SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Handshake™ who wrote (1546)5/17/2001 11:17:36 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell  Read Replies (1) of 12465
 
Re: 5/11/01 - [MDMN] Legal Update for Case #CV-N-DO-0163

Medinah Minerals, Inc.

Legal Update

Case #CV-N-DO-0163
ECR - VPC

April 27, 2001 - United States District Court - Nevada

The second amended complaint in the case of Medinah et al vs. Benjamin Howe et al was filed April 27, 2001 expanding first, the specifically named individuals to include Michael Craig, Frank W. Cerney and Jerry Segal; and second, to include certain named Doe's such as dpeak, lucky2505, bully, Win-Lose-Draw, geomaxima, WLD, Mikes_ Gold, Mrs. Mike's Gold, PRICELESS, stockwelday, FREDDIEONE, CaptainDV8, vincecastille, nataliesnice, etc.

The third amended complaint will follow forthwith.

medinahmining.com

=====

Note:

I see nothing in the above public statement that would constitute any Terms of Use (TOU) violation here on SI. For someone's privacy to be invaded, IMO, there would have to be explicit or implied links between an SI alias and a real person. There are none. Furthermore, most of the aliases appear to be from Raging Bull and a quick scan of the RB MDMN thread shows that the above statement has been published and republished numerous times implying even RB doesn't consider it a TOU violation. I only mention this because apparently a similar post was deleted from this board a few days ago.

From what I gather from RB, some of the newly named aliases were longtime supporters/shareholders of MDMN who "dared" to ask legitimate business-related questions. As for "vincecastille" in particular, the name that seems to be the bone of contention, it seems obvious to me that the entity being referenced is an (RB) alias, not a real person. If that alias represented the name of someone known to MDMN (i.e. a big shareholder or supporter) that they desired to sue, I would think they'd have used his actual name not an alias that may or may not have belonged to him. I would suggest if said person really does exist and really is embarrassed to see their name in any form associated with the lawsuit that they contact MDMN and get them to change their web site, press releases, and filings accordingly.

- Jeff
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext