Female First Logo
  • Love & Sex
  • Find out more

    • Dating
    • Relationships
    • Weddings
    • Agony Aunts
  • Community
    • Discussion Board
    • Quick Chat
  • Celebrities
  • Find out more

    • Celebrity Gossip
    • Entertainment Gossip
    • Royal Family
    • Celebrity Interviews
    • Photo Gallery
    • Celebrity Directory
  • Lifestyle
  • Find out more

    • Parenting
    • Motoring
    • Travel
    • Food & Drink
    • Health
    • Home & Garden
    • Money
    • Business
    • Recruitment
    • Women's Issues
  • Entertainment
  • Find out more

    • Entertainment Gossip
    • Music
    • Movies
    • Sport
    • TV & Soaps
    • DVD and Blu-Ray
    • Games
    • Bollywood
    • Book Reviews
    • Bizarre
    • Competitions
    • Horoscopes
    • Big Brother
  • Fashion & Beauty
  • Find out more

    • Style News
    • Celebrity Style
    • Beauty Tips
    • Fashion Trends
    • Style Surgery
    • Shopping
  • Shopping
    • Fashion
    • Lingerie
    • Offers
    • Swimwear
    • DVDs
    • Gaming
    • Books
    • CDs
    • Gifts
  • Blog
    • Fashion Blog
    • Health Blog
    • Movies Blog
    • Music Blog
    • Sport Blog
  • Video
    • Latest Videos
    • Exclusive Videos
    • Celebrity Gossip Videos
    • Movie Trailers
    • Video Interviews
  • Follow us
  • femalefirst facebook
  • femalefirst twitter
  • Follow Me on Pinterest
FemaleFirst.co.uk Discussion Board Quick Chat  

Advanced search
  • Board index ‹ Films and Celebrity ‹ Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt Section
  • Change font size
  • E-mail friend
  • Print view
  • FAQ
  • Register
  • Login

The trial for plagiarism 8/9/2012 in CA!

All posts on Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston
Post a reply
79 posts • Page 5 of 6 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
  • Report this post
  • Reply with quote

Re: The trial for plagiarism 8/9/2012 in CA!

Postby mm7 » Sat Aug 04, 2012 11:22 am

Guest wrote:
tomjablan wrote:
Guest wrote:I just checked the docket and Braddock has a small LA patent law firm. Not quite the experience he needs. The firm seems to have just experienced a huge turnover in lawyers - they lost 8 of their 11 attys and have replaced 4 so now have 8 attys.

There are 2 attys in the case - neither of whom have this type of experience. I would have thought he could find one firm with the appropriate type of legal expertise.



hahaha small!!! Read it!!!

"Small Law Firm," said:...recruits only the highest caliber attorneys and professionals so as to provide our clients with the highest quality legal services. We combine large law firm experience, credentials and work quality with cost-effectiveness and a unique level of personalized attention and care. At the cutting edge of intellectual property law, we aid our clients in meeting the challenges of an increasingly complicated and thriving international marketplace.

about one partner, "without experienced"..hahaha...shortly before, Braddock has no lawyer, now has two, but the "small", with no experience ... hahahaha ... as long as you prilati more nonsense ...? Read about the lawyer with no experience ... hahaha

N.N. is an experienced attorney who focuses his practice on intellectual property and entertainment litigation and transactions. He began his career at two of the nation’s largest intellectual property boutiques. N.N has extensive experience in all aspects of intellectual property case management from inception through post-trial briefing.

N.N. began his legal career at the New York office of FCH& S, where he helped represent multinational pharmaceutical companies and multinational media companies in both patent and trademark infringement litigation. In 2004, he joined the Atlanta office of F& R, P.C., where he served as a senior associate working on patent litigations involving the electrical and mechanical arts. Mr. N.N. was the lead associate on a patent infringement case successfully tried to a jury in 2008. At F& R, Mr. N.N. was also Atlanta counsel for the firm’s New Media and Entertainment practice. His entertainment practice includes representing individuals and corporations in the fields of book publishing, film and television, music, and radio broadcasting. Most recently, prior to joining the ALG, he was Of Counsel at M, H & T LLC, where he broadened his experience to include business litigation and transactions. In this role, he successfully represented both corporations and individuals in commercial litigations and transactions, including breach of contract, medical malpractice, and labor and employment matters. At M, H, Mr. N.N. successfully represented a private historically black college in a breach of contract action.

Mr. N.N. obtained his B.S. in Chemistry, magna cum laude from Morehouse College in 1990, where he also served as Chief Justice of the H& CR B. Mr. N.N. was a NASA Scholar and NIMH-COR Research Scholar. His experience also includes internships at NASA Langley Research Center and NASA Kennedy Space Center. He received his J.D. from New York University School of Law in 1997.

