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.
"Hope is just on the horizon" Really? You know that is a fact? eom
What's the MM ready for? eom
Is it just me or does anyone else feel a little insecure about their investment in SMMW? LOL eom
The black pope. eom
Please don't get my hopes up again. I will just go on the assumption that we will move in 2012 when the Mayan calender ends. The stock will run and as we jump for joy the apocalypse hits us. eom
Still don't hold your breath. The new body bags for the room have'nt arrived yet. eom
I don't know about that. I think they just need to do some follow through. eom
A lot of maybes. Don't hold your breath. Don't get me wrong we heard that but based on past performance I don't want you to get hurt. eom
Well you know what? Dan has been talking talking talking talking a good game. It's time to do do do do and get us out of the hole. eom
A public service announcement (PSA) or community service announcement (CSA) is a non-commercial advertisement, typically on radio or television, broadcast for the public good.
The main concept is to modify public attitudes by raising awareness about specific issues.
Here is another PSA from H24.
The federal securities laws prohibit the manipulation of securities. Specifically, manipulation is intentional conduct designed to deceive investors by controlling or artificially affecting the market for a security. Manipulation can involve a number of techniques to affect the supply of, or demand for, a stock. They include: spreading false or misleading information about a company; improperly limiting the number of publicly-available shares; or rigging quotes, prices or trades to create a
false or deceptive picture of the demand for a security.
While the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, a charge of slander may be brought against someone who knowingly makes a false statement. Pleaes note that this is a civil matter, not a matter under the federal securities laws.
If you want to provide us specific details of persons being paid to bash a company, we would appreciate your letting us know. You can do this by filing a complaint at http://www.sec.gov/complaint.shtml.
Sincerely,
ROBERT T GREENE
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
(202)942-7221
Can you provide an updated list? http://www.valuerichonline.com/expo/mi06/index.php?id=lvpresenting eom
Yes, but I don't see us there, do you? So the point is? eom
Value rich investors conference -(maybe) A showcasing of the Company profile to hundreds of Small Cap market research analysts, investment bankers, fund managers, and institutional investors. Who knows? eom
Personally I think the Judge would order a hat be passed in the courtroom and give the proceeds to you out of pity. eom
Don't we need value before we can have a rich investor conference? lol eom
A meeting of the Delusional . :>) eom
It must work both ways, right? Causing the stock to appreciate by posting false information is fraud. Of, course no one here could be accused of that. One element of the crime would be appreciation of pps(unlawful gain) and we know that hasn't happened. lol . eom
Yes you did. I was was thinking of one guy in particular on RB. lol eom
H24 you can't do this ? lol Anyway here is a case where your words can come back and bite you in the A zzzz. Be careful what you post.
By: 1greeneyedhawk
25 Oct 2006, 08:18 PM EDT
Msg. 95618 of 95649
(This msg. is a reply to 95609 by PSEEKer.)
Jump to msg. #
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY. pseeker named as a defendant for his bashing activities ...know where he is coming from, and it is not to "save" you.
SOMERSET COUNTY
CHANCERY DIVISION
HONORABLE ROSEMARIE RUGGIERO WILLIAMS
RETURN DATE: March 5, 2004
DOCKET NO.: HNT-C-14001-04
DIGITAL BROADBAND v. “DBBDISFUNNY”, “DALILAMA”, “STOCK_PICK”, “SMOOTHER_1999”, “WNSRFR”, “MRWRIGHTAIDE”, “PSEEKER”, AND JOHN DOES 1-10
__________________________________________________________________
EX PARTE MOTION TO CONDUCT LIMITED PRETRIAL DISCOVERY
__________________________________________________________________
MOVANT: PLAINTIFF (Digital Broadband Networks, Inc. and Patrick S. Lim)
MOVANT’S ATTORNEY: Jay McDaniel
Sichenzia Ross Friedman Ference
OPPONENT: NONE
ORAL ARGUMENT: NO
I. Background
Plaintiffs, Digital Broadband Networks, Inc. (“DBBD”) and Patrick S. Lim (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) seek to ascertain the identities of persons (“Defendants”) who anonymously posted allegedly actionable messages on the internet in order that Plaintiffs can comply with the requirements of service of process. In the underlying action, Plaintiffs seek preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining Defendants and their agents from posting defamatory messages on the internet which are intended to manipulate the price of the common stock of DBBD. They also seek damages at law for violation of New Jersey statutory law, libel, and civil conspiracy.
