Lisa Smiths of Greenglides response to the court

James Cooper

Premium VIP
Jun 22, 2008
7,024
32
48
54
Brunswick, Georgia
www.jnccarpetsystems.com
Real Name
James Cooper
Business Location
United States
Ryan had posted this earlier , but I accidentally deleted it - here it is again , Thanks Ryno :



What's really sad is they posted it all prematurely. Jeff and I had ten biz days to respond to that and voice objections, responses, etc. (which I did), and then HRI has ten days to respond to my response and then the judge makes a final ruling on those issues. Here is my response to the document cited above:

Defendant Lisa Smith "in pro se" hereby provides the Court the following responses, corrections and objections to the October 17th, 2009 Memorandum Decision and Order (Doc. 200) and requests a hearing be scheduled for determination of infringement and to provide evidence of the invalidity and unenforceability of the Plaintiff's '577 and '892 Patents:
General Objection -Defendant Smith objects to the name GreenGlides being used in proceedings. GreenGlides is a company name, not a product name. GreenGlides, the company, has never been sued. Lisa Smith and Jeff Lydon along with several other individuals not related to the GreenGlides Company were sued by the Plaintiffs as individuals only. The name and company remain unencumbered and the continual references to "GreenGlides" in this case are at best, confusing and likely prejudicial, deceptive and unfair.
Defendant Lydon's Motion to Continue: Defendant Smith has no responses, corrections or objections to this paragraph.
Order to Show cause:
(iii) binders containing documents entitled "Profit and Loss Detail" for years 2006 through 2008j -Correction: The documents also included 2005. The records included encompass all records from 2005 through 2008 regarding Profit and Loss.
Page 4, near bottom of page:
"In addition, Harris Research employees and counsel identified the GreenGlides' products (manufactured from a Teflon-like material) that infringe on Harris research's patents numbered 6,298,577 ("577 Patent") and 6.266,892 ("892 Patent") that had been brought to the hearing in three bankers boxes by Defendant Smith." -Defendant Smith objects on the basis of the method Harris research's employees and counsel used to determine whether any of these products infringe is unclear.
2
Case 1:05-cv-00136-CW-DN Document 217 Filed 11/03/2009 Page 2 of 11
Each product needed individual examination and comparison to the patent claims. Defendant Smith was not given the opportunity to argue that any products did not infringe. Counsel did not give claim comparisons of each product, nor offer the claim construction they used to arrive at the conclusion of infringement. Considering that all 176 products were examined in less than 15 minutes a thorough evaluation was not given.
It is not the duty of Harris Research to determine whether any products Ms. Smith produces now, since the Injunction, or in the future infringe the '577 or '892 patents. It is the determination of the Court based on the claim construction offered by Harris in their Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support. Defendant Smith requests that briefs be submitted to argue the relative infringement or non-infringement of each individual and unique product in question. Defendant Smith should have the right to argue that products do not infringe and Plaintiff Harris Research needs to provide a claim construction that is consistent, especially in light of differing claim construction used in other cases with the same patents.
The Court should also note that since the September 11th hearing, a portion of the claims of these patents have been dropped, and in light of this, and the differing claim construction adopted in the California case, re-evaluation of the products in question in this case is in order.
Defendant Smith maintains the products Plaintiffs assert infringe the 577 and 892 patents, in fact, do not infringe. Defendant Smith also maintains that Plaintiffs 577 and 892 patents are invalid due to prior art, obviousness, anticipation, and indefiniteness and the 892 patent is unenforceable due to Double Patenting. Defendant Smith would like to present evidence to this at the requested hearing.
3
Case 1:05-cv-00136-CW-DN Document 217 Filed 11/03/2009 Page 3 of 11
Page 5, top of page: " ...exhibits, returned to the three bankers boxes and delivered to the custody of counsel for Harris Research to be maintained as evidence in this lawsuit." -The products were to be left with the Court, not delivered to the custody of Harris' counsel.
Findings of Fact, Paragraph #1-Defendant Smith would like to correct the zip code of her home address, it is not 82586, but is 92586. Defendant Smith maintains she is not in custody of any infringing products.