Areas of Practice:
• Patent, Trademark, Copyright Acquisition and Enforcement
• Entertainment and New Media Litigation and Transactions
• Employment Law
• Commercial Transaction
• Litigation

Admissions:
• State Bar of New York
• State Bar of Georgia
• United States District Courts in New York, Georgia, and Texas

Education:
• B.S. Chemistry, Morehouse College
• New York University School of Law



Are you blind or just obstinate? If you could read with any comprehension you'd see his experience is with patent law and his "entertainment experience" is not with this type of IP law. If it was they would be citing it and they don't. He does seem to have been at NYU when Jolie was attending - maybe they know each other.

And spare us the PR spiel from the firm's own website. Did you think they would say they recruit from the bottom of the class or people who can't make partner at their old law firms? Chemistry and life science patents have little to do with Braddock's case. Neither does contract law for entertainment companies.

It's clear what Rasheed McWilliams is experienced in but it is not what Braddock really needs. So neither McWilliams nor Adli are experienced in this area. Well, good luck with that. :mrgreen:


Unlike you, I'm smart! Spare us these! From Jolie's PR team!

Angelina will not save even Obama himself, nor the CIA nor the FBI, UN, UNHCR, no!

Remember one thing! Evidence that has Braddock, Braddock could prove himself in court without a lawyer, but it must have. Thus, it can be represented by tax lawyer, a veterinarian, a housewife! Transfer to your Jolie and her team. It is not an important lawyer, but the evidence, film and books. That every attorney who has just left the school can demonstrate, with or without experience!

It is interesting that you are transparent, in order to discover? First you claim one, and secondly, and thirdly, that Braddock was omitted, so that no lawyer, and then it has, but he is inexperienced, etc? Immediately order Angelina Jolie! What Braddock has to go out in public, pictures, witnesses, not even to save a thousand lawyers. This will be the biggest shame for her and for all the defendants. Especially for GKFilms who threatened Braddock!
mm7
Chatter
 
Posts: 283
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 6:17 pm
Top

  • Report this post
  • Reply with quote

Re: The trial for plagiarism 8/9/2012 in CA!

Postby Guest » Sat Aug 04, 2012 2:38 pm

friends wrote:
Guest wrote:No way is this set for trial yet. It was just transferred at the beginning of this month and no discovery has occurred. The Illinois court link just confirms the case transfer to federal court, California Central District on 7/9/12.

This is not official docket, but I no longer have Pacer to get into those. According to justia, Jolie has the same attorney Karen J. Achterhof http://dockets.justia.comhttp://dockets ... 83/536728/


Oh I love to deny such a liar, who set broken links! Remember! This is a federal court in California, and they are not interested in anybody's job and personal commitments? If Jolie does not get a judgment will be arrested and brought as a witness and the accused! I also like to refute those liar who wrote that Braddock has it all over again! Here is not. Filed automatically! The correct link to the official link! And one other court, and that it is confirmed! Read if you know!

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/califo ... 83/536728/

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/illino ... 97/263025/

The court is scheduled for 8/9/2012 liked you or not, Angelina does not have a lawyer yet!

Attorney Karen J. Achterhof represented and GKFilms, Jolie and FilmDistrict in Chicago, but in Ca can not, represent FilmDistrict! So do not talk nonsense!
Attorney Karen J. Achterhof that the same lawyer who was made ​​a cardinal mistake, and Braddocks team gave evidence that they bought an Oscar nomination!
None of you can no longer rescue Jolie from their lies and theft scenario, no! There is very strong evidence and their intensity will feel very much Jolie!


When she bought her Oscar nomination did she payout all 6000 members of the Academy or just the actors? :whistle:
Guest
 
Top

  • Report this post
  • Reply with quote

Re: The trial for plagiarism 8/9/2012 in CA!

Postby Guest » Sat Aug 04, 2012 3:40 pm

I agree that Angelina Jolie can not save Obama or the any of the other organizations you listed. I think you meant to say Obama cannot save Jolie. Jolie would never ask him to get her out of an entertainment lawsuit. That is just silly.
Guest
 
Top

  • Report this post
  • Reply with quote

Re: The trial for plagiarism 8/9/2012 in CA!

Postby Mac and P » Mon Aug 06, 2012 6:49 pm

I would be nice to see her officially be called out for at least one of her fabrications.
User avatar
Mac and P
Queen
 
Posts: 4169
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 12:58 am
Location: Some where out there
Top

  • Report this post
  • Reply with quote

Re: The trial for plagiarism 8/9/2012 in CA!

Postby Guest » Tue Aug 07, 2012 11:40 pm

Why? This site spits out 20 fabrications a day. Some of which get picked up by gossip sites and in a game of internet "conversation" gain undeserved validity. You never get held responsible.
Guest
 
Top

  • Report this post
  • Reply with quote

Re: The trial for plagiarism 8/9/2012 in CA!

Postby Guest » Wed Aug 08, 2012 4:08 am

Guest wrote:Why? This site spits out 20 fabrications a day. Some of which get picked up by gossip sites and in a game of internet "conversation" gain undeserved validity. You never get held responsible.


