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: StockDung who wrote (12154)	5/7/2016 2:45:14 PM
From: the_worm06	Respond to of 12465

About time I have stayed away on this. This was my only encounter with these clowns, 7 years ago: mindbodypolitic.com (make sure you read the comments section)

To: StockDung who wrote (12154)	5/10/2016 12:09:04 PM
From: SI Dave	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

The allegation of Mitchell, Byrne and Deep Capture LLC that the websitecontains speech which is protected in the United States suggests the Deep Capturedefendants, all of whom are in the United States, will resist enforcement of amonetary judgment of this Court against them in that country. If true, it was silly of them to even appear in Canada to defend the case. In doing so, they allowed due process to occur and in doing so mitigated one aspect of the law (SPEECH Act) that would have killed the judgment and associated orders at the border, namely they they allowed due process to occur. In fairness, they may have appeared and litigated the case there because (at least, my recollection is) the webite's host (or registrar) quite inappropriately complied with an unenforceable injunction by a Canadian Court. As I recall, the host, registrar and website owner were all in the USA; the Canadian injunction should have been DOA as it was repugnant to US law. That was a travesty that never should have occurred.