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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony, -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (90813)	2/6/2005 12:59:55 PM
From: rrufff	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

I've yet to see anyone who tried to get off on jurisdiction not succeed. That's what I'd expect. I imagine a big part of the game is preventing the release of real world information. I was wondering how likely someone, filing a special appearance solely for the purpose of a motion to dismiss based on jurisdiction, would be able to get a court order concealing his identity and to what extent that could be enforced. Arguments: Chilling effect on 1st amendment vs the right of a corporate counsel to look into the facts behind the jurisdictional claim. If I were deciding, I'd go very heavily into protecting individuals against discovery of their ID's. Require a determination that the IP address of the poster is, in fact, located in the court's jurisdiction. This would be a practical solution and still would protect the ID of the posters.