Replies to post #107023 on DD Support Board and Research Team

[1manband]

Yes, they did quote it for effect, but that is not to say it alone is what put the poster on the list.

I wish they had the identity of the person behind those aliases, but I am almost certain they don't. But at this point I am confident they know it was an alias or aliases from the people behind the scam and there would be nothing to gain from trying to get that information. Instead, they want the info from the real live, living and breathing people that received it and to interview them for any other information they can get.

You can't interview a ghost.

[Crazy Money]

I believe DiamondFire was homeless... and they trying to claim that crap?

[samsamsamiam]

Pretty sure ihub Won’t let them go on a fishing expedition of identities. The courts have already ruled IHUB is nothing more than “ rhetorical hyperbole” in the Eade case.

[12yearplan]

which I suspect will be a dead end for them, even if they do persuade a judge to order IHub to comply.

I guess justice is relative. This little mom and pop pharma co found there justice sweet:

 The court ruled the service by email and, in some cases, by private messages via stockhouse.com was good enough to assume the posters were aware of the proceedings, and allow the case to go ahead.

 “I make no findings about how any judgment is to be enforced against a person who is currently identified only by a pseudonym.”

 “justice has finally been served and our reputations have been vindicated.”
 https://www.cp24.com/news/anonymous-internet-posters-successfully-sued-in-ontario-court-for-defamatory-comments-1.4768519