Aright, here's the story, uncensored. And not violative of our settlement agreement with the Jackals. We filed a motion to dismiss because they lacked standing. Reason being, in their original lawsuit, they alleged but didn't pony up with their "assignment." They called and threatened sanctions against kf.c lawyers, etc. kf.c lawyers, after they got done giggling, said send us the "assignment." When we received the "assignment," and the Jackals called up and said "Aha! See, now you better take out that frivolous motions." we responded--Au contraire, we now REALLY have a legitimate motion because under a NV supreme court case, NV is one of the few states that still recognizes a concept called "champerty" and therefore their "assignment" was a nullity as violative of public policy. Hence, no contract and hence, no standing and hence, no subject matter jurisdiction by the court.
In another line of attack, we had investigated the ownership of Righthaven, Stephens Enterprise, etc. Turns out the Jackal lawyer hisownself was the president of the GP of Righthaven, so he is a material fact witness. Under the fed rules, there is a requirement to disclose, at the beginning of a lawsuit, all "interested" parties, in part so that witnesses can be identified, etc. They did not do that. The upshot of that is that a lawyer cannot serve as both a witness and an advocate in a trial, the concern being that the jury will be confused, so the lawyer is subject to being disqualified from trying the case.
So, when presented with this, Jackal's tough exterior gave way to his mushy interior, et voila!
When other parties saw what happened with kf.c, lawyers for kf.c were called and, since only the settlement amount is confidential, all the legal issues were explained to anyone who asked (which, they are a matter of public record anyway, so who cares?). And the hounds of hell have been unleashed on these D-bags.
We were just happy to see them in our rear view mirror, no Wes?
