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 (4086)	1/27/2003 11:03:05 PM
From: dantecristo	Respond to of 12465

[VAR & VSEA] A Schizophrenic Varian: "The Honorable Justices of the Court of Appeal Sixth Appellate District 333 West Santa Clara St., Suite 1060 San Jose, CA 95113 To the Honorable Justices of the Court of Appeal, State of California, Sixth Appellate District: We represent plaintiffs and respondents in the above-noted proceeding. I write to bring a recent development to the Court’s attention that relates to appellants’ pending motion for contempt and, in particular, bears upon representation made in the opposition papers to that motion filed by respondents last week on January 21, 2003. In opposition to the motion, I submitted a declaration under penalty of perjury explaining my contacts with the publishers of The Recorder, Palo Alto Daily, and Palo Alto Weekly concerning ads recently placed in those newspapers by the defendants and appellants in this case Michael [sic] Delfino and Mary Day. The declaration was submitted together with an opposition memorandum urging this Court to conclude that the asserted grounds of contempt are baseless. In my declaration, I also testified that since the filing of appellants’ contempt motion and despite that fact that appellants have found new distributors for their defamatory ads, neither I nor, to my knowledge, anyone at my law firm had contacted any such distributor (or any other person) to ask that appellants’ books or ads not be distributed. The statement just described were true and accurate. However, apparently emboldened by their spurious contempt motion, appellants have continued their scurrilous ad campaign to republish material found in the trial court to be false and defamatory. Accordingly, I have today contacted one of the distributors of appellants’ ads (Los Altos Town Crier) to ask it to pull the ad voluntarily in light of its defamatory content as found in the outstanding judgment. I enclose for the Court’s information a copy of my letter in this regard (minus its enclosure the voluminous judgment that is already a part of the record on appeal). Respondents have every right to object to an ad published post-judgment by appellants that repeats statements that have already been found to be false and defamatory. Moreover, contrary to appellants’ apparent supposition, this Court, by issuing a writ of supersedeas, has not ruled that appellants are immune from liability for defamatory publications they make while their appeals is pending. Likewise, issuance of supersedeas does not signal that when appellants engage in ongoing tortuous behavior, respondents are powerless to try to stop it. For these reasons, we consider it to be both lawful and appropriate for us to urge newspaper publishers such as Los Altos Town Crier to decline to republish statements made by appellants that the jury and the court below have found to be false and defamatory. Very truly yours, By: signed Thomas V. Loran III Enclosure cc: Horvitz & Levy LLP Law Offices of Randall M. Widmann Glynn P. Falcon Matthew H. Poppe Gerald Z. Marer" geocities.com