Jim Sterling in court.
- Thread starter Hades
- Start date
Recommended Videos
New update in DigiHom's Romine v Unknown Party https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/19146067/Romine_v_Unknown_Party_et_al
"Order that James Oliver Romine, Jr show cause for failure to comply with LRCiv 3.7(b) before Judge Susan R Bolton. Show Cause Hearing set for 10/17/2016 at 04:30 PM before Judge Susan R Bolton.(MAP)"
If you want to read more about the LRCiv 3.7 (b) is page 13 of these document http://www.azd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/local-rules/LRCiv 2012_0.pdf
"Order that James Oliver Romine, Jr show cause for failure to comply with LRCiv 3.7(b) before Judge Susan R Bolton. Show Cause Hearing set for 10/17/2016 at 04:30 PM before Judge Susan R Bolton.(MAP)"
If you want to read more about the LRCiv 3.7 (b) is page 13 of these document http://www.azd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/local-rules/LRCiv 2012_0.pdf
It's nothing anyone but the courts will care about.Mangod said:
If I'm reading it right, James Romine's request for a subpoena should be assigned to a magistrate judge. But assigning a judge somehow needs his written consent (or a written alternative) via some extra paperwork to be filed with the court within 14 days. He didn't submit that consent.
So on the 17th of October, he's got to go in and explain why he didn't follow the rules.
And... this is why people retain lawyers. I'm not surprised James Romine missed it and all it shows is he's unfamiliar with every tiny nuanced detail of local, AZD state and US federal law. Shock news, so are 99.999% of the rest of us.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure the answer will be "because I'm representing myself and I didn't know I needed to, but I've got it here now. Sorry.".
I hope this matter gets resolved so that things can continue. Then the case can be thrown out for a "real" reason rather than some bul**hit technical reason. Hopefully that can happen without the subpoena's being issued, because that really looks like a fishing expedition.
Anyway, the clause in question is....
LRCiv 3.7 (b)
Which will be followed shortly by "Your claim is bad and you should feel bad, because it's stupid and I rejected it.".Elwes said:
This is blatantly false, this is the US Court of Law we are dealing with here.FalloutJack said:
Updates_
Romine v Stanton https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/10890330/Romine_v_Stanton
MOTION to Amend/Correct1 Complaint by James Oliver Romine, Jr. (KGM)
Romine V Unknown Party https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/19146067/Romine_v_Unknown_Party_et_al
REQUEST BY NON-PRISONER PRO SE PARTY FOR ELECTRONIC NOTICING filed by James Oliver Romine, Jr. Pro se parties must promptly notify the Clerks Office, in writing, if there is a change in designated e-mail address or mailing address. (KGM)
MOTION for Extension of Time, MOTION to Dismiss Case by James Oliver Romine, Jr. (3 pages). (KGM)
Romine v Stanton https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/10890330/Romine_v_Stanton
MOTION to Amend/Correct1 Complaint by James Oliver Romine, Jr. (KGM)
Romine V Unknown Party https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/19146067/Romine_v_Unknown_Party_et_al
REQUEST BY NON-PRISONER PRO SE PARTY FOR ELECTRONIC NOTICING filed by James Oliver Romine, Jr. Pro se parties must promptly notify the Clerks Office, in writing, if there is a change in designated e-mail address or mailing address. (KGM)
MOTION for Extension of Time, MOTION to Dismiss Case by James Oliver Romine, Jr. (3 pages). (KGM)
It's not blatently false. That would mean it's like that all the time, anywhere in the US, regardless of the situation, or mostly so. In the case of judges getting sick of dealing with certain people, the speed of reply tends to go faster on the grounds that "I don't want to deal with this shit anymore". Go on. You tell me you don't act on things faster and faster, the more impatient or irritated you get about anything. That would be blatently false.Drathnoxis said:
I do, sure, but I'm not a court of law. I'm pretty sure that the courts have to stretch every little thing out as far as it can go, it's legally required. If they haven't wasted years of your life by the time the case is settled they've officially failed at their jobs.FalloutJack said:
Joking or possible bitterness aside, judges gots lives too and some of 'em hate to waste it.Drathnoxis said:
And yet we've been here for 6 months now, some part of them has gotta like it. =PFalloutJack said:
Seriously, what is taking so looooong? I'm getting sick of seeing this thread pop up.
