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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (578)8/11/2000 1:53:19 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 12465
 
Re: 8/10/00 - [OMDA] Original Media Sues for Libel, Interference with Economic Relations, and Infliction of Emotional Distress


SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

ORIGINAL MEDIA, INC., a Corporation;) CASE NO.:
PROFIT PUBLICATIONS, INC., a )
Corporation; and JAYNE NEWELL- ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
LANZA, an Individual, ) FOR LIBEL, FOR INTERFERENCE
) WITH ECONOMIC RELATIONS,
Plaintiff, ) AND FOR INTENTIONAL
) INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL
vs. ) DISTRESS
)
)
TAJAR; JOHN_RAPP; REAL_DEAL; )
and DOES 1 through 100, )
Inclusive, )
)
Defendants. )
____________________________________)


COMES NOW the Plaintiffs, ORIGINAL MEDIA, INC., a Corporation, PROFIT PUBLICATIONS, INC., a Corporation, and JAYNE NEWELL- LANZA, an Individual, and for causes of action against Defendants, and each of them, allege as follows:

1. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff, ORIGINAL MEDIA, INC., (hereinafter “Original Media”) is a Delaware Corporation which is authorized to conduct business in the State of California and has its corporate offices in Palm Springs, California.

2. Plaintiff, PROFIT PUBLICATIONS, INC., (hereinafter “Profit Publications”) is a Nevada Corporation and is authorized to conduct business in the State of California.

3. Plaintiff JAYNE NEWELL-LANZA IS Chief Executive Officer and President of Original Media, Inc., and Profit Publications, Inc., and resides in Palm Springs, California.

4. Plaintiffs allege that the conduct of which they complain took place in Riverside County, California, as well as other places too numerous to mention.

5. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names of the persons designated as “TAJAR”, “JOHN_RAPP”, and “REAL_DEAL”. This complaint involves conduct by persons using the Internet as the forum for their speech. The persons designated above use their Internet names to announce their communications. The communications complained of appear at ragingbull.com, an Internet site which advertises that it provides a “Trading Center”, an “IPO Center”, “Personal Boards” (the specific portion of the Internet site at which the communications complained of were made), a “Tax Center”, “SEC Filings”, “My Portfolio”, “Online Store”, “Downloads”, and “Alta Vista Money”.

6. Defendants Doe 1 through Doe 100, inclusive, are sued in this complaint under fictitious names. Their true names and capacities are unknown to Plaintiff. When their true names and capacities are ascertained, Plaintiff will amend this complaint by inserting their true names and capacities herein. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges, that each of the fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurances alleged in this complaint, and that Plaintiff’s damages as alleged in this complaint were proximately caused by those Defendants.

7. Defendants, and each of them, were and are at all times herein mentioned the agent and employee of each remaining defendant and in doing the things hereinafter alleged, did so within the course and scope of said agency and with full knowledge, authority, consent and ratification of said acts by such defendants.

8. Each of the corporate Plaintiffs and their predecessor companies have maintained corporate offices in the Coachella Valley for seven years and the individual Plaintiff has resided in the Coachella Valley for six years. All of the Plaintiff’s have enjoyed a good reputation both generally, and in their businesses, both corporate and individually.

9. On or about March 18, 2000, Defendant, “John_Rapp” said about Plaintiff, Original Media, Inc., which has a stock trading symbol of “OMDA”, while communicating in a “chat room” (or upon a personal board), while addressing another “chat room” participant “Wellstr” and in the virtual presence of any other persons who were present in that “chat room”, “Now, admit you and your OMDA cohorts are LIARS, CHEATS, PHONEYS, and FRAUDS!!!” and “You see Wells, your (sic) now exposing yourself as being part of the second phase, the cover up. Everyone knows you don’t truly believe that this is anything but a sham. Your (sic) just in too deep. Gotta keep covering tracks.”

10. On March 16, 2000, Defendant, “Real_Deal” stated of Plaintiff Jayne Newell-Lanza, “Where is this cookie jar money everybody’s talking about that Jayne left for the investors???? Is she nuts. . . . shes (sic) could’ve had an extra 10 minutes with her escorts!!!”

11. On March 13, 2000, Defendant, “Real_Deal” stated of Plaintiff Jayne Newell-Lanza, “Criminals suing bashers!? This I gotta see . . . . the Lanzas should be afraid of the entire court system. After all they’ve seen where it could put you!”

12. On March 10, 2000, Defendant, “Real_Deal” stated of Plaintiff Jayne Newell-Lanza, “They can’t! You see the difference between the 6 dollar level and current pricing is in their pockets! They’ve been the ones selling! They’ve been the ones screwing the stock price . . . . this is just another company their (sic) “done with” . . . Hopefully the SEC will have enough power to put these people where they belong . . . . and no there won’t be terry cloth robes like at the Beverly Hills Hotel Jayne’s so accustomed to . . . . only the cold feeling of steel bars and the only one to keep her warm at night . . . BIG BERTHA!”

13. On March 10, 2000, Defendant, “Real_Deal” stated of Plaintiff, Jayne Newell-Lanza, “Jayne, Jayne, Jayne You’ve hit a new low, even for you. Stock manipulation, tax evasion, screwing people out of money, false news releases and now impersonating your own CEO. Wow . . . . how low will you go?! I think there’s a kid in a stroller outside with candy!!”

14. On May 16, 2000, Defendant “John_Rapp” made the following statement regarding Plaintiff, Original Media, Inc., whose stock designation is “OMDA” which appears in the following statement:

“Wellsie, everyone may very well believe that OMDA is using Intel’s new technology. Did it ever enter your mind that OMDA investors DON’T CARE about that. They don’t care about how great the sites look. They don’t care that Jayne got some award. They don’t care about any of this nonsense. At this point all the CARE about is the fact that the company lied about having a cold and not filing financials, waiting till after Jan 31st, and all the other lame excuses. All they CARE about is the stock they hold is only worth a dime and none of this helps. Can YOU believe that they are RIGHT for once??? If not now when??? When will you join the chorus for financials, relisting and price support???”

15. On May 2, 2000, Defendant “John_Rapp” made the following statement regarding Plaintiff, Original Media, Inc., whose stock designation is “OMDA”. The person Jayne referred to in the statement quoted below is Plaintiff, Jayne Newell-Lanza.

“This is out of control. Anyone who took the bait and purchased shares of OMDA between this Press release and the last one, that announced the “spin-off”, should hop over to the nearest Law office and start an action immediately. They sucked current holders into adding, and newbies the promise of “2 companies for the price of 1". Then, over the last three trading days, they unload 1,700,000 shares into the anticipated “spin-off”. How can you guys keep accepting this? Now you have to wait another 30-45 days? FOR WHAT???? Why did they announce it if it wasn’t ready??? ONLY ONE REASON: TO SUCK YOU IN!!!! “Letter of Intent”, “Unless we receive an offer”, more audits. ARE YOU KIDDING????!!!!! WHEN WAS THIS DELAY DECIDED ON ANTHONY???? HOW COME YOU NEVER MENTIONED ANY DELAY WHILE YOU AND WELLSIE WERE HYPING THE BOARDS TO BUY BEFORE THE MAY 1ST DEADLINE RIGHT TO THE LAST MINUTE????!!!!! SO NOW PEOPLE THAT BOUGHT ON THE HYPE HAVE THEIR MONEY DORMANT FOR AT LEAST 30 DAYS???? AND IF ANY NEW BUTTNUTS WANT TO BUY THEY WILL GET A CHEAPER PRICE??? AND NOW THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME QUESTION AS TO IF YOUR GOING TO GET ANYTHING AT ALL!!!!!???? These are the first signs that you guys AREN’T GETTING ANYTHING!!!! NOT EVEN THE 10% THAT WELLSIE HAD YOU ALL THINKING WAS SUCH A GREAT DEAL. This sickens me. Joe and Jayne are like a modern day Bonnie and Clyde. Believe it, they are laughing as they read this post because they know it’s all true.”

16. On February 24, 2000, Defendant Tajar made the following statement regarding Plaintiff Jayne Newell-Lanza. The person “jane” refers to Plaintiff Jayne Newell-Lanza.
“LOL wells , one thing is for sure . . . . . you will need help. However the type of help you need, can only be found in a psychiatrists office. the whole world isn’t after your shares of omda. actually the way jane and her flunkies been dumping shares on the market, there are plenty of shares of everyone, the problem is that the demand has dried up thus the loosing 300 percent of its value in the last twelve months.”

17. The entire content of the Raging Bull Internet postings described in paragraphs 9 through 16, above, are false as they pertain to Plaintiffs.

18. In each posting described above in paragraphs 9 through 16, the name “OMDA” refers to Plaintiff Original Media, Inc., and the name “Jayne” refers to Plaintiff Jayne Newell-Lanza. These publications were made of and concerning these Plaintiffs and were so understood by those who read the publications.

19. The statements attributed to Defendants, and each of them, in paragraphs 9 through 16, above, are libelous on their face. These statements clearly expose Plaintiffs’ to hatred, contempt, ridicule and obloquy because they charge Plaintiffs with criminal acts, compare Plaintiffs’ to infamous criminals from the past, imagine Plaintiff Lanza being imprisoned and sexually abused, and accuse the Plaintiff Lanza of consorting with escorts.

