Look what someone found

[digitalrebelttu]

Nope, just providing a cursory search result that shoots holes in your claims of defamation. Claims you seem unwilling to back up. Claims that you repeat, as if ad nauseum repitition makes them true.

I'm sorry, you are going to have to show me how a reasonable person wouldn't buy Mick Strider's claim regarding the regulation above. I mean, why would he even say that if it wasn't the case? It just digs a bigger hole for himself by implying that his motivation is "Hey, check me out as I deliberately use manuevers to do biz with the gov even though I'm a felon lol"

Hah, ok, tell you what. How about you show that I knowingly and willingly made claims with malice, when I know they weren't factually correct, before you tell me that I, as a reasonable man, aren't entitled to my opinion.

I've posted multiple times now: Statements made on good faith, reasonable comment, and heck, even Innocent dissemination would work there - Mick Strider made the claim, I repeated it, and unless you can prove that it was defamatory, sorry about your luck. BTW, there's a case cite in that link

You're quoting wiki again and it is not even a valid link- come on post controlling legal authority. You are all over the place on the law, mixing and matching what the law is and isn't.

Where is the federal law? Where? Come on, keep dancing around it. You're already on notice that you haven't posted correct information, so the continued publication falls under a reckless disregard for the truth (an element of actual malice).

You are not going to actually argue that a reasonable person would believe Strider word on federal law when he is not a lawyer or an expert on federal law and you have repeatedly attacked his veracity are you? Mistake of law is an absolute defense to a "crime." And the resonable person language is not in the case law. You are accusing him of a federal crime- fraud in contracting, so back it up.

Where is the federal law?

 

[Spark]

You're quoting wiki again and it is not even a valid link- come on post controlling legal authority. You are all over the place on the law, mixing and matching what the law is and isn't.

Check again. I fixed the link in the post, when I notice I screwed it up. Here you go though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_dissemination

Where is the federal law? Where? Come on, keep dancing around it. You're already on notice that you haven't posted correct information, so the continued publication falls under a reckless disregard for the truth (an element of actual malice).

Well, I already corrected the statement I made on this site, and helpfully included Mick Strider's quoted text. So, try again.

You are not going to actually argue that a reasonable person would believe Strider word on federal law when he is not a lawyer or an expert on federal law and you have repeatedly attacked his veracity are you? Mistake of law is an absolute defense to a "crime." And the resonable person language is not in the case law. You are accusing him of a federal crime- fraud in contracting, so back it up.

Excuse me? Don't twist my words. I'm not saying "fraud in contracting" and you'll need to cite my specific words to level that allegation.

Again, Mick Strider made a statement about his intentions behind incorporation, as I've cited. Twice.

As a reasonable man I had no reason to doubt those statements, after all, if a felon wants to do business with the .GOV and needs to be incorporated to do so, yes, that seems to make sense to me. In my opinion, that sounds plausible. How is it defamation to believe him when he makes such a claim? Or to repost it when he said so himself?

You, and only you, seem to be making a case that Mick Strider's cited quotations that he made on multiple websites somehow equal my defaming him.

 

[digitalrebelttu]

Check again. I fixed the link in the post, when I notice I screwed it up. Here you go though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_dissemination

Well, I already corrected the statement I made on this site, and helpfully included Mick Strider's quoted text. So, try again.

Excuse me? Don't twist my words. I'm not saying "fraud in contracting" and you'll need to cite my specific words to level that allegation.

Again, Mick Strider made a statement about his intentions behind incorporation, as I've cited. Twice.

As a reasonable man I had no reason to doubt those statements, after all, if a felon wants to do business with the .GOV and needs to be incorporated to do so, yes, that seems to make sense to me. In my opinion, that sounds plausible. How is it defamation to believe him when he makes such a claim? Or to repost it when he said so himself?

You, and only you, seem to be making a case that Mick Strider's cited quotations that he made on multiple websites somehow equal my defaming him.

Good God, your "case law" in the link is an English case from 1900? Are you joking???

You have no reason to doubt his word on that but all his other quotes are lies? You are cracking me up here.

Where is that federal law? I notice that you are not providing a link to it.

