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 : Banned.......Replies to the A@P thread. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ravenseye who wrote (3793)	5/4/2005 12:47:11 PM
From: StockDung	Respond to of 5425

NoGuano was the alias that got the 2themart subpoena quashed. Thanks for posting that.

To: ravenseye who wrote (3793)	5/4/2005 1:16:06 PM
From: StockDung	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5425

BTW, WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO LIE ON YAHOO THAT I OWN A OFFSHORE HOLDING COMPANY IN THE CAYMAN ISLANDS? WILL YOU QUASH A SUBPOENA IF I SUE YOU? I HAVE NEVER OWNED A OFFSHORE HOLDING COMPANY YET YOU CONTINUE TO SPREAD THIS LIE ON THE XYBR YAHOO THREAD. PLEASE RETRACT THIS STATEMENT.

To: ravenseye who wrote (3793)	5/4/2005 1:21:34 PM
From: olivier asser	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5425

Interesting brief by INSP, balancing test, though I wonder what "basic identity information" means, i.e. limited? The judge spoke of political speech, but here we're talking about parties on both sides involved in securities offerings or trading. Tough questions raised on both sides. Thus, InfoSpace respectfully requests that if this Court denies J. Doe’s Motion to Quash, that it limit the scope of 2TheMart.com’s document request to require disclosure only of (1) basic identity information related to the subscribers’ initial registration for the siliconinvestor.com service, and (2) copies of messages that were publicly posted to the siliconinvestor.com message board about 2TheMart.com (ticker symbol TMRT), excluding messages posted to other message boards about other companies and topics, and excluding private e-mail communications of the subscribers.

To: ravenseye who wrote (3793)	5/4/2005 2:01:41 PM
From: SI Dave	Respond to of 5425

The court held that the identities would not be turned over unless (1) the subpoena was issued in good faith and not for any improper purpose; (2) the information sought relates to a core claim or defense; (3)the identifying information is directly and materially relevant to that core or defense; and (4) information sufficient to establish or disprove that claim or defense is unavailable from any other source. That was exactly the position I took when I was in business. The party who was the subject of the subpoena always received the benefit of the doubt until a judge found merit to issue or sustain the subpoena.