20. The statements described in paragraphs 9 through 16, above, were seen and read by persons who visit the chatroom maintained by Internet Service Provider Raging Bull, many of whom live in California, and were seen and read by persons who reside in and around Palm Springs, California.

21. The statements described in paragraphs 9 through 16, above, were intended to convince potential shareholders in Plaintiff Original Media, Inc., who read these statements to refuse to purchase shares of that company, and/or to cause persons who owned shares in Plaintiff Original Media, Inc., when they read those statements to sell their shares, thereby lowering the value of the shares of Plaintiff Original Media, Inc., all to the damage and detriment of Plaintiff Original Media, Inc., and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Plaintiff Profit Publications, Inc. The reduction in price of capital stock of the corporate Plaintiffs would injure the property, and business of the corporate Plaintiffs and would injure Plaintiff Lanza’s ability to earn income in her occupation as Chief Executive Officer of the corporate Plaintiffs.

22. The statements described in paragraphs 9 through 16, above, were published by Defendants, and each of them, with malice and fraud in that the Defendants, and each of them, sought to reduce the price of the capital shares of the corporate Plaintiffs and to discredit the Chief Executive Officer of the corporate Plaintiffs so that Defendants, and each of them, could profit by being able to purchase shares in the corporate Plaintiffs at lower prices and/or to “sell short” shares of the corporate Plaintiffs.

23. The statements described in paragraphs 9 through 16, above, were published by Defendants, and each of them, with malice and wanton disregard for the business reputations of Plaintiffs and justify the awarding of punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against the Defendants, and each of them, as follows:

1. For general damages in the amount of $20,000,000.00;

2. For special damages in the amount of $20,000,000.00;

3. For punitive damages;

4. For costs of suit incurred herein;

5. For reasonable attorneys fees; and

6. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

ragingbull.altavista.com

=====

By: John_Rapp $$$
Reply To: None Thursday, 10 Aug 2000 at 10:57 PM EDT
Post #52697 of 52719


Hi, just got back in....

One thing I can assure anyone who feels that the cries for caution that I've have posted about the Lanzas and their crimes will be silenced by a lawsuit, need not worry.

Those of you who know me know that it has done nothing but firm my resolve.

I hope OMDA dosen't think my time on this board has been a hobby and I also hope they don't think I'm not loaded with a counter attack.

Let FAT Joe and that flousy JAYNE know I said it.

Get it.

Rapp

ragingbull.altavista.com

=====

By: tajar $$$
Reply To: None Friday, 11 Aug 2000 at 1:05 AM EDT
Post #52715 of 52719

The only part of the whole lawsuit post that made any sense to me was the beginning of paragraph 5.....It states............"Plaintiffs are ignorant"

ragingbull.altavista.com

=====



To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (578)8/11/2000 3:21:56 AM
From: S. maltophilia  Respond to of 12465
 
COII does rabbits:

2. The partnerships were paying for an interest in white doe rabbits implanted with embryos of Rex rabbits, a superior
breed whose pelts are favored by furriers. Each doe rabbit was expected to produce eight to 10 Rex rabbits, which
would then be bred to create a sustaining herd. The rabbits later would be slaughtered and their pelts sold to a
Canadian trading company.

3. The partnerships bought the rabbits for $9,000 to $10,000 each in lots of 100.

4. The rabbits were raised and bred on a farm managed by Promorex Corp. Promorex, charged the investors
management fees and were to sell the pelts to Scotia Trading Co. Unknown to the investors, Johnston was also
secretly behind the activities of Scotia Trading Co.

5. Johnson secretly loaned money to Scotia to buy the rabbit pelts from Promorex at artificially high prices, thus
creating the illusion of a highly profitable market for these pelts. Johnston used the deception of an easy profit to lure
more investors into the rabbit partnerships.

6. Johnston reported to investors he bought the rabbit herd for $20 million. In reality he paid less than $100,000.
Message 13924240

CHCL does goats:

The principal asset of Battonic Co., Ltd. is a 100% interest in East
Wu-Zhu-Mu-Qin Banner Green Demonstration Farm (Banner). The principal asset
of Banner is a 100% interest in Dongwu Demonstration Farm (Dongwu). Dongwu
has been established to run a breeding center to propagate Boer goats and
other livestock breeds. Dongwu's principal asset is the right to use 156
square miles of land located in Inner Mongolia for 25 years from July 1,
1999 to July 1, 2024. Based upon an independent appraisal dated October 20,
1999 by Vigers Hong Kong Limited, the value of 100% of Dongwu is
US$361,772,645 (HK$2,803,738,000).

sec.gov

Is this a trend??? <G>



To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (578)8/29/2000 2:30:54 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 12465
 
Re: 8/29/00 - [COII] Computerized Thermal Imaging, Inc. Files Libel Lawsuit Against Bloomberg

Computerized Thermal Imaging, Inc. Files Libel Lawsuit Against Bloomberg

LAYTON, Utah, Aug 29, 2000 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Computerized Thermal Imaging, Inc. (OTCBB: COII chart, msgs) announced that it filed a Complaint for Libel in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, Case No. 1:00CV00098K, against Bloomberg, L. P. The Complaint and Summons were also served on Bloomberg through its registered agent in Utah.

