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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Bill Wexler's Profits of DOOM -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter V who wrote (2446)	9/8/1998 3:39:00 PM
From: AHM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4634

Sorry - but you are in error. Part of the filing fee is a fee to the sheriff to serve the papers. In my state it is only $35 per service. If the defendant tries to avoid service by the sheriff, then process servers who are more inventive will wind up being hired. Although costlier ($200 to $300 per service) this accumulates to costs which the losing defendant must pay. In the suit I referred to there are "John Doe" defendants who WILL be served once their identities are disclosed in a discovery motion that will absolutely be granted by the court. In my state a response date (with properly drawn papers according to the Rules of Court disputing the Complaint) is set for 30 days after the date certified as the date of service. The courts do not appreciate their being used for purposes of simply scaring a defendant, as you seem to think is happening in the suit I posted. Woebetide the attorney who does this - there won't be a judge where he practices who will ever give him a break! And judges have memories like elephants in matters such as this. Settling a case prior to trial (collecting what is owed, etc. is never a problem for the court) - but if the suit was intended solely to intimidate then that's another matter altogether. Of course a plaintiff can dismiss at any time - I doubt this will happen in this case (for some of the defendants) unless it turns out that the John Does are stupid kids - and if this is the case their parents will go through many sleepless nights before they are let off the hook. As has happened in the past, the Jon Does may turn out to be brokers who are trying to influence the price of the stock - and if this happens all hell will take place including potential loss of their licenses and additional suits against the firms they work for. If the John Does turn out to be investors with vested interests, depending on their resources, they will face severe financial penalties if they lose. All defendants will have to hire attorneys after being served or, if they cannot afford to, most states provide help through Legal Aid. Such assistance is, in my state, a mandatory paragraph in the Summons that accompanies the Complaint. Any individual defendant can respond pro se - but in many states a corporate defendant may not. I have been the victim of a frivolous suit. When it was over I sued under the frivolous suit statutes in my state (my attorney was so incensed he deferred charges knowing we would win hands-down) and collected all my legal fees and other ancillary damages reflecting documented losses and the attorney for the plaintiff was censured by the bar association of his state (a demand for which was part of our filings with the court and the bar association). Realistically, as is usually the case, the financial part of this was covered by malpractice insurance with insurance attorneys defending. It doesn't take too many such censures for an attorney to be disbarred for unethical behavior.