Hahaha! That's why it sux so hard to be a retarded loon and why it is real sweet to be an anti and being able to get stuff in the papers. I have personally got a Brangelina article in a paper and I know other antis have as well. Sux to be you huh? All you can do is rant and scream incomprihensible while being lughed at. Poor loons.
:D
Guest
 
Top

  • Report this post
  • Reply with quote

Re: The trial for plagiarism 8/9/2012 in CA!

Postby mm7 » Thu Aug 09, 2012 3:24 am

Guest wrote:I agree that Angelina Jolie can not save Obama or the any of the other organizations you listed. I think you meant to say Obama cannot save Jolie. Jolie would never ask him to get her out of an entertainment lawsuit. That is just silly.



Yes! I meant that! But you will understand what I wanted to say?
mm7
Chatter
 
Posts: 283
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 6:17 pm
Top

  • Report this post
  • Reply with quote

Re: The trial for plagiarism 8/9/2012 in CA!

Postby Guest » Thu Aug 09, 2012 2:06 pm

I didn't read through this thread, so I'm sorry if this has already been discussed. In my mind, 8/9/2012 is today, but I know that elsewhere dates are shortened differently than what I'm used to, so is this trial set for Sept. 8, 2012?
Guest
 
Top

  • Report this post
  • Reply with quote

Re: The trial for plagiarism 8/9/2012 in CA!

Postby Guest » Thu Aug 09, 2012 2:08 pm

It isn't set for trial yet.
Guest
 
Top

  • Report this post
  • Reply with quote

Re: The trial for plagiarism 8/9/2012 in CA!

Postby Guest » Thu Aug 09, 2012 5:26 pm

Guest wrote:I didn't read through this thread, so I'm sorry if this has already been discussed. In my mind, 8/9/2012 is today, but I know that elsewhere dates are shortened differently than what I'm used to, so is this trial set for Sept. 8, 2012?

U.S. goes by month/day/year so 8/9/2012 is August 9,2012.
Guest
 
Top

  • Report this post
  • Reply with quote

Re: The trial for plagiarism 8/9/2012 in CA!

Postby Bocelli » Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:48 pm

Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:I didn't read through this thread, so I'm sorry if this has already been discussed. In my mind, 8/9/2012 is today, but I know that elsewhere dates are shortened differently than what I'm used to, so is this trial set for Sept. 8, 2012?

U.S. goes by month/day/year so 8/9/2012 is August 9,2012.


Sooo... it's today?
Bocelli
Getting in the Groove
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2012 5:20 pm
Top

  • Report this post
  • Reply with quote

Re: The trial for plagiarism 8/9/2012 in CA!

Postby Guest » Thu Aug 09, 2012 7:22 pm

Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:I didn't read through this thread, so I'm sorry if this has already been discussed. In my mind, 8/9/2012 is today, but I know that elsewhere dates are shortened differently than what I'm used to, so is this trial set for Sept. 8, 2012?

U.S. goes by month/day/year so 8/9/2012 is August 9,2012.


I know what the US goes by, as that's where I live :D , I just didn't know if the OP who posted the title is from the US and was indicating Sept. 8. So if it's really Aug. 9, that would be today.
Guest
 
Top

  • Report this post
  • Reply with quote

Re: The trial for plagiarism 8/9/2012 in CA!

Postby Guest » Thu Aug 09, 2012 10:47 pm

Most euros post day, month, year. So your question was valid. Is it September 8 or August 9 that there is supposed to be a hearing, but no trial is set. GK should settle this and cut its losses.
Guest
 
Top

  • Report this post
  • Reply with quote

Re: The trial for plagiarism 8/9/2012 in CA!

Postby Guest » Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:10 pm

And nothing happenned? Jolie was taken away in shackles yet?
Guest
 
Top

  • Report this post
  • Reply with quote

Re: The trial for plagiarism 8/9/2012 in CA!

Postby OHNOSHEDIDN'T! » Mon Aug 13, 2012 6:15 pm

Guest wrote:And nothing happenned? Jolie was taken away in shackles yet?


You don't understand the difference between a criminal court and a civil court??


The only time Jolie could be "taken away" in shackles, if she refuses to pay any and all judgement rendered against her, and a judge finds her in contempt of court and has her hauled into his court to explain her reasons... However, mostly the court will garnish her wages, or seize her property, etc. I am thinking that GK is going to settle, when he and his attorney's get all the information, through disclosure.....and GK will turn around and SUE Jolie, to help save face...

Jolie reputation will be ruined, which is worth more than the monetary aspect of this case.
OHNOSHEDIDN'T!
 
Top

PreviousNext

Post a reply
79 posts • Page 5 of 6 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Return to Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt Section

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: emiline, Google Adsense [Bot], Skeletrout and 56 guests

  • Board index
  • The team • Delete all board cookies • All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Sign up stay updated
Tweets by @FemaleFirst_UK

Like Us On facebook

Save up to 75% in the Lovehoney Sale
web2 - 0.01s