So I’m guessing the widow of Jerry Siegel has nothing left in her life and she wants to make money by getting 50% of the rights to Superman. Superman is a public icon that has been around for decades. What is she hoping to gain besides money? She’s not going to write comics, produce movies or anything. I’m sorry, but I hope Warner Brothers buries this woman and her family in court.

Matt–

According to US Corpyright law any intellectual property created before 1975 can be reclaimed by it’s original creator. It was a change Congress made and the family of Jack Kirby are dealing with Marvel regarding the rights to Captain America, among other properties Kirby created.

The law is on their side, but the corporations have an enormous amount of money, and with it they can throw the case into years of litigation with pointless motion after pointless motion. The question is will the judge allow it? If the judge doesn’t let DC drag the case out the Shuster/Siegel family will win. If he lets the big boys stall, then it oculd be years before there’s any movement on the case.
But the law clearly states that any intellectual property created before ‘75 can be reclaimed. So they have a case and standing.

If this is affecting singer moving forward with a sequel to superman returns,
(Lets hope so!)wouldn’t it have some repecussions on Warners using the Man of Steel in the JLA movie?
Perhaps thats’s something to do with them rushing into production with said film.

Will–

You’ll recall that Captain America “died” recently. There’s been widespread rumors that this was Marvel putting a stick in the eye of the Kirby family. Does it mean they know they’re about to lose the rights to the character? Who knows.

Phil–
What you’ve said is the classic line put forward by the publishers to discredit anyone who challenges the tactics they use to acquire a character/comic book idea. people trying to break into comics are notoriously poor to begin with. Shuster and Siegel were teenages when they created Superman. Stan Lee was 14 when he made Captain America.
In the intellectual properties business peolpe are taken advantage of ALL THE TIME! This is how people like Dean Martin can work for years and years and not have any money. The music industry is bad about this, but he publishing industry is FAR worse.
And the only ones Warner Brothers has been “burying” are people like Shuster etc who spend years of their lives making a character then have some big company tell them, “Let’s make a deal,” only to be cast aside a few weeks later. These families aren’t greedy, the companies are.

But the sad part is that if these damned greedy publishers simply agreed to a profit-sharing agreement the families would almost certainly allow the character to remain with the publisher. It’s only right to pay the families for what their loved ones created. But such is the power of greed.

Oh, and I forget to mention that Stan Lee has sued Marvel for millions as well. he did it shortly after Spider-Man was made. Apparently after fifty years of feeling like a schmuck he got tired of it. Anyone hoping the familes of these creative types ges “buried” must like to see good people get screwed.

It’s fun when people make stuff up to sound smart…

Factual inaccuracy #1: Stan Lee didn’t create Captain America, and certainly didn’t at 14. Joe Simon and Jack Kirby did, both in their late 20s. Schuster and Siegel, who created Superman, were also both in their late twenties. I have no idea where all this teenager stuff comes from.

Factual inaccuracy #2: This case is about SUPERBOY, not SUPERMAN, though about a million people associated with both characters are going to be deposed. Singer’s movie has that scene with a young clark learning he can fly in the barn, and that’s likely the connection to the case.

Factual inaccuracy #3: Stan Lee’s post Spider-Man lawsuit had nothing to do with character rights, but rather unpaid movie profits that he had contractual agreements for. Peter Jackson sued New Line for the same reason, doesn’t mean he’s claiming to have the rights to Frodo.

Factual inaccuracy #4: Jack Kirby, or his estate, never sued Marvel, and the recent death of Captain America storyline has nothing to do with any legal issue.

The Superboy case is the exception to the rule because DC isn’t protected by the standard work for hire agreement that invalidates most copyright claims in these cases. This is because, while DC did commission Siegel to create Superboy, they didn’t use him until a later date, and didn’t pay him for the creation… this resulted in a lawsuit which went in Siegel’s favor, and created the opening for the family now. While I think that’s great for his estate, and support the effort of any creator to get their fair share of compensation, I don’t think it helps anything to just make stuff up on the interwebs. Next time, a little fact checking, JaySmack.

Again, not siding with the big publishers here, just correcting some pretty blatant inaccuracies that might confuse people. The sad reality is that the work for hire agreements most of these creators signed invalidate any copyright claims they might make. Sad but true, in nearly all cases but this one.

I’ve already posted a reply to Scrableds rant. So far it hasn’t posted yet, but here’s the highligts.