The lawsuit alleges that on June 29 and July 18, 2000, Bloomberg published certain "Defamatory Articles" about the Company which were written by David Evans through its news service, Bloomberg News. According to the Complaint, the Defamatory Articles were published over Bloomberg's Internet web site and elsewhere to literally millions of people, and contained certain false, misleading, and defamatory statements regarding the Company's business and its thermal imaging technology, which the Company is focusing on developing as an adjunct imaging tool to mammography in the detection of breast cancer. The lawsuit alleges that, after publication of the "First Defamatory Article" on June 29th, the Company wrote to Bloomberg and explained the numerous inaccuracies and falsehoods contained therein. Although Bloomberg then published on July 18th what it labeled as a "correction" to the first story, this "Second Defamatory Article" still contained defamatory matter calling into doubt (among other things) the Company's ability to attract capital as well as the efficacy of its Breast Imaging System, which is currently undergoing clinical testing by physicians at five independent hospital sites in accordance with a protocol used in connection with the Company's application for Pre-Market Approval from the Food and Drug Administration. The Complaint alleges damages against Bloomberg in excess of One Hundred Million Dollars.

In April of this year, the Company's attorneys, Schoeppl & Burke, P.A., Boca Raton, Florida, also filed a libel lawsuit against Bloomberg and David Evans in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles on behalf of Hitsgalore.com, Inc., an Internet business-to-business search engine company based in Rancho Cucamonga, California. In July, the California court denied Bloomberg's initial attempt to have that lawsuit thrown out under California's "Anti-SLAPP" statute. The Hitsgalore lawsuit is based on a series of "Defamatory Articles" written by Evans and published by Bloomberg that, according to the Complaint, directly caused an immediate drop in the price of the Company's stock of about fifty-three percent (53%) in one day. Hitsgalore has alleged damages against Bloomberg and Evans in that suit of more than Five Hundred Million Dollars.

"The defamatory stories written by David Evans and published by Bloomberg regarding Computerized Thermal Imaging are consistent with what appears to be a pattern and practice by this Bloomberg reporter of falsely reporting or disregarding actual facts regarding a company and using misleading statements, suggestions, factual juxtaposing, and comparisons in an effort to create a more damaging story than would otherwise be presented by a fair and accurate news report," stated Daniel J. Becka, one of the Company's attorneys. "Bloomberg has employed Mr. Evans for more than eight years now, and is quite familiar with Mr. Evans' methods in writing his primarily negative stories," added Mr. Becka. "Bloomberg had the opportunity to correct the defamatory matter contained in the First Defamatory Article and thereby possibly lessen the damage done to CTI. Instead, they chose to ratify Mr. Evans' conduct and republish the defamatory matter in a second article, thereby implying to readers that the false and misleading statements were accurate and could be relied upon," Mr. Becka explained. The Company's Complaint against Bloomberg alleges that the defamatory stories were maliciously composed and published by Bloomberg, and that Bloomberg should therefore be liable for both compensatory and punitive damages.

Company President David Packer issued the following statement regarding the filing: "As a company, our primary focus remains our commitment to our business plan of building and protecting shareholder value by bringing to market thermal imaging products for both medical and industrial applications. Critical to that process is protecting our reputation when false and misleading information is published about us. This legal action demonstrates our commitment to protecting shareholder value and to take the offensive against those seeking to destroy the reputation, market value, and business affairs of the Company through defamatory statements."

Computerized Thermal Imaging, Inc. is in business to improve the quality of life through superior diagnostics. Information about CTI can be found on the Internet at www.cti-net.com or by calling CTI Public Affairs at 801/926-1113.

Except for historical information contained herein, the matters discussed in this news release are forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. The forward-looking statements are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. In addition to the factors set forth above, other important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially include, but are not limited to technical risks associated with new technology development, government regulatory approvals or continued working capital. Additional information concerning factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements is contained from time to time in the Company's SEC filings. Copies of these filings may be obtained by contacting the Company or the SEC.

SOURCE: Computerized Thermal Imaging, Inc.

Contact:

SCHOEPPL & BURKE, P.A.
Daniel J. Becka or Carl F. Schoeppl, 561/394-8301
dan@schoepplburke.com


siliconinvestor.com