is watching and learning.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Post Unavailable
Additional Information
Still in denial I see. The very fact that in Canada the person who is claimed to have committed defamation must prove their innocence rather than the plaintiff having to prove defamation is sufficient grounds for non-enforcement. Plus, the Canadian Supreme Court has specifically ruled that the US Constitution does not apply to Canadian findings of law.
You may have missed this provision. Their lawsuit against message boards dead on arrival.
(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of
Federal or State law, a domestic court shall not recognize
or enforce a foreign judgment for defamation against the provider
of an interactive computer service, as defined in section
230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230) unless
the domestic court determines that the judgment would be
consistent with section 230 if the information that is the subject
of such judgment had been provided in the United States.
They have made such fanfare of their lawsuits and threats of lawsuits. Why do you think have they not attempted to bring any of the actions to the USA? The answer is obvious: it would put an end to their terroristic bluster.
I did not expect a response. I knew the law and the facts were plain for anyone who looked. Some just had to provide cover for their Serbian bosses. Some still will even though the facade has been blown off their legal posturing and press release hogwash.
What do you think about my "warped interpretation" now?
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.2765:
Canadian libel judgment against this and other websites: Illegal in the USA.
Canadian libel judgments against internet posters: Illegal in the USA.
The judgment was never valid in the USA. Now the defendants can get a USA court to issue them a judgment against those simpletons at Mina Mar. Miro is use to being at that end of a lawsuit.
The name of the auditor is being kept secret? That's very strange since most public companies select an auditor and have a shareholder vote to ratify their selection and the election of board members. Another possible explanation is the first audit firm looked at the information they were given to audit and decided there was no way they would put their name on an opinion letter. Why would an auditing firm would feel harassed over an audit they had not even done yet? There is nothing magical about audits. Their job is to certify the company's books. They would not care about the company's issues with the public.
We are disheartened that the governing or self regulatory bodies simply choose to do nothing and what appears to us chose to side with short sellers and "over sellers" instead of at least remaining neutral.
What is that about? Another try to take focus off their sad tale by blaming some mysterious bodies?
We are pleased to see some of the stock bashers rained in with the recent court ruling which in its sense gave us our second wind, and the will to come back with a vengeance.
Rained it? Do bashers melt in the rain? Was there a court ruling somewhere against bashers?
Post Unavailable
Additional Information
Thank you for that thoughtfully expressed rebuttal. Which of my "warped interpretations" do you disagree with?
That the plaintiffs sought million of dollars in damages?
That they plaintiffs repeatedly promised this windfall for the shareholders?
That the claim was undefended?
That the judge acted solely on the basis of the plaintiffs evidence and testimony?
That the judge was called a "rising star" by the plaintiffs?
That the judge awarded a mere $75,000 in actual damages?
That the plaintiffs waived that off as the "going amount" despite that they claimed millions of dollars in damages?
That the plaintiffs have repeatedly said the judgment was being sent to Florida for enforcement?
That the case has not been brought to Florida?
Please be specific about which part of my interpretation is "warped" and why you deem it so. Impress us with your knowledge of "legal stuff"
Post Unavailable
Additional Information
We know who NCIL is. There are hundreds of references on the internet to "New Century International Leasing Company (NCIL)" of Beijing.
The question is who is "Beijing New Century International Leasing Company (BNC)". The only references on the internet to "Beijing New Century International Leasing Company (BNC)" are from Landstar's press releases.
Why does Landstar refer to this entity as "Beijing New Century International Leasing Company (BNC)" and the rest of the internet world refers to a "New Century International Leasing Company (NCIL)" of Beijing?
Is this the same company? Has anyone found an independent reference to "Beijing New Century International Leasing Company (BNC)" except for a Landstar press release? Or anything from NCIL that affirms the Landstar press release?
NCIL is widely known and real. Who is "BNC"?
You are not reading your own quotation.
"Since no statutory immunities exist to shield users, the standard laws pertaining to defamation and infringement apply. If a user is found to have posted defamatory content, the user will be liable, even if the site can escape liability under Section 230."
