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 (4718)	6/13/2003 1:44:02 PM
From: EL KABONG!!!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

dantecristo, Every "i" dotted and every "t" crossed... No "wiggle" room at all... If I recall correctly, you had mentioned earlier that this guy could have avoided all of this simply by cooperating in another investigation(s), which he declined the opportunity. Sheesh! <he said shaking his head> KJC

To: dantecristo who wrote (4718)	8/28/2003 10:59:40 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 12465

Re: 8/28/03 - SPJ.org: A New Version of 'SLAPP': Lawsuit Could Chill Reporter-Source Relations Thu Aug 28 13:49:33 2003 Pacific Time A New Version of 'SLAPP': Lawsuit Could Chill Reporter-Source Relations INDIANAPOLIS, Aug. 28 (AScribe Newswire) -- Imagine this situation: You are a journalist with a significant investigative story with potentially great public interest. Your sources are solid and the story has been approved by your organization at every level. Its initial publication even strikes a chord with the community and yields more sources and more stories. Eventually, the subject of the story sues for slander and defamation. But the targets are not you or your news outlet; instead, the subject sues the people he claims you have interviewed. These people are now vulnerable and may have to spend large amounts of money defending against - or extricating themselves from - the suit. The situation outlined above is happening right now in Cincinnati, Ohio, over stories broadcast from February to June by WCPO-TV. The original story, broadcast February 24 and published on the station's website, outlined allegations of improprieties in patient billing by Family Dental Care Associates, a chain of dental clinics owned by dentist J. Michael Fuchs. Following that first broadcast, the station was contacted by hundreds of people with similar complaints, as well as complaints about the clinic's cleanliness and the quality of patient care. Follow-up stories were broadcast regarding those complaints. On Aug. 8, Fuchs filed suit against six former employees of the dental clinics and two former patients, seeking money damages and attorney's fees from each respondent. To date, the station and its personnel have not been sued. But the message of the lawsuit is clear: Just talking to the media can cost you, even ruin you, even if you've told the truth. SPJ considers this lawsuit the latest version of a SLAPP-a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. Put simply, a SLAPP suit is designed to stifle the First Amendment rights of citizens to speak out, either on matters of public policy or to air grievances against the private sector. SPJ has spoken out against SLAPP suits before and condemns this legal tactic as an attack on Americans' First Amendment rights. Further, we see these kinds of suits as a blatant, if indirect, attempt to punish the media by throwing up a barrier of fear between journalist and source, intimidating those who might wish to come forward to reveal damaging or embarrassing information--in this case, about the private sector. Read SPJ's special report on SLAPP's: o "SLAPP BACK: How The Media Can Take Advantage Of State Laws To Win Early Dismissal of Meritless Libel Lawsuits" For copies, call SPJ at (000)-000-0000 ext. 200 or write to spj@spj.org. Other Resources (California): o The California Anti-SLAPP Project: www.casp.net o First Amendment Project: www.thefirstamendment.org/antislappresourcecenter.html ascribe.org

To: dantecristo who wrote (4718)	9/18/2003 1:55:34 PM
From: dantecristo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

[VAR VSEA]"Speech Rap Sept. 11 of this year didn't bode well for a so-called terrorist in a federal San Jose courtroom. Cameron Moore (or "crack_smoking_jesus" as he liked to be called on the Internet) received six months of home detention, four years of probation and an order to pay a still-undetermined amount of restitution to his victims. ... Readers of these pages may remember the twisted saga of Mary Day, Michelangelo Delfino, Varian Associates and, of course, the ostensible terrorist himself, Moore ("InterNot Free Speech," March 27, "Geek on Trial," June 12). Day and Delfino were once employees at Varian Associates in Palo Alto (now Varian Semiconductor and Varian Medical Systems). After Delfino was fired (and Day subsequently quit), due to some unusual accusations made by a top Varian employee, the two, a common-law couple, launched an Internet-based assault against employees at their former company. Ultimately, they lost a jury verdict for posting disparaging and sometimes ludicrous remarks against the company and its employees on the Internet. The case, considered one that could set legal precedents for free speech on the Internet, is set for appeal later this year. ... Meanwhile, Moore, an Agilent employee from Colorado who Delfino and Day allege has connections to another top Varian employee, was caught by the feds posting threatening emails to the two disillusioned employees. (This was a step above Delfino and Day's merely disparaging postings.) Moore was finally sentenced last Wednesday (again, on Sept. 11, to the delight of both Delfino and Day) for posting such messages as "Mikey is going to DIE real soon," and "you'll never know when the hammer is coming down on YOU." Day reflects on the sentencing. "It was very quiet," she tells Eye. "I think they were all kind of surprised that the judge came down very hard." " metroactive.com