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: Bill Ulrich who wrote (3106)	6/28/1999 10:44:00 PM
From: Tom C	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3795

Bill, I reread BW's EX PARTE motion. I get the impression that Roger is miffed that this suit might inconvenience his personal life. Is there some special unwritten "Lawyer" rule that only the Defendants in a civil suit (btw "civil suit" is a great oxymoron) are expected to be personally inconvenienced? If you each decided to go on vacation for a month or two after being served, do you think the court would've accepted, "Sorry I can't deal with that now, I'll be vacationing in the Caymans for awhile, we'll respond to the charges when we get back say April 2000." Would BW have accepted this? I'm sure you noticed that Roger specifically used the Breach of Contract issue in the Ex Parte motion as an example of, in his words, "a non speech cause of action" and "not within the scope of 425.16." Maybe he realizes he doesn't want to stand before the judge and try to offer proof for that charge. I hope the EX PARTE motion fails then we can have an EX EX PARTE PARTY! Tom