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 : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dantecristo who wrote (2490)	2/14/2002 8:25:01 PM
From: dantecristo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

Delfino's First Response: DEFENDANT DELFINO’S REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF DECISION "To the above-entitled court: Defendant, Michelangelo Delfino, hereby requests that the court issue a statement of decision explaining the factual and legal basis for its decision in this case as to each of the following controverted issues: 1. Whether defendant(s) breached a duty of care owed to any, and each, plaintiff. 2. Whether facts exist, and the law thereon permits, non-parties (and non-employees) to receive injunctive relief in the pending action. 3. Whether facts and law exist whereby plaintiffs are entitled to relief under the law as third party beneficiaries of any service agreements entered into by and between defendant(s) and Yahoo!, Inc. 4. Whether defendant(s) breached obligations existing in favor of plaintiffs under the common law of libel, and if so, what specific language of what Internet posting statement or statements of defendant(s) constituted such breach(es). 5. Whether defendant(s) breached obligations existing in favor of plaintiffs under the common law of invasion of privacy, and if so, what specific language of what Internet posting statement of statements of defendant)s) constituted such breach(es). 6. As this matter was tried to a jury on disputed factual issues, including the issues of whether or not plaintiffs were liars or chronic liars; whether plaintiffs were adulterers or sexually promiscuous; whether plaintiffs and others were a danger to children; whether or not plaintiffs placed video cameras that could taped portions inside (a) bathroom(s); whether certain individuals were homosexual or homophobic; whether plaintiffs were mentally unstable or mentally ill suffering from hallucinations’ whether lawyers filed briefs raising a specter of whether plaintiff had semen stains on her dress and/or sex with a supervisor; whether plaintiffs stalked defendants or their families; whether plaintiff discriminated on the basis of gender or pregnancy; whether a plaintiff stared at female employees’ breast area; that plaintiffs produced pornography in the workplace or downloaded it off the Internet at the workplace; that defendant’s supervisor did not provide unwanted nude postcards to defendant; that Plaintiffs’ CEO lied during portions of their deposition testimony; that Plaintiffs did not violate company policies and procedures in regards to defendant(s); that Plaintiffs did not wrongfully destroy or fail to preserve the videotapes from the camera placed in Ms. Felch’s office and pointed towards the mens’ bathroom door; that George Zdasiuk was not intoxicated, or did not behave intoxicated, when chasing a process server from his property; that George Zdasiuk did not give deposition testimony wherein he claimed that the emotional harm suffered by him from defendant(s)’ Internet posting was greater than he suffered from the death of his sister or his reaction from viewing the September 11, 2001 World Trade Center disaster; that plaintiffs did not create or permit a hostile work environment to exist towards defendant(s); that neither George Zdasiuk or Susan Felch harassed defendant(s) at work or elsewhere, defendant(s) request(s) to know the factual and legal basis by which the court also determined the above facts, and upon what legal basis did the court have to preempt or deny the jury the opportunity to make written findings or determination on each such fact. 7. In Request #6 above, the factual and legal basis for the court to deny defendant(s) the right to trial by jury on such disputed factual issues, and the basis for each such factual (#60 determination). 8. The factual and legal basis for denying defendants the right to use any “play” upon the name of any corporate or individual plaintiff or their named, non-party, individual as part of any Internet alias, such as, by way of examples, the aliases: “I_am_not_Zdasiuk”, “I_do_not_speak_fro_Varian”, “I_have_been_ordered_to_stay_away_from_Felch”, or “I_think_Melvin_gives_good_expert_testimony”, explaining how and in what manner such “play” constitutes name appropriation, invasion of privacy, libel, harassment or any other wrong prohibited by law and not thereby be infringing upon defendant(s)’ First Amendment rights or constitute “prior restraint.” 9. The legal and factual basis for enjoining defendant(s) from approaching plaintiffs, their families, friends, Varian officers, employees, former employees, their lawyers and their witnesses, or approaching within 500 yards of their (unknown and unspecified) residence, employment or schooling (sp). 10. The factual and legal basis for finding Varian was not in breach of contract with Delfino under the separation agreement. Respectfully submitted, Dated: February 12, 2002 Glynn P. Falcon, Attorney for Michelangelo Delfino" geocities.com

