S&P 500

US TECH 100

1.14%

)

Dow Jones

Brent Oil

Bitcoin

The Question and Answer Board

Reply Private New

Keep Last Read

Replies (8) Next 10 Prev Next

IH Geek [Dave]

Send PM Follow Ignore

Followers	390
Posts	10151
Boards Moderated	9
Alias Born	05/25/2003

IH Geek [Dave]

Re: lucky, mydog post# 129487

Thursday, 07/09/2009 10:43:24 PM

Thursday, July 09, 2009 10:43:24 PM

Post Unavailable

Additional Information

Keep Last Read

Replies (8) Next 10 Prev Next

Join the InvestorsHub Community

IH Geek [Dave] · 2009-07-10T02:43:24.7870000Z

My apologies for the long-winded post which follows. I'm going to comment on that press release and also try to cover numerous inquires on the matter. First I'll take a moment to correct Mr. Zecevic's rather convoluted interpretation of events in the Florida matter. The judge in the Florida federal court did not rule on the merits of the case - he simply dismissed on lack of personal jurisdiction for technical reasons without prejudice as to the remaining claims. Without prejudice means that no ruling is made on the merits of the case; something that Mr. Zecevic either does not comprehend or chooses to misinterpret for purposes that only he knows. Unlike Canadian courts, US federal courts have very narrow rules that must be met before they will assert personal jurisdiction. In fact, the court provided specific instructions for refiling, and as is customary in such circumstances ruled the other claims were moot - meaning the court would not even undertake those matters until such time as we re-filed and corrected the technical matters pertaining to personal jurisdiction. We have since chosen to not re-file since there is no longer any purpose to be served in doing so, as described later. This is effectively the same as procedures in the Ontario court; first any issues pertaining to jurisdiction are resolved and then matters pertaining to the claims and merits of the case are undertaken. Before they ever filed their suit we advised the Plaintiffs that the information they sought, account information for an apparently random list of posters, could only be obtained via an order from court of competent jurisdiction, which in this case would be the Florida courts pursuant to the terms of our User Agreement. They never served us with such a subpoena and instead decided to pursue their reckless litigation in Ontario. As to his claim of our not "showing up in court", this "long awaited court date" was nothing more than an administrative hearing for the court to rule on questions and requests for production that Mr. Zeceivc had previously refused during his cross-examinations. On July 2nd InvestorsHub advised the Ontario court and Plaintiffs counsel that we were withdrawing our motions in the jurisdictional challenge to the suit brought by Mina Mar Group, et al, and accordingly there was no need for the refusals hearing. Contrary to Mr. Zecevic's statement, there was no mention of any towels in our letter to the court, and it would have been rather senseless for us to have appeared when we had already advised the court of our withdrawal. Our letter to the court did reiterate the same position we have held since before Mina Mar filed their frivolous suit; that the Ontario court lacks personal jurisdiction over iHub, that any defamation was unenforceable as a matter of public policy, and we advised the Ontario court that newly enacted law in the US requires the court which does have jurisdiction over InvestorsHub to declare foreign libel judgments as unenforceable. While it is true that the Plaintiffs actively sought settlement in recent weeks, either the third paragraph of their press release is a complete fabrication or they failed to communicate those offers to us. Their settlement offers of which we were made aware called for iHub to turn over account information to Plaintiffs without them having to comply with our subpoena policy; removal and filtering of past, present and future user posts to which they objected and/or that referenced a long list of Plaintiffs entities, clients, employees, agents, business associates, certain stock promoters and other individuals; agreeing that the Ontario court was a court of competent jurisdiction, and other equally nonsensical demands. In each instance we countered with the same settlement terms as we did before they ever brought their suit; that they needed to properly obtain and serve a subpoena for the account information they sought, issued by a court of competent jurisdiction (i.e., a Florida court) and that nothing short of that would gain them the information they sought. Regarding the fourth paragraph of the press release, we explained time and again to the plaintiffs that we do not remove user posts on the basis of alleged libel or defamation unless and until a court of competent jurisdiction rules them to be such. We did take the opportunity to file exhibits with the court showing, among other things, the Plaintiffs extensive participation in the very dialog to which they objected, including thousands of posts under dozens of aliases, none of which carried the 17(b) disclaimer required by US securities laws for persons who are compensated to promote securities. As to the remainder of Mr. Zecevic's missives, foreign libel judgments typically have an underlying basis that is contrary to the free speech protections of the Constitution of the USA and most States, as well as other laws such as the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which immunizes interactive computer services such as iHub from liability arising from content published by third parties. As a resulting matter of public policy, no foreign libel judgment has even been enforced in the USA. Since US law presented an insurmountable hurdle to the Plaintiffs agenda to intimidate and/or silence their numerous critics, they publicly announced their intent to evade US law and brought a claim in a court that has no jurisdiction over iHub. Such actions are commonly referred to as Libel Terrorism or Libel Tourism, which is when allegedly defamed parties seek judgments in foreign courts against US defendants. (ref: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%2B%22libel%22+%2B%22tourism|terrorism%22&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=) Throughout this process the Plaintiffs have attempted to use both the threat of filing suit and the actual suit as leverage to coerce iHub into violating its own User Agreement and policies by turning over user account information in exchange for being released from the absurd claims brought before the Ontario court. We have repeatedly refused their demands for disclosure and advised the Plaintiffs that their only means of accessing that information will be through a court of competent jurisdiction, and that is most definitely not a court in Ontario. Meanwhile, it is our long standing policy that each reader has the duty and privilege to determine the veracity (i.e., truthfulness) of others' comments for themselves. The evidence we filed with the court is available to the public should anyone wish to use it judge the veracity of today's press release by the Plaintiffs as well as their past publications regarding these matters. Anyone can attend at the Superior Court office at 393 University Avenue in downtown Toronto, 10th Floor, and ask at the main desk to see and copy any documents they wish from the Court file: Mina Mar Group v. InvestorsHub.com Inc. court file number CV-08-00364413. Lastly, I will take the opportunity to point out for the benefit of both the users of our site and any other interested persons that any party seeking to obtain user account information must properly serve us with a subpoena or order from a court of competent jurisdiction and pursuant to the InvestorsHub Subpoena Policy which can be found at http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/legal_subpoena.aspx . Our users are welcome and encouraged to exercise their constitutionally protected freedom to express their views here on InvestorsHub's message boards as long as they do so in compliance with the rules of conduct as described in our User Agreement.

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.

Sign Up

InvestorsHub community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas

You'll also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow

Volume
Day Range:
Bid Price
Ask Price
Last Trade Time:

Boards:

Quotes:

Boards

News

Market Data

Markets

Discover

Discover

Boards:

Quotes:

Join the InvestorsHub Community