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 (11720)	4/24/2013 7:34:38 PM
From: geoffrey Wren	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12465

I would suppose that Eade has no legal practice anymore. Anyone that googled his name would not want to hire him. Further, since he is being sued by the SEC and has been sanctioned in this court I would presume that the state bar will get around to suspending him or disbarring him soon. His wife left him. He cannot be living the high life anymore At this point pursuing the case seems like a vendetta against Eade. You would think Investorshub would be tired of throwing money at their attorneys to pursue this. The only way it really makes sense is if Investorshub believes he has some hidden assets and will put something forth to prevent the finding of contempt that would make his disbarment more likely. If so, he would propose a payment and say it was from his parents, etc. Or maybe he has some money in a pension that is protected, but Eade could access to pay off Investorshub. But unless there is some indication of an ability to pay by Eade, if I were Investorshub I would just get all that Eade owes them reduced to a Judgment and assign it to a debt collection attorney on contingency and stop the growth of attorney fees in this case.

To: scion who wrote (11720)	4/25/2013 9:30:07 AM
From: DanDerr	Respond to of 12465

Nice...

To: scion who wrote (11720)	5/14/2013 7:26:01 PM
From: scion	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12465

Pacer update - 13 May 13 - Kenneth Eade v. Investorshub.com, Inc. et al CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:11-cv-01315 ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov Date Filed # Docket Text 05/13/2013 107 Offers of Proof filed by Defendant Investorshub.com, Inc. re: Motion Hearing, Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings, Link Motions to Minutes,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 106 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Good, Christopher) (Entered: 05/13/2013) 04/18/2013 106 MINUTES: Defendants Investorshub.com. Inc.'s Application for Order to Show Cause why a Contempt Citation should not issue against Kenneth Eade for failure to comply with Court orders 98 : The motion hearing is held. The Court states its tentative views and is inclined to grant Defendants' Application for an Order to Show Cause why Plaintiff, Kenneth Eade, should not be found in civil contempt for the alleged failure to comply with Court orders other than with respect to the payment of amounts due. Counsel address the Court. Having heard from counsel for Defendants/Movants and Mr. Eade, an attorney who is self-represented, the Court sets the hearing on the Order to Show Cause for July 11, 2013 at 1:30 p.m. The Court orders Defendant to file a brief that sets forth the proposed offers of proof with respect to the alleged violations of the Court orders that have been made in connection with the award of attorneys fees to Defendants, other than the Order for the payment of fees itself. The brief shall be filed on or before May 13, 2013. It shall include a Declaration that sets forth the evidentiary basis for Defendants' claims. Plaintiff may submit a written response and a declaration or other evidence he intends to present in response, but should be mindful of his potential Fifth Amendment rights, notwithstanding that this is a civil contempt proceeding. Any such response shall be filed on or before May 22, 2013. At the hearing, the Court will determine whether it is necessary or appropriate to permit cross-examination of any declarant. All Declarants shall be present for purpose of potential cross-examination and any re-direct. The Court urges parties to confer as to the open issues on the payment of the fees, to seek to reach a resolution informally. Each states that he will make such an effort IT IS SO ORDERED by Judge John A. Kronstadt Court Reporter: Alex Joko. (ir) (Entered: 04/23/2013) Plaintiff Kenneth Eade represented by Kenneth G Eade Kenneth G Eade Law Offices 6399 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 507 Los Angeles, CA 90048 323-782-8802 Fax: 310-861-0620 Email: keneade93101@yahoo.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED V. Defendant Investorshub.com, Inc. a Florida corp. Defendant Doe 1 also known as No Dummy Defendant Doe 2 also known as Janice Shell Defendant Doe 3 also known as Faster 183 Defendant Doe 4 also known as Stock Mavin Defendant Doe 5 also known as Renee Defendant Doe 6 also known as Virtual Drew Defendant Doe 7 also known as Bob 41 Defendant Doe 8 also known as Overachiever Defendant Doe 9 also known as Doberman Defendant Doe 10 ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov