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@Pacific & TRUTHSEEKER Expose Crims & Scammers!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: StockDung who wrote (782)	4/20/2006 3:25:25 PM
From: ravenseye	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5673

CV2002-023934 Case Type Civil File Date 12/12/2002 11/29/2005 OXS - Order To Extend Time For Service 12/1/2005 NOTE: UNTIL APRIL 30,2006 superiorcourt.maricopa.gov From: Floyd3491@... Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 1:15 am Subject: Who is Floyd Schneider and why is he interested in Zicam? floydtheonea... Dear Friends. My name is Floyd Schneider and I would like you to know why I have posted so much information on this thread about Zicam. I first became aware of anosmia and Zicam when doing a search on google on the company that markets Zicam Matrixx Initiative Inc. previously known as Gum Tech International. I started to expose the dangers and warning signs on silicon investor and yahoo mtxx /gumm message boards. In a attempt to silence the truth Matrixx has filed a SLAPP suit against me and has added my wife also to the suit. The suit is located here superiorcourt.maricopa.gov More of the post is at: health.groups.yahoo.com CV2004-001338 Case Type Civil File Date 1/23/2004 Kenneth W Wigton Plaintiff Male Daniel Radacosky superiorcourt.maricopa.gov CV2004-021668 Case Type Civil File Date 11/17/2004 superiorcourt.maricopa.gov CV2005-002569 Case Type Civil File Date 2/11/2005 superiorcourt.maricopa.gov CV2004-001338 02/16/2005 Docket Code 023 Form V000A Page 2 While the Court does not sit to enforce ethical rules generally, there is no doubt of its inherent authority to regulate the conduct of lawyers who appear before it. Here, the Court finds that Mr. Radacosky’s anonymous, message-board postings were made in connection with the representation of his clients in these pending, consolidated cases. No other conclusion is plausible. Mr. Radacosky’s failure to disclose his role and direct interest in the issues which are the subject of those message-board postings is, in the Court’s view, a violation of ER 4.1(a) (“Truthfulness in Statements to Others”) and ER 4.3(“Dealing With Unrepresented Person”) and potentially a violation of ER 8.4(c) (“Misconduct”). Without deciding the wisdom of Mr. Radacosky’s activities or whether those activities conflict with his own clients’ interests, it is clear that his postings have no purpose but to harm a litigation adversary...... courtminutes.maricopa.gov Re: 2/18/05 - [MTXX] Judge Rules Attorney's Failure to Disclose his Identity on Yahoo Violated the Law.... Message 21060618 veribull gets sued!!! by: painfullyblunt2004 04/06/05 04:59 pm Msg: 111638 fullofbull is now officially a defendant in a defamation suit. Don't spend all my money golfing, fullofbull. I don't want to have to execute a judgment on your golf clubs. finance.messages.yahoo.com CV2005-005820 Case Type Civil File Date 4/6/2005 superiorcourt.maricopa.gov From: AsturiasPh.D/MBA Message 21531900 Re: 4/6/05 - [MTXX] Radacosky vs. John Doe Message 21223168 Filed: 7/05/2005 Number: 1-05-CV-044455 sccaseinfo.org Filed: 7/08/2005 Hearing officers report about a six-count complaint filed November 29, 2004 supremecourt.az.gov Re: 7/14/05 - [MTXX] Radacosky vs. John Doe: Radacosky Subpoenas Yahoo... Message 21507468 Re: 7/20/05 - [MTXX] Radacosky vs. John Doe: Radacosky Subpoenas Additional Information from Yahoo Posters Message 21533072 Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Arizona Saturday, October 15, 2005 Consideration of the Hearing Officer’s Report recommending a six month and one day suspension, probation upon reinstatement (length and terms to be determined upon reinstatement), restitution, and costs. supreme.state.az.us; Disciplinary Commission Report filed November 14, 2005 Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Arizona on October 15, 2005 pursuant to Rule 58, Ariz. R. S. Ct., for consideration of the Hearing Officer's report filed July 8, 2005 recommending a six month and one-day suspension, probation upon reinstatement with length and terms and conditions to be determined upon reinstatement, restitution and costs of these disciplinary proceedings, respondent filed an objection and requested oral argument. supremecourt.az.gov Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Arizona Saturday, November 19, 2005 Consideration of the Hearing Officer’s Report recommending transfer to disability inactive status. supremecourt.az.gov TEN DAYS LATER ATTORNEYS TRANSFERRED TO DISABILITY INACTIVE STATUS - 2005 ATTORNEY FILE NO. STATUS DATE FILED 1. Medansky, David B. 05-5000 Temporary Disability Inactive Status 02/24/05 2. MacDonald, Rand 04-5003 Indefinite Disability Inactive Status 03/16/05 3. Donahoe, J. Michael 02-5000 Indefinite Disability Inactive Status Costs 9/28/05 11/29/05 4. Marquez, O. Mark 05-5002 Temporary Disability Inactive Status 09/02/05 5. Medansky, David B. 05-5000 Indefinite Disability Inactive Status 11/29/05 6. Radacosky, Daniel J. 05-5001 Indefinite Disability Inactive Status 11/29/05 supremecourt.az.gov Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Arizona Friday, April 7, 2006 Consideration of the State Bar’s Petition for Order to Show Cause Why Discipline Should Not Proceed. supremecourt.az.gov pending? lma(zz)o supremecourt.az.gov