Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Business Wire Falls for April Fools Prank, Sues FBNers -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom C who wrote (3046)	6/21/1999 9:53:00 PM
From: marcos	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3795

'Bifurcated' means 'split in two' ... at least it does in botany, anyway. Sounds like [reference deleted] wants to split their feeble attempt into two legal series ... but, as Bruce points out, they are inextricably entwined ... and [rd]'s motive is suspect, as well.

To: Tom C who wrote (3046)	6/21/1999 10:13:00 PM
From: Bill Ulrich	Respond to of 3795

Nolo Press: "Everybody's Law Dictionary - contains plain-English definitions for legal terms." nolo.com bifurcate: To separate the issues in a case so that one issue or set of issues can be tried and resolved before the others. For example, death penalty cases are always bifurcated. The court or jury first hears the evidence of guilt and reaches a verdict, and then hears evidence about and decides upon which punishment to impose (death or life in prison without parole). Bifurcated trials are also common in product liability class action lawsuits in which many people claim that they were injured by the same defective product--the issue of liability is tried first, followed by the question of damages. Bifurcation is authorized by Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. nolo.com

To: Tom C who wrote (3046)	6/22/1999 12:08:00 AM
From: EL KABONG!!!	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 3795

Tom C, As thread founder, it's time I put in an appearance on this thread. I was the first poster to speculate that the BW lawsuit looked like a SLAPP action to me (see: exchange2000.com ). I also think that the defendants have excellent grounds for a SLAPP-back response once the initial lawsuit has been adjudicated. I was somewhat pleased to read that the defendants' attorney agrees with me in his defense filing. One aspect of this lawsuit that has always puzzled me was the true motive(s) of BW in filing this lawsuit. In researching the BW legal team, it becomes immediately obvious that they are an extremely competent and influential partnership. You can vent outrage in their direction, but that doesn't make them stupid. No, they are extremely competent. So the nagging question (for me) is, why-oh-why does BW continue to drag out this lawsuit when (at the very least) their own legal eagles most certainly have informed them that there's a very good chance that they will outright lose the initial action, as well as the possibility of having to respond to a SLAPP-back suit? Some on this thread have suggested that it's possible that BW intends to drag out the legal action as long as possible to maximize the defendants' legal costs. Somehow (to me), that speculation doesn't correlate well with competent legal advice. No, I don't really believe that increased costs are the true reason for the lawsuit. In private messages (to me), others have speculated that BW has something to hide. Well, I would ask, specifically what do they have to hide? So far no one has offered anything more than speculation as an answer to that question. I won't post unsubstantiated speculation on this or any other thread, so I won't publicly travel this avenue of thought any further. However, I will continue to delve into background material that I have found that may or may not have relevance to this lawsuit. My belief has always been that BW is trying to establish through judicial action some point of law, or some precedence that they would be (or have been) unable to establish through legislative channels. I have felt that this is the true motive from the very first day this lawsuit was announced. However, I am unable to specifically identify the exact precedence that they are trying to establish. Perhaps some of the legal minds that lurk this thread could offer an informed guess? KJC