And I like the "opinion" tactic now- you think you are immune if it is an "opinion"- the current case law is that if the opinion is based upon facts, which you claim to be presenting, it stills is within defamation if it is not true.

Come man, is that all you've got? I have 3 casebooks and the restatement of torts in front of me and I taught this in law school, so please keep on citing wiki and case law that is not even from this country.

I don't need to cite your words because you are implying illegality in federal contracting, that, according to the known liar with a history of exagerrating and embellishing, he incorporated the company to get around federal contracting rules, which, if willfully done is fraud. You made that statement in the context of pointing out his lies and saying he has to answer for it.

 

[digitalrebelttu]

STRIDER KNIVES, INC.
Number: C2325878 Date Filed: 1/5/2001 Status: active
Jurisdiction: California
Address
120 N PACIFIC ST L 7
SAN MARCOS, CA 92069
Agent for Service of Process
DUANE DWYER
120 N PACIFIC ST L 7
SAN MARCOS, CA 92069

Mick Strider statement above implies that since the corporation is not registered in Mick Strider's name, Government contract regulations about purchasing from convicted felons are neatly bypassed.


And since I forgot- who is this corporation "registered" to? Doesn't say does it? It says who the agent for process is but nothing else. So who is the incorporator? Who are the shareholders (the owners of the company)? Who are the board members? Did you provide any of that?

I'm confused as to how that "implies" - nice trying the internet lawyer wannabe ways of trying to get around liability- that it is not registered in Strider's name because you didn't post the articles of incorporation, the bylaws, any financial filings, or any other official documents that show whose name the company is in.

So tell me where the corp is not in Strider's name and then point out those federal regulations that you cite.

 

[Spark]

Good God, your "case law" in the link is an English case from 1900? Are you joking???

Hey dude, I'm not a lawyer, I've never represented myself as one. I'm just showing a defense against defamation. Should I educate you on the logical fallacy about appeals to age?

You have no reason to doubt his word on that but all his other quotes are lies? You are cracking me up here.

And your gasping and histrionics aren't impressing me. Again, disprove the reasonable man aspect.

Where is that federal law? I notice that you are not providing a link to it.

Well, just for you I've called up GSA asking for it. They've called me back already asking for more clarification. I'll post when I find out more. I have absolutely no issues pointing out that Mick Strider was wrong in his statements, as I think I've shown.

And I like the "opinion" tactic now- you think you are immune if it is an "opinion"- the current case law is that if the opinion is based upon facts, which you claim to be presenting, it stills is within defamation if it is not true.

Please show where I state it was a fact. Please show where my opininon is incorrect. Please show where good faith, reasonable belief, or fair comment don't apply.

Come man, is that all you've got? I have 3 casebooks and the restatement of torts in front of me and I taught this in law school, so please keep on citing wiki and case law that is not even from this country.

I never said I was a lawyer. But, I don't think you are being intellectually honest if you think any defamation case would have an easy time.

I don't need to cite your words because you are implying illegality in federal contracting, that, according to the known liar with a history of exagerrating and embellishing, he incorporated the company to get around federal contracting rules, which, if willfully done is fraud. You made that statement in the context of pointing out his lies and saying he has to answer for it.

How very interesting, what a concise summary. I never implied it was illegal to do so, on the contrary, I made no implication whatsoever about it, other than I believe that he did so (based on the cited quotations of Mick Strider himself). If anything, I thought it was an ethically disgusting tactic, but perfectly legal. Please show where I stated that his behavior in incorporating was in any way illegal? Or that I believed he was commiting fraud? Or are you projecting your own speculative beliefs upon me. I've never mentioned him commiting fraud - I don't know enough about fraud in contracting to make any such claims.

 

[Spark]

And since I forgot- who is this corporation "registered" to? Doesn't say does it? It says who the agent for process is but nothing else. So who is the incorporator? Who are the shareholders (the owners of the company)? Who are the board members? Did you provide any of that?

Not my concern. Mick Strider made a statement showing his intent: he wanted to do business with the .GOV. He stated that to do so, he incorporated. He stated that the government doesn't care about felonies anymore because of this.

