| |
Discussion: Rebecca responds To Gaga
Member Since: 1/3/2014
Posts: 15,909
|
If Gaga is suing for legal fees pretaining to that lawsuit all she has to do is prove that she spent 1.4 million to lawyers trying to defend herself. If she does that, and I'm sure she has her receipts ready to go, the case will be Gaga winning and Rebecca will be 1.4 million dollars in debt.
So, yes, Gaga has it won if it goes in front of a judge. She spent money on lawyers, WON her case that she thought was baseless and frivoulous. All she has to do she put the lawyer fees in front of the judge and that woman is done.
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 2/6/2014
Posts: 4,224
|
Quote:
Originally posted by StephenNYMonster
If Gaga is suing for legal fees pretaining to that lawsuit all she has to do is prove that she spent 1.4 million to lawyers trying to defend herself. If she does that, and I'm sure she has her receipts ready to go, the case will be Gaga winning and Rebecca will be 1.4 million dollars in debt.
So, yes, Gaga has it won if it goes in front of a judge. She spent money on lawyers, WON her case that she thought was baseless and frivoulous. All she has to do she put the lawyer fees in front of the judge and that woman is done.
|
Did you just make that up or is that really what you thought?
Quote:
|
The losing side does not ordinarily have to pay the winning side's attorney's fees, contrary to popularly held belief. In the United States, the general rule (called the American Rule) is that each party pays only their own attorney's fees, regardless of whether they win or lose. This allows people to bring cases and lawsuits without the fear of incurring excessive costs if they lose the case. In contrast, in England and other countries, the losing side is often required to pay the other side's attorney's fees after losing a trial.
|
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...ide-30337.html
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/1/2012
Posts: 15,843
|
Quote:
|
His associate DJ White Shadow, however – a wanna-be if ever there was one
|
Drag him rebecca 
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 8/31/2013
Posts: 20,327
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Dark_Lorde
The whole point of that comment was to show that I am probbaly biased when I say things and that this post did not contain my opinion at all (in the OP)
|
Your own opinions of Gaga are reflected in the derogatory insults you posted in the OP. You just side-stepped posting them yourself and posted the entirety of what Rebecca said (which is completely unnecessary to know all the ridiculous insults she slung at Gaga about Madonna, Express Yourself, and other insane things) Which is cowardly in my opinion.
SYG exists for a reason. Like Nicole mentioned, the facade might fool some of these kids but it won't work with me.
All in all the thread is what it is; you finding ways to express the boiling hatred in you about Gaga in ways that won't get you banned. You'd be better off without all the pretending.
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 2/6/2014
Posts: 4,224
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ezra
Your own opinions of Gaga are reflected in the derogatory insults you posted in the OP. You just side-stepped posting them yourself and posted the entirety of what Rebecca said (which is completely unnecessary to know all the ridiculous insults she slung at Gaga about Madonna, Express Yourself, and other insane things) Which is cowardly in my opinion.
SYG exists for a reason. Like Nicole mentioned, the facade might fool some of these kids but it won't work with me.
All in all the thread is what it is; you finding ways to express the boiling hatred in you about Gaga in ways that won't get you banned. You'd be better off without all the pretending.
|
Take it up with the mods who cleared the report.
Anything else?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/1/2014
Posts: 13,632
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Dark_Lorde
Please don't give me pet names Thor, you have made a point on several occasions that I'm older than you. A younger person calling you "hun" is uncomfortable.
Anyways, your post history is literally littered with examples that reflect your thoughts on gaga being a good person but for the sake of this conversation I'll be happy to rephrase my original comment - "I am biased because I don't like some of the decisions gaga has made based on what has been reported"
The whole point of that comment was to show that I am probbaly biased when I say things and that this post did not contain my opinion at all (in the OP) So, I'm unsure why you decided to go down the path of questioning that one comment. I'm biased. If you want to take the position that I'm not that would go agfainst everything you have ever said about me. Let the Munane things go Thor, especially when they agree with the core concept on your opinion on me.
Sheesh.
|
Ahh. Thought so.
