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: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (5559)	1/15/2004 5:23:46 PM
From: heronwater	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

Posted by: Bob Zumbrunnen In reply to: IH Admin [Matt] who wrote msg# 34320 Date:1/15/2004 1:02:56 PM Post #of 34322 While we're on the subject, here's what our newly-hired counsel sent to me yesterday for final approval (which I gave) before sending it to Mr. Zwebner in response to his latest email saying he's going to file a "Motion to Compel". -------------------------------------------- Dear Mr. Zwebner: This firm represents InvestorsHub.Com, Inc. regarding the matter of a subpoena in a civil case, Case No. 03CV22328, issued by you, with a date of October 30, 2003. Please direct all further communications through this law firm, to my attention. I have reviewed e-mail correspondence between yourself and Mr. Zumbrunnen of InvestorsHub.Com, Inc. regarding this subpoena. I first want to reiterate our client's objections to the subpoena and clarify our client's position on the matter. InvestorsHub.Com, Inc. will fully comply with any valid subpoena from a court of competent jurisdiction. However, your subpoena is legally deficient and therefore not valid on several grounds, most of which were explained in Mr. Zumbrunnen's e-mails to you. In your latest communication with Mr. Zumbrunnen, you have stated your intention to file a motion to compel with the court. That is, of course, your right under Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. When you file that motion to compel, please send a copy to my attention as required by Rule 45(c)(ii)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for response. --------------------------------------------- The background on this is that I had 3 objections to the subpoena: 1. It was signed by Mr. Zwebner, not by an officer of the court. 2. It had no date by which the requested information was to be delivered. 3. It did not include the fee we'd already informed him about and that he'd agreed to pay. A subpoena can't place undue burden on the recipient without compensating them for same. Our lawyer also pointed out to me yesterday that the subpoena was lacking in that it didn't give the specific information that's requested, instead using the broader "identifying information". In the email exchange that I forwarded to our counsel, Mr. Zwebner stated over 2 months ago that though he wasn't happy about it, he was going to get a new subpoena issued and sent "Monday" that would satisfy my first two objections. It never happened. If he files a motion to compel, and our attorney advises that we must comply, then I'll let everyone know so they can file their own motions to quash. Personally, I think it'll end here. But if it doesn't, and we have to fight to ensure that our users aren't going to get exposed to harassment from a fishing expedition, then fight we will. There was some company that issued a subpoena to SI years ago, SI provided the information, and the company immediately put out a press release naming all of the individuals, resulting in lots of real-life harassment of them by rabid "basher-haters". That's constantly on my mind when dealing with Zwebner's or any subpoena, and it's not happening again without a fight. investorshub.com