Findings of Fact, Paragraph #2 -Defendant Smith maintains she does not market and distribute products which infringe Plaintiff's patents.
Findings of Fact, Paragraph #3 -Defendant Smith would like to offer that the business address for Mr. Weber is incorrect. The unit # should be 4, not 104. Defendant Smith maintains that Mr. Weber has asked that all GreenGlides operations remain in place and as they were until he has the opportunity to decide whether to move them to an alternate facility. Because Mr. Weber also lives at the home, this does not serve to be an inconvenience to him, not does it serve as evidence the transfer is incomplete.
Findings of Fact, Paragraph #4 -Objection on relevance. GreenGlides is a company name unencumbered by this or any other lawsuit pending before any court.
Findings of Fact, Paragraph #5 -Possession of the GreenGlides QuickBooks files would not enable a determination of damages in this case. The file was used basically as a customer database and to keep track of accounts receivable.
4
Case 1:05-cv-00136-CW-DN Document 217 Filed 11/03/2009 Page 4 of 11
It in no way constitutes a complete analysis of neither the costs of goods sold nor the overhead and other costs of doing business.
Defendant Smith objects to releasing the names, addresses, personal information or phone numbers of all customers, distributors and vendors. This information is private and these individuals and people have not authorized the release of their information to anyone other than GreenGlides.
Findings of Fact, Paragraph #6 -Ms. Smith was able to trace the website and arrange for the removal of all products and the shopping cart.
Conclusions of Law, Paragraph #5 & 6 -Defendant Smith objects. The Judgment and Injunction are binding solely against Defendants Lydon and Smith. The GreenGlides business is separate and unencumbered. If Plaintiffs feel Mr. Weber is infringing any of Plaintiff's patents they should be required to open a separate cause of action against him. If the Court decides to join Mr. Weber as a Defendant is this case, he will be unfairly hobbled in his attempts to prove Plaintiff's patents are invalid, unenforceable and his products do not infringe, because the current case is post-Judgment and Injunction.
Conclusions of Law, Paragraph #7 & 8 -All products have been removed from the GreenGlides website and the shopping cart removed.
5
Case 1:05-cv-00136-CW-DN Document 217 Filed 11/03/2009 Page 5 of 11
Conclusions of Law, Paragraph #9 -Defendant Smith has submitted her responses and objections to Plaintiff's accounting of attorney's fees and expenses under separate cover (Document #206, filed 10/27/2009), and incorporates all such objections herein.
Conclusions of Law, Paragraph #10 -Defendant Smith will not be responding to the Report and Recommendation re: Jeff Lydon.
Order, Paragraph #1 & 2 -Defendant Smith turned over all records previously in this case and sensitive information relating to customers, distributors and vendors were subject to {{protective order". Defendant Smith complied and cooperated in good faith. Immediately upon receiving Injunction Plaintiffs petitiuoned the Court and were granted access and use of these personal records and the entire database received threatening letters, using an (overbroad) Injunction which included (and still includes) such products as vacuum hose, wand jets, portable extractors and all manner of items in order to willfully damage Defendants GreenGlides business and create panic in the marketplace. Again Defendant Smith reminds the court that GreenGlides is the name of a business, NOT a product. However Plaintiffs illegally contacted and harassed GreenGlides customers, distributors and vendors. This was all sanctioned by the Court who lifted the protective order. Due to this experience Defendant Smith declines to release information regarding customers, distributors and vendors.
Defendant Smith has no problem releasing any and all financial information. Although Defendant Smith maintains that any information gathered from the GreenGlides Quickbooks file is subject to interpretation and is not gathered or maintained according to standard accounting procedures. Defendant Smith is a layperson with no previous accounting or bookkeeping experience.
6
Case 1:05-cv-00136-CW-DN Document 217 Filed 11/03/2009 Page 6 of 11
Ms. Smith does not employee the services of an accountant or bookkeeper, except for a tax preparer to prepare annual tax returns. Information stored in the GreenGlides Quickbooks file is organized in a way to make it easy for Ms. Smith to understand. She does not utilize the full potential of the Quickbooks system and thus, the file does not provide a full or accurate picture of the finances of the GreenGlides company. Inventory and costs are not input. Bank balances and deposits were kept at one point and then dropped at some point for overcomplicating
