Posted On:10/27/2011 6:55pm
Style: judo hiatus
Last entry above should have been 970123 for court case by Spectrum Shopping Center.
Waste a couple of minutes for another two videos.
First one at upper left video 0:41. Pitiful knee demonstration.
Second one shows a photo of a seminar at 0:41. Hardly international, this one is at Larry Sanders' Black Belt Academy. We know Larry from
This is the same Larry Sanders who failed Gary Dill's JKD test and certified himself. Later, when Carter failed his test and was probationary black with retest within six months, he skipped out on Dill and had himself certified in JKD through good old lying Larry. This comes from my conversations with Dill himself.
Any help on Hargrave's circlejerk connections is appreciated.
Carter Hargrave's Jeet Can't Do
Posted On:10/27/2011 7:06pm
One for lultz and history of now offering
Tulsa Kenpo - Tulsa Karate - Tulsa Ju Jitsu - Tulsa Arnis...
Posted On:10/28/2011 6:10am
Thats hilarious, I think he was going for the look that will "strike fear into your opponents hearts", but all he managed was "irate office manager".
I really have to know who taught him his fine sword skills.
Posted On:10/28/2011 8:11am
Style: Siling Labuyo Arnis
Originally Posted by Yoj
I really have to know who taught him his fine sword skills.
he's subtlely pointing at the ninja, sneaking up to attack.
By the Hoary Hand of Hoggoth.....
Posted On:12/17/2011 1:43pm
Style: JKD & Mok'bara
It has been a while since I've been here, so a thread on a complete tool seems to be an interesting way to restart
The reason I came back is because a similar thread has popped up over at MAP, and I felt it useful to cross-reference the two.
Lets see if I get served my "cease and desist" order
C'mon Carter - I dare you!
Posted On:12/17/2011 9:47pm
From the MAP thread linked by Hanniballistic
Lots of arts there. Why is this in the JKD section?
Am I to assume you are not questioning his FMA or Kempo credentials?
Ed Goco Galang never responded to the email sent to him inquiring into Hargrave's receiving his certificate for authority to instruct in Galang's CKIUSA system. Certificate shown is dated 28 June 2005.
Hargrave heads to Las Vegas on 8 October 2005 to give a seminar at $150 per head.
Can't find the link at the moment, but three people were promoted and certified by Hargrave as a result of his weekend in Vegas. This includes Galang himself. Will search more to find the other names as I apparently did not bookmark the page on CKI's site.
Galang's resume, if for real, reads as though he has actual experience and talent. Why seek certification from organization ran by a mediocre at best huckster with actual shodan only level of training?
Posted On:7/17/2012 8:29pm
From the National Law Review by Adam Auchter Allgood:
The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the sua sponte dismissal of Carter Hargrave’s pro se trademark infringement claim since he was not the registered owner, but a non-exclusive licensee which had no right to assert the claim. The Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion or violate due process by dismissing Hargrave’s claims at a hearing on his motion for default judgment since his complaint was meritless and could not be salvaged by amendment. Hargrave v. Chief Asian LLC; Case No. 11-5112 (10th Cir., May 7, 2012) (Lucero, J.).
Jeet Kune Do, translated as “the way of the intercepting fist,” is a martial arts discipline created and popularized in the 1960s by famed martial artist and actor Bruce Lee. Plaintiff Carter Hargrave, a martial arts instructor and founder of the World Jeet Kune Do Federation, filed a complaint against owners of the www.jeetkunedo.com website. Hargrave claimed that the defendants were cyber-squatting and infringing on his interests in the mark “Jeet Kune Do”.
To state a claim for trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. §1114(1) or cyberpiracy under §1125(d), the party bringing the action must be the registered owner or assignee of the mark. If a mark is not registered, a claim may still be brought for trademark infringement under §1125(a)(1).
Concord Moon LP, a California limited partnership of whom certain heirs of Bruce Lee are principals, controls the rights in and to the intellectual property of the Bruce Lee Estate and is the registered owner of the “Jeet Kune Do” trademark. At a hearing on Hargrave’s motion for default judgment, Hargrave submitted a copy of a settlement agreement between him and Concord Moon LP as well as a “Trademark Assignment Abstract of Title” in order to establish his rights to the mark. The district court determined that the plain language of the agreement did not grant any exclusive right to the mark, but was simply a basic license to use the mark. Also, the “Trademark Assignment Abstract of Title” outlined a succession of owners and showed that Hargrave was not, nor had ever been, the owner or assignee of the mark. Since Hargrave was not the owner of the registered mark, the 10th Circuit agreed he lacked standing to bring claims under §1114(1) or §1125(d).
Hargrave further argued that he had a common law right to the “Jeet Kune Do” mark that could give rise to claims under §1125(a). However, since the mark was already registered and ownership recorded, a common law trademark was not necessary and §1125(a) did not apply. Since Hargrave’s complaint was based on a legal interest that he did not possess and could not establish though subsequent amendment, the 10th Circuit determined that the district court’s sua sponte dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a claim was proper.
© 2012 McDermott Will & Emery
Another lawsuit bites the dust. What a putz.
Posted On:7/17/2012 8:41pm
A bit long to post in its entirety, but worth a read to see how Coward Hargrave thinks the court was biased against him.
Emphasis is mine.
On appeal, Hargrave challenges the district court's dismissal of his complaint on the merits and its denial of his motion for default judgment. Hargrave also contends that the district court was biased against him as a pro se litigant.
Hargrave argues that the district court violated his right to due process when it changed the purpose of the hearing on his motion for default judgment into a "Trial by Ambush" without giving him any notice. Hargrave further contends that the district court's sua sponte ruling was in error and that default judgment should have been entered in his favor.
Finally, Hargrave contends that the district court judge harbors a bias against pro se litigants that was evidenced by the judge's repeated disrespectful comments during the proceeding. He claims that this bias violated his right to due process. However, to "demonstrate a violation of due process because of judicial bias, a claimant must show actual bias or an appearance of bias." United States v. Nickl, 427 F.3d 1286, 1298 (10th Cir. 2005) (quotation omitted). Under this standard, Hargrave was required to show that a "reasonable, objective person, knowing all the relevant facts, [would] question the judge's impartiality." Id.
..to have been a fly on the wall..
Although Hargrave claims that the district court judge made "disrespectful comments," it appears the judge was simply expressing frustration at the case management obstacles he encountered in a case involving two pro se parties.
Arrogant prick. I'm guessing the judge didn't call him "professor".
Posted On:7/17/2012 8:52pm
From the National Arbitration Forum:
Again, emphasis is mine.
Complainant claims to own common law rights in the term JEET KUNE DO, which refers to a form of martial arts. Jeet Kune Do was founded in the late 1960's by martial arts expert, Bruce Lee. Complainant is one of approximately 50 certified Jeet Kune Do instructors worldwide. Complainant claims to have been a student of the Bruce Lee Jeet Kune Do School in California and to have acquired the rights in the name JEET KUNE DO. However, Complainant provides no evidence to support its assertion that it allegedly acquired rights to this mark.
Sam, if you're out there, how best to go about getting an actual transcript?
Posted On:7/17/2012 8:58pm
Style: TKD, CMA & American Kenpo
Originally Posted by hungryjoe
Hargrave also contends that the district court was biased against him as a pro se litigant.
He alleges that the Judge discriminated against him because he chose to represent himself in court???? Honest Abe said it best:
A person who represents himself has a fool for a client. Abraham Lincoln
Articles and Reviews
Tools and Info