Re: 1/16/10 - [SPNG] "Patchman" Receives Cease and Desist Letter
Posted by: patchman
Date: Saturday, January 16, 2010 11:07:55 AM
In reply to: None Post # of 171
I received this from Sichenzia Ross Friedman Ference LLL representing Moscowitz yesterday.
Dear Mr. Patch
This firm represents Vanity Events Holding Inc. ("Vanity") Vanity has recently learned that you have been contacting shareholders of Vanity and third-parties and making disparaging and defamatory comments concerning Vantity, its officers and its Board of directors on certain websites such as www.investorshub.advfn.com.
Specifically, one such post made on the above referenced website on January 6, 2010 indicates that "[Steven Moscowitz] is up to something. money Laundering, hiding assets, something." such language is defamatory, disparaging and damaging to Mr. Moscowitz personally as well as Vanity, where Mr. Moscowitz serves as Chief Executive Officer.
Accordingly, Vanity hereby demands that you immediately cease and desist from making any further defamatory and disparaging comments concerning Vanity, its officers or its Board Members. Please be advised that if you continue with your current course of conduct, Vanity has authorized us to take any and all appropriate actions to protect their rights, and hold you personally responsible for any damage to Vanity.
Be guided accordingly
Richard A. Friedman
siliconinvestor.com
=====
Posted by: patchman
Date: Saturday, January 16, 2010 11:30:04 AM
In reply to: patchman who wrote msg# 157 Post # of 171
1. Can you defame an individual who is personally, and the companies he runs, being sued on several fronts for fraud? Spongetech is being sued by the Mets and MSG for bouncing checks. FACT Business Talk radio sued Moscowitz and RME for non-payment and won. FACT The SEC has publicly accused Moscowitz of fraud by the release of the Wells Notice to the public. FACT And several class action lawsuits are filed against Spongetech and Moscowitz individually. FACT So for me to defame him beyond what defamation he imposed on himself would be impossible to prove in any court of law.
2. Defame Vanity? Can you defame a company; a company with $5,000 in revenues no less? Here is how the laws define defamation
Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a magazine or newspaper.
Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:
1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
3. If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
4. Damage to the plaintiff.
In the context of defamation law, a statement is "published" when it is made to the third party. That term does not mean that the statement has to be in print.
Damages are typically to the reputation of the plaintiff, but depending upon the laws of the jurisdiction it may be enough to establish mental anguish.
Most jurisdictions also recognize "per se" defamation, where the allegations are presumed to cause damage to the plaintiff. Typically, the following may consititute defamation per se:
* Attacks on a person's professional character or standing;
* Allegations that an unmarried person is unchaste;
* Allegations that a person is infected with a sexually transmitted disease;
* Allegations that the person has committed a crime of moral turpitude;
While actions for defamation have their roots in common law, most jurisdictions have now enacted statutes which modify the common law. They may change the elements of the cause of action, limit when an action may be filed, or modify the defenses to an action for defamation. Some may even require that the defendant be given an opportunity to apologize before the plaintiff can seek non-economic damages.
when Jim Cramer threatened to sue me several years ago for defamation, my attorney created a 20 page document citing Massachusetts law and citing cases involving defamation. Being a public figure as Cramer is and Moscowitz is, proving defamation requires the plaintiff to prove that perceptions of their character were altered, altered by that individual, and altered causing harm and personal damage. for Moscowitz to prove this he would need to prove that somehow an opinion stated on this board affected in any way the public's perception of him personally. I am not worried based on Moscowitz' reputation long before I ever heard of him.
As for Vanity, they can't sue for defamation but they can sue for business interference or manipulation. That too would be impossible to prove in the post cited as Vanity has no business and the trading in the market never altered by that post.
Clearly Moscowitz is trying to intimidate those that have spoken freely about the red flags in his business practices. I will certainly be forwarding this memo on to the SEC and DOJ as an example of such intimidation tactics. If they are the third parties referenced in the memo, have at it guys. I am sure in any case you bring I will be using these agencies as my character witnesses and validation of my accusations.
siliconinvestor.com
=====
Posted by: zomniac
Date: Saturday, January 16, 2010 12:05:03 PM
In reply to: patchman who wrote msg# 158 Post # of 171
I think Moscowitz is a scammer.
My E-Mail is in my profile for any lawyers interested.
siliconinvestor.com
=====
Posted by: patchman
Date: Saturday, January 16, 2010 12:14:29 PM
In reply to: patchman who wrote msg# 157 Post # of 171
I wonder, with evidence that Moscowitz in position as CFO of Spongetech was not paying his debts did these lawyers get cash up front for their services or will they be receiving a check that bounces or has a stop payment put on it?
Vanity and Spongetech operate with common officers and are co-located in the same office so do they hold the same bad principles and practices relative to making payments?
siliconinvestor.com
=====
Posted by: hasher
Date: Saturday, January 16, 2010 12:15:34 PM
In reply to: patchman who wrote msg# 157 Post # of 171
If that weasel moskowitz thought he had a 1% chance of winning that threatened lawsuit, he wouldn't warn you first. he has been suit happy where it benefits him. but not so much where his fradulent actions may get exposed. I see his latest lawsuit was filed on friday, against him and others for non payment of infomercial royalties. I think his winning percentage will drastically decline from here on out.
siliconinvestor.com
=====
Posted by: hasher
Date: Saturday, January 16, 2010 12:18:58 PM
In reply to: zomniac who wrote msg# 159 Post # of 171
I couldn't agree more. He threatened to sue me as well, in his best 3rd grade english and first grade grammar. As long as illiterates are allowed to run OTC companies, the whole system is in trouble.
Has he told us yet how big the NSS situation is in this one, or are there any PM's flying about, out there about the big "buyout"?
siliconinvestor.com
=====
Posted by: Risicare
Date: Saturday, January 16, 2010 12:24:03 PM
In reply to: patchman who wrote msg# 157 Post # of 171
I smell the desperation of some crooks on their way to jail.
siliconinvestor.com
=====
|