To: dantecristo who wrote (2490)	2/17/2002 3:33:43 PM
From: dantecristo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

Overstepping legal bounds? San Francisco Daily Journal (Front Page: FEB 15, 2002) "Judge Issues Wide ban on Internet Postings By Craig Anderson Daily Journal Staff Writer SAN JOSE--A Santa Clara County judge has ventured into unchartered territory by issuing a sweeping permanent injunction against two research scientists who defamed their former employer on Internet message boards. Superior Court Judge Jack Komar issued a written order Wednesday that added details to an oral injunction he handed down from the bench in December. He began crafting the order even before a jury awarded $775,000 in damages to Varian Medical Systems, Varian Semiconductor Associates, and company officials George Zdasiuk and Susan Felch. The order is unusual on several counts. For one thing, it was rare for such a case to reach a jury. For another, it prevents the pair even from posting information within the public record under certain circumstances. Delfino and Day contend such limits violate their First Amendment rights. They promise to appeal the decision. According to Varian's attorney, Lynne Hermle, the defendants already are testing Komar's order. Thursday, there were dozens of posts on a Yahoo message board devoted to Varian's investment prospects. Some included links to Delfino and Day's Web home page. Several discussed topics Komar has banned. As is almost always the case on message boards, the postings were not signed. They resemble those the defendants admitted to writing during their trial, but Delfino would not say whether he was the author of any specific post. One message with a link to Delfino and Day's Web site led to a mock deposition of one of the individual plaintiffs. "The following is an eyewitness commentary of Zdasiuk's truthful and complete testimony (some hyperbole)." the site announced. It continued with his alleged confession that he was "sick" and untroubled by the death of his sister. The same site contains a disclaimer that it has been "censored by order of Superior Court Judge Jack Komar and is now in full compliance with his Honor's chill on Free Speech." "Unfortunately, it appears from the postings that it is unlikely [Delfino] is going to obey the judge's order," said Hermle, a partner in the Menlo Park office of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe. Nevertheless, she said she was pleased the judgment is in place and "confident Judge Komar will enforce it." Delfino, interviewed Thursday, said he has posted on the Yahoo message board since receiving a copy of the injunction but would not specify what he has written. "My intent is to post every day, period," he said. "The injunction is in no way going to stop me from exercising my First Amendment privilege." Komar's order bars Delfino and Day from making a long list of statements, such as calling 19 Varian employee liars, sexually promiscuous or mentally unstable. Even material in the public record is covered by the written injunction. For example, Delfino and Day are prohibited from posting information from Securites and Exhcange Commission documents concerning Varian "in the same place or on the same Web site or message board" as information about executives' home addresses or family members. Komar also ordered the defendants to remove posts containing any statements he has found to be false. Delfino and Komar never identified a single libelous post and has overstepped his legal bounds. One of the forbidden topics is an allegation that Varian videotaped an employee bathroom. The company acknowleges setting up a camera to capture Delfino making insulting gestures at Felch but says it never taped anyone inside the bathroom. Delfino argued the device did indeed peek inside the facility and says Komar's order prevents him from merely telling the truth. He sees that as grounds for appeal. "The injunction is only as good as your weakest link,' he said. Delfino said he has written Yahoo and other companies that operate message boards asking that all of his and Day's posts be deleted. He said that meets their legal obligation. The case of Varian Medical Systems v. Delfino, 780187, was the first corporate lawsuit to go to trial against named defendants for posting caustic messages on message boards. Many companies have filed civil complaints against individuals who post messages, alleging the information is defamatory or infringes trade secrets. But such lawsuits are typically dropped after companies, using the discovery process, figure out the identitites of the authors, although some individuals have successfully fought back to protect their names. The Delfino case, filed in 1999, has always been different. Delfino, who was fied in 1998, and Day, who resigned in 1999, posted numerous messages every day and refused to stop even after they were sued. A jury found them liable for damages, including for posting messages impersonating Felch and Zdasiuk. Delfino is represented by Palo Alto attorney Glynn Falcon. Day is represented by Palo Alto attorney Randall Widmann. Neither could be reached for comment Thursday." geocities.com