"Personal truth", i.e. subjective belief in the truth of the statement is no defense if the statement is made with reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the statement.
Believe me: Spidey and Rico carry the concept of subjective truth to extremes that would leave you open-mouthed.
"The judge has ordered that the shares be returned immediately."
"Andy Mann is a fugitive."
"Dr Daaboul plans to use ToN with his young diabetic patients."
"The transfer agent was fired."
And so on and on and on. It's a very long list. What's even more astonishing is that you can produce documentation: direct quotes from the transcript of the injunction hearing, say, and they continue to repeat the same old nonsense. For example:
To: Spider Valdez (11798 )
From: Janice Shell
Sunday, Nov 15 1998 1:57PM ET
Reply # of 11812
no janice i do not because aznt win & court RULE IMMEDIATE RETURN OF STOCK…
Um, Spidey. Nowhere in this 129-page document does the Court say anything of the kind. And remember that injunction that we posted on Magnetic Diary? That you claimed was "edited"? Sorry, wrongo. The transcript makes it VERY clear that the document signed by the judge--over the protests of Qualey--was precisely what we produced. No more, no less.
Over the course of the evening, and perhaps the next few days, we shall demonstrate that, and a number of other things.
Not only does the Court not order that stock be returned. At the very end of the hearing we come upon this interesting exchange:
9 THE COURT: Well, I'm going to sign this order as it
10 is now and expect that they will abide about it in spirit, and
11 that you as well.
12 If you want further modification that isn't going to create
13 problems with third parties, you can come back, and I'll have
14 another hearing to deal with that, but I'm limiting to this
15 right now.
16 THE WITNESS: Your Honor?
17 THE COURT: And I don't get the feeling that the
18 plaintiff is not without some level of culpability here as
19 well. You should know that.
20 I can't imagine this idea that you execute the stock and
21 give every impression that there are no limitations on it
22 relying somehow on it being illegal to do so, though you
23 testify that nobody knows about it, and that troubles me.
The "order" in question is the two-paragraph injunction as we posted it. It was written by one of the defense attorneys, not by Judge George. As I noted earlier, Robert Qualey, AZNT's lawyer (and an officer of the company) objected, saying that he wished to make amendments. The judge replied, as you see, that he could submit such amendments on the following Monday and request a further hearing, but in the meanwhile he would sign the order.
To date no further hearing has been held, or scheduled.
(AND I got 11800!!)
|