I'm confused as to how that "implies" - nice trying the internet lawyer wannabe ways of trying to get around liability- that it is not registered in Strider's name because you didn't post the articles of incorporation, the bylaws, any financial filings, or any other official documents that show whose name the company is in.

Opinion is still a valid defense against defamation, yes or know? You keep dodging but I see your ploy. Also, nice red herring there. Facts still remain: Mick Strider made the statement, and saying I'm "defaming him" requires more than what you have.

So tell me where the corp is not in Strider's name and then point out those federal regulations that you cite.

Already working on the regulations part. Who the corp is registered to really doesn't matter to me. I can't prove a negative.

 

[DaveH]

With google I found this. In reading it sounds like felony or fraud arising from a DOD contract. Perhaps your run-of-the-mill felony doesn't matter:


http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles1/bja/fs000257.txt

DOD contractors and subcontractors must verify such information because individuals who have been convicted of fraud or any other felony arising out of a contract with DOD are prohibited from contracting with DOD under the National Defense Authorization Act of 1989 (Public Law 100-456).

 

[digitalrebelttu]

Hey dude, I'm not a lawyer, I've never represented myself as one. I'm just showing a defense against defamation. Should I educate you on the logical fallacy about appeals to age?

Should I educate you on citing 107 year old law from another country as your legal reasoning?

And your gasping and histrionics aren't impressing me. Again, disprove the reasonable man aspect.

And your pathetic and obviously tenuous grasp of the law is not impressing me. I don't have to disprove anything, particularly not a defense which doesn't exist under current caselaw.

Well, just for you I've called up GSA asking for it. They've called me back already asking for more clarification. I'll post when I find out more. I have absolutely no issues pointing out that Mick Strider was wrong in his statements, as I think I've shown.

You give a shit enough to call the GSA, OOOOKKKK. Now he is wrong in his statements- but you said as a reasonable man you don't have any reason to doubt him.

Please show where I state it was a fact. Please show where my opininon is incorrect. Please show where good faith, reasonable belief, or fair comment don't apply.

You're simply not getting that those "defenses" cited without legal authority from wiki, a user editted website, are not current law are you? You've been put on notice that you do not have a grasp of the law, the facts here, or your opinion on those? You keep the stuff posted and, even if you had a defense before, it is gone when you have been put on notice.

I never said I was a lawyer. But, I don't think you are being intellectually honest if you think any defamation case would have an easy time.

I don't think you are being intellectual honest or even intellectual when you claim that you even know one way or the other.

How very interesting, what a concise summary. I never implied it was illegal to do so, on the contrary, I made no implication whatsoever about it, other than I believe that he did so (based on the cited quotations of Mick Strider himself). If anything, I thought it was an ethically disgusting tactic, but perfectly legal. Please show where I stated that his behavior in incorporating was in any way illegal? Or that I believed he was commiting fraud? Or are you projecting your own speculative beliefs upon me.

Keep backpedaling, first its lying, then it is the truth, or is it legal, or wait, is it ethically disgusting, I'm so confused. Speculative beliefs? Well I guess you would be an expert on those. And it is so hard to go back and get your quotes when you change them constantly and it is not noted that the posts were edited.

And my plea to others, particularly LT. LT, I have a number of your products, I think that they represent a reasonable value for what they are, but posting this stuff on your website is stupid, you're going to get burned, mark my words, so please, and this is to all the knife makers, take a hint from Kershaw, don't post anything on the net beyond info about your products. Trust me, this whole thing is going to hurt everyone.

 

[Spark]

Dave - Yeah, that's all I found as well, despite checking out GSA.gov and their EPLS sections. It wouldn't suprise me if Mick Strider was wrong about felons being prohibited from selling to the government, but who knows.

Keep backpedaling, first its lying, then it is the truth, or is it legal, or wait, is it ethically disgusting, I'm so confused. Speculative beliefs? Well I guess you would be an expert on those. And it is so hard to go back and get your quotes when you change them constantly and it is not noted that the posts were edited.