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 8/31/2013
Posts: 20,327
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Dark_Lorde
Take it up with the mods who cleared the report.
Anything else?
|
Yes.
I'm glad Gaga is about to be 1.4 million dollars richer 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/27/2006
Posts: 10,536
|
Quote:
Originally posted by HonourableVomit
|
I thought it was on backwards at first 
The song reminds me of Fiona Apple / Alanis Morissette. Nothing like Judas 
Quote:
Originally posted by Dark_Lorde
Oh please. You have been banned 3 times in the space I have been banned once.
You have no place calling anyone else messy.
|
Not you counting the times a person was banned 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/3/2014
Posts: 15,909
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Dark_Lorde
|
And in the next paragraph it says.
Quote:
Exceptions to the American Rule
There are several exceptions to the "American Rule," however, which depend on the type of case you are involved with and the state you live in. The most common exception to the rule occurs when a contract or statute (law) specifically allows for the payment of attorneys' fees by the other side. In addition, a court can sometimes act in the interest of justice and fairness to require one side to pay the attorneys' fees. U.S. courts do have significant discretion when it comes to the awarding of attorneys' fees, and while judges do not generally like departing from the American Rule, they may require a losing side to pay the other's attorneys' fees in certain limited situations.
If you're concerned or hopeful that the losing side would have to pay attorneys' fees in your case, it's generally a good idea to check (or ask your lawyer to check) if any exceptions apply to your particular case. Here are the most common exceptions to the American rule.
|
And then if you kept reading what was in that link.
Quote:
|
Another common state law allows for attorneys' fees to be paid by the losing side if an attorney for the losing side filed a lawsuit knowing there was no reason, or "grounds," for the lawsuit. For example, California has statutes providing the loser should pay the winner's attorneys' fees in cases that proved to be a waste of court resources (such as bringing an unwarranted appeals or filing a case in the wrong venue). And a Wisconsin law calls for the losing side to pay attorneys' fees if their attorney files an appeal only to delay court proceedings. Other state statutes allow for a judge to require the loser to pay attorneys' fees if the loser's attorney made a procedural error during the case. For example, Illinois has a statute that allows for attorneys' fees to be granted to the winning side where discovery was not conducted properly.
|
Well...
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 2/6/2014
Posts: 4,224
|
Quote:
Originally posted by StephenNYMonster
And in the next paragraph it says.
And then if you kept reading what was in that link.
Well...
|
Again, this is what you said.
Quote:
|
all she has to do is prove that she spent 1.4 million to lawyers trying to defend herself.
|
When Infact, that's not all she has to do. As per your own post, The case has to be without Merit.
Something tells me, seeing as it was going on for more than a year it may be ruled as a case with merit.
Your comment was clearly wrong in the first instance and that's totally ok, I'm not holding you to it, Infact after reading my link, you learned something. Happy days all round
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/6/2014
Posts: 10,308
|
Seems she had enough time to come up with this blog while standing in line for welfare.
Anyhow, I don't think Gaga will see any of these 1.4 mil and I don't think she'll gonna lose sleep over it. This counter lawsuit for the costs is about setting a precedent. You better come up with some decent back up and proof for your claims when coming for a star. If you don't (and the lawsuit for Judas took 3 damn years!) you get nothing, it's simple as that. If this case goes through more celebs will be able to draw from this.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/3/2014
Posts: 15,909
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Dark_Lorde
Again, this is what you said.
When Infact, that's not all she has to do. As per your own post, The case has to be without Merit.
Something tells me, seeing as it was going on for more than a year it may be ruled as a case with merit.
Your comment was clearly wrong in the first instance and that's totally ok, I'm not holding you to it, Infact after reading my link, you learned something. Happy days all round
|
You tried it with that passive aggressive ass. I already have been saying that the lawsuit was baseless by Gaga and her team in my previous post, why repeat it again? I'm not a beat-box, my track doesn't skip, and my other posts were not made in another thread. You even quoted my previous post to know my stance on the lawsuit the girl made. Don't act brand new.
Don't get mad at me because you read the opening paragraph and not the whole article and got yanked by your own receipt. I did learn something though. You love to pick and choose what people say and twist. I know what I said and after I said that, I went on to say this.
Quote:
|
So, yes, Gaga has it won if it goes in front of a judge. She spent money on lawyers, WON her case that she thought was baseless and frivoulous. All she has to do she put the lawyer fees in front of the judge and that woman is done.
|
The word IF. Meaning possibly. Meaning a chance. If the Judge reviews the case and says Gaga has merit to seek money from her than Rebecca is in trouble.
Please don't act like your ass has a clear understanding of the legal system when you don't. If you going to attempt to insult something nonchalantly, please be WAY sneakier with your game because the **** residue you try to wipe off your post are on your hands. Don't try me.
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 9/12/2011
Posts: 9,897
|
Gaga is finally taking the right steps. She should have done it immediately because people have been latching off her for a long time from Madonna to Rebecca, to those making songs about her.  I applaud her! Gaga's known for her formula (jibberish intro, monotone verses, soaring choruses) and if she thinks she had any case to begin with she's sadly mistaken.  I can't wait till their little business is shut down and to think all of it came from wanting to latch off somebody more famous than her. The real kii.
The two have nothing in common.
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 2/6/2014
Posts: 4,224
|
Quote:
Originally posted by StephenNYMonster
You tried it with that passive aggressive ass. I already have been saying that the lawsuit was baseless by Gaga and her team in my previous post, why repeat it again? I'm not a beat-box, my track doesn't skip, and my other posts were not made in another thread. You even quoted my previous post to know my stance on the lawsuit the girl made. Don't act brand new.
Don't get mad at me because you read the opening paragraph and not the whole article and got yanked by your own receipt. I did learn something though. You love to pick and choose what people say and twist. I know what I said and after I said that, I went on to say this.
The word IF. Meaning possibly. Meaning a chance. If the Judge reviews the case and says Gaga has merit to seek money from her than Rebecca is in trouble.
Please don't act like your ass has a clear understanding of the legal system when you don't. If you going to attempt to insult something nonchalantly, please be WAY sneakier with your game because the **** residue you try to wipe off your post are on your hands. Don't try me.
|
I'm not Mad.
Again, regardless of what you said in previous posts, this is what you said
Quote:
|
all she has to do is prove that she spent 1.4 million to lawyers trying to defend herself.
|
That's not all she has to do. I know it. You know it (now) but you didn't before.
Your comment was independant of your previous comment but if you're now saying it wasn't and that we all should have assumed that what you actually meant was "She has to prove how much money she spent and also prove that the case was without merit" fine by me.
Now, in regards to the case being without Merit and your comments about me knowing nothing of the legal system. You're wrong.
First of all, I ask myself If you actually read the full post. You understand that gaga won based on the fact a regular person can't hear the difference. I guess those people posting a a comparison of the songs didn't read that part and I guess you didn't read either. You understand that the court doesn't dispute how lady gaga dot the song, right?
Lady gaga got the song based on Rebecca F's ex boyfriend. - That's not in dispute. Rebecca F didn't win because the music being plagarised wasn't recognisable to the average person.
- Lady gaga did indeded take the song. The Origin of Judas came Rebecca F.
I agree with gaga in that case simply because the law is the law. There's no disputing how gaga got it though, it wasn't her own piece of creative work.
Gaga's people asked for a summary judgement meaning one judge decided upon the verdict not a jury of regular people. - He decided it wasn't recognisable to the naked ear. - The facts that Judas came about becuase of Rebecca F are not in dispute.
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 8/31/2013
Posts: 20,327
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Dark_Lorde
I'm not Mad.
Again, regardless of what you said in previous posts, this is what you said
That's not all she has to do. I know it. You know it (now) but you didn't before.
Your comment was independant of your previous comment but if you're now saying it wasn't and that we all should have assumed that what you actually meant was "She has to prove how much money she spent and also prove that the case was without merit" fine by me.
Now, in regards to the case being without Merit and your comments about me knowing nothing of the legal system. You're wrong.
First of all, I ask myself If you actually read the full post. You understand that gaga won based on the fact a regular person can't hear the difference. I guess those people posting a a comparison of the songs didn't read that part and I guess you didn't read either. You understand that the court doesn't dispute how lady gaga dot the song, right?
Lady gaga got the song based on Rebecca F's ex boyfriend. - That's not in dispute. Rebecca F didn't win because the music being plagarised wasn't recognisable to the average person.
- Lady gaga did indeded take the song. The Origin of Judas came Rebecca F.
I agree with gaga in that case simply because the law is the law. There's no disputing how gaga got it though, it wasn't her own piece of creative work.
Gaga's people asked for a summary judgement meaning one judge decided upon the verdict not a jury of regular people. - He decided it wasn't recognisable to the naked ear. - The facts that Judas came about becuase of Rebecca F are not in dispute.
|
Literally you just making all of this up^^
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 2/6/2014
Posts: 4,224
|
Jesus, read the actual post before ya'll post comparison videos.
Quote:
In July 2014, after three years of litigation, a 1934-born (bless his heart) Judge Aspen decided that since an “ordinary observer” wouldn’t be able to tell the songs are the same, I lose.
He was able to shut down the case without trial because of a growingly popular corporate legal loophole gaining steam in recent years known as “Summary Judgment.”
That’s when the corporate-funded side (Lady Gaga, Inc.) calls for a judge – one man – to decide the issue.
The “American” thing to do, of course, would be for a jury of my peers to hear the case and decide for themselves
|
.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/28/2012
Posts: 34,863
|
Anyone knows if Dark_Lorde is Rebecca's lawyer?
One should be associated to her to care so much and write paragraphs and paragraphs about an issue that none of us fans care about
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 2/6/2014
Posts: 4,224
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ezra
Literally you just making all of this up^^
|
Why don't you click on the link and read the post urself.
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 9/12/2011
Posts: 9,897
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Dark_Lorde
I'm not Mad.
Again, regardless of what you said in previous posts, this is what you said
That's not all she has to do. I know it. You know it (now) but you didn't before.
Your comment was independant of your previous comment but if you're now saying it wasn't and that we all should have assumed that what you actually meant was "She has to prove how much money she spent and also prove that the case was without merit" fine by me.
Now, in regards to the case being without Merit and your comments about me knowing nothing of the legal system. You're wrong.
First of all, I ask myself If you actually read the full post. You understand that gaga won based on the fact a regular person can't hear the difference. I guess those people posting a a comparison of the songs didn't read that part and I guess you didn't read either. You understand that the court doesn't dispute how lady gaga dot the song, right?
Lady gaga got the song based on Rebecca F's ex boyfriend. - That's not in dispute. Rebecca F didn't win because the music being plagarised wasn't recognisable to the average person.
- Lady gaga did indeded take the song. The Origin of Judas came Rebecca F.
I agree with gaga in that case simply because the law is the law. There's no disputing how gaga got it though, it wasn't her own piece of creative work.
Gaga's people asked for a summary judgement meaning one judge decided upon the verdict not a jury of regular people. - He decided it wasn't recognisable to the naked ear. - The facts that Judas came about becuase of Rebecca F are not in dispute.
|
you are such a delusional hater it's uncomfortable to even read your posts anymore. The 2 songs have nothing in common. Repeating words and creating a catchy tune out of it has been gaga's signature for a long time, from Pokerface, to Bad Romance, Paparazzi etc. As someone who's classically trained and has some experience in music production I can assure you the songs have not a god damn thing in common.
You can sue someone for plagiarizing and win ONLY under one condition, and that is that the chord progression is nearly identical throughout the whole song with the on-track melody following the same suit as the song being plagiarized. Otherwise you have no case.
Stop with your nonsense and move on from Gaga, you're an embarrassment to Madonna stans. Honestly, at this point even Swag has more credibility than you do.
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 8/31/2013
Posts: 20,327
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Dark_Lorde
Jesus, read the actual post before ya'll post comparison videos.
.
|
Right. Because everything this woman hurling insults at Gaga (because she's mad she's getting sued) is accurate and totally unbiased. Should def be taken immediately as complete truth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
