Re: [KLYS] Tête-à-têtes with Surber's lawyer on Raging Bull
By: clou $$$
Reply To: 13852 by BMPEsquire $$$ Monday, 31 Jul 2000 at 3:13 PM EDT
Post #13853 of 13941
Thank you for your follow up post. I believe Chuck was waiting for a little more proof as to the validity of your post as was I. There are so many on these boards that are not what they say they are so it was reassuring to have you post your bar number.
I am one of many posters that own shares in KLYS & have at times been swayed by information on this thread. I take full responsibility for my decision to do so since the info on this thread has assisted me in the DD of this stock . I still believe we will RM & I will make the money that I have always hoped for.
Thank you Mr. Surber for reassuring the troops and cleaning up this thread! CLOU
ragingbull.altavista.com
=====
By: chucktheclutch $$$$
Reply To: 13852 by BMPEsquire $$$ Monday, 31 Jul 2000 at 4:10 PM EDT
Post #13856 of 13941
BMPEsquire
Thanks for providing your State Bar #
Please see the following.
Mr Pritchett and Mr Surber
I retract all my previous posts/statements made on the Raging Bull, KLYS board.
All of the posts were either opinion or what I had been
told and believed to be fact. If they are not true,
I apologize.
chucktheclutch
ragingbull.altavista.com
=====
By: BMPEsquire $$$
Reply To: 13856 by chucktheclutch $$$$ Monday, 31 Jul 2000 at 5:34 PM EDT
Post #13859 of 13942
Thank You, CHUCKTHECLUTCH, For Retraction
We note that CHUCKTHECLUTCH has now issued an unequivocal retraction, and we extend the same assurance to him that we have to the other 3 people who have issued retractions: we will not sue you for any statements you have retracted.
This leaves only TOOHOTTOHANDLE8.
ragingbull.altavista.com
=====
By: SuperSky $$$
Reply To: 13852 by BMPEsquire $$$ Monday, 31 Jul 2000 at 5:25 PM EDT
Post #13858 of 13941
GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD.....
Wow, I can post anything I want, whether or not its true, without fear of consequences, as long as I post some half-hearted "retraction". This board gets funnier by the day (Mudshark is in a class by himself tho).
Point is, to win a libel/slander case, you have to prove, among other things, 1. Falsehood 2. Damages. Attorney BMP, by letting these people rip Surber and KLYS publicly, with the most damning statements imaginable (fraud, theft, SEC violations, and the list goes on,) and then agree not to pursue a libel/slander case if they shuffle up to the front of the class room, bow their heads and say "sorry" like some third grader, you make me wonder whether their statements were indeed false and whether Surber et al have suffered any damages because of those statements.
IMO you are killing any chances of successfully pursuing those who do not say "sorry". I can hear Johnnie Cochran for the defense now... If Surber suffered actual damages from this libel/slander, why would he simply walk away from other defendants who also caused damages, just b/c they said "sorry"? Why would he walk away from being compensated for the damages that the retractors caused and pursue others who failed to say the magic words?
IMHO, this stinks.
For the record, I ain't saying that what was posted was true, or false. I'm just commenting on how your position makes things appear, to my puny little brain. And if the above gets anyone bent out of shape, or hurts anyone's feelings, or makes anyone feel bad, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry a million times over. There, that oughta do it.....
ragingbull.altavista.com
=====
By: the_worm06
Reply To: 13852 by BMPEsquire $$$ Tuesday, 1 Aug 2000 at 3:30 AM EDT
Post #13874 of 13941
BMPEsquire:
Sirs,
You have made a false statement regarding Mr. Villasenor (the_worm06).
I strongly suggest that you research the New Hampshire lawsuit. You will find that at no point was Mr. Villasenor ever "discovered and served in that litigation". This is an absolutely false statement.
I expect an unequivocal retraction on your false statement and a public apology.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
the_worm06
ragingbull.altavista.com
=====
By: BMPEsquire $$$
Reply To: 13874 by the_worm06 Tuesday, 1 Aug 2000 at 2:34 PM EDT
Post #13893 of 13943
NO APOLOGY TO THE_WORM06
I possess a copy of the Complaint filed 2/14/00 in Third District Court for Salt Lake County, State of Utah, Civil No. 000901274, styled Talk Visual Corporation, a Nevada Corporation, v. John Doe, aka WORM 06, filed by Mark O. Van Wagoner.
In that case, a subpoena dated 2/17/00 was filed and addressed to "Keeper of the Records, Raging Bull, Inc." commanding Raging Bull to produce, at the offices of Bingham Dana LLP, documents "sufficient to identify that name(s), address(es), and telephone number(s) of all person(s) registered with Raging Bull, Inc. under the alias of "the_worm06."
That is you, Mr. Villasensor, as you slyly admit by posting under your known alias, "the_worm06."
This is encompassed within the litigation I described as being conducted by Mr. Van Wagoner for Talk Visual and its Chairman, Mr. Zwebner. Mr. Zwebner's own post here confirms this fact.
Thus, no false statement.
Thus, no apology.
ragingbull.altavista.com
=====
By: BMPEsquire $$$
Reply To: 13899 by the_worm06 Tuesday, 1 Aug 2000 at 7:05 PM EDT
Post #13921 of 13943
Admission that "the_worm06" not named in N.H. suit.
I admit that "the_worm06" was not named as a defendant in the particular New Hampshire lawsuit I mentioned earlier. I apologize to everyone if I gave the misimpression that he was.
"the_worm06" was named in litigation by Zwebner and his attorney Van Wagoner, and his true identity was discovered, and that is the main point bashers should keep in mind. If you step over the line, you can't hide behind an alias; you will be found and called to account.
