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 : Gary Dobry Subpoenas 41 SI Aliases -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Duke of URL© who wrote (120)	1/19/2002 2:57:37 AM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1136

BUT the law prohibits the use of subpoenas as a means of doing initial discovery. The requestor CAN be required to show that his request is material and relevant to the action in which he's involved. As smartin pointed out earlier, Dobry would be very hard-pressed to do that. Most of the people on the SI list know little or nothing about Marchese and his issues with Dobry. Many haven't posted about AZNT for more than three years, and probably had no idea that this lawsuit even existed until they were named in the subpoena. The purpose of discovery is to find issues. Normally the requestor does not have to say why or what he is looking for.

To: The Duke of URL© who wrote (120)	1/19/2002 3:05:35 AM
From: Janice Shell	Respond to of 1136

That won't work... or wait for a victory and sue him for malicious prosecution ...because we're not parties to the suit.

To: The Duke of URL© who wrote (120)	1/19/2002 6:44:17 AM
From: John	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1136

You are saying the subpoena is legally seen as part of the discovery process in the Marchese vs Dobry lawsuit? I don't see any mention of Marchese's lawyer opposing the subpoena. If the plaintiff's own lawyer does nothing meaning in legal terms he has no problem with it and therefore no further justification by Dobry is necessary by default then why should a judge? Without intervention from the other lawyer in this case I think it's a slam dunk for Dobry.

To: The Duke of URL© who wrote (120)	1/19/2002 9:18:06 AM
From: s martin	Respond to of 1136

>>The purpose of discovery is to find issues. Normally the requestor does not have to say why or what he is looking for.<< Marcasse could in turn subpoena the credit card information, addresses and phone records of Pug's employees, customers and parents ? That should be very interesting.

To: The Duke of URL© who wrote (120)	1/19/2002 12:56:04 PM
From: SalemsHex	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1136

This really isn't an issue of discovery. We're not parties to the lawsuit. These subpeonas were shipped out because of Dobry's "idiotic hunch" that we're somehow involved in his ever developing World Wide Conspiracy. I'm afraid Pugs and his lawyer will have to do far better than slapping together a list of aliases and sending them out a subpeona. I would hope that any court would require just a "tad" of evidence showing that these "aliases" are relevant to the Dobry/Marchese lawsuit. So far, not one scintilla of proof has been provided by Dobry/Richter. Why? Because there's none to be had. IMO, Pugs is dangerous, as are his buddies. We have plenty of posts and other evidence that says our diagnosis is dead on. The real issue confronting everyone named, is: Do we sit back and allow Dobry and his lawyer to continue with their witch hunt, or do we utilize our legal system to try and stop them. I vote for the latter. As I did in the Lycos/RB subpeona. Later, I'll put up some info on the lawyer I retained in MA to help us with the quashing of that subpeona. Hopefully, we'll be successful. She has received admiration from all of us who are involved in that subpeona. Never know when you may need her. Especially for those who do post on Lycos/RB.