So from what I can see for the Sterling's lawsuit, it seems Romine filed that motion because he misquoted a code in his amended complaint in which he mistaken US Code 28 4101 for ARS 12-541 where the original code was taken from the Cornell University law website. Not sure about what those codes are, but from what I'm seeing from his attachments, the first one is from the Cornell law website in which US Code 4104 is talking about defamation while the second attachment is the amended complaints where he crossed out the US code, replaced it with AR 12-541, printed it out, and scanned it again as an attachment because he didn't want to waste the Clerk's time of going over another 79 page amended complaint again just for that small correction. That is from what I can understand from that.Gades said:
For the other lawsuit, for the REQUEST BY NON-PRISONER PRO SE PARTY FOR ELECTRONIC NOTICING, I'm not sure about that whether it's either about the previous order where Romine didn't filed a consent form or some other paperwork he had to fill out. Now, for the Motion for Extension of Time and Motion to dismiss, it seems Romine wants to either extend a 90 day extension time to because he's unable to afford that many subpeonas or dismiss the case without prejudice with a refund for filing the case and wants to redo this case later on once he's financially stable in the future. And in the last paragraph, he briefly mentioned another mistake from the coversheet (Document 4) where he mentioned that Item II should have been Diversity as section III when he was filling that out.
So that's what I can get from these recent motions from Romine. Overall, it's still kind of odd where he's still wants his lawsuit with Sterling to go on and yet, he's wants to give another option in his other lawsuit to dismiss it due to his financial loss. As far as I can see from this, in terms of the Sterling's lawsuit, he's either stalling to keep Sterling as silent as possible for keeping this case go on or most likely very desperate right now and based on this another unnecessary motion, I'm having a feeling the judge will get pretty angry for wasting the court times for these mistakes in which he may give him penalties or something from what I can understand. In terms of the other lawsuit, even if the judge for that case did grant a subpeona, Valve will likely to file a motion to quash it. There is no way Romine can go against their lawyers because he will not only get obliterated, but it will just become hellishly worse than his current situation right now.
[HEADING=3]-vs- Jim.[/HEADING]
[HEADING=3]-vs- everyone else.[/HEADING]
He's asking for the case to either be dismissed without prejudice or for an extra 90 days to get his ducks in a row.
Ignoring his explanation about how events have destroyed his business, it looks to me (and I could be wrong) that the crux of his motion is that he can't afford to pay the extra fees for the subpoenas and is therefore explaining to the court that he's probably brought the whole thing to court too early. I'm assuming that "dismiss without prejudice" means he gets his $400 court filing fee returned. The 90 day extension is the requested alternative, since "circumstances regarding this issue may change". I take that to mean he hoping he'll either win his case against Jim Sterling or that some of his crowd funding might kick in and he'll actually have enough money for things to continue. I hope to gods he isn't leveraging his home or anything equally important to his family.
Whatever is the case, it looks like the second court case is going away pretty soon. Whether it returns, I'm guessing will depend on whether James Romine gets his $400 back and some extra money from somewhere else.
Just fact he wants the $400 filing fee back is interesting.
There was a point where I was wondering if the second court case was a way of finding money to finance the first. One bit of speculation I saw was that James Romine might drop the second case after the subpoenas were actioned. Using the details provided by Valve (assuming it got that far) to send demand letters directly to the people mentioned offering an out of court settlement rather than risking huge amounts of money in lawyers' fees. Then using any money from that to finance his continued efforts against the rest and/or Jim Sterling. The timing probably wouldn't work, but it might have been a possibility. On reflection though, I think it's unlikely. I don't think he's that Machiavellian. Just angry and looking for anyone else but himself to blame for the circumstances he finds himself in.
