If I missed it please give a link or re-explain?
You may feel that fans don't have a right to know, but you certainly must understand that we'd be curious.
From this experience, I learned that, in small claims court, judges are guided by law but are not required to strictly follow it. It's more a court of "equity". The first judge wanted to come up with something that would satisfy everyone so he came up with an amount big enough to make Ms. Rich feel okay but small enough so that Linda and I wouldn't appeal it. In reality, we were all losers : Ms. Rich was suing for the maximum $7500 (she felt entitled to more actually, but in small claims, that's the most you can get) while we felt that we shouldn't have had to pay anything. None of us got exactly what we wanted so it was actually pretty even if you think about it. Needless to say, we were very surprised at the outcome, especially since Linda and I were sued personally even though neither of us were ever in charge of band finances or CD distribution. Our mistake was that we didn't speak up enough in court that day and we didn't bring everything we needed. What can I say..neither of us had ever watched "Judge Judy" or had been sued before and were pretty unfamiliar with the process.
We didn't make the same mistake at the appeal. We made sure we brought everything we needed and the judge ruled in our favor.
As for Sara, I read her post and I'm glad she's doing well ~ but we wouldn't know because she hasn't talked to any of us since she left. However, I will say that I was there in the band with her for many years and she did have medical problems :it seemed like we were always looking for doctors or pharmacists on practically every tour. I also remember her having a run of personal bad luck for a while. That's the truth and that's all I'm going to say about that.
Okay, it all makes so much more sense with your explanation, Wanda! Maybe you should write the press releases from now on! I see they've raised the small claims limit since I left Cali. It was $5,000 when I lived there. But they do use attorneys as pro tem judges for small claims, so sometimes you will get decisions that are creative, not necessarily according to the letter of the law.
Thanks for taking the time to address this, i understand the situation much now.
Thanks for taking the time to address this, i understand the situation much now.
Similar threads
