Mick Strider has some explaining to do.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Spark:
Ok, good,
Im going to go over some things you posted.

(Now I want to make sure you understand, I dont know Strider from Adam and eve, I never heard of him, But this topic is a busy one and an interesting one.

My problem is that I dont see in the quoted posts by Strider what others see.
You guys see him make a claim that he was in a part of the Army and saw combat.
But when you support this with Striders own words, I dont see it that way at all.

What I notice is that Strider picks his words in a way to make his meanings unclear...and this can cause a reader to fill-in the blanks for him without him needing to make an open false claim.)

I will now drop back and copy/paste from your early first posts...
 
Micky said:
I believe you misread what was posted. He said nothing about a lawsuit. He said a restraining order. They are inexpensive and not that hard to get as long as you can prove to the judge why you should be granted one.
Click to expand...
A "TRO" is obtained with only one side present in court (because the injury is threatened or ongoing and you cannot reasonably be expected to give the other side notice of the hearing). BUT you must also have admissible evidence that adds up to "When or if this comes to trial, I just about am guaranteed to win." That's a high standard - although often ignored by state court judges.

A TRO is also for a limited period - like fourteen days, and it is typically only renewable once. When it runs out, you may try for a "preliminary injunction" in a contested hearing (with the same "I can't lose" standard).

"Inexpensive"? Maybe yes. Or: TRO; Motion to Vacate TRO; hearing on Motion to Vacate; Motion for Preliminary Injunction; Motion to Stay Hearing on Motion for Premininary Injunction Pending Discovery; discovery, etc. etc. etc. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
 
NousDefions said:
I completely agree with your legal analysis, and timeline analysis, and also agree that Mr. Strider's claim sounds fishy and strange. It does.

That said, no one here has any proof or evidence that it happened or not.

Following Mr. Spark's own demands, discussion of anything on this thread that is not VERIFIED FACT is not intended.

Is this incorrect?
Click to expand...

I'll give you the verified fact claim and I have stated opposition to several of Spark's assertions. However, strong circumstantial evidence is there that 1)it isn't possible and 2) it would have been moot anyway. In court, the trier of fact would be obligated (too strong of a word but anyway) to make a conclusion based on those as opposed to a very, very slim chance that the prosecutor lied, especially when there isn't even a scintilla of evidence in the record that it happened. If it quacks like a duck....

And I have never been in the military but I have pics of you guys at Biggs field when you were doing the trainup.
 
jdm61 said:
Telling someone to "git it yer damn self" in discovery is also a non-starter. Courts don't take kindly to parties delaying discover and causing the other side to run up their expenses because they want to be obstinate.:D
Click to expand...

Happens all the time.....If you don't have the responsive document, you can't produce it....Go ahead and file a motion, you'll never overcome the fact that the defendant say's he doesn't have it....You can get the actual document from a non-party who actually originated the document....And in this case, go ahead and try to prove he still has his DD-214 and is not producing it, and you've run up $10 to15,000.00 dollars in legal fees over something that you can get on your own....Oh, so you then try to get tricky and file a motion to search defendants computers and now your into $40,000.00 to 120,000.00 in expert fee's and legal fee's and costs FOR SOMETHING YOU CAN GET FROM A NON-PARTY...If plaintiff's attorney ran up a huge bill for a document he could easily get from a non-party, the attorney may get stuck with the bill if the client balks...If the DD-214 is important to the plaintiff, his attorney better get it otherwise he has opened himself up to a legal malpractice claim...Remember the judge is going to ask the question, " So counsel, have you tried the U.S. Government, I heard they keep records don't they?"
 
Spark said:
SECTION 2: Mick Strider claims he served in the 2/75th Rangers
.
Click to expand...

In this part of that early posting, there were a few links I looked at, (or tried to due to the small print) and another link to yet another forum where people are just talking trash with each other.

I saw a few offical looking things, papers that might have been Army records, but I didnt see anything to make me believe that Strider didnt serve his country in the Army.

Ok, Im not sure I understand if he was with the 2/75th Rangers or not.
But I think it's clear he did sign up for some typoe of duty at a time when there was no draft.

For this I thank him and all who serve.

Thats about all I got from this issue
But my question is,,,Did M Strider ever claim to be in the 2/75 rangers or not?
I could not tell from your post SPARK...
I also ask
Did he so serve with the 2/75th?
 
Mr Molstad, we don't need you restating every post in the thread. You've been given enough chances at this point. Do not participate in this thread further.
 
Allan Molstad said:
In this part of that early posting, there were a few links I looked at, (or tried to due to the small print) and another link to yet another forum where people are just talking trash with each other.

I saw a few offical looking things, papers that might have been Army records, but I didnt see anything to make me believe that Strider didnt serve his country in the Army.

Ok, Im not sure I understand if he was with the 2/75th Rangers or not.
But I think it's clear he did sign up for some typoe of duty at a time when there was no draft.

For this I thank him and all who serve.

Thats about all I got from this issue
Click to expand...

Dude PLEASE PLEASE STOP, you ain't in the loop and you won't be, so stop the trolling.
 
