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: scion who wrote (11561)	2/7/2012 1:20:33 PM
From: scion	Respond to of 12465

Plaintiff Kenneth Eade is not above the law and he may not disregard this Court’s rules and orders with impunity. Eade’s Opposition concedes that despite the fact the Court ordered him to pay iHub $49,000 in attorneys’ fees by no later than October 27, 2011, he has not paid iHub one cent. Eade’s claims of poverty – which he does not even attempt to substantiate – contrast sharply with his international lifestyle that includes a securities law practice in Los Angeles, citizenship in Arizona, full-time residence in Paris, France, and “seven trips to the United States last year” with “[e]ach trip costing approximately $6,000.” (Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 1, 9 (Complaint); Dkt. No. 15 at 4 (Declaration of K. Eade).) Eade’s claim that he is “unable” to pay iHub is further belied by his failure to seek relief from the Court’s September 27, 2011 Order – for example, by requesting an extension to pay iHub or a payment installment plan. In the many months since the Court issued its Order, Eade has done nothing but stubbornly refuse to comply and threaten to file for bankruptcy in order to leave iHub uncompensated. This is not the conduct of someone acting in good faith. I. INTRODUCTION Doc 66 PDF file viewer.zoho.com