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 : DCI Telecommunications - DCTC Today -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dudley who wrote (12539)	12/10/1998 9:22:00 PM
From: Dudley	Respond to of 19331

i guess this confirms who the naked shorts @$0.80 are!!! LOLOLOLOLOLOL trying to recover their $30 million paper loss LOLOLOL

To: Dudley who wrote (12539)	12/10/1998 11:30:00 PM
From: TRIIBoy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 19331

I received this from a friend regarding the lawsuit. Everything stated in here is of Opinion, and nothing more. This is not legal advice, simply opinions of a lowly law student..... >From my limited opinion I would say this case is a B.S.. This doesn't sound that serious and it sound as if the attorneys are idiots or maybe smart. The only reason I think they might be smart is by posting the email they can defeat any arguments if they try to sue after the statute of limitations runs out, (Relations back Rule 15) but that is probably something they didn't think of. The complaint they wrote seems to me to be clearly insufficient and they have made mistakes a first year law student would not make. They also have included TO MUCH INFO. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state a complaint must be short and concise. In this complaint they go into history and bullshit that makes me say what the fuck are they doing. It is like they are trying to argue the case before it even gets to trial. Also the atty didn't sign the waiver form. The attorney is hoping people are stupid enough to reply, in which he will get their real names. The atty is too cheap to hire someone to track down IP's and find out who these people are. It seems as if the attorney definitely does not have the financial backing that a 10 million to 30 million case would have. ALSO NEW HAMPSHIRE IS KNOWN FOR NOT GIVING LARGE AWARDS. This attorney is not to swift in my opinion to bring it in a state that probably won't grant such a high reward. This case also deals with 1st Amendment issues that I won't go into. IF no one responds the atty will then try to post a copy of the complaint on the internet. And the court could deem any party who read it to be deemed served. BUT, from my limited knowledge I would say that the plaintiff has to state NAMES not alias's. His pleading is definitely insufficient. His complaint seems to be inconsitent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. And if he eventually was to serve a party, if I were that party I would file Rule 11 sanctions for the plaintiff's attorney failing to meet his obligations under Rule 11. It seems as if this is a ploy to make a quick buck. ALSO THE COMPLAINT FAILS TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF 1332 SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION. TELL THE ATTORNEY TO READ RANDAZZO V. EAGLE PICHERS. HE IS MAKING THE MISTAKE A FIRST YEAR ATTORNEY WOULD NOT MAKE. See what college this attorney went to and what rank he was, shouldn't be hard to find out. If he is from a 3rd rate school, obviously no one would hire for a 10 million dollar case someone who went to a school ranked below the # 50 law school in the U.S. Also if a defendant found someone in England who was doing the same posting they were and cross-claims them this could defeat the Subject Matter Jurisdiction, and the case would be dismissed. THIS IS JUST OPINION NOTHING MORE.