341–350 of 704 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Well, yes, if someone doesn't care to look for the full story then there will be holes almost by definition. The common accepted meaning of "holes in a story" is not "I don't know the facts", but "the story itself is misleading or incomplete".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Part 2's corruption and civil rights violations makes Part 1 look irrelevant. A lot of the coverage on this is still about the $200k and the lego sets. Fun part to mention is the officer that takes the subpoena to the would-be defendant is the part of the 3rd set of cops that were sent to Ben's non-moving car that is on public property. The cop's bodycam discussion with the would-be defendant is also fully redacted,…
> After telling Ben that the defendant doesn't accept the subpoena (can you even refuse being served like that?) They can't, and I'm surprised the officer wasn't aware of that. Confirm the person's ID, hand them the papers or sit them somewhere and tell them, they have been served. Process-wise, all that matters is confirmation to the court that the person is aware of and was given possession of the documents. If the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There aren't obvious holes. Most or all of what's been claimed as holes have just been straight up lies from B&M
[flagged]
I'm inclined to believe that there's corporate wrongdoing but the piece itself comes across as a blatant attempt to stir up drama as opposed to objectively informing the reader. It's certainly not the sort of thing I come to HN for.
This guy tried to resolve a legal dispute without a lawyer. Any competent business lawyer should have been able to straighten this out within days. He even tried to do process service himself, which nobody does. You pay a process server $100 or so for that.
[flagged]
> This is just needless YouTube drama generation. I agree, he should have paid a process server to do the job correctly, but that wouldn't be good business for his YouTube channel.
Your ability to create a fantasy to defend the CEOs in this example is, well, frankly depressing. Like, none of what you said is true, but you just confidently made it up and then put it in a comment, why?
If you don't know what's going on, why comment? Why go beyond that and just make stuff up?
I just don't get people today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Sure, it's possible the serving was not done correctly. Even in that case, this does not imply, as you have claimed, that this is " just needless YouTube drama" (emphasis mine). There is clearly a lot going on beyond the obvious flashy setting which is chosen for the presentation. Arguably, no attention would have come to this matter if not for such presentation, and the perpetrators would have just gotten away with…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> He also didn't leave after the police were called, which is not all that unusual for someone who looks out their window and sees someone they're in conflict with has traveled across the country to stand in front of their door. > This is just needless YouTube drama generation. I agree, he should have paid a process server to do the job correctly, but that wouldn't be good business for his YouTube channel. Your abili…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The company should have done the right thing, but instead, they are evil, criminals, and crooks who should be treated as such. > he should have paid a process server He was quoted a LOT more money to try. > He also didn't leave after the police were called, He was legally allowed to be there trying to serve the individual. Why are you defending a clearly evil criminal company?
[flagged]
Because you can't ever admit being wrong?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm not defending the company at all. My comment was about the YouTuber who got involved as a 3rd party for content production. You have claimed the story is "just needless YouTube drama" and that you "wouldn't really trust the YouTube influencers for the whole story". Unless you are completely incapable of understanding basic human communication, this obviously amounts to defending the company.
[flagged]
Genuine question, how do you think serving papers works?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The store in question was a franchise so potentially the liability will be limited to just the assets of that franchise. But there's a lot of weird stuff here and it looks like the corporation may have (in a legally questionable manner) removed assets from the store to the corporation during proceedings to shield them.
Seems like it would be hard to know which blue Lego was Bryan’s