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 (2729)	4/16/2002 11:21:23 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 12465

Re: Varian's Idiot Lawyers The reason many of us follow this thread is because we've exposed stock fraud, much of it ridiculously blatant. The perpetrators thumb their nose at the legal system and the SEC because they know that a) the fines will be far less than the profits, b) they can pack up shop and start over with near impunity, and c) even is a worst case scenario there's virtually no chance of doing any jail time. In Varian vs. Delfino and Day we have two scientists and patent holders whose "crime" is that they went over the line (albeit what appears to be an imaginary one) in criticizing their ex bosses. Their trial was full of, IMO, horrendous legal decisions and strictly on that basis should be voided and reheld using a different judge. Yet these two are in actual danger of going to jail. This is totally absurd. Even more so considering the courts won't even put stalkers and harassers in jail unless they've first inflicted some sort of bodily injury on their victims. If anyone has any good ideas on how to potentially stop this insanity I'm listening. - Jeff

To: dantecristo who wrote (2729)	9/20/2002 5:35:03 PM
From: dantecristo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12465

[VAR & VSEA] APPELLANTS’ OPENING BRIEF "INTRODUCTION This appeal arises from a workplace conflict between employees at a high-tech conglomerate called Varian – on one side Susan B. Felch and George Zdasiuk, on the other side Michelangelo Delfino and Mary E. Day. Delfino and Day said some nasty things on the Internet about Varian, Felch and Zdasiuk (hereafter collectively referred to as Varian). The speech was often hyperbolic and offensive, but that is as far as it went. Conflict often leads to insults, but words alone rarely cause genuine damage. Short of violence, most of us simply exchange our harmless barbs and then turn away. Varian, however, did not turn away, but instead went to court and obtained a jury verdict in the sum of $775,000 and an injunction prohibiting such speech. The key to resolving this appeal is that Varian has not suffered any economic harm – what the law calls special damages. The absence of special damages means Varian cannot recover money on either of the tort theories that could be implicated here – slander or false light invasion of privacy. And even if Varian had a tort cause of action, no injunction would lie, for it would be an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech. This petty conflict has escalated beyond all reason, for no good reason. Absent substantial harm, litigation is not the solution for every squabble that arises in daily human interaction. The time has come for this sorry episode in California jurisprudence to end – with a defense judgment...." geocities.com