3 ms·

But if he refuses to comply with the Courts Who said he refuses to comply with the courts? He's opposing a filing made by the plaintiffs. The court has not e

by 300bps 13y ago

But if he refuses to comply with the Courts Who said he refuses to comply with the courts? He's opposing a filing made by the plaintiffs. The court has not even ruled on the filing (which is merely a request from the Plaintiffs for the court to order). Deposition by video conference is common. Alternatively, he's offered to meet them in Taiwan. The guy can be guilty of whatever, but to paint him negatively because he's not going out of his way to help someone who wants to destroy him doesn't make sense to me.

dragontamer 13y ago
1. He borrowed money from various US Institutions. 2. He has failed to return that money. Furthermore, he claims he cannot repay the money back and requests Bankruptcy protection The Plaintiffs are in their right to try and get their money back. You don't just borrow millions of dollars and lose it all. Actually, you're allowed to do that in the US as long as you file Bankruptcy protection and listen to court requests and make an honest effort to repay as much of the money back. Its one of the reasons why the US is good for businesses, Bankruptcy law reduces the risks businesses make in regards to losing money / paying creditors. It is okay to fail in the US... but only if you properly document your failures and make an honest effort to repay what you owe. However, that is not what he has done. He's hiding out in Taiwan thinking there is some government conspiracy against him. On the contrary, US Laws are relatively forgiving. Hell, he may have multiple layers of legal defenses: if he properly created a Limited-liability corporation, his personal wealth will remain uneffected. Currently, he is NOT responsible for paying back the millions upon millions of dollars that he should be responsible for. But that is only because of Bankruptcy protection. The US Courts and US Law protects you from creditors in this situation. The Texas Court is protecting him from creditors currently. He does NOT have to pay all the money back, so long as the courts are on his side. However, the Texas Courts are complaining because this man is utterly ridiculous and ignorant on how the US Court system works. He is biting the hand that feeds him, so to speak. In fact, it is quite unfair that the US Law treats businesses with such leniency. Student Loans evade bankruptcy protection for example. Nevertheless, if Karpeles plays his cards right, he will not have to pay back his loans. But he has to work with the Texas court for that kind of protection. It is only fair. And remember, this isn't the "Federal Government" giving him this protection, it is the State of Texas. The Texas Court is asking for him to enter Texas. I'm not from that state, but I imagine that Texas has more respect for people who actually put forth the effort to appear in person in court. Anything less is rather disrespectful to the Judge.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > And remember, this isn't the "Federal Government" giving him this protection, it is the State of Texas. No, its the Federal judiciary. The particular bankruptcy court happens to be located in Texas (US Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas). People often confuse federal courts located in a state with state courts, but they are not at all the same thing, and have nothing to do with the state government.
  - dragontamer 13y ago
    Thanks for the clarification. The whole "multiple governments" thing in the US gets confusing sometimes.
- 300bps 13y ago
  However, the Texas Courts are complaining because this man is utterly ridiculous and ignorant on how the US Court system works. You've completely misunderstood the situation. No Court has ordered him to attend a deposition in the United States. The Plaintiff (a normal everyday person) has filed a Motion to compel the Defendant (Karpeles) to attend a deposition in the United States. The Court has not ruled on that Motion. The Court will eventually either deny or grant the motion. If they deny the motion, then Karpales doesn't have to come to the U.S. for the deposition. If they grant the motion and he refuses to come then you might have an argument that he is flouting U.S. Courts. But we're not there yet, and since compelling someone who lives thousands of miles away to appear for a deposition in person is not a common practice, I imagine we will never be there. Imagine I live in Alaska and you live in Florida. Now imagine I sue you because you left a comment disagreeing with me on Hacker News. I file a motion to compel you to fly to Alaska so I can ask you a bunch of questions in front of a court reporter (i.e. a deposition). You file a response to the motion saying, "That is ridiculous. I'm not flying to Alaska for this. I believe this lawsuit has no merit. I can be deposed by video conference just as easily." That is precisely the status of this matter in the Karpeles case. I'm not from that state, but I imagine that Texas has more respect for people who actually put forth the effort to appear in person in court. Again, you totally misunderstand this situation. He's not being asked to come to Court by the Court. He's being asked to show up to a deposition by the Plaintiff. A deposition, if you are unfamiliar, is typically done in the office of a private attorney. Not in the Court.