-- the user will be held liable, even if the site can escape liability under Section 230--
The users have not been sued. The website has been sued but the website can not be held liable. That is as black and white as it gets.
"How would you classify iHub? ISP, ICP, ICF?"
Why bother? The law that provides immunity form liability does not make those distinctions. 230 covers "interactive computer services". Websites like ihub and google and yahoo are interactive computer services.
That is why this case is not occurring in the US. It would would be dismissed as a barred claim as will any attempt to enforce a foreign judgement since it is repugnant to public policy.
If the real intent was to connect with shareholders they would have provided at least as much notice as the people who attended from China.
"Unfortunately you do not appear to understand that by not requesting a change of venue, iHub basically agreed to Canada as a venue."
Interesting conclusion. My interpretation is that they told the Canadian court that since it has no jurisdiction even if it takes jurisdiction there is no need to defend. The plaintiff and court are free to go on about their business.
What if this case had been filed in Argentina or Russia or the UAE? Would a US website without interests there be compelled to defend especially when they can not be held liable in the US?
"iHub apparently prefer a Canadian venue which is their right."
There is nothing to support that conclusion. If that was true they would have continued a defense. There appears to be unlimited amounts of evidence that could be produces for a libel defense.
Think again? Did you read what you quoted there? The website is not the user. The website is immune from liability.
Unlike Canada, speakers and authors are liable for their speech in the US. The carriers are not.
"It does not need to determine all protections, only if the protection afforded within the scope of internet libel, is as great as the foreign country. "
Yes and in the US the website has a federal immunity. The claim brought in Canada is barred in the US so the defendant website was not afforded the same protections.
"Why do you think the Chinese traveled half the globe to meet with investors?"
Did they have more than one weeks notice? That would be more notice than the valued shareholders received. Or was this expo only for Toronto based people?
It was made a topic for debate when their own press release said they are expecting economic benefit from the suit.
Grace v eBay was dismissed and the dismissal upheld on appeal in favor of eBay.
"However, the Act does not bar claims for injunctive relief."
That is very true and is an entirely unrelated matter from the $4 million claim against an immune entity for slander. If injunctive relief is what they wanted why not file for an injunction in a court that has the power to grant and jurisdiction to enforce one? That is the usual and customary way of obtaining an injunction.
Why all of the theatrics over a libel suit against defendants that did not libel them?
"iHUB allows its users to commit libel and as such should be held accountable."
That is wishful thinking. Should be and can be are not the same thing. Perhaps you should research the relevant law since THAT is all that matters. It is a very short law and very specific and has a lot of precedent.
I do not care since the outcome is obvious. It is just shameful to see all of the promises of riches that will never happen.
Has anyone said that Canadian judgements can not be enforced in the US? That would be obviously wrong. What many are saying correctly is THIS judgement can not be enforced because US law (the CDA) forbids it.
Jurisdiction is only any issue when it comes to enforcement. The only courts that can enforce are those with jurisdiction over assets.
Post Unavailable
Additional Information
You are absolutely correct EXCEPT when the foreign judgement contradicts US law or is a claim barred by law.
They sued the wrong defendants and did it in the wrong country.
Post Unavailable
Additional Information
"I think they should readjust or extend all the dates for all of their dividends to be just one date. That would keep it simple and eliminate all confusion about the variety of dates. That will also give those newer shareholders like me a chance to participate in the dividend distribution."
What do you say to the shareholders of record when each of those undelivered dividends were declared and do not still own those shares? Too bad, we are taking it back but you have not lost anything since we were never going to make good on it? Or we are going to dilute your dividend by sharing it with a few billion more shares that did not exist when it was originally declared?
"What I-Hub did is no different than a radio station that fails to delay-dump their feed with at least a 4 or 8 second delay so as to avoid a rouge caller or malicious personal attack being broadcast over the airwaves. The FCC had laws to protect the listeners, it's just the internet didn't."
