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: TideGlider who wrote (219)	1/23/2002 9:55:06 PM
From: TideGlider	Respond to of 1136

If you start reading this thread from the one posted. TVSI AREE you will see a complete pump and dump facilitated a great deal by Pugs and Riley siliconinvestor.com or start from the beginning. It is incredibly enlightening...of course until I visit NEXT LEVEL....the billion dollar merger company, amidst a senior citizens condo development. I then get blamed for "blowing" the merger. TG

To: TideGlider who wrote (219)	1/23/2002 9:57:04 PM
From: Bill Ulrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1136

Wow. Kinda like a penny stock Lech Walesa. Or the Jimmy Hoffa of penny stock scams, depending on one's perspective. Solidarnosc!

To: TideGlider who wrote (219)	1/23/2002 10:00:50 PM
From: Jane4IceCream	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1136

DANG! Now I know where I have run into Pugs before here on SI.... RMIL Is that Riley person still a cop or something? That thread was a hoot. Jane

To: TideGlider who wrote (219)	1/23/2002 10:22:10 PM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 1136

A pair of interesting documents. Another of the attorneys involved in the Washington matter has told me that neither is privileged or confidential. He further told SI that we'd want to post them, and SI said "Fine". ------ 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