1.) Siegel and Shuster were both born in 1914. The fisrt appearance of the superman character was in 1933, which made them both nineTEEN at the time. Action Comics, the first “Superman” appearance was in 1938, which made them both 24. In neither case were they “in the late twenties as Scrambled Eggs” insists. Don’t know where he gets that from. Must not have math classes in his neck of the woods.

2.) Jack Kirby did sue Marvel, in the 80’s over his artwork, telling them give him back all his pages, or compensate him for keeping his original work. So again, Scrambled Network should have fact-checked before shooting his missive.

3.) I never said Lee sued for OWNERSHIP of Spider-Man, I said his suit came after the movie debuted. My mentioning it was in response to Phil’s remark that Siegel’s heir ,”not going to write comics, produce movies or anything.” I was showing that the people who sue these publishers, like Kirby and his Captain America co-creator Joe Simon did. These are parasites looking for a payoff, they’re hard-woking people who want some of the money their intellecutal creation has generated.

4.) The Superman lawsuit is about BOTH Superman and Superboy. Read the sources.

5.) “The sad reality is that the work for hire agreements most of these creators signed invalidate any copyright claims they might make.”

Wrong again Scrambled. Shuster/Siegel created Superman (in their TEENS!) in 1933 as a series of short stories and a comic book proposal -this was the earliest version of the character. It was only in 1938 that they sold the rights to the company that would later become DC comics.

Scrambled. It’s obvious that Will’s passing comment about my admittedly sparse knowledge of US copyright law got you irked. If you actually did any research on anything, other than researching my posts, in your despreate and laughable attempts to find something to chide me over, you might have someone give note to your comments, instead of everyone ignoring them.
This shouldn’t become a habit on your part. Calling yourself looking to start a flame-war or something akin to it by trolling for my posts and trying to attack them. You’ve already made yourself look foolish once. Perhaps you should stop whlie you’re ahead. Then again, I don’t give you that much cresit.

And I also hope the lengthy, but well-documented post I made earlier posts sometime!

Since I want to make sure I get the details out there. I’ll try breaking my post into parts. Hopefully these will post.

Scrambled Lie #1: “Schuster and Siegel, who created Superman, were also both in their late twenties. I have no idea where all this teenager stuff comes from.”
Oh, Scrambles, you’re making this too easy for me!
From the good folks at Wikipedia: “Jerome “Jerry” Siegel a.k.a. Joe Carter (October 17, 1914) and Joseph “Joe” Shuster (July 10, 1914)” Notice the dates of birth? Dates are the numbers at the end of the sentance for the Scrambled-impaired. Now note this, also from Wikipedia.–> “Siegel and Shuster used an early version of the character that would become Superman in short stories and in a 1933 comic-strip proposal.” Notice the date again Scrambled Eggs –1933, that would make them both nineTEEN! That’s where “the teenager stuff” comes from. As I said in my correct post, “Shuster and Siegel were teenagers when they created Superman.” 19…29. Yup, there seem to be a couple of years in-between the two. First-grade math skills could have saved you some embarrassment on this one.
Also notice he misspelled Shuster’s name, “Schuster?” Only one of many mistakes he made in his rush to spite me. If we’re going to “correct some inaccuracies,” then let’s make sure we get them all.

Scrambled lie #2: “Stan Lee’s post Spider-Man lawsuit had nothing to do with character rights,”
Read my post. NOWHERE did I say the suit was about character OWNERSHIP. I simply said it was filed shortly after the Spider-Man movie was made. I was replying to Phil’s point that the Siegel’s heirs were “not going to write comics, produce movies or anything.” My point was that the people who are suing the publishers in regards to these intellecutal properties aren’t parasites looking for a payoff. They are in many cases comics creators themselves. Speaking of which…

Scrambled Lie #3: “Jack Kirby, or his estate, never sued Marvel.”
Anyone want to guess if Scrambles is wrong on that one too? If you said, “DEAD wrong,” then give yourself a cigar. Here’s a quote from, http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?column=pd&article=2699
“Jack Kirby’s LAWSUIT [captialized for the Scrambled-impaired] against Marvel in the ’80s was his attempt to recover physical possession of the art he had drawn for them or be compensated for it, which was a big issue for Marvel not only because it set an uncomfortable precedent…”
So it seems Jack Kirby DID sue Marvel, and it was over the characters he’d created. He wanted the pages or compensation for it.
Gee Scrambles, did you bother to do ANY fact-checking before you posted your rant, or did you just rattle off whatever came to your mind (such as it is) first? On second thought, don’t answer that. I don’t want to know.

It’s important to me that my full post get up on this thread, so although this has been covered in the above post, here’s the full post it came from. Hopefully breaking it into parts will solve the no=posting issue I’ve been experiencing with this one.

Scrambled Lie #1: “Schuster and Siegel, who created Superman, were also both in their late twenties. I have no idea where all this teenager stuff comes from.”
Oh, Scrambles, you’re making this too easy for me!
From the good folks at Wikipedia: “Jerome “Jerry” Siegel a.k.a. Joe Carter (October 17, 1914) and Joseph “Joe” Shuster (July 10, 1914)” Notice the dates of birth? Dates are the numbers at the end of the sentance for the Scrambled-impaired. Now note this, also from Wikipedia.–> “Siegel and Shuster used an early version of the character that would become Superman in short stories and in a 1933 comic-strip proposal.” Notice the date again Scrambled Eggs –1933, that would make them both nineTEEN! That’s where “the teenager stuff” comes from. As I said in my correct post, “Shuster and Siegel were teenagers when they created Superman.” 19…29. Yup, there seem to be a couple of years in-between the two. First-grade math skills could have saved you some embarrassment on this one.
Also notice he misspelled Shuster’s name, “Schuster?” Only one of many mistakes he made in his rush to spite me. If we’re going to “correct some inaccuracies,” then let’s make sure we get them all.

Scrambled lie #2: “Stan Lee’s post Spider-Man lawsuit had nothing to do with character rights,”
Read my post. NOWHERE did I say the suit was about character OWNERSHIP. I simply said it was filed shortly after the Spider-Man movie was made. I was replying to Phil’s point that the Siegel’s heirs were “not going to write comics, produce movies or anything.” My point was that the people who are suing the publishers in regards to these intellecutal properties aren’t parasites looking for a payoff. They are in many cases comics creators themselves. Speaking of which…

Scrambled Lie #3: “Jack Kirby, or his estate, never sued Marvel.”
Anyone want to guess if Scrambles is wrong on that one too? If you said, “DEAD wrong,” then give yourself a cigar. Here’s a quote from, http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?column=pd&article=2699
“Jack Kirby’s LAWSUIT [captialized for the Scrambled-impaired] against Marvel in the ’80s was his attempt to recover physical possession of the art he had drawn for them or be compensated for it, which was a big issue for Marvel not only because it set an uncomfortable precedent…”
So it seems Jack Kirby DID sue Marvel, and it was over the characters he’d created. He wanted the pages or compensation for it.
Gee Scrambles, did you bother to do ANY fact-checking before you posted your rant, or did you just rattle off whatever came to your mind (such as it is) first? On second thought, don’t answer that. I don’t want to know.

Scrambled lie #2: “Stan Lee’s post Spider-Man lawsuit had nothing to do with character rights,”
Read my post. NOWHERE did I say the suit was about character OWNERSHIP. I simply said it was filed shortly after the Spider-Man movie was made. I was replying to Phil’s point that the Siegel’s heirs were “not going to write comics, produce movies or anything.” My point was that the people who are suing the publishers in regards to these intellecutal properties aren’t parasites looking for a payoff. They are in many cases comics creators themselves. Speaking of which…

Scrambled Lie #3: “Jack Kirby, or his estate, never sued Marvel.”
Anyone want to guess if Scrambles is wrong on that one too? If you said, “DEAD wrong,” then give yourself a cigar. Here’s a quote from, http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?column=pd&article=2699
“Jack Kirby’s LAWSUIT [captialized for the Scrambled-impaired] against Marvel in the ’80s was his attempt to recover physical possession of the art he had drawn for them or be compensated for it, which was a big issue for Marvel not only because it set an uncomfortable precedent…”
So it seems Jack Kirby DID sue Marvel, and it was over the characters he’d created. He wanted the pages or compensation for it.
Gee Scrambles, did you bother to do ANY fact-checking before you posted your rant, or did you just rattle off whatever came to your mind (such as it is) first? On second thought, don’t answer that. I don’t want to know.

