Original YTMP material by Robert Baty.
I have given up on trying to figure out why so many people are interested in the dispute between Steve McRae and Kyle Curtis over The NonSequitur Show and just decided to join in. What really amazes me is the amount of attention given to a procedural issue about proper service. There will be a hearing on that issue on September 11, 2020, and Nate the Lawyer will be live streaming it. The latest development in that matter is an affidavit by Steve. There is reference in the affidavit to audio here and here and the video below.
I asked Bob Baty to weigh in. Here is his analysis- PJR
The 09032020 McRae Affidavit – My Analysis
by Robert Baty
September 3, 2020
Background:
Steve McRae and Kyle Curtis have been involved in a controversy over their YouTube activities for many months, currently culminating in the scheduling of an in-person hearing (via videoconferencing) in order to consider Kyle’s motion to have the default judgment vacated based on his claim that “service” was defective. The judgment was entered after Kyle failed to respond to the suit and Steve enjoyed the presumption that “service” was effective based on having mailed the summons to Kyle’s mother’s residence where Kyle used to live and receiving a postal receipt signed by Kyle’s mother. Presently, in my opinion, Kyle has overcome that presumption of “service” based on his claim and evidence that he moved out of his mother’s house several weeks before the alleged “service”. Steve has been claiming that he has “secret” evidence that will insure that “service” will be confirmed by the Court and his default judgment will stand.
On September 1, 2020, the Court scheduled the in-person hearing for September 11, 2020, in order to resolve that pending matter and before deciding how the case might otherwise proceed or be dismissed.
The Steve McRae Affidavit of September 3, 2020
On September 3, 2020, the Court docketed entry of Steve McRae’s “supplemental affidavit in opposition to defendant’s motion to set aside”. This article will offer some opinions of mine regarding what is affirmed, in part, by Steve in his affidavit that seems to bear on the issue of “service”.
Steve’s Claim:
That the address he used (Kyle’s mother’s residence) is the address he was used to using in his dealings with Kyle.
My Observation:
That avails nothing inasmuch as the record shows Kyle had moved from that address weeks before “service” was attempted at Kyle’s mother’s address.
Steve’s Claim:
That Kyle, in public statements made references to having received the summons.
My Observation:
That the summons might have eventually wound up in Kyle’s hands will not cure defective “service”.
Steve’s Claim:
That Kyle claims his mother was not authorized to accept “service” on Kyle’s behalf.
My Observation:
Steve appears to be playing a little game here. The issue turns on whether or not Kyle’s mother was his appointed agent or agent as a matter of law, for purposes of receiving the summons, or an adult with whom Kyle was living at his dwelling or usual place of abode. The record indicates the mother was not Kyle’s “agent” and that Kyle had not been using his mother’s residence as his dwelling or usual place of abode for weeks before the attempted “service”.
Steve’s Claim:
Steve suggests that Kyle received the summons from his mother shortly after she received it and not months later.
My Observation:
I have not found the social media record clear as to when Kyle first received a copy of the documents and by what means. Some evidence suggests his first notice was by email and much later the original documents from his mother.
At this point, however, I don’t find that matter relevant if “service” at Kyle’s mother’s residence was defective because he no longer lived there and his mother was not appointed as Kyle’s agent nor was his agent as a matter of law.
Steve’s Claim:
Steve references social media accounts, after the alleged “service”, where Kyle claims he received the summons, claims he was responding and claims he did not move.
My Observation:
I am not informed as to the details of that claim or how Kyle might have responded earlier. It does, on its face, present an issue for Kyle to rebut, particularly with reference to Steve’s use to try and show Kyle was still living with his mother at the time of the alleged “service”.
Steve’s Claim:
Steve references another social media record where Kyle claims he had received the summons and had intended to timely respond, but didn’t.
My Observation:
I am again unfamiliar with the details of this claimed event or Kyle’s rebuttal. It does, on its face, present an issue for Kyle to rebut.
Steve’s Claim:
Steve again references social media where Kyle laments not having dealt properly with the matter, alluding to personal issues that prevented him from doing so.
My Observations:
Another matter for Kyle to deal with.
My further observations regarding Steve’s social media references:
Based on Steve’s references, Kyle would appear to have made admissions against interest that could result in his motion to vacate the default judgment to be denied, but appearances may be deceptive and Steve may be trying to capitalize on appearances instead of the facts.
As I understand it, at the time indicated in the references, Kyle was not represented by counsel and has no particular legal expertise. I cannot tell that the defective “service” issue had even been raised by Kyle; perhaps because of his inability to properly evaluate his legal standing.
Kyle is now represented by Counsel and the first order of business has been to resolve the “service” issue on which the default judgment will either stand or fall.
Ultimately, it appears to me that the issue will hinge on whether or not Kyle’s dwelling and usual place of abode with at his mother’s residence. If so, it would be uncontested that “service” was effective.
Without regard to social media banter, the record currently before the Court indicates that Kyle moved out of his mother’s residence weeks before the attempted “service”. If so, the “service” was defective, the Court lacks jurisdiction, and the default judgment must be vacated.
The Court will have the opportunity on September 11, 2020, to hear directly from both parties about the contested factual matters.
I think it more likely than not that the default judgment will be vacated.
We will see.
.
Some of my other coverage, including my own run-in with Steve McRae, can be found at the following links:
http://kehvrlb.com/steve-mcrae-v-kyle-curtis-service
http://kehvrlb.com/steve-mcrae-v-robert-baty
http://kehvrlb.com/steve-mcrae-v-anna-ayscue-rosen-law
.
Information coming in today, from McRae, filed with the Court, suggests Curtis has, indeed, founded his case upon fraudulent, forged documents.
Even some of his sympathizers are indicating “he’s done for”.
It won’t be long, maybe, till we find out.
I’ve added the information to my article on “service” at:
http://kehvrlb.com/steve-mcrae-v-kyle-curtis-service
.