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 (2341)1/17/2002 4:17:24 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie  Respond to of 12465
 
It probably helps that there are a couple of lawyers on that list.



To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (2341)1/17/2002 4:20:57 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell  Respond to of 12465
 
Re: The twisted mind of Gary Dobry

Gary Dobry's subpoena of Silicon Investor was not just a blatant attempt to get back at anyone and everyone he could think of at the moment who has ever caused him grief, it's also an attempt to embarrass Silicon Investor and their management to serve his own twisted agenda. Here is the proof, as taken directly from one of Dobry's web sites:

=====
11/8/01 : Silicon Investor : CIA OPS or part of the BIGGEST STOCK FRAUD EVER ?

GNET-run Silicon Investor promoted "Janice Shell" as a cyberslueth. An Art Historian, residing in Milan, Italy, whose expertise at research had turned from Da Vinci to penny stock scams. The GNET-run Silicon Investor helped build credibility for the 'Janice Shell' persona. Silicon Investor bestowed upon her accolades and awards. Associates of "Janice Shell", that were also GNET employees, made sure that critics of "Janice" were silenced, censored or had their Silicon Investor memberships terminated and were excommunicated from the GNET Silicon Investor "community". A task-force, using strong-arm tactics, policed the Silicon Investor threads en force to assure that the markets "Janice Shell" was moving, were done so expediently.

"Janice Shell" admits to being compensated by Richard Marchese for services. Mr. Marchese, though he is barred from the Securities industry by the SEC, in the "public's interest", is the owner/operator of Deak-Perera Capital Markets. Mr. Marchese told the California district court, in a Declaration he filed on behalf of Access TradeOne, that Deak-Perera was his "family business".

Why would a self-proclaimed (and GNET-promoted) cyberslueth like "Janice Shell" accept payment for services from an individual that owns and operates a firm whose name is, according to the Reagan Commission on Organized Crime, associated with the "biggest money laundering outfit of all time"? Why would the self proclaimed cyberslueth align herself with an individual who is barred from the Securities Industry and who was previously indicted for money laundering?

Deak-Perera was a subsidiary of Deak & Co.. Deak was a CIA ops, laundering money to help the CIA fund the reinstatement of the Shah in Iran. Deak also provided laundry services to drug cartels, accepting cash payments through their currency exchanges. It was the eventual demise of Deak & Co.

Has Deak-Perera Capital Mkts. liberated itself from the Deak legacy of a CIA ops? Who is "Janice Shell"? Is she simply an Art Historian turned cyberslueth? Are her activities in the securities arena really just a "hobby", as she claims? More importantly, is or was there a relationship between Deak-Perera Capital Markets and the GNET-run Silicon Investor? We already know, by her own admissions, that "Janice Shell" was compensated by the current owner/operator of Deak-Perera, Richard Marchese, for services, and it is well-known that the GNET-run Silicon Investor promoted "Janice", the "cybersleuth" to it's paying members and the investment public.

In a previous addition to the Permeating clipboards, I wrote about David Horowitz and the Silicon Investor IPO. Horowitz's Maxwell Capital did the IPO and then, shortly thereafter, folded. Bill White's article below states that a David Horowitz was a recruited "contractor" for the CIA and the money that funded his "Center" was given him by several "intelligence-community and oil-lobby linked businesses" as "payment for his services". There is much more to come, but for this addition, we will do a little review, re: David Horowitz, Maxwell Capital and GNET-run Silicon Investor and take a look at Bill White's article:

David Horowitz, the CIA, and the Vatican
He's Worked For Both

11/8/01 9:45:43 PM
Bill White

Investigative Preview -- In 1987, David Horowitz was recruited as a "contractor" by the CIA and sent to Nicaragua to train the Contras in "anti-Soviet propaganda." The money to found his Center for the Study of Popular Culture was given to him by several intelligence-community and oil-lobby linked businesses as payment for his services.

And that's just where it starts.

I have been doing research on the histories of varius individual American Zionists, to see what I can find, and by pulling on the string of David Horowitz, I have unraveled the sweater of a vast right-wing conspiracy, run by white businessmen, some of them WASPs, and a surprising number of individuals who occupy formal positions of power in the Catholic-Vatican hierarchy. These individuals have given to David Horowitz alone more than $10 million dollars in the past decade, and have funded such political publications as the National Review and such political figures as Bill Bennett, Jack Kemp, Dan Quayle, and at least four other cabinet level officials directly, plus they have indirectly provided money to everyone from William Kristol to Matt Drudge. Those who want a jump start on this story should go to mediatransparency.com -- my primary reference for the first part of this story. Those who can wait, keep your eyes peeled to english.pravda.ru -- I will run this story either next week or the week after, depending on how the anti-Israeli demonstrations this weekend go, and how in depth I decide to treat the National Alliance.

onthecanvas.com
=====

It's important to note that, as usual, Dobry has fingered the wrong David Horowitz. Also as usual, despite numerous people pointing out incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, Dobry has chosen to stick to his bizarre conspiracy theories. It's sad that Silicon Investor has not taken steps on their own to deal with Dobry and his lawyer, and thus have forced their innocent members to fend for themselves by having to file potentially lengthy and costly motions to have the subpoena quashed.

- Jeff



To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (2341)1/23/2002 11:53:17 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 12465
 
Re: 1/23/02 - [Marchese vs. Dobry] Infospace Files Objection to Dobry Subpoena

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

RICHARD MARCHESE,
Plaintiff

v.

GARY DOBRY,
Defendant.

NO. 00 C 5606 (Northern District of Illinois

OBJECTION TO SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE

InfoSpace, Inc. hereby objects to the subpoena served on it in the above matter on the ground that it is premature and the defendant lacks standing to serve it. Pursuant to Doe v. 2TheMart.com, Inc., 140 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (W. D. Wash. 2001), a party may not issue a subpoena seeking to identify anonymous Internet users until such time as the party has satisfied a four-factor test and obtained a court order permitting such a subpoena. Because defendant has not satisfied the four-factor test and obtained a court order, defendant lacks standing to serve the subject subpoena, which is premature. InfoSpace, Inc. will comply with any court order issued on this subject and will not oppose any effort by defendant to obtain such a court order.

---------

January 23, 2002

VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL

Tobin M. Richter, Esq.
53 West jackson Boulevard, Suite 560
Chicago, Illinois 60604

Re: Marchese v. Dobry

Dear Mr. Richter:

This firm represents Infospace, Inc. and has been asked to respond to your subpoena to silicon Investor in the above matter. Enclosed please find InfoSpace Inc.’s objection to your subpoena.

It is the law of this district that no subpoena seeking to identify anonymous Internet users can be served unless the subpoenaing party has obtained a court order authorizing such a subpoena. This was the recent holding in Doe v. 2TheMart.com, Inc., 140 F. Supp.2nd 1088 (W.D. Wash. 2001). In this case, you apparently have not obtained such a court order nor have you provided InfoSpace, Inc. with information that would satisfy 2TheMart.com’s four-part test for entitlement to such information. As a result, InfoSpace, Inc. is not in a position to assess your entitlement to the requested information and is unable to provide the requested information in the absence of a court order directing it to do so.

Please feel free to call me if you have any questions.

Very truly yours,

[signed] Brent Snyder

Enclosure

Cc: Laraine M. Ward