The radio station can be fined by the FCC. Under US federal law website operators can not be held liable for content submitted by users. They can not even be sued for it. That is one of the reasons that a Canadian judgement will not be enforced and why foreign libel judgements are never enforced in the US against individuals. Both types of judgements contradict US law and public policy.
Four days notice to the "Shareholders Conference" for the valued shareholders of these five companies? How considerate of them.
Could this be the big announcement of the default judgement in the lawsuit filed in the wrong country that can not be enforced? That makes the most sense. They are not allowing enough time for anyone to show up and ask questions they can not answer.
Post Unavailable
Additional Information
"Turns out that Gutnick was a crook, but he still got his case heard through transnational litigation."
He did? Your citation? Gutnick never came before a US court. The matter was settled not enforced.
The Gutnick claim was about a story published in WSJ's Barrons written by a staff writer not third parties.
Cite relevant case law.
You are talking about international business disputes. This is not that type of claim-there is no business-to-business agreement mentioned in the original lawsuit.
Ford, GE and other companies have a presence in Canada. They create Canadian subsidiaries that operate in Canada. That company is the company that is subject to Canadian law. Does this website company have operations in Canada? If they do that is at risk and that Canadian company would defend the claim. That is why Canadian sites like stockhouse take down posts when someone claims the post is libelous.
Their claim is that they have been defamed and that this web site and others are publishers and should be held liable as they might be in Canada. US law say no way unless the foreign court gives consideration to the protections of US laws. Laws like the 1st amendment or CDA. The Canada court will not consider those laws. This is the reason that foreign slander judgements are never enforced by US courts.
Research the relevant laws.
"It appears the defendants are pinning all of their hopes on a certain new USA law, which has never been tested in any appeal in USA or any International court, does not cover retroactive claims and may not cover commercial matters."
Commercial matters? New Law?
The CDA has been around over a decade. Retroactive is not an issue. They do not have a judgment and the laws are already on the books. The CDA says "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." and "No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section."
The individual defendants are protected by 1st amendment and other laws. They are not new laws either. The chicken came first and the egg is on their face.
Since an Ontario court would not consider any of these US laws in deciding a case it is not enforceable in the US.
"which has never been tested in any appeal in USA or any International court"
There is a long list of dismissals when this type of suit against web sites and the public are filed in the US. One of the people who always talk to them should ask if they can list ANY cases where a Canadian slander judgement was ever enforced in the US.
Huge news? HUGE news?
Spin off of some phantom ITI division. We will come up with some other hype to replace it. Previously hyped Peru acquisition had turned to vapor. It always was vapor. so sorry. Our phantom seed company acquisition that was going to give us an audited subsidiary has gone south. We will try to get these shares back too. so sorry.
We are a "Special Purpose Acquisition" company. What we are not saying is that the special purpose is to sell shares into fictional press announcements.
We still have this slander suit but no judgement yet. When we get a default in this uncontested suit filed in the wrong country we are going to take it to the US even though there is no chance of getting enforcement there. PS. We're going to do this in an alternate universe and will sell billions more shares into the hype.
We've rehired the notorious Garr Winters to help us fulfill our many broken promises that he helped us to engineer before.
Our 15c211 that we've been hyping despite claims by our critics that it would never happen? We're going back on that promise too. So sorry. We have found another phantom merger candidate in one of our hidden pockets that we are not admitting to. This backdoor approach will let us get into the backdoor of our fan club investors. Again.
We will release more specific hype after we grease all of the palms and distribute the shares so they will be available for quick sale. We are only oiling the hype machine for now.
Does that about sum it up?
Post Unavailable
Additional Information
Post Unavailable
Additional Information
Post Unavailable
Additional Information
Does anybody know if minimar every got a worthless default judgment from the Canadian court? That press blitz will be a huge chance for them to dump a few hundred million more shares of this and the other scams that claim to have a stake in that fake lottery ticket.
You are wrong. This was a stay motion only not a ruling on the merits. Jurisdiction challenges are allowed without constituting procedural due process. Even if they continue and get a default judgment it will not be upheld by a US court. ihub was wise to withdraw before proceeding to the merits.