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 : AWLT wines and gourmet food - Italy Direct -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Chuck Delo who wrote (1927)	8/21/1998 1:11:00 PM
From: Matthew J. Landi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2595

Off Topic (slightly): What's wrong with this picture??: >>>This page updated: THURSSDAY AUGUST 20, 1998<<< You'd figure for what the charge to read their comments they could at least spell it correct. LOL

To: Chuck Delo who wrote (1927)	8/21/1998 3:04:00 PM
From: William Lewis Perdue III	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2595

My understanding is that Monday's release will say that Araldica has retained a New York Law firm and will be suing me for libel. For what it's worth, I just _won_ one of those year before last and I can tell you that I CAN'T WAIT for the discovery process to start so that questions will be compelled by the court and made under oath. I can't wait, really I can't. I can think of few better things. The discovery process is _very_ broad and will allow me to compel testimony from Mr. Landi, all the officers of the company and key people such as those associated with Access America, Danielle Cheese, All Brands, etc. Nothing pleases an investigative reporter more than the prospect of boxes of documents and depositions. I will share that information with you and my subscribers. Our articles so far have been accurate, complete and in context. Everyone mentioned has been contacted _multiple_ times for comment and they have refused to do so. So far, I have not had _one_ single fact questioned that _also_ offered information for a correction. Vague generalities and complaints don't count. If someone can offer accurate, provable, specific information that corrects anything in these articles, then it will run and IF it proves that we made a mistake, then it will run prominently as a correction. IF. If -- IF -- Mr. Landi or anyone else connected with this case has information of this nature and has withheld it, then they bear the primary responsibility for failing disclosing it. I have not asked for any sort of information that most public companies already disclose in their SEC filings. For example: in the filings for Mondavi, Chalone, Beringer etc., they tell me how many cases of wine they sold in 1997 how that varied from the previous year. MR. LANDI: how many cases of wine did Araldica sell in 1997? I've asked that before and gotten no answer. You can't possibly imagine how happy it makes me to think that the disclosure process will provide me with _all_ the documents pertaining to that and to the licenses and more. Truth is the absolute legal defense to libel and so far, I have been offered no proof -- no facts, no documents, no specifics -- by anyone concerned with these stories that we have printed anything but the truth. I am not a novice at this process. I have been doing investigative reporting for neary 30 years. I helped break the Koreagate scandal in Washington that sent a number of people, including one Congressman (Richard Hanna of Calif.) to prison. I broke some of the key campaign finance stories concerning the Nixon Administration and I won a suit for the release of documents by the Watergate Special prosecution unit. In 30 years of investigative reporting, I have been threatened time and again with libel suits to try and keep me quiet. It has not worked for three decades and it won't work now. I've taught journalism -- including mass communication law (inckluding defamation) at UCLA and Cornell -- and the first thing that I teach my students is that "truth" means PROVABLY true in a court of law. I believe that my phone logs, fax logs and the 1.5-FOOT stack of public records and documents and the scores of people interviewed for the articles will be sufficient for that and will will prove that there was no reckless disregard for the truth -- which the plaintiff will have to prove if _IF_ there are inaccuracies. Mr. Landi is totally off base trying to accuse me of being in league with or associated with short sellers and any sort of discovery process in a libel suit will show that. Unusual as it is, I agreed immediately when Mr. Landi asked if I was willing to take a lie detector test. We also have a law here in California (which will have jurisdiction which will have to be filed here) that makes it a state crime to file a lawsuit with the intention of stopping public debate. I have this as well as the option of my own libel suits to file. Libel suit? I can't wait. Really. Bring on the discovery process!