the process and due to uncertainty on the part of Ms. Smith to how to apply various costs, etc. and which account to use. Ms. Smith kept the Quickbooks file merely as a more primitive record of Accounts Receivable and customer/vendor information only and it in no way reflects or will accurately reveal sales, profits, costs, etc. Therefore and for reasons stated above, Defendant Smith objects to this paragraph.
Order, Paragraph #3 -Defendant Smith maintains that she has no products in her custody and/or control that infringe Harris Research's '577 and '892 Patents. Defendant Smith also maintains that the '577 and '892 Patents are invalid due to prior art, anticipation, indefiniteness and obviousness and the '892 Patent is unenforceable due to Double Patenting. Items identified in exhibits "A" and "B" to the Order have not had the benefit of comparison to the claims of the '577 and '892 patent and Plaintiffs have not presented a consistent construction of the '577 and '892 Patents claims.
7
Case 1:05-cv-00136-CW-DN Document 217 Filed 11/03/2009 Page 7 of 11
Page 9, bottom of page, lilt is FURTHER ORDERED, in aid of the Permanent Injunction, that Defendants Smith and Lydon, and any other person associated with GreenGlides,...." -Defendant Smith objects and points out again that the Defendants Smith and Lydon were sued as individuals only, not ((Doing Business As". The continual efforts of Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' counsel to sneak the GreenGlides business name into proceedings and cause the Judgment and Injunction to be binding against it or people associated with it, is unfair, deceptive and predjudicial. GreenGlides is the name of a company, not a product. Defendant Smith also incorporates all objections and responses set forth above and asserts that many items listed on (i), (ii) and (iii) were specifically excluded during the September 11, 2009 hearing and are now attempting to be reintroduced. And Defendant Smith points out again that the Injunction is extremely overbroad and unfair and was won, not on the merits, but by DEFAULT alone.
Page 10, bottom of page, ((It is FURTHER ORDERED......" -All products have been removed from the GreenGlides website and the shopping cart removed.
Warning -As response to the Warning and in conclusion Defendant Smith asserts:
"An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law." --Martin Luther King, Jr.
8
Case 1:05-cv-00136-CW-DN Document 217 Filed 11/03/2009 Page 8 of 11
Sometimes an individual must stand up for principles they believe in and know to be true despite the overwhelming odds and the inequity of the match. In a justice system which meters out justice in direct proportion to the ability to pay for it, there is no justice. And, in the words of Ben Franklin, "Without justice, courage is weak". We are every day eroding the ability of small enterprises, sole proprietors and small corporations with limited and modest financial means to defend themselves or initiate legal actions against large entities with deep pockets and unlimited ability to pay for counsel and extensive discovery.
By allowing actions such as this one to come to the point of Judgment and Permanent Injunction without benefit of counselor aid to the Defendants, without adequate defense of any kind, is totally contrary to the principles this country was built upon. How many laymen, tiny business owners, or other people, would have stood as long as I, the Defendant, have stood hoping that some Judge would see the inequity being handed out in this case? How many would have caved, given up or agreed to an unfair settlement? Long after the Injunction in this case was filed, a famous patent examiner (not an attorney) became aware of this case and saw the inequity of how these patents were being used improperly to not only control the Defendant, but the entire industry. He, at no charge, donated his time and efforts, to ghost write Defendant's documents 88, 89, 90 and 99, because he felt an extreme and egregious injustice was being committed.
While defendants were eventually granted a Special Master, they were unable to pay for said Special Master and unaware of how much one cost. Which leads us to the question: Why should financial limitations be a bar to justice being served? Again, is this Justice?? Maybe we should call it what it really appears to be; handing over the power and control of our country's commerce to large corporations through intimidation and financial blackmail sanctioned by law.
No money, no justice.
DATED this 1ST day of November, 2009.
9
Case 1:05-cv-00136-CW-DN Document 217 Filed 11/03/2009 Page 9 of 11
Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Smith, Defendant "in pro se"
10
Take care,
Lisa
 

