An Interview With Voice Media's Attorney - GoFuckYourself.com

Deepundercover · 08-19-2004, 03:39 PM

Ira Rothken.

www.lukeisback.com

"What's your reaction to this week's ruling?"

"That ruling was a motion that the CE Cash defendants brought for the court to give it guidance on what it should do with the revenue share arising out of the contract between CE Cash and New Destiny [Homegrown Video]. The court said that it didn't think it was necessary for the defendants [Voice Media, Ron Levi, et al] to deposit the money with JAMS [the abitrator]. That it could make its own election on what it wants to do with the monies."

"So it wasn't a devastating setback for your side?"

"It was a benign ruling that maintained the status quo. We were trying to be creative because we wanted to show good faith. Normally in a case like this one, where the plaintiff (New Destiny) is claiming there is no contract, it's rather unusual for them to walk into court and argue that they want to be paid under a contract. We were asking the arbitrator for some guidance and he gave us the guidance. He didn't think setting up a fund was necessary. There was no time when we wanted to keep monies from New Destiny. We were dealing with a moving target and we were seeking guidance from the arbitrator."

pornstar2pac · 08-19-2004, 03:40 PM

that's it 2 questions?

cmon Luke, we need to fill a 20min. spot

Far-L · 08-19-2004, 04:03 PM

"it's rather unusual for them to walk into court and argue that they want to be paid under a contract"

Does anyone else see the irony of this?

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

Methodcash Rick · 08-19-2004, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Far-L
"it's rather unusual for them to walk into court and argue that they want to be paid under a contract"

Does anyone else see the irony of this?

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

When taken out of context, yes..

WHen read in the full context, no..

"Normally in a case like this one, where the plaintiff (New Destiny) is claiming there is no contract, it's rather unusual for them to walk into court and argue that they want to be paid under a contract."

Far-L · 08-19-2004, 04:14 PM

Ummm... We never claimed that there was no contract... just that we never made a contract with whatever company they sold CE to....

Read the court docs presented by both sides then you will have a much clearer picture of the issues.

Methodcash Rick · 08-19-2004, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Far-L
Ummm... We never claimed that there was no contract... just that we never made a contract with whatever company they sold CE to....

Read the court docs presented by both sides then you will have a much clearer picture of the issues.

My mistake, I was only commenting on the context of the statement.. At the time of the post, I hadn't read more than what was posted..

Far-L · 08-19-2004, 04:53 PM

NP. Totally understand.

Spin is a very hard thing to reconcile either way.

08-19-2004, 03:39 PM	#1
Deepundercover Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 312	An Interview With Voice Media's Attorney Ira Rothken. www.lukeisback.com "What's your reaction to this week's ruling?" "That ruling was a motion that the CE Cash defendants brought for the court to give it guidance on what it should do with the revenue share arising out of the contract between CE Cash and New Destiny [Homegrown Video]. The court said that it didn't think it was necessary for the defendants [Voice Media, Ron Levi, et al] to deposit the money with JAMS [the abitrator]. That it could make its own election on what it wants to do with the monies." "So it wasn't a devastating setback for your side?" "It was a benign ruling that maintained the status quo. We were trying to be creative because we wanted to show good faith. Normally in a case like this one, where the plaintiff (New Destiny) is claiming there is no contract, it's rather unusual for them to walk into court and argue that they want to be paid under a contract. We were asking the arbitrator for some guidance and he gave us the guidance. He didn't think setting up a fund was necessary. There was no time when we wanted to keep monies from New Destiny. We were dealing with a moving target and we were seeking guidance from the arbitrator."

08-19-2004, 03:40 PM	#2
pornstar2pac Omaha Hi/Lo Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 17,380	that's it 2 questions? cmon Luke, we need to fill a 20min. spot __________________ Trump haters gonna hate. that's all they can do

08-19-2004, 04:03 PM	#3
Far-L Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Seattle Posts: 6,065	"it's rather unusual for them to walk into court and argue that they want to be paid under a contract" Does anyone else see the irony of this? LOLOLOLOLOLOL __________________ HomegrownCash.com, the affiliate program of Homegrown Video - The Largest Collection of Amateur XXX - Est. 1982. Contact - Email: farrell AT homegrownvideo D com Skype: hgfarl Newsweek Magazine - "Homegrown Video, the longest running series in the history of porn."

08-19-2004, 04:14 PM	#5
Far-L Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Seattle Posts: 6,065	Ummm... We never claimed that there was no contract... just that we never made a contract with whatever company they sold CE to.... Read the court docs presented by both sides then you will have a much clearer picture of the issues. __________________ HomegrownCash.com, the affiliate program of Homegrown Video - The Largest Collection of Amateur XXX - Est. 1982. Contact - Email: farrell AT homegrownvideo D com Skype: hgfarl Newsweek Magazine - "Homegrown Video, the longest running series in the history of porn."

08-19-2004, 04:53 PM	#7
Far-L Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Seattle Posts: 6,065	NP. Totally understand. Spin is a very hard thing to reconcile either way. __________________ HomegrownCash.com, the affiliate program of Homegrown Video - The Largest Collection of Amateur XXX - Est. 1982. Contact - Email: farrell AT homegrownvideo D com Skype: hgfarl Newsweek Magazine - "Homegrown Video, the longest running series in the history of porn."