Meh, whatever. I stated since the beginning that any incorrect information I had, I'd gladly change. Heck, I've begged people to rebut my arguments. I've also been very careful what I stated was a fact. I've posted defenses to your "defamation" claims, defenses you've ignored. As for changing my posts, I've edited them to update with new information from the beginning. I have no interest in deliberately putting bad information out there, despite what some would claim.

It sounds like you have a burr under your saddle for some reason, though for the life of me I can't figure out what. You already said Mick Strider is a repeat liar, and I'm guessing you agree with the large portion of what I have to say. Have I shown an unwillingness to discuss anything in this entire mess?

Furthermore, as I've said again, I can't prove a negative. If such a regulation doesn't exist, then I won't be able to find it. If I was erroneous in believing what Mick Strider said about the reasons behind his incorporation, so be it. I still can't understand why anyone would deliberately lie about goverment regulations requiring that they incorporate to do contracting business, I mean, I just don't understand the logic behind saying such a thing if it isn't true.

So, in summation, just to make it perfectly clear: I have no clue if Mick Strider was lying or telling the truth when he made the following statement about government regulations:

See, everyone, the plan was that a felon can’t contract with the US Government. Which of course is much of our business. Kevin wishes he could have it, and thinks if we didn’t have it, he would.
Good news for us! We’re a Corporation. Sammy don’t care about felons no-mo!

If he's telling the truth, I feel that it's a legal, though ethically disgusting tactic, ie exploiting a loophole. If he's lying, I can't see any reason to do so, there's plenty of reasons to incorporate without making something up. Am I saying he commited contractor fraud? I am not - I am not knowledgable enough about fraud to say that by any means. I just see this as another example of him showing poor conduct. A third possiblity is that he believed there were regulations prohibiting contracting with the .gov, regulations I've (as yet) been unable to track down, so he could have been operating out of ignorance.

Regardless, he made the above statement, and I repeated it because I found it plausible.

 

[digitalrebelttu]

With google I found this. In reading it sounds like felony or fraud arising from a DOD contract. Perhaps your run-of-the-mill felony doesn't matter:


http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles1/bja/fs000257.txt

Read it carefully, it says:

DOD contractors and subcontractors must verify such information because
individuals who have been convicted of fraud or any other felony arising out of a contract with DOD are prohibited from contracting with DOD under the
National Defense Authorization Act of 1989 (Public Law 100-456).

The person must be convicted of fraud ARISING OUT OF A CONTRACT WITH DOD, no mention of any other felony not arising out of a federal contract.

 

[digitalrebelttu]

Not my concern. Mick Strider made a statement showing his intent: he wanted to do business with the .GOV. He stated that to do so, he incorporated. He stated that the government doesn't care about felonies anymore because of this.

Not your concern, that is what you are complaining about! His intent to circumvent the law doesn't matter is there is no legal prohibition there in the first place.

Opinion is still a valid defense against defamation, yes or know? You keep dodging but I see your ploy. Also, nice red herring there. Facts still remain: Mick Strider made the statement, and saying I'm "defaming him" requires more than what you have.

No, you don't see what I am saying, phrasing something as your "opinion" when you are basing it on underlying facts is not a defense- it has been litigated and there is caselaw on point.
Already working on the regulations part. Who the corp is registered to really doesn't matter to me. I can't prove a negative.

Who it is registered doesn't matter- HAH! why did you post

STRIDER KNIVES, INC was incorporated 1/5/2001
http://kepler.ss.ca.gov/corpdata/Sho...umber=C2325878

STRIDER KNIVES, INC.
Number: C2325878 Date Filed: 1/5/2001 Status: active
Jurisdiction: California
Address
120 N PACIFIC ST L 7
SAN MARCOS, CA 92069
Agent for Service of Process
DUANE DWYER
120 N PACIFIC ST L 7
SAN MARCOS, CA 92069

Mick Strider statement above implies that since the corporation is not registered in Mick Strider's name, Government contract regulations about purchasing from convicted felons are neatly bypassed.


You claim it is not registered in his name, if it doesn't matter why do you claimed that? You're not exhibiting a reckless disregard for the truth are you? Your ignorance of corporations law doesn't excuse you from making a reasonable investigation of the "facts". You claim above that "since the corporation is not registered in Mick Strider's name"- so that is your fact there- where is the backup- whose name is the corp in? Who are the stockholders?

 

[digitalrebelttu]

Meh, whatever. I stated since the beginning that any incorrect information I had, I'd gladly change. Heck, I've begged people to rebut my arguments. I've also been very careful what I stated was a fact. I've posted defenses to your "defamation" claims, defenses you've ignored. As for changing my posts, I've edited them to update with new information from the beginning. I have no interest in deliberately putting bad information out there, despite what some would claim.

I haven't ignored your "defenses" I have pointed out REPEATEDLY that they are not valid defenses under current law, you can look up the law yourself
It sounds like you have a burr under your saddle for some reason, though for the life of me I can't figure out what. You already said Mick Strider is a repeat liar, and I'm guessing you agree with the large portion of what I have to say. Have I shown an unwillingness to discuss anything in this entire mess?

Because he is a liar does not give you the excuse to go beyond the facts in evidence, make other speculations on incorrect or nonexistant facts and law. Because, at the end of the day, you are doing exactly what Mick did to Osman. I'm trying to point that out to keep people out of trouble but YOU argue it back, even though you have unsupported positions which I have pointed out. I don't support Strider but turning around and doing the same thing back to him just makes you like him. The factual info provided is enough for people to make decision for themselves. But when it is taking the other stuff, LT posting it on his business website, etc... no matter how screwed up Strider's stuff is, you and LT have opened yourselves up to him coming after both of you. That is stupid and that is my point, the arguments based on facts against him are enough but when you take it farther, than you reach a point where all of that is overshadowed by your actions. And the fact that this just keeps going and going creates a situation where Mick does have a reason to go after you guys and get something out of this that he doesn't deserve.

Furthermore, as I've said again, I can't prove a negative. If such a regulation doesn't exist, then I won't be able to find it. If I was erroneous in believing what Mick Strider said about the reasons behind his incorporation, so be it. I still can't understand why anyone would deliberately lie about goverment regulations requiring that they incorporate to do contracting business, I mean, I just don't understand the logic behind saying such a thing if it isn't true.

You can't prove a negative, you're right. So don't get into a position where the caselaw says as a defendant in a defamation case you would have the burden of proving the truth of what you said. Are you getting my point or what?

Why the hell would he lie about all of the other shit- to puff himself up, to make himself look like such a badass that he can fool the feds? Who knows?

I hope that you and everyone else is getting my point, that I needed to be nasty about to it across.

 

[Spark]

Goddamn, please learn how to quote, or use the preview button there. For someone who's making arguments, you really show a massive inability to use the basic software.

Not your concern, that is what you are complaining about! His intent to circumvent the law doesn't matter is there is no legal prohibition there in the first place.

Well, since you were the one saying I'm claiming contract fraud you really should get your act together. Section 11 is pretty clear: there's confusion as to when Strider Knives was incorporated. Magazine articles claim various dates, and he was in prison for some of them. Publically available web docs show different information and everything is contradictory, yes or no?

No, you don't see what I am saying, phrasing something as your "opinion" when you are basing it on underlying facts is not a defense- it has been litigated and there is caselaw on point.

You are going to need to establish what's an underlying fact that I'm presenting then, because you seem to be having a difficult time doing so. Be specific, and use quotes.

Who it is registered doesn't matter- HAH! why did you post

Because it shows when Strider incorporated? You know, after he got out of jail, not 1994 or during his prison term? Again, contradictory information from a known liar? Information contradicting magazine articles?

You claim it is not registered in his name, if it doesn't matter why do you claimed that? You're not exhibiting a reckless disregard for the truth are you? Your ignorance of corporations law doesn't excuse you from making a reasonable investigation of the "facts". You claim above that "since the corporation is not registered in Mick Strider's name"- so that is your fact there- where is the backup- whose name is the corp in? Who are the stockholders?

Reckless disregard for the truth? I've searched all the info I can find. I can't prove a negative - basic logic there, chief.

Oh wait, I see what you are saying, you are saying that it might be registered in his name, but since it's a corporation, it doesn't matter that he's a felon; the corporation is it's own entity? (Notice, I'm asking for clarification here)

 

[Thomas Linton]

You can't prove a negative, you're right.