James Cooper

Premium VIP
Jun 22, 2008
7,024
32
48
54
Brunswick, Georgia
www.jnccarpetsystems.com
Real Name
James Cooper
Business Location
United States
1. they were issued an injuction to stop making glides , but they still make them .

2. Jeff and Lisa got a divorce Lisa remarried and is in the process of selling the company to her husband .

3. Jeff and Lisa had contempt charges from not showing up in court for violating the original injuctiuon . Lisa finally showed up , Jeff didnt - a bench warrant for his arrest has been issued .

4. Lisa was ordered to release the qb files on business related to GG to help determine a financial judgement for HRI . SHe was also ordered to release all infringing product .

5 . This new document above basically says they deny selling infringing product - in other words , they want a new day in court .
 
Jun 18, 2008
2,578
7
0
Real Name
Glide Pro
Business Location
United States
can someone summarize that so I don't have to read it all?


Well I did read it all and understand most of it.

It could be summed up as the following:

HRI and the courts have really done it to me this time, and my options are very limited. So here are a bunch of technical grounds why this process should be stopped. Help!:AddEmoticons04259:
 
Jun 18, 2008
2,578
7
0
Real Name
Glide Pro
Business Location
United States
1. they were issued an injuction to stop making glides , but they still make them .

2. Jeff and Lisa got a divorce Lisa remarried and is in the process of selling the company to her husband .

3. Jeff and Lisa had contempt charges from not showing up in court for violating the original injuctiuon . Lisa finally showed up , Jeff didnt - a bench warrant for his arrest has been issued .

4. Lisa was ordered to release the qb files on business related to GG to help determine a financial judgement for HRI . SHe was also ordered to release all infringing product .

5 . This new document above basically says they deny selling infringing product - in other words , they want a new day in court .


James;

Your summary is much better detailed than mine and helps the readers understand better whats going on better I think.

Thanks:AddEmoticons0423:
 

Nick N

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2008
4,939
129
63
Texas
www.truckmountforums.com
Here is the bottom line .. Lisa and greenie enjoyed the goodlife at someone elses expense and intellectual property.

Lisa and Greenie (Jeff Lydon) refused to higher a attorney to defend them in the HRI lawsuit.

Lisa and Greenie refused to show up to court and were in contempt several times. Lisa and Greenie lied to carpet cleaners making it appear they were fighting the fight and paying for a special master wich they did not do and were in contempt of court . The Judge tried to help these two but they refused the help. The judge ordered Lisa to comply with his orders. Lisa and greenie lost the lawsuit. Now Lisa is asking for a retrial that wont happen.. Bottom line is Lisa is now in contempt and watch for a warrant to be issued for her to.

Bottom line is Lisa and Greenie continue to break the law from a US FEDERAL JUDGE.

Basically Lisa and Greenie like being BB rockstars and like the money that came with duping carpet cleaners and suppliers. A lot of suppliers like John Olson are going to be forced to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages becuase of Lisa and Greenies negligence.
 

Kevin Dumas

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2008
3,366
908
113
Binghamton, NY
Real Name
Kevin Dumas
Here is the bottom line .. Lisa and greenie enjoyed the goodlife at someone elses expense and intellectual property.

Lisa and Greenie (Jeff Lydon) refused to higher a attorney to defend them in the HRI lawsuit.

Lisa and Greenie refused to show up to court and were in contempt several times. Lisa and Greenie lied to carpet cleaners making it appear they were fighting the fight and paying for a special master wich they did not do and were in contempt of court . The Judge tried to help these two but they refused the help. The judge ordered Lisa to comply with his orders. Lisa and greenie lost the lawsuit. Now Lisa is asking for a retrial that wont happen.. Bottom line is Lisa is now in contempt and watch for a warrant to be issued for her to.

Bottom line is Lisa and Greenie continue to break the law from a US FEDERAL JUDGE.


Basically Lisa and Greenie like being BB rockstars and like the money that came with duping carpet cleaners and suppliers. A lot of suppliers like John Olson are going to be forced to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages becuase of Lisa and Greenies negligence.

Nick, I know you did not type that.
 

Jim Martin

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2008
2,656
260
83
Tucson Arizona
trust me..it was a train wreck before it got edited.....I thought I was going to have to get an interpreter to help me figure it out....

I think that is why they let him go at his last job.....

3nb3m53p91f61431g88cq7395eb0cd5c-1.jpg
 

Nick N

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2008
4,939
129
63
Texas
www.truckmountforums.com
Jimmy boy, you may call it a train wreck, the bottom line is your boy greenie AKA Jeff Lydon and Lisa Smith caused a Super FUBAR. Bottom Line..

Now when you read what Lisa did about the glides that infringed and did not infring. Lisa thru her IGNORANCE or STUPIDITY may have given HRI more power to remove more glides. The judge has ruled other glides infringe . Thanks Lisa . Next time have Legal counsel present.
 

able 1

Member
Aug 26, 2008
745
7
18
Real Name
Able
Business Location
United States
Jimmy boy, you may call it a train wreck, the bottom line is your boy greenie AKA Jeff Lydon and Lisa Smith caused a Super FUBAR. Bottom Line..

Now when you read what Lisa did about the glides that infringed and did not infring. Lisa thru her IGNORANCE or STUPIDITY may have given HRI more power to remove more glides. The judge has ruled other glides infringe . Thanks Lisa . Next time have Legal counsel present.

REALLY NICK! Dude! Have you totally given up on all sales to anyone on this board cause of "Greenie"! Your negitivity would be a total turn off to me... All this is getting OLD!

Fun to watch your posts and see how much you HATE though....(sorry)

BTW didn't Ken Harris just sell a wand with a Green Glide on it? haha