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 (7295)	2/12/2005 9:40:00 AM
From: rrufff	Respond to of 12465

No wonder RB can't fix its software. Too busy losing money defending frivolous lawsuits. Do we all have to add to our posts, "All posts are opinion only, no factual basis claimed, poster has no personal knowledge of Zwebner, RB or anything else?"

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (7295)	2/15/2005 9:51:13 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

Zwebner has filed a response to CNN's Motion to Dismiss. It's absolute drivel. Here's a part of it (emphasis added): Clearly the Defendants, TURNER, are in a superior position to protect the public from the deceptive and misleading use of a confusingly similar variant of the Wolf Blitzer celebrity mark, by the impersonator wolfblittzer0”. The Defendants, TURNER, have elected to do nothing to date to curtail the misleading use of a confusingly similar variant to the Wolf Blitzer celebrity mark by the impersonator “wolfblittzer0”. Accordingly, the Defendants, TURNER, have breached their obligation to the public and are thus chargeable with the actions of this impersonator: or alternatively, are estopped to deny responsibility for the misconduct of the impersonator to the same extent as the impersonator’s actions have injured the public including the Plaintiffs. The protection of the public interest demands such accountability from the Defendants, TURNER. - Jeff

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (7295)	2/18/2005 12:18:39 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

On 2/7/05, UCSY filed a Supplemental Citation of Authority that, on 2/10, was stricken by the judge. So what does UCSY do for an encore? They file a Renewed Supplemental Citation of Authority! The problem is that UCSY has been stymied by Lycos claiming a statutory immunity defense based on 47 USC 230 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. To get around this, UCSY is claiming a) they are being cyber stalked, and b) subject to unauthorized use of the "UCSY" trade name. ROFL! 2/7/05 82 SUPPLEMENTAL CITATION OF AUTHORITY by Universal Communicat, Michael J. Zwebner in support of [69-1] response reply to defendants' opposition to plaintffs' motion to amend complaint (bb) [Entry date 02/08/05] 2/9/05 83 NOTICE of violation of Court Order and MOTION by Lycos, Inc., Terra Lyco, Inc. to consolidate case 05-20149-CIV-MORENO with eariler action, and for sanctions (bb) [Entry date 02/10/05] 2/10/05 84 ORDER striking [82-1] notice of dispositive case authority (Signed by Judge Jose E. Martinez on 02/10/05) [EOD Date: 2/11/05] (bb) [Entry date 02/11/05] 2/15/05 85 RENEWED SUPPLEMENTAL CITATION OF AUTHORITY by Universal Communicat, Michael J. Zwebner in support of [69-1] response reply to defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' motion to amend complaint (bb) [Entry date 02/16/05] - Jeff