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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Naked Shorting-Hedge Fund & Market Maker manipulation? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rrufff who wrote (201)	4/26/2005 10:05:59 AM
From: kknightmcc	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5034

rrruff, this is the text of Rule 11 order I spoke about. I can't give links as the documents are not online and any documents that I post from the other side would have to be retyped, but I think you will appreciate this order: Text of Judge Buchwald’s Order of March 28, 2005 ORDER 03CV5035 (NRB) The Court has reviewed your Notice of Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b) and the Memorandum of Law in Support. Having done so, I have tentatively concluded that you received the substantial assistance of a lawyer in the preparation of those papers. The submission of “ghost-written” documents raises questions both under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which contains a certification requirement under DR 1-102 (A) (4) of the New York Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court is entitled to know who the real author of the papers is for reasons of imposition of discipline and also to avoid a situation in which a party ostensibly appearing pro se is not in fact so, but is nonetheless receiving the advantages that the case law gives to unrepresented parties. If an attorney drafted, but did not sign, the papers you submitted, this nondisclosure “may amount to conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation” and “[t]he lawyer assisting the pro se litigant will then be a participant in such misconduct in direct violation of DR 1-102 (A) (4) which provides that ‘a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.” N.Y.C. Eth. Op. 1987-2. Further the failure of an attorney to sign papers that an attorney drafted has been held to violate the certification requirement of Rule 11. See, e.g. In re Merriam, 250 B.R. 724 (Bankr. Col. 2000); Wesley v. Don Stein Buick, Inc., 987 F. Supp. 884, 885-86 (D. Kan. 1997); Laremont-Lopez v. S.E. Tidewater Opportunity Ctr., 968 R. Supp. 1075, 1077-79 (E.D. Va. 1997); see also Klein v. Spear, Leeds & Kellogg, 309 F. Supp. 341, 342-43 (S.D.N.Y. 1970) (describing ghost-writing as “smack[ing] of the gross unfairness that characterizes hit-and-run tactics”). This is a very serious matter that must be resolved immediately. Any attorney who substantially assisted in preparing the motion papers must surface and actually sign the papers or if an attorney was involved and doesn’t wish to appear, the papers should be withdrawn. If the Court is incorrect in its suspicions and you are in fact the author of the papers in question, you must submit an affidavit attesting to that fact and explaining how you obtained the legal scholarship that is reflected in the motion papers. You are directed to respond to this Order within two weeks of its date. SO ORDERED. DATED: New York, New York March 28, 2005 Signed by the District Judge, Naomi Reice Buchwald