No. Proving a negative is more difficult, but not always impossible. I can easily prove that I did not set off an IED in Iraq yesterday.

So don't get into a position where the caselaw says as a defendant in a defamation case you would have the burden of proving the truth of what you said. Are you getting my point or what?

As a torts prof, you know that the burden of proving that the statement in question is false is on the plaintiff, as is the burden of proving each element of the tort of defamation.

Why the hell would he lie about all of the other shit- to puff himself up, to make himself look like such a badass that he can fool the feds? Who knows?

Hard to tell why people behave as they do. They may not have an accurate understanding. However, I have tried to find a case where a plaintiff in a defamation case prevailed on the basis that the defendant repeated what the plaintiff had claimed to be true. I can find no such case. However, I only have access to reported federal cases and reported cases from thirty-one states. Perhaps you can fill the gap.

I hope that you and everyone else is getting my point, that I needed to be nasty about to it across.

A fail to see why it advances analysis, or makes one's position more convincing, to be "nasty," but that's just me -- and the ABA.



While at Common Law admissions against interest by a party were subject to an exception to the general rule that hearsay is excluded, they are regarded as "not hearsay" under the federal rules and the rules of those states, like mine, that model their rules on the federal rules.

 

[digitalrebelttu]

Goddamn, please learn how to quote, or use the preview button there. For someone who's making arguments, you really show a massive inability to use the basic software.

Well, since you were the one saying I'm claiming contract fraud you really should get your act together. Section 11 is pretty clear: there's confusion as to when Strider Knives was incorporated. Magazine articles claim various dates, and he was in prison for some of them. Publically available web docs show different information and everything is contradictory, yes or no?

You are going to need to establish what's an underlying fact that I'm presenting then, because you seem to be having a difficult time doing so. Be specific, and use quotes.

Because it shows when Strider incorporated? You know, after he got out of jail, not 1994 or during his prison term? Again, contradictory information from a known liar? Information contradicting magazine articles?

Reckless disregard for the truth? I've searched all the info I can find. I can't prove a negative - basic logic there, chief.

Oh wait, I see what you are saying, you are saying that it might be registered in his name, but since it's a corporation, it doesn't matter that he's a felon; the corporation is it's own entity? (Notice, I'm asking for clarification here)

Dude, posting on the net ain't my life and I'm not going to waste my time with the quoting, so deal with it.

I hope my points are starting to sink in. The incorpration stuff is important b/c 1) the info you posted doesn't say squat about who owns the company. The registered agent is required for all corp. whether registered in the state or if they are incorporated somewhere else (a foreign corp, even if just another state). All it is is a person to send paperwork to, it doesn't even have to be an employee of the company. You, or anyone, need to have the financial statements and/or the articles to see who the stockholders are, they are the owners. I have no idea who the owners here are, I haven't seen the papers. He could be an officer and not an owner, there are ways to work that. So, we don't have the info. Furthermore, I looked and I can't find a fed reg on the contracting but I'm not an expert on fed contracting. Just because someone thinks that they are pulling a fast one on the gov doesn't mean it is so. So you've got a problem with that statement in general.

2) Same with the guns, he could have a rig without a weapon and he could be posting about it even though he doesn't have a gun. How many people here have chest rigs or plate carriers to collect?

The overall point is that reporting on public documents is one thing and speculating is another, don't get yourself (or you LT) into trouble over this.

I don't see the relevance of when he incorporated, they could have been in business before as a partnership, sole proprietorship, etc... I have no idea. The basic problem here is that you are taking some documents and some bs from Mick and throwing it all together and coming up with something that is part truthful and part bs, but since you don't have all the docs and info, you open yourself up for attack, LT much more so because he is publishing it all on his corporate website.

The point is be careful!!!!! I know some people are really pissed but don't start mouthing off so that it comes back and bite you in the ass. Strider will rise or fall on his own, but all of this gun shop bs'ing is best left off of very PUBLIC places like these websites.

Do you get what I'm saying?

And anyone with Cold Steel, please, please tell them to take that shit down off their website. And just for owners and employees of companies, really, use a fake screename or something for gossip and shit and keep the official stuff above board, this shit will affect your business!! Don't open up your business to this kind of trouble!

 

[Spark]

Dude, posting on the net ain't my life and I'm not going to waste my time with the quoting, so deal with it.

Man, it's not that hard. Really. You put the [-QUOTE] (minuse the - ) in front of the quoted text and the [/QUOTE] behind it, and there ya go.

I hope my points are starting to sink in. The incorpration stuff is important b/c 1) the info you posted doesn't say squat about who owns the company. The registered agent is required for all corp. whether registered in the state or if they are incorporated somewhere else (a foreign corp, even if just another state). All it is is a person to send paperwork to, it doesn't even have to be an employee of the company. You, or anyone, need to have the financial statements and/or the articles to see who the stockholders are, they are the owners. I have no idea who the owners here are, I haven't seen the papers. He could be an officer and not an owner, there are ways to work that. So, we don't have the info. Furthermore, I looked and I can't find a fed reg on the contracting but I'm not an expert on fed contracting. Just because someone thinks that they are pulling a fast one on the gov doesn't mean it is so. So you've got a problem with that statement in general.

But I'm not trying to make a point about him committing fraud against the .GOV? I've stated repeatedly I'm not talking about his products or his company... and I'll say again, I don't have any reason to believe he's commiting any fraud against the .GOV. If there's a rule against felons selling, and if he got around it by incorporating, which I'm not saying is the case (but he did imply) then the law says he's good to go, ethically right or not.

The reason the info was posted was to drive home the date of incorporation, not who the CEO or whatever was. There was an article posted that had the author claiming he was buying Strider's knives at a show in 1994 because the dude was going in harm's way and he might never return! :jerkit: :jerkit: :jerkit: Yet the posted info shows an incorporation date of 2001, and the other articles & web info shows other dates. Hence, confusion, misdirection, etc.

The part about "bypassing laws" was added on to show his motivation for incorporating - he was a felon when he incorporated, so it had to happen after he was in prison, right? Can we establish that as a fact, or am I wrong about this?

2) Same with the guns, he could have a rig without a weapon and he could be posting about it even though he doesn't have a gun. How many people here have chest rigs or plate carriers to collect?

Yes, and that's part of my point. Either he's a liar and a complete poser because he can't even possess the guns, grenades, etc he has pouches & gear for... or he's telling the truth and he's committing more no-no's. Either way that doesn't speak well to his character, wouldn't you agree? If he's a poser then it just goes further to show that this guy has actively bamboozled us. If he's breaking the law, well, that's not cool either.

The overall point is that reporting on public documents is one thing and speculating is another, don't get yourself (or you LT) into trouble over this.

Look, I'm trying very very very very very very very very very very very hard not to speculate on anything at all. I'm trying to put the pieces of this puzzle together, based on the info I have and the facts we know. I've repeatedly asked for my info to be corrected, right? I've asked for rebuttals, right? I've asked for first person accounts, right? I've corrected erroneous info, right? Does that not show that I'm making every effort to try to only present the facts?

I don't see the relevance of when he incorporated, they could have been in business before as a partnership, sole proprietorship, etc... I have no idea. The basic problem here is that you are taking some documents and some bs from Mick and throwing it all together and coming up with something that is part truthful and part bs, but since you don't have all the docs and info, you open yourself up for attack, LT much more so because he is publishing it all on his corporate website.

See above. I think we have a failure of communication. You are reading my position as one thing, when I'm trying to drive another point across.

The point is be careful!!!!! I know some people are really pissed but don't start mouthing off so that it comes back and bite you in the ass. Strider will rise or fall on his own, but all of this gun shop bs'ing is best left off of very PUBLIC places like these websites.

Like I said, I'm trying really hard not to make statements I can't back up. I can't emphasize this enough, which is why we're even having this discussion. I only want the facts to be presented; not wild ass rumors.

 

[digitalrebelttu]

No. Proving a negative is more difficult, but not always impossible. I can easily prove that I did not set off an IED in Iraq yesterday.

The point was, if one is a defendant and one did bear the burden of proof of truth, it is very hard to do that if one doesn't know if there is or is not a fed reg on point, and that is even harder if one is on notice that there is a question on that.