Grindhouse said:
Happens all the time.....If you don't have the responsive document, you can't produce it....Go ahead and file a motion, you'll never overcome the fact that the defendant say's he doesn't have it....You can get the actual document from a non-party who actually originated the document....And in this case, go ahead and try to prove he still has his DD-214 and is not producing it, and you've run up $10 to15,000.00 dollars in legal fees over something that you can get on your own....Oh, so you then try to get tricky and file a motion to search defendants computers and now your into $40,000.00 to 120,000.00 in expert fee's and legal fee's and costs FOR SOMETHING YOU CAN GET FROM A NON-PARTY...If plaintiff's attorney ran up a huge bill for a document he could easily get from a non-party, the attorney may get stuck with the bill if the client balks...If the DD-214 is important to the plaintiff, his attorney better get it otherwise he has opened himself up to a legal malpractice claim...Remember the judge is going to ask the question, " So counsel, have you tried the U.S. Government, I heard they keep records don't they?"
Click to expand...


I already explained why Mick's DD-214 wasn't important in explaining Mick's lies about the plaintiff. The DD-214 was crucial for Mick's defense against any counter claims though. I wouldn't have secured a copy to share with him either.
 
NousDefions said:
...it might be a duck. Then again, it might not.

The whole thing is moot until we hear from the only person who really knows, Mr. Strider's criminal attorney. THAT is my point.
Click to expand...

Actually, at the end of the month, I am going to be drafting up a FOIA request to the US Attorney requesting any info pertaining to the prosecutorial version of the "Somalia Plea Bargain."

Can't get that from the defense because it's attorney-client privlieged.
 
NousDefions said:
...it might be a duck. Then again, it might not.

The whole thing is moot until we hear from the only person who really knows, Mr. Strider's criminal attorney. THAT is my point.
Click to expand...

Well, we can agree to disagree, on that point I'm satisfied that with the stuff that I pointed out and in light of the Osman settlement, I think the evidence is there to believe that he fibbed. But anyway, thanks for your service and I will do what I condemned and say that I think this has played out for me, we'll never hear from Mr Strider or his lawyer. Hopefully we talk more about knives elsewhere on the site.
 
Allan Molstad said:
OK,,,I agree with this...I dont know why a grown man would change his name away from his dad's, but to each his own...

so no problems here...
Click to expand...
Please...continue to give us a play by play of what you discover. Witnessing your journey of discovery is enlightening.

When you are done, maybe someone will kindly loan you a flashlight, road-map, and a pair of scissors.

*edited to add* Ahh, I see Spark beat me to it. Darn interrupting phone call...
 
Boats said:
Actually, at the end of the month, I am going to be drafting up a FOIA request to the US Attorney requesting any info pertaining to the prosecutorial version of the "Somalia Plea Bargain."
Click to expand...
Good for you. Won't you feel important!

I can see the headlines now: "Boats! Fearless Avenger of Those Oppressed By An Evil Knifemaker!"
 
NousDefions said:
Good for you. Won't you feel important!

I can see the headlines now: "Boats! Fearless Avenger of Those Oppressed By An Evil Knifemaker!"
Click to expand...

Uncalled for. You want proof, he's going to get it for you. Don't insult him for doing what you requested.
 
Good grief.. I don't give a damn what Mick has done or not done. I am proud to call him a friend. No one is perfect in this world.
 
I'm a veteran and I'd like to know; if Mick Strider's the bad guy then that means that Duane (Dwayne), is the good guy and has gotten himself in a tangled mess. Buck knives is a good company, they collaborated with both of the strider guys. So that means it's ok to own one right? I'm not insulting my brothers or forefathers? I'm really confused and some help would be appreciated.
 
RWS said:
Alright, this has gone on long enough.

The real question is, is Micky's image as some heroic badland Ranger soldier consistent with his military record?

You'd have to be a fool to sit here and read all of this and not recognize what has taken place with Micky Burger (aka Mick Strider). Even his name change appears to be nothing more than another one of his building blocks geared toward creating some tough guy image.......really, I mean which Special Ops combat vet would you rather buy a knife from, a guy named "Micky Burger" or "Mick Strider". Of course, it really doesn't matter to any normal person what the spelling is of the name of the person we buy a knife from, we all know that. But to a guy whose sole purpose is to create this poser merc image, he will think it matters.

He was a Ranger? Just because he signed up and lasted a few weeks before he was cut? Technically he was....technically.....yeah, right!

Wait a minute! I drove around Harvard's parking lot a few years ago... Now I can tell everyone that I went to Harvard....yeah, that's the ticket :thumbup:

Here's a guy that was an AWOL soldier and who was also convicted for armed car jacking, and his supporters are somehow doubting that Micky would stoop so low as to lie or mislead about his military record, which coincidentally happens to financially benefit the image of the business the guy is involved with.

Are you all that stoopid? No, you're not.

Now, with that said. We all need to get over this.

Everyone has screwed up, some worse than others perhaps.

At some point, Strider needs to be forgiven for his past mistakes. We need to let this go at some point.

The final question for me is, at what point are we, as fellow knife enthusiasts, ready to forgive this guy who happens to make a pretty decent looking knife?

This is the only question we need to resolve at this point, IMO. Anything else is just a circle jerk because this thread reached critical mass about thirty pages ago.
Click to expand...


Well said!:thumbup:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top