by 300bps 13y ago

dragontamer 13y ago

1. He borrowed money from various US Institutions. 2. He has failed to return that money. Furthermore, he claims he cannot repay the money back and requests Bankruptcy protection The Plaintiffs are in their right to try and get their money back. You don't just borrow millions of dollars and lose it all. Actually, you're allowed to do that in the US as long as you file Bankruptcy protection and listen to court requests and make an honest effort to repay as much of the money back. Its one of the reasons why the US is good for businesses, Bankruptcy law reduces the risks businesses make in regards to losing money / paying creditors. It is okay to fail in the US... but only if you properly document your failures and make an honest effort to repay what you owe. However, that is not what he has done. He's hiding out in Taiwan thinking there is some government conspiracy against him. On the contrary, US Laws are relatively forgiving. Hell, he may have multiple layers of legal defenses: if he properly created a Limited-liability corporation, his personal wealth will remain uneffected. Currently, he is NOT responsible for paying back the millions upon millions of dollars that he should be responsible for. But that is only because of Bankruptcy protection. The US Courts and US Law protects you from creditors in this situation. The Texas Court is protecting him from creditors currently. He does NOT have to pay all the money back, so long as the courts are on his side. However, the Texas Courts are complaining because this man is utterly ridiculous and ignorant on how the US Court system works. He is biting the hand that feeds him, so to speak. In fact, it is quite unfair that the US Law treats businesses with such leniency. Student Loans evade bankruptcy protection for example. Nevertheless, if Karpeles plays his cards right, he will not have to pay back his loans. But he has to work with the Texas court for that kind of protection. It is only fair. And remember, this isn't the "Federal Government" giving him this protection, it is the State of Texas. The Texas Court is asking for him to enter Texas. I'm not from that state, but I imagine that Texas has more respect for people who actually put forth the effort to appear in person in court. Anything less is rather disrespectful to the Judge.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> And remember, this isn't the "Federal Government" giving him this protection, it is the State of Texas. No, its the Federal judiciary. The particular bankruptcy court happens to be located in Texas (US Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas). People often confuse federal courts located in a state with state courts, but they are not at all the same thing, and have nothing to do with the state government.
- dragontamer 13y ago
  Thanks for the clarification. The whole "multiple governments" thing in the US gets confusing sometimes.
300bps 13y ago
However, the Texas Courts are complaining because this man is utterly ridiculous and ignorant on how the US Court system works. You've completely misunderstood the situation. No Court has ordered him to attend a deposition in the United States. The Plaintiff (a normal everyday person) has filed a Motion to compel the Defendant (Karpeles) to attend a deposition in the United States. The Court has not ruled on that Motion. The Court will eventually either deny or grant the motion. If they deny the motion, then Karpales doesn't have to come to the U.S. for the deposition. If they grant the motion and he refuses to come then you might have an argument that he is flouting U.S. Courts. But we're not there yet, and since compelling someone who lives thousands of miles away to appear for a deposition in person is not a common practice, I imagine we will never be there. Imagine I live in Alaska and you live in Florida. Now imagine I sue you because you left a comment disagreeing with me on Hacker News. I file a motion to compel you to fly to Alaska so I can ask you a bunch of questions in front of a court reporter (i.e. a deposition). You file a response to the motion saying, "That is ridiculous. I'm not flying to Alaska for this. I believe this lawsuit has no merit. I can be deposed by video conference just as easily." That is precisely the status of this matter in the Karpeles case. I'm not from that state, but I imagine that Texas has more respect for people who actually put forth the effort to appear in person in court. Again, you totally misunderstand this situation. He's not being asked to come to Court by the Court. He's being asked to show up to a deposition by the Plaintiff. A deposition, if you are unfamiliar, is typically done in the office of a private attorney. Not in the Court.