I'm not going to make any more posts here except as specifically instructed by my client, Richard Surber, so please accept my regards, one and all (MUDSHARK added a particular charm to this thread all his own).
ragingbull.altavista.com
=====
By: InternetZorro $$$
Reply To: 13852 by BMPEsquire $$$ Tuesday, 1 Aug 2000 at 10:19 AM EDT
Post #13880 of 13945
KLYS added to "Dogs of the Doe" list
The following was posted earlier today on the JDA message board at John Does Anonymous Foundation johndoes.org
Author
Topic: Kellys Coffee added to Dogs of Doe index
LesLFrench
Forum Host
Posts: 83
From:Portland,
Oregon USA
Registered: Mar
2000
posted 08-01-2000 10:01
For the first time, a "Doe" stock has been added to the Dogs index prior to
the stocks issuer having filed a lawsuit against anonymous online critics.
In a blatant, bald-faced effort to unethically use the threat and intimidation
of litigation to intimidate online critics to withdraw their public criticism,
Kellys Coffee and its attorneys threatened online critics on the Raging Bull
message board, extorting them to withdraw comments.
Such tactics are unethical, amount to abuse of process, and display the
degree of incompetence of the attorney involved in making these threats.
Such threats are ultimately a lose-lose proposition for Kellys Coffee.
The threats issued by KLYS and its attorneys included lies, inuendo, and
other false statements and misinformation regarding certain John Does and
other parties. The posts by KLYS and its attorneys also falsely stated that
certain John Does are the target of an SEC securities fraud investigation.
These statements were allegedly attributed to Mark Van Waggoner, a Salt
Lake City attorney who is also a key witness in the Zwebner v. Villasenor
lawsuit. This individual is highly biased in favor of Michael Zwebner because
he is highly compensated by Michael Zwebner.
The management of KLYS would do well to contact their attorneys and say
"what a fine mess you have gotten us into". Doe stocks historically perform
terribly once these companies engage in litigation against constitutionally
protected free speech, and typically there is a backlash by the investors.
In fact, the Doe Index has actually fallen 40% since July, 1998, and all
except two Doe stocks (there are over 60) have either been delisted, filed
bankrupcty, been investigated and/or sued by SEC, restated financials, or
fired management. Some companies are all of the above.
I imagine that KLYS can always seek legal assistance from Mark Van
Waggoner. Perhaps Michael J. Zwebner will provide funding. These guys
always seek the lowest common denominator.
In the meantime, RB posters and others are welcome to post their
comments here on the JDA board. Your anonymity will be protected. The
CEO of KLYS is also invited to participate. Perhaps this is a way for
company officials to make amends.
Best regards to all,
Les L. French
(P.S. Personal and Confidential to CEO of KLYS: Suggest you ditch that
jack-*** attorney who posted the threats on Raging Bull. Good Luck.)
ragingbull.altavista.com
=====
By: VIAGRAMAN
Reply To: 13852 by BMPEsquire $$$ Tuesday, 1 Aug 2000 at 12:19 PM EDT
Post #13882 of 13941
BMPEsquire,
So let me get this straight, you publicly threaten internet posters who allegedly brought harm to your client?
Smooth move! oops, I'm sorry! There, I guess I'm off the hook! Please allow me to retract my next ten posts: I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry!
Ole Lucy may have been annoying, but he did help expose your clients partnerships and relationships with a convicted felon!
Are we to assume your clients only fault here was his terrible sense of judgment by establishing business ventures with a convicted felon who, OBTW, is now being charged as a ringleader in the largest stock fraud scheme ever?
I feel much better about my investment now!
You now have the dubious distinction of sullying your clients reputation with 3 posts. It took Lucy nearly 300! You must be an attorney!
If I didn't know any better, I'd think you work for the lawfirm of Dewey, Chetum, and Howe featuring Moe, Larry and Curly!
ragingbull.altavista.com
=====
By: kpn99 $$$$
Reply To: 13852 by BMPEsquire $$$ Tuesday, 1 Aug 2000 at 12:25 PM EDT
Post #13885 of 13940
You have to be a joke! eom
ragingbull.altavista.com
=====
By: BMPEsquire $$$
Reply To: 13919 by InternetZorro $$$ Tuesday, 1 Aug 2000 at 7:30 PM EDT
Post #13924 of 13944
Parting Words--Respect for Surber and Not for Guilt by Association
I had not thought to make any more posts, but the timing of InternetZorro's last post, which I had not read when making mine, prompts this (I believe final on my part) reply:
I have abundant respect for Richard Surber. In my opinion, he is exceptionally bright and capable. I work with him frequently, and I have seen attorneys 10-25 years older than him consult him on complicated securities questions frequently. I am amazed by his level of knowledge.
Yes, his uncle has been convicted of more than one crime. However, I don't believe that any of these convictions has been within the past 5 years (or at any time that Mr. Surber was presiding over a public company), and in my opinion, condemning Mr. Surber for his uncle's conduct is merely guilt by association. It is entirely possible that Mr. Surber is a positive influence on such events.
Today I read, carefully, the recent post about the summary judgment against Canton, which includes an appeals court opinion, and it appeared to me that summary judgment against Mr. Surber personally was NOT granted.
In my personal opinion, I would not want to be condemned for every crime or inappropriate action any one of my relatives had committed. Almost everyone has that uncle or cousin on one side of the family or the other who has had trouble with the law.
In my opinion, Mr. Surber's accomplishments as a person one year out of law school are truly remarkable. In time, it is my opinion that they will only become more so.
That's all I have to say. Goodbye.
ragingbull.altavista.com |