DBBD is a publicly traded corporation which files periodic reports with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Lim serves as the DBBD’s chief executive officer and chairman of the board; he is also the company’s majority shareholder.
Beginning in December of 2003, Defendants, through various aliases on internet financial message boards owned and operated by Yahoo, Inc. and Lycos, Inc., allegedly posted numerous false statements regarding DBBD, DBBD’s business, and Lim. Plaintiffs allege that by posting such statements, Defendants engaged in a pattern of behavior constituting an unlawful scheme to manipulate the price of DBBD’s publicly-traded stock. Plaintiffs also believe that Defendants’ conduct has contributed to a significant and steady decrease in DBBD’s stock.
II. Discussion
When considering a plaintiff’s request to conduct discovery (prior to service on defendant) to uncover the actual identity of a defendant, the reviewing court must determine whether the plaintiff has set forth a prima facie cause of action against the fictitiously-named anonymous defendants— in other words, whether or not the plaintiff’s underlying claims can withstand a motion to dismiss—although the court is not required to apply such a deferential standard. See Dendrite Intern., Inc. v. Doe No. 3, 342 N.J.Super. 134 (App.Div. 2001). In so holding, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial judge’s reliance on Columbia Ins. Co. v. seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573 (N.D.Cal. 1999) to resolve the issue at hand. The Court in Columbia Ins. established a four-pronged test to determine whether or not to permit a plaintiff to conduct discovery to ascertain the identity of a defendant. On plaintiff’s request to conduct discovery, prior to service on defendant, to uncover actual identity of defendant, plaintiff should:
(1) identify missing party with sufficient specificity such that court can determine that defendant is real person or entity who could be sued in federal court; (2) identify all previous steps taken to locate elusive defendant; (3) establish to court's satisfaction that plaintiff's suit could withstand motion to dismiss; and (4) file statement of reasons justifying specific discovery requested as well as identification of limited number of persons or entities on whom discovery process might be served and for which there is reasonable likelihood that discovery process will lead to identifying information about defendant that would make service of process possible.
See Id. Plaintiffs maintain that they have sufficiently “identified” Defendants by their internet aliases which they have used and continue to use to post messages on the Yahoo financial message board and the Raging Bull financial message board—which is operated by Lycos. Message board users must register to become members before they are permitted to use these boards. Registration requirement forms require registrants to provide personal information, including names and addresses. What’s more, before given access to the message boards, registrants must respond to a confirming email further confirming their identities. Because these registration processes themselves, are geared towards the ascertainment of an applicant’s true identity, the court agrees that by naming Defendants by their internet aliases, Plaintiffs have identified Defendants with sufficient specificity such that their true identities are likely to be revealed by service of subpoenas on Yahoo and Lycos.
Next, Plaintiff asserts that all if its claims against Defendants can withstand a motion to dismiss. The court notes that, for the purpose of this motion, they need make only one showing. Here, Plaintiffs claim to have stated facts in the Complaint sufficient to sustain a cause of action in, inter alia, defamation.
The New Jersey Supreme Court, in Romaine v. Kallinger, 109 N.J. 282 (1988), defined a defamatory statement as one that is false and injurious to the reputation of another or exposes another person to hatred, contempt or ridicule or subjects another person to a loss of the good will and confidence in which he or she is held by others. Id. at 289; citing Leers v. Green, 24 N.J. 239, 251 (1957). The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 559 (1977) describes a communication as defamatory if it tends so to harm the reputation of another so as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him. Romaine v. Kallinger, 109 N.J. at 289.
