Re: [KLYS] Update on Retractions & Lawsuit
By: BMPEsquire $$$
Reply To: None Monday, 31 Jul 2000 at 2:57 PM EDT
Post #13852 of 13933
UPDATE ON RETRACTIONS & LAWSUIT
We have seen posted on this web site, so far, unequivocal retractions from 3 of the 5 persons we named on Friday.
They are (in order of posting): DOTRAT (post #13762), SHADOW99 (post #13815), and LUCIFERSHAMMER (post #13843). We thank these individuals for their prompt responses and confirm that we will not sue them for the information which they have retracted.
We have received one equivocal retraction from CHUCKTHECLUTCH (post # 13781) which is not really clear enough to be deemed a retraction (especially when compared to the retractions issued by the other 3, which are very clear).
The problem is, on Friday (post #13781), CHUCKTHECLUTCH says "I guess I should apologize although I am not certain for what. So I apologize for anything I may have said that harmed Surber . . ."
Then, on Sunday (post # 13821), CHUCKTHECLUTCH contradicts this retraction by saying that he has a female relative attorney who is "completely pissed" about this demand for retraction and who believes "slander is virtually impossible to prove." He then says "I have the time, about to retire. I have a 'free' expenses only lawyer available."
Since CHUCKTHECLUTCH says only that he guesses he should apologize, and then he says he's ready to litigate, we will take this as an invitation to file suit unless he clarifies his retraction by our original deadline (3 business days from last Friday). We suggest CHUCKTHECLUTCH refer to the retractions issued by the other 3 persons, as examples of retractions which we have deemed acceptable.
We still have not heard from TOOHOTTOHANDL8 and will file suit against him/her if no retraction is issued by our deadline. If he/she claims not to have received notice of our deadline, we will find out his/her real name and give him/her old-fashioned personal service.
CHUCKTHECLUTCH has asked for my bar number: it is Utah State Bar # 6781--a matter of public knowledge for anyone who cared to call the Utah State Bar.
REDINVESTOR's post # 13761 is also an accurate summary of my qualifications--BA (with honors) from Brigham Young U.; JD from University of Washington; studies under a FLAS fellowship at Stanford University; listed in Who's Who in American Law.
I would like to briefly clarify that no money from Kelly's Coffee Group, Inc. is being used to pay me. No company funds are being wasted. Mr. Surber personally has made payment arrangements with me, which I deem satisfactory.
We are also clarifying some of the "precedents" we are relying on to sue these individuals. Contrary to CHUCKTHECLUTCH's claim (by his unnamed relative), several recent cases have been successfully prosecuted against chat room aliases, including people who have posted ON RAGING BULL stock sites.
For example, TALK VISUAL CORP. (OTCBB: TVCP) and its Chairman, Michael J. Zwebner, recently obtained judgments of $1 million each against Ramon Silvestre (Internet Alias "Rico Staris")and Gary Dobry (alias "Pugs" and "Spider Valdez")in a case syled Michael Zwebner v. Gary Dobry and David Shepard et als., United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, Civil No. 98-CV-682M. Roberto Villasensor (Raging Bull aliases "the_worm06" and "el_gusano06") was also discovered and served in that litigation.
For anyone who wishes to call the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, they can verify that the plaintiff, Mr. Zwebner, was represented by a Salt Lake City, Utah attorney named Mark Van Wagoner, whose office is only about 5 blocks from mine. The other plaintiff's attorney was Victor Polk of the Boston law firm of Bingham & Dana, a 400-attorney firm with extensive internet experience.
I have been in touch with Mr. Van Wagoner's office, and an associate of his has been kind enough to provide me with much relevant information to prosecute this case.
Several of the people sued in that case were also the subject of SEC proceedings as well, relating to stock fraud and securities violations. False statements on stock web sites are not taken lightly.
I have also had a very fruitful conversation with Raging Bull staff, who have provided me with the proper procedure to follow, as well as contact information for their Massachusetts attorneys who, I am informed, typically will accept service of subpoenas for true identities.
Based on my research and contacts so far, I am over 90% confident that we will be able to successfully discover the identities of those whose aliases we have targeted.
For the three of you who have issued retractions, we express our gratitude and confirm again that we will not sue you for the information you have retracted.
For CHUCKTHECLUTCH and TOOHOTTOHANDL8, we reiterate our demand for unequivocal retractions to be posted on this web site by the end of the business day on Wednesday, August 2, 2000. If you do not issue them by that time, we will most assuredly take further legal action.
ragingbull.altavista.com |