As KoalaMan412 has said, this just looks like he spotted yet another technical problem with the paperwork he already submitted and is seeking to correct it. No harm, no foul. I doubt it will do anything substantial, since a ruling about dismissing the case is still outstanding. It was originally submitted around 5 months ago (May 4th, updated May 10th). The last court paperwork before this week was almost 3 months ago (July 11th). I figure that's going to get ruled upon before anything else; and once it is ruled upon, nothing else matters.Gades said:
[HEADING=3]-vs- everyone else.[/HEADING]
That looks pretty standard, and something he did in the case against Jim Sterling very early on. He essentially asking for all correspondence with the court to be done via email. I guess he just forgot to ask for it this time around. It may something he thinks contributed to his not filing the approval for a magistrate judge to review the subpoenas within the 14 day time frame. Either way, it's a trivial matter.Gades said:
This one to me is the interested one.
He's asking for the case to either be dismissed without prejudice or for an extra 90 days to get his ducks in a row.
Ignoring his explanation about how events have destroyed his business, it looks to me (and I could be wrong) that the crux of his motion is that he can't afford to pay the extra fees for the subpoenas and is therefore explaining to the court that he's probably brought the whole thing to court too early. I'm assuming that "dismiss without prejudice" means he gets his $400 court filing fee returned. The 90 day extension is the requested alternative, since "circumstances regarding this issue may change". I take that to mean he hoping he'll either win his case against Jim Sterling or that some of his crowd funding might kick in and he'll actually have enough money for things to continue. I hope to gods he isn't leveraging his home or anything equally important to his family.
Whatever is the case, it looks like the second court case is going away pretty soon. Whether it returns, I'm guessing will depend on whether James Romine gets his $400 back and some extra money from somewhere else.
Just fact he wants the $400 filing fee back is interesting.
There was a point where I was wondering if the second court case was a way of finding money to finance the first. One bit of speculation I saw was that James Romine might drop the second case after the subpoenas were actioned. Using the details provided by Valve (assuming it got that far) to send demand letters directly to the people mentioned offering an out of court settlement rather than risking huge amounts of money in lawyers' fees. Then using any money from that to finance his continued efforts against the rest and/or Jim Sterling. The timing probably wouldn't work, but it might have been a possibility. On reflection though, I think it's unlikely. I don't think he's that Machiavellian. Just angry and looking for anyone else but himself to blame for the circumstances he finds himself in.
I dunno if he can get the $400 back - he essentially wasted a Judge's time by just reading the complaint.
I think he never expected to be ordered to go to a hearing and explain a misstep, since Judge Tuchi hasn't done the same and it seems it got him out of his "over confident" comfort zone. His MOTION for Extension of Time and MOTION to Dismiss Case makes me believe he is trying to prolong or avoid the hearing itself, as Romine, more than once has demonstrated ignorance on the law when trying to explain it. The main reason is that Romine filed the Request and the Motions just 24 hours after the Judge submitted her orders for him to show up at a hearing to explain what is a mere error of filing.
I mean, yeah, the lawsuit against the 100 and the Subpoena against Valve are dumb and weak, but he just did ONE innocent screw up and now his acting like he wants to stop it because it cost him too much - well, did he thought about it by wasting another $400 in the new filing, and he should had known Valve was going to kick him out for the subpoena before hand. I think HE WANTS to avoid the hearing itself.
Keep in mind that since he filed this suit Value threw him off Steam.Gades said:
Ignoring the reasons why, that's still going to have a knock on effect on his finances.
He was probably still selling games until recently. There's one income lost.
There's also a discussion going on that he was essentially gaming the Steam Cards marketplace too. Selling as many games as possible at a really cheap price so that people would later sell the Steam Cards. Even if he gives game codes away for free, he can still take a percentage of the card sales. If I understood things correctly, Steam take a 30% cut of card sales and developers take 10%. And whilst 10% of perhaps 10cents isn't much, it's something, quite a big something when you consider how many games he's potentially sold/given away. If his removal from Steam also means losing access to this small ongoing income... there's a second lost income.
Plus his appeals for help crowd funding his legal case seem to keep falling on deaf ears.
Finally there's the emotional impact of Valve's decision. I can't be easy to grasp the reality of the situation that a huge corporation (and their lawyers) are against you.
So whereas before he filed the case, he had some money coming in... perhaps now he has less, maybe even zero.
So yeah, perhaps it now is costing him "too much", not just the fees but the consequences of his choices.
...which, being effectively a self-inflicted injury, is so ironic it brings a tear to me eye...Elwes said: