Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
To enter, all you need to do is add an image of yourself at the range below! Subscribers get more entries, check out the plans below for a better chance of winning!
Join the contest SubscribeH20 Man is defending SEI. Whoda thunk it?!
He's over on Calguns claiming that a bunch of "POGs" chased him off Sniper's Hide or some other shit. Kinda funny since he is the quintessential poser.
He got banned for several reason,
1. He couldn't stop schilling for SEI
2. He was offered a free slot (I believe more than once) to Shoot a Sniper's Hide Match with his M14 to prove his claims, he ignored the repeated requests.
It's comical, as I don't believe he ever served at day in the military (I could be wrong) calling Me a "POG" as I was anything but a POG. He screwed up the first letter, it's H. O. G. water-boy. Now go rub your mama's feet.
He got banned for several reason,
1. He couldn't stop schilling for SEI
2. He was offered a free slot (I believe more than once) to Shoot a Sniper's Hide Match with his M14 to prove his claims, he ignored the repeated requests.
It's comical, as I don't believe he ever served at day in the military (I could be wrong) calling Me a "POG" as I was anything but a POG. He screwed up the first letter, it's H. O. G. water-boy. Now go rub your mama's feet.
He's also the quintessential SEI schill. I knew that guy would be banned from here the second I saw him start posting. It was just a matter of time.
He's over on Calguns claiming that a bunch of "POGs" chased him off Sniper's Hide or some other shit. Kinda funny since he is the quintessential poser.
He got banned for several reason,
1. He couldn't stop schilling for SEI
2. He was offered a free slot (I believe more than once) to Shoot a Sniper's Hide Match with his M14 to prove his claims, he ignored the repeated requests.
It's comical, as I don't believe he ever served at day in the military (I could be wrong) calling Me a "POG" as I was anything but a POG. He screwed up the first letter, it's H. O. G. water-boy. Now go rub your mama's feet.
Both side in this are doing the devils work. In the end we the consumer will suffer.
Both side in this are doing the devils work. In the end we the consumer will suffer.
I waited about 2 1/2 years for my LRB M25 receiver. Granted, I didn't pay anything up front, just told them I wanted one. I called three times in that 2 1/2 years for an update. Sure I wanted my receiver, but I didn't need it for anything urgent. Finally I got a call saying it was ready, I paid for it and it was done. I didn't feel a need to complain, speculate on the hold up, post a bunch of crap cause lead times were missed... it was what it was and I wanted the product. If it annoyed me as much as the good doctor seemed annoyed, he should have cancelled the order and gone elsewhere, like his favourite, Fulton Armory. Or, maybe he wanted to cancel, but not lose the money, so you gripe enough to get it cancelled by the manufacturer. I really don't know the details and being the internet, people can say almost anything to paint themselves in whatever light they wish. I don't believe either party is innocent. However I do believe in researching before you buy and knowing the company and the product you're dealing with.
The Key here is that you did not put money down.
This could both provide the paper trail to prove the lawsuit is a SLAPP (and get it dismissed in any case), and turn some screws on the unscrupulous company.
Maybe consider reading the Thread before posting: That question has been answered.what state is the lawsuit in and what are the slapp laws there?
Maybe consider reading the Thread before posting: That question has been answered.
Maybe consider reading the Thread before posting: That question has been answered.
Look at the first two pages of the lawsuit:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0XyOXhO5LcXS2lwWERPNi1fd3c/preview?pli=1
What I see is a plaintiff from a venue state of Arizona, a defendant not from Arizona who is alleged on information and belief to be a competitor of SEI when it looks like he is in fact a lone consumer who bought a receiver from a third party. And the defendant's only contact with Arizona appears to be his purchase of the receiver in New Mexico.
Good luck with that. I would bet that the defense firm assigns this one to its best first year law student. LOL!
From my viewpoint, some of you guys are touchy and a bit grouchy. If Mouse would have answered both of my questions, as far as I can tell from this web page:
A Brief Overview of Anti-SLAPP Statutes : Newsroom Law Blog
There are no ANTI SLAPP laws in AZ, so his reasoning wasn't very valid from a legal standpoint.
so i may be setting myself up for more schooling, but all I was trying to point out was that mouse7410 was counting on a law that isn't in existince in AZ. I could be wrong 'cause I'm not a lawyer and I don't live in AZ but that was my train of thought, using what had already been posted and what I had already read from the links provided.
whether it is a slapp lawsuit or not, it has been filed and now it is up to the defendent hammonds to disprove all the claims sei has made. If he doesn't show (or hire a defense firm) guess how much it matters
Why do people insist on posting out of their backsides?!...whether it is a slapp lawsuit or not, it has been filed and now it is up to the defendent hammonds to disprove all the claims sei has made.
Why do people insist on posting out of their backsides?!
That's not how the system works.
The burden is on the Plaintiff to plead and prove all of its claims, including personal jurisdiction.
That IS how the courts figure it out.Or we could let the courts figure it out.![]()
Why do people insist on posting out of their backsides?!
That's not how the system works.
The burden is on the Plaintiff to plead and prove all of its claims, including personal jurisdiction.
That's still not correct. In fact, all of it is incorrect.yes, you are correct. I should have been more clear and stated that sei looks to be ready to make all their claims IN COURT, and hammond has to show up and have competent legal representation to disprove their claims. If he doesn't, he will lose.
This is why it pays not to be lazy and to read the Thread: It's a Lanham Act claim.I'm not reading through 5 pages because as Frank already posted some of us are lazy, but just from skimming the preliminary reasoning I have to ask on what grounds they have for libel if there are no real evident damages that can be proven as causation of the defendants actions and not based upon the delay of delivery, poor customer service experiences, etc. etc.?
A free practice pointer for the armchair barristers...before you hang your hat on the "lack of quantifiable damages" defense of a defamation claim, you may want to familiarize yourself with the concept of "damages per se" and its potential impact on your proposed silver bullet.
That...and read the actual complaint...
This is why it pays not to be lazy and to read the Thread: It's a Lanham Act claim.
Shocker...Nick is making a bold pronouncement based upon 30 seconds of google research. You may want to take a look at the 72 years of caselaw that have followed the 1941 decision you quoted.