OT, but LOL maybe applies to someone on RB:
------------------------------------------------------
stox.com Inc - Company News
Stox threatens Stockwatch with defamation lawsuit
stox.com Inc URL
Shares issued 5,428,791 Jan 28 close $10.00
Fri 28 Jan 2000 Company News
EDITOR'S NOTE: The following letter appears to be a detailed and
interesting reply by Patrick Lavin to the comments by 'aces' that appeared
on Stockwatch's 'stox.com' forum. Since the sensible forum for Mr. Lavin to
deal with forum matters is that forum itself, this letter is also posted to
the 'stox.com' forum at the Stockwatch Web site.
Mr. Lavin's letter also raises the matter of privacy protection as it
relates to the Internet. He is attacking 'aces' privacy, under the label of
defamation: Stockwatch will seek to protect it.
As Internet privacy is of interest to all forum posters, we encourage our
readers to consider Mr. Lavin's response to 'aces,' and discuss any related
Internet privacy issues on Stockwatch's 'stox.com' discussion forum.
Because Stockwatch forum posters do not have to register with Stockwatch,
we have no way of knowing -- short of a phone call or letter from you --
who is behind a posting handle. Since 'aces' first post on Jan. 17, stox's
stock has risen from $7.50 to today's intraday high of $12.25.
To access the Stockwatch forum entry page use this link:
forums.stockwatch.com/sw/forum.dbm
Here is a link which will take you directly to the stox.com conference:
forums.stockwatch.com/sw/f.dbm?what=start&confid=5241
January 27, 2000
Attention: Mr. John J. Woods
Canada Stockwatch
PO Box 10371
Pacific Centre
700 W Georgia St.
Vancouver BC V7Y 1J6
Attention: Mr. John J. Woods
Canjex Publishing Limited
P.O. Box 48800
2100-1111 West Georgia Street
Vancouver BC V7X 1K9
Mr. John J. Woods
North Vancouver, B.C.
Dear Sirs/Mesdames: RE: PATRICK LAVIN AND STOX.COM INC
We are solicitors representing Patrick Lavin and stox.com Inc (stox.com).
Mr. Lavin is the Chief Financial Officer of stox.com. As you are well
aware, stox.com is a listed company that carries on the business of
aggregating and disseminating financial information on the Internet.
On January 14, 2000 you published material on Canada-Stockwatch.com that is
seriously defamatory of our clients. Publication has continued since that
date, and related material was published on January 17, January 20, and
January 21, 2000. The original publication and repetition shows a
calculated and malicious attempt to damage both the business reputation of
stox.com and the reputation of Patrick Lavin, both in his business and
personal capacity. Mr. Lavin is shocked by this vicious attack on his
personal integrity.
On January 14, 2000 material was posted on your site by a person identified
as "aces". The publication starts by referring to the existence of a
"relationship" between Mr. Lavin and a third party, Mr. Alex Kuznecov. The
following six sentences identify Mr. Kuznecov as an "unsavoury" individual,
who engages in many "false trades", and who as a result has been
"disciplined" by regulatory authorities. The posting then states:
Mr. Lavin has had many opportunities to rid himself of this unsavoury
individual, but has chosen not to.... How can the chief financial
officer of an upstanding company be involved with this kind of
individual and maintain the pretence of being all "above board"?
It is defamatory to allege that a person keeps company with an unsavoury or
dishonest individual, if the insinuation is that he, by reason of that
association or otherwise, is also an unsavoury person or engaged in illicit
conduct. In this case you have published material that in explicit language
makes the inference that Mr. Lavin is tainted by the relationship. The
implication is that Patrick Lavin is not "above board". In context, the
term "above board" clearly refers to matters of probity, honesty and
integrity in his professional handling of matters in the financial
business. In the context of explicit references to "false trades", the
innuendos are of the most serious kind and calculated to cause serious
injury to stox.com Inc. and Mr. Lavin whose business and occupation is in
the financial industry.
The fact that you insinuate the libel by way of an interrogative statement
is no defence. "It is immaterial whether the imputation is conveyed ... by
words used in a declarative or interrogative form": Gatley On Libel, Eight
Edition, paragraph #103. The tendency and effect of the language is the
test. The introductory words, "How can", signal a rhetorical question. A
rhetorical question is "a question asked not for information, but to
produce effect". The tone and context unmistakably conveys that the words
amount to a positive assertion of bad character and misconduct.
The use of the word "pretence" in this context confirms that the question
format is a cover for malicious insinuation. The word "pretence" means a
false or hypocritical profession; a pretext or a cloak. It is synonymous
with "false pretence". One of the malicious imputations of the text is that
Mr. Lavin is in fact maintaining a pretence. The libel portrays our client
as a dishonest and false man who pretends to be honest. The wording is
sardonic mocking, and vitriolic. The disingenuous phrasing, attempting to
conceal the libel in the form of a question, merely underlines the malice
of the parties who participated in this publication.
Subsequent postings published by you repeat the libels and aggravate
damages. Particulars include:
aces date: 2000-01-17 10:51:57
aces date: 2000-01-20 09:38:52
aces date: 2000-01-20 14:57:19
joetrevor date: 2000-01-21 12:25:43
These related publications refer to stox.com as a "bogus enterprise", and
repeat the insinuation that Mr. Kuznecov, whom you have characterized as a
man engaged in illicit and unethical conduct, is involved with the business
of our clients. Taken in context with the publication of January 14, 2000
all of these publications are defamatory.
The third party referred to, Mr. Kuznecov, is neither a director, officer
or in any other way involved in the management of stox.com. It is false to
allege that Mr. Kuznecov is in some way associated with stox.com. Inc.
There is no factual foundation whatsoever to the statement that Mr. Lavin,
either in his personal capacity or as Chief Financial Officer of stox.com
Inc. or in any other connection, is "involved" with Mr. Kuznecov either
socially or in business dealings. The entire posting is based on a factual
allegation of a continuing relationship that is not accurate. Mr. Lavin did
have limited dealings with Mr. Kuznecov in the past in the period
1997-1998, and prior to that with Mr. Kuznecov in his capacity as a
stockbroker. Nothing in that previous relationship was improper. Mr. Lavin
had no involvement whatsoever in the Caprice-Greystoke matter, referred to
in your posting dated January 20, 2000.
The sting of the libel lies in the insinuations that Patrick Lavin is by
reason of a continuing relationship with Mr. Kuznecov not "above board",
and that he is maintaining a "pretence" of honesty and integrity. These
imputations are also seriously defamatory of stox.com Inc. They are all
false and made with actual malice.
Your conduct from this moment onwards in responding to our demands to
mitigate the damages caused by the publication will be taken into account
in any assessment of damages by a court of law. We demand that you
immediately respond as follows:
1. cease and desist from any further publication of material defamatory
of Mr. Lavin or stox.com including any repetition or re-publication of
the libels already published or similar libels;
2. delete the libellous postings from sites operated by Stockwatch;
3. provide us with the identities, names and addresses of the creators of
the libelous postings, in particular the person identified as "aces";
and
4. provide us with the text of an appropriate, full and unqualified
retraction and apology, for our review and approval, to be published
on your site and at other locations to be decided by us. Be warned
that anything less than a full and unqualified apology will merely
aggravate damages. Time is critical in taking steps to mitigate the
damages of your publication. We demand that you provide us with a
draft apology by 4:00 p.m. Monday, January 31, 2000. We require that
publication cease immediately.
We also place you on notice that any further publication from this date
will be taken as evidence that you are engaged in a common enterprise with
persons whose identities are at present unknown to us to wilfully cause
grave damage to our clients.
Due to the seriousness of this situation, we have taken care to lay out in
detail the basis of our clients' complaint. We have made you fully aware of
the cause of the damage, and of the means available to you to mitigate
damages.
We advise that our clients reserve their right to commence action for
recovery of substantial damages for defamation, both against Stockwatch and
each of Stockwatch's employees, editors and contractors who have in any way
participated in the dissemination of these malicious libels. Your
publication has been disseminated to a very large audience, and is
calculated to cause enormous damage. Our immediate objective is to prevent
further damages from your conduct, and to do whatever is possible to
mitigate the injury and loss incurred to date. It is in your interest to
prevent further damages.
We await your response.
Yours truly,
ALEXANDER, HOLBURN, BEAUDIN & LANG
Per: "signed"
David Gooderham
DG/km
|