The threshold issue in any defamation case is whether the statement at issue is reasonably susceptible of a defamatory meaning. Id. at 290; citing Kotlikoff v. The Community News, 89 N.J. 62, 67 (1982); Mosler v. Whelan, 28 N.J. 397, 404 (1958). In making this determination, the court must evaluate the language in question according to the fair and natural meaning which will be given it by reasonable persons of ordinary intelligence. Romaine v. Kallinger, 109 N.J. at 290; citing Herrmann v. Newark Morning Ledger Co., 48 N.J.Super. 420, 431 (App.Div.), aff’d on rehearing, 49 N.J.Super. 551, (App.Div. 1958); see Molnar v. The Star-Ledger, 193 N.J.Super. 12, 18 (App.Div. 1984); Dressler v. Mayer, 22 N.J.Super. 129, 135 (App.Div. 1952).
Here, one of the statements posted by Defendants state: “[M]ost of the companies awarding the contracts [to DBBD] are invisible companies.” The court agrees with Plaintiff that the fair and natural meaning this statement imputes that Plaintiffs have engaged in conduct in violation of state common law and federal securities laws. Statements that impute commission of a crime are per se slander or libel. MacKay v. CSK Pub. Co., Inc., 300 N.J.Super. 599, 616 (App.Div. 1997); citing Ward v. Zelikovsky, 136 N.J. 516, 526 (1994). Because we are to apply a motion-to-dismiss standard, the court must assume said statement to be false, as Plaintiffs allege. Even if the statement was not per se defamatory, such a statement clearly has the potential to destroy the reputation and good will of any business. As such, Plaintiffs have undoubtedly alleged sufficient facts to withstand a motion to dismiss.
The court also agrees with Plaintiff’s final argument that they must subpoena Yahoo and Lycos to disclose the identities of Defendants in order to permit service of Summons and Complaint. Because Defendants must have provided personal identifying information in order to register, the court believes that it is reasonably likely that the discovery process will reveal the true identity of Defendants, making service possible.
III. Decision
Accordingly, Plaintiff’ motion to conduct expedited limited pretrial discovery to ascertain the identities of Defendants is GRANTED for a period of 60 days within which to identify the parties. Service must be accomplished pursuant to R. 4:4. This court does not retain jurisdiction as this matter sounds primarily in tort, for which the proper venue is the Law Division.
Good news everyone. Your therapy is progressing nicely. A few more days of venting in here and we will be releasing you to the streets. Please enjoy your last moments here and remember, an SMMW investor is a happy investor. Broke but happy. Enjoy the rest of your stay. :>) eom
Wow the morale on this board has reached an all time low. Thanks Danny boy for your concern. I agree, keep your divy. eom
I might consider it if you could swing the rear end around so we can see Dan. eom
We may have to save that one until it's official. lol eom
It was freaking me out. I did'nt know if I was looking at a horse or a contortionist.().() eom
First of all I served in the military and no one has more respect for our guys in harms way than me. What makes them even bigger hero's in my mind is we have a volunteer army. When their country needed them a lot of these kids ran to the recruiters and volunteered to serve. It amazes me when I hear a wounded soldier telling someone they can't wait to heal up so they can go right back in the fire to be with their unit. Your absolutely right. These kids deserve our admiration and any support we can give them.
That said your comparison is just stupid. We are investors and not soldiers. Dan is losing the war with investors. eom
Dan has succeeded in creating a total lack of interest in SMMW. The board is dying. Seems to me everyone who claims to know what's going on with SMMW all act like they are sitting on their high horse with Dan. When does the little people get thrown a crumb? eom
Can you say my last post 10 times fast. lol eom
I would like to know what you know so we all know what you know. You know? How come you know, but we don't know?eom
Good. Care to share? eom
justincaze You know any of these people?