As a torts prof, you know that the burden of proving that the statement in question is false is on the plaintiff, as is the burden of proving each element of the tort of defamation.

I was not a prof but I did teach it, the burden of proof varies depending on whether the plaintiff is a public official, a public figure, a private figure, whether the statement was on a matter of public or private matter, whether the defandant is a media outlet, a private person, etc... If you look at the case law like Sullivan, Hepps, Masson, the holdings were limited in all of them to specific fact patterns so that there is still not a consistent, across the board black letter law on it. Hepps declined to rule on whether a non media defendant may be required to bear the burden of proving the truth of his public statement, even if the statement relates to a matter of public interest.

Hard to tell why people behave as they do. They may not have an accurate understanding. However, I have tried to find a case where a plaintiff in a defamation case prevailed on the basis that the defendant repeated what the plaintiff had claimed to be true. I can find no such case. However, I only have access to reported federal cases and reported cases from thirty-one states. Perhaps you can fill the gap.

What is happening here is not merely repeating, it is adding other information and drawing conclusions.


A fail to see why it advances analysis, or makes one's position more convincing, to be "nasty," but that's just me -- and the ABA.

We'll agree to disagree.

While at Common Law admissions against interest by a party were subject to an exception to the general rule that hearsay is excluded, they are regarded as "not hearsay" under the federal rules and the rules of those states, like mine, that model their rules on the federal rules.

The point on hearsay vs nonhearsay is technical and not relevant to what the point was- mistake of law is an absolute defense to a crime, someone can boast of commiting a crime all day but if there is in fact no statute saying what he did is illegal, then no crime. Arguing a point of admissibility of a statement against interest in a court proceeding does not advance the overall argument of what I was discussing.

 

[wolfmann601]

Woah!!!

lawyer-ese, I am lost!!!

That's why I became a Cop. We say stuff like "don't freakin lie you bag of shiit. If you do lie I will tase you so many times your tongue will glow. Now tell the truth or I'll tap dance on your face with a 2X4!!!!





Of course I'm only kidding..........

 

[digitalrebelttu]

Man, it's not that hard. Really. You put the [-QUOTE] (minuse the - ) in front of the quoted text and the

behind it, and there ya go.

[/QUOTE]
Overall here, what is the endgame? There isn't any to it, you can post stuff all day long but in the end it will not matter but you do open yourself up here. You can do disclaimers all day but it may or may not work. Strider could have been a sole proprietor before he went to jail- WE DON'T KNOW- he could have been in a partnership with Duane- WE DON'T KNOW- those are very informal entities. They could have incorporated, dissolved, reincorporated, whatever- WE DON'T KNOW- the dates on the website mean squat. You're wasting a lot of energy worrying about that, it is really not relevant because it COULD have happened his way or the writers couls have screwed up, but it doesn't matter to the overall point. Now, there is enough to say he is someone that you will not be putting on your Christmas card list. There is enough to talk about with the public docs, you can discuss them all you want, there are public. The overall point that I was making is that a whole lot of what you posted can get you in trouble and to get in trouble over stuff that is peripheral to the main stuff is dumb. Mcclung had the basics of this long ago and he was smart enough to post public docs w/o a lot of commentary, so he was covered. So what I'm saying is that you should go back over the stuff, get rid of whatever is not well and truly a public document, and then let it go man. I think that is the gist of what some of the others have posted and I agree.

 

[Spark]

Really, the endgame is already taken care of. I said I had concerns. I posted why. I backed up those concerns. I've asked for answers. Pretty much I think we are all in agreement that Mick Strider lied, repeatedly, for years, right? I think that's a bad thing. I think that the greater good was served by collecting this information in one spot and posting it, especially since threads regarding Mick Strider tend to be very very very longgggggg and filled with misleading information. Which isn't suprising, given the claims Mick Strider has made.

Anyhow, past that, my motivations remain what I've stated since the beginning: I don't like people lying about their service record to steal the valor of those who did serve. I don't like felons talking about handling firearms & such. I don't like people lying to me, or the people on this website. Anything unreasonable there?