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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : CSHK CASHCO MANAGEMENT Y2K -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: EL KABONG!!! who wrote (4182)	6/9/1998 2:01:00 PM
From: ISOMAN	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7491

You are partially right. The Judge (or Justice in Canada) would have to rule on what Janice's lawyer could or could not look into. Assuming the Judge had a breakdown and allowed everything to be public, inside info and all, Janice would still have to pay a lawyers bill, and I don't know what they cost in Italy, but in Canada, It isn't uncommon for $200 an hour. Plus, you are assuming that a libel suit is what would happen. More likely a cease and decist order, like the TSE is in the process of doing to someone on SI. You also have to consider that a retainer would have to be paid. I don't pretend to know Janice's financial state. Maybe a $5000 retainer isn't a big deal to her. Also, she could, theorettically, have to answer to questions in the states (I think she said she was a citizen). That would make Janice's life more difficult too, because if a pre-liminary hearing deemed a court case necessary, then she would have to appear in court in the U.S. If she did not show, that would open up a whole box of problems. In the end, put to a Jury test, the Jury would probably be just as confused as to everyone's motives hear. They probably wouldn't convict on libel or slander, whichever you want to think the case would be over, but, it isn't too far fetched to see a jury not being convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Janice was Completely without malice. Even if she was 100% devoted to a cause, ordained by God, if the jury isn't fully convinced, and here is the potential problem for you , or I, or Janice: She would have to pay her legal fees. and it isn't hard to run up a 5 figure legal bill. I'll give you an example. Once I was driving down the street. I was doing the speed limit. I had a passenger. A woman in another car, pulled out of a parking lot, and broad sided me. The police charged her at the scene with failing to yield. etc. etc. Her insurance company looked at the accident report, and agreed she was at fault, and paid my damages. 2 months later I got a summons to court and was being sued for $25000. Reason emotional distress and fraudulent misrepresentation. She was in her late sixties. The insurance company dropped her as a client after they paid the $2000 in damages. She sued me because the loss of driving privleges had Stressed her out and claimed that the damage to my car was already there and I was taking advantage of her.(The frame was bent, front wheel drive) In court, I showed that the car had just had the body completely redone a couple of months before the accident. The judge ruled that I couldn't be responsible for the stress, because I didn't cause the accident. However, he couldn't be sure that the car wasn't already damaged, and that possible the frame was already bent. My lawyer indicated I was driving before the accident, and after, the car had to be towed. The Judge still had a brain spasm, and said, but we can't be sure thatt the frame wasn't already bent... in the end I didn't have to pay her anything, butt.... she didn't have to pay my legal bills because of the small shread of doubt. legal costs for the case. $2300 I would have been better off to pay the damages myself. in summary, (so I can get off my soap box), any court case is potentially bad news for anyone.