Scrambled lie #2: “Stan Lee’s post Spider-Man lawsuit had nothing to do with character rights,”
Read my post. NOWHERE did I say the suit was about character OWNERSHIP. I simply said it was filed shortly after the Spider-Man movie was made. I was replying to Phil’s point that the Siegel’s heirs were “not going to write comics, produce movies or anything.” My point was that the people who are suing the publishers in regards to these intellecutal properties aren’t parasites looking for a payoff. They are in many cases comics creators themselves. Speaking of which…

Scrambled Lie #3: “Jack Kirby, or his estate, never sued Marvel.”
Anyone want to guess if Scrambles is wrong on that one too? If you said, “DEAD wrong,” then give yourself a cigar. Here’s a quote from, http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?column=pd&article=2699
“Jack Kirby’s LAWSUIT [captialized for the Scrambled-impaired] against Marvel in the ’80s was his attempt to recover physical possession of the art he had drawn for them or be compensated for it, which was a big issue for Marvel not only because it set an uncomfortable precedent…”
So it seems Jack Kirby DID sue Marvel, and it was over the characters he’d created. He wanted the pages or compensation for it.
Gee Scrambles, did you bother to do ANY fact-checking before you posted your rant, or did you just rattle off whatever came to your mind (such as it is) first? On second thought, don’t answer that. I don’t want to know.

Scrambled Lie #3: “Jack Kirby, or his estate, never sued Marvel.”
Anyone want to guess if Scrambles is wrong on that one too? If you said, “DEAD wrong,” then give yourself a cigar. Here’s a quote from, hxxp://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?column=pd&article=2699
“Jack Kirby’s LAWSUIT [captialized for the Scrambled-impaired] against Marvel in the ’80s was his attempt to recover physical possession of the art he had drawn for them or be compensated for it, which was a big issue for Marvel not only because it set an uncomfortable precedent…”
So it seems Jack Kirby DID sue Marvel, and it was over the characters he’d created. He wanted the pages or compensation for it.
Gee Scrambles, did you bother to do ANY fact-checking before you posted your rant, or did you just rattle off whatever came to your mind (such as it is) first? On second thought, don’t answer that. I don’t want to know.

Scrambled Lie #3: “Jack Kirby, or his estate, never sued Marvel.”
Anyone want to guess if Scrambles is wrong on that one too? If you said, “DEAD wrong,” then give yourself a cigar. Here’s a quote from, http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?column=pd&article=2699
“Jack Kirby’s LAWSUIT [captialized for the Scrambled-impaired] against Marvel in the ’80s was his attempt to recover physical possession of the art he had drawn for them or be compensated for it, which was a big issue for Marvel not only because it set an uncomfortable precedent…”
So it seems Jack Kirby DID sue Marvel, and it was over the characters he’d created. He wanted the pages or compensation for it.
Gee Scrambles, did you bother to do ANY fact-checking before you posted your rant, or did you just rattle off whatever came to your mind (such as it is) first? I know, I know, it would have involved reading and math. Don’t hurt yourself.

Scrambled Lie #3: “The sad reality is that the work for hire agreements most of these creators signed invalidate any copyright claims they might make.”
By now you can guess where this is going. Scrambles is wrong…again!
Remember when I told you (Scrambles getting the information for the very first time, no doubt) that Siegel and Shuster created Superman as TEENAGERS, when his early version was first-published? That’s important to the lawsuit, because This from http://www.newsarama.com/DC/Superman/Intro.htm
“Siegel and Shuster had transferred the copyright to National Periodical Publications (later, DC Comics) in 1938. Siegel and later Shuster had fully created the character and world of Superman prior to the transfer, therefore “Superman” was not a “work made for hire.””
Scrabmles, you’re 0 for 5 so far. That’s bad by anyone’s arithmetic, but seeing as how you couldn’t figure out what ages Shuster/Siegel were when they created Superman, it’s understandable that you wouldn’t realize how far behind you are. In a perfect world your computer would have self-destructed before letting you put up your “blatantly” wrong post. Alas…

Scrambled Lie #3: “Jack Kirby, or his estate, never sued Marvel.”
Anyone want to guess if Scrambles is wrong on that one too? If you said, “DEAD wrong,” then give yourself a cigar. Here’s a quote from, http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?column=pd&article=2699
“Jack Kirby’s LAWSUIT [captialized for the Scrambled-impaired] against Marvel in the ’80s was his attempt to recover physical possession of the art he had drawn for them or be compensated for it, which was a big issue for Marvel not only because it set an uncomfortable precedent…”
So it seems Jack Kirby DID sue Marvel, and it was over the characters he’d created. He wanted the pages or compensation for it.
Gee Scrambles, did you bother to do ANY fact-checking before you posted your rant? On second thought, don’t answer that.

Scrambled Lie #3: “Jack Kirby, or his estate, never sued Marvel.”
Anyone want to guess if Scrambles is wrong on that one too? If you said, “DEAD wrong,” then give yourself a cigar. Here’s a quote from, http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?column=pd&article=2699

“Jack Kirby’s LAWSUIT [captialized for the Scrambled-impaired] against Marvel in the ’80s was his attempt to recover physical possession of the art he had drawn for them or be compensated for it, which was a big issue for Marvel not only because it set an uncomfortable precedent…”
So it seems Jack Kirby DID sue Marvel, and it was over the characters he’d created. He wanted the pages or compensation for it.
Gee Scrambles, did you bother to do ANY fact-checking before you posted your rant, or did you just rattle off whatever came to your mind (such as it is) first? On second thought, don’t answer that. I don’t want to know.

[So far it's been hell getting even the parts of this posted, but I'm gong to keep at it! If for no other reason than to help Scrambles learn fact-checking.]

Scrambled Lie #3: “Jack Kirby, or his estate, never sued Marvel.”
Anyone want to guess if Scrambles is wrong on that one too? If you said, “DEAD wrong,” then give yourself a cigar. Here’s a quote from, http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?column=pd&article=2699
“Jack Kirby’s LAWSUIT [captialized for the Scrambled-impaired] against Marvel in the ’80s was his attempt to recover physical possession of the art he had drawn for them or be compensated for it, which was a big issue for Marvel not only because it set an uncomfortable precedent…”
So it seems Jack Kirby DID sue Marvel, and it was over the characters he’d created. He wanted the pages or compensation for it.
Gee Scrambles, did you bother to do ANY fact-checking before you posted your rant, or did you just rattle off whatever came to your mind (such as it is) first? On second thought, don’t answer that. I don’t want to know.

[So far it's been hell getting even the parts of this posted, but I'm gong to keep at it! If for no other reason than to help Scrambles learn fact-checking.]

Scrambled Lie #3: “Jack Kirby, or his estate, never sued Marvel.”
Anyone want to guess if Scrambles is wrong on that one too? If you said, “DEAD wrong,” then give yourself a cigar.
“Jack Kirby’s LAWSUIT [captialized for the Scrambled-impaired] against Marvel in the ’80s was his attempt to recover physical possession of the art he had drawn for them or be compensated for it, which was a big issue for Marvel not only because it set an uncomfortable precedent…”
So it seems Jack Kirby DID sue Marvel, and it was over the characters he’d created. He wanted the pages or compensation for it.
The source for this is http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?column=pd&article=2699
Gee Scrambles, did you bother to do ANY fact-checking before you posted your rant, or did you just rattle off whatever came to your mind (such as it is) first? On second thought, don’t answer that. I don’t want to know.

Scrambled Lie # 4: “This case is about SUPERBOY, not SUPERMAN”
If you had read Will’s post instead of focusing on his giving passing notice to my sparse (that means small, for the Scrambled-impaired) knowledge of copyright law, –which seems to have been what set you off, you petty, petty child,– you would have read the source cited.
movieblog.ugo.com/index.php/movieblog/more/bryan_singer_headed_for_superman_trial
Since you couldn’t be bothered to read it, or even check your own facts, I’ll give you the highlights.
“Singer is going to have to give a deposition to the court presiding over the Superboy and Superman lawsuit cases.” Notice it says BOTH characters?
And more from this source:
http://www.trexfiles.com/2007/09/the_latest_on_the_supermansupe.html
“A consolidated hearing was scheduled for September 17, 2007 to discuss motions pertinent to both the Superman and Superboy lawsuits” Again, BOTH characters in the same court case! Gee Scrambles, why do you keep doing this to yourself?

Scrambled Lie #5: “The sad reality is that the work for hire agreements most of these creators signed invalidate any copyright claims they might make.”
By now you can guess where this is going. Scrambles is wrong…again!
Remember when I told you (Scrambles getting the information for the very first time, no doubt) that Siegel and Shuster created Superman as TEENAGERS, when his early version was first-published? That’s important to the lawsuit, because
This from http://www.newsarama.com/DC/Superman/Intro.htm
“Siegel and Shuster had transferred the copyright to National Periodical Publications (later, DC Comics) in 1938. Siegel and later Shuster had fully created the character and world of Superman prior to the transfer, therefore “Superman” was not a “work made for hire.””
Scrabmles, you’re 0 for 5 so far. That’s bad by anyone’s arithmetic, but seeing as how you couldn’t figure out what ages Shuster/Siegel were when they created Superman, it’s understandable that you wouldn’t realize how far behind you are. In a perfect world your computer would have self-destructed before letting you put up your “blatantly” wrong post. Alas…

As I said in my correct post, The Siegels’ heirs have standing and a case. Scrambles has neither. Do yourself a favor Scrambles, you want to “correct some inaccuracies,” start with your own. My fact-checking skills may not be perfect, but they’re a fair-sight better that yours. Stop making stuff up, and stop trying to match wits when you clearly are coming to the battle unarmed. I trust this will be the last time you call yourself assiduously checking my posts spoiling for a fight, though I do love proving myself right, especially at your expense.
But then again, that’s probably giving you too much credit.

oh, and one more small note about the age siegel and “Shuster” were when they created Superman. Yes, they were nineteen when Supes first saw print, but the certainly created him long before that, because it’s only work made-for-hire that is made in a few weeks. When you have something that you yourself have made, espeically as a teenager, it’s usually the result of a long effort, and an idea germinating for years.
So although they were nineteen when they shopped him around looking for someone willing to print his stories, it’s a no-brainer that they were actually much younger when they put him in fixed form, which (Scrambles is unaaware to be sure) is when US Copyright law says “possession” of an idea attaches. At the moment you think it up and put it in a tangible form or another. Siegel/Shuster’s childhood and TEEN scribblings of their early-early Superman character are just as valid as the final product and proof of creation.
Of course without a registration of the idea you have a hard time proving when you thought it up, or the specifics of the idae. Hence, the reason why it needs to be documented.

Is World War 3 over now? lol.

The reason the posts weren’t going through is that each time you have a URL in your post… it automatically has to be approved before it can be posted.

It’s just the spam meter we have in place.

Wow… those are a whole lot of words that don’t add up to very much.

I like how you ignore everything about Captain America, such as who created him and when. That’s pretty convenient, Jay.

And yeah, sorry, but your insinuations about previous lawsuits were pretty misleading.

As I said before, the Superboy case is an exception to the rule on these matters, for a variety of complex reasons. And I’m sorry, but those previous conceptions of Superman prior to Action Comics 1 are so markedly different, no judge is going to agree that they’re the same character.

How about a direct question for you to answer Jay: Who created Captain America and how old were they at the time? Is your previous answer there correct?

Looks to me like you’re trying to hedge things a bit, with your standard bluster.

Oh, and way to triple post, over and over.

“Wow… those are a whole lot of words that don’t add up to very much.”

Considering that you couldn’t add 19 to 14 to get 33 (the year Siegel/Shuster first got Superman in print) you are the last one to be talking about what “adds” up.
Or maybe it was your make-believe creator “Schuster” who was in his late-twenties?

Here’s a question for you: Did Jack Kirby sue Marvel? You said he “never did.” Well, were you wrong or not?
Next question: what age were Siegel/Shuster when they created Superman? Were they “in their late twenties,” as you said, or were they teenagers, as I said? Late twenties would make them 28-29, while teenagers would make them 13-19.

You were wrong across the board, no surprise there. And if you’re going to start perusing my posts in the hope of finally getting one over on me (after so many fruitless prior efforts) the least you can do is actually read the posts.
Maybe you didn’t know this, but it’s bad netiquette to go looking for fights on boards, precisely because of what’s happening now. Nobody wants to see a pissing contest. So, since one of us must be the adult here (it sure as hell won’t be you) I’ll go ahead and move on. My answers, and proving of your crappy “fact-checking” is now a matter of record (and record, and record –BTW very sorry about the multi-posts Matt, I didn’t know how the site’s filter worked) so I’m done with you –period.

But since I know some people have to get the last word in on everything, feel free to reply –I won’t be reading it though because I’ll do what I should have done from the start, and ignore you as everyone else does, and trust that your ignorance will be discovered soon enough without me having to point it out.
Do us all a favor, learn about a subject before you sound off on it, and don’t go casting aspersions on anyone’s knowledge when you don’t know how to add 2 plus 2.

So it’s February 12. There was supposed to be a trial last month. What happened. Is it still going on?