Sepp Odermatt
Marketing Tel. ++41 41 492 62 32
Fax ++41 41 492 62 92
s.odermatt@stoeckli.ch
Christoph Zumbühl
Sales Manager Tel. ++41 41 492 62 62
Fax ++41 41 492 62 92
c.zumbuehl@stoeckli.ch
Ruedi Arnet
PM Ski Tel. ++41 41 499 91 71
Fax ++41 41 499 91 60
Thomas Steger
PM Bike Tel. ++41 41 492 62 35
Fax ++41 41 492 62 92
t.steger@stoeckli.ch
Hanspeter Streule
Export / Trade Tel. ++41 41 492 62 62
Fax ++41 41 492 62 92
h.p.streule@stoeckli.ch
Silvan Nideröst
Communication Tel. ++41 41 492 62 34
Fax ++41 41 492 62 92
s.nideroest@stoeckli.ch
Toni Spichtig
Purchase Hardware Tel. ++41 41 492 62 70
Fax ++41 41 492 62 92
t.spichtig@stoeckli.ch
Marianne Zihlmann
Purchase Fashion Tel. Direkt ++41 41 492 62 90
Tel. ++41 41 492 62 62
Fax ++41 41 492 62 92
m.zihlmann@stoeckli.ch
Judith Eicher
Teamsport Tel. Direkt ++41 41 492 62 91
Tel. ++41 41 492 62 62
Fax ++41 41 492 62 92
j.eicher@stoeckli.ch
I don't know what happen, but this is the post that set me off. Thanks Kluss for waking me up. Enough is enough with the constant bs.
Posted by: Klusserdeklus
In reply to: None Date:10/24/2006 1:33:34 PM
Post #of 32921
Alien,
If you are NOT satisfied with a 10-,20-,30- or maybe a 40 bagger or more in THE NEXT years to come, given the probability that it would take that long, I would suggest you start TODAY as a daytrader, because THE GREED is all and nothing else that attracted you in the first place concerning SMMW. You have no feeling with the company at all. As being Europeans, we are considering to go skiing in Stowe, meeting Bobbie and C°... do you think a DISHONEST CEO would invite us to Stowe, knowing he is screwing one of his biggest shareholders ?
If THAT was the case, I would run for my life lol.
Just my words, do your own DD.
We are confident !
"Don't go yelling when we hit 0.0005$ : "I told you so!!" Because you did not."
TRUST ME I WON'T. I'll be wondering what took so long. eom
Let's analyze the situation with your over confidence. I have heard all the rumors and have spoken with Stu. I haven't spoken with Dan since 2004. It must be because I am not one of the favored ones. He doesn't think it necessary to return a peons phone call evidently. So assuming we know all there is to know that is legally allowed for us to know how come you seem overly confident? Unless being a privileged one your being fed insider info which is highly illegal or your an insider yourself which I strongly doubt. So back to assuming we have the same info. Based on that and Dans lack of reported progress and follow thru what makes you so confident. Can you enlighten the peons and share with us what you know? TIA eom
And please don't be so condescending. Trust me, you don't want a tit for tat with me.
"Alien,
If you are NOT satisfied with a 10-,20-,30- or maybe a 40 bagger or more in THE NEXT years to come, given the probability that it would take that long, I would suggest you start TODAY as a daytrader, because THE GREED is all and nothing else that attracted you in the first place concerning SMMW. You have no feeling with the company at all."
Kluss, Don't tell me what to do. You have your opinion and I have mine. So if Dan and you converse tonight, tell him the little people are unhappy. Would ya please? eom
Your absolutely right and you have been one of the faithful longs. Enough is enough. We are shareholders and if we are not happy we have every right to express our opinions. This guy apparently just doesn't care about us. PERIOD. What's frustrating is I have defended him and given him the benefit of the doubt. eom
Does recent voulme inspire confidence in your investment? Are you sick of empty promises? Has Dan shown you any concern for shareholders? I could go on. eom
"do you think a DISHONEST CEO would invite us to Stowe, knowing he is screwing one of his biggest shareholders ?"
My answer is YES. Maybe he wants to sell you a Summus Center? Who knows?
Con men don't sound like they are screwing people either. I am NOT saying Dan is I am simply answering your question.
I don't mean to go off, but enough of this lala land BS. We need evidence plain and simple. Time for some follow thru. eom