Replies to post #310794 on Spongetech Delivery Systems Inc (fka SPNGQ)

[Jim Bishop]

I see SPNG actually did file that silly suit in New York.

The last time I remember someone going after an investigative reporter and a newspaper and accusing them of being involved in shorting and with shorts, they got sued themselves and lost and the reporter won one of the largest libel awards in Canadian history.

David Baines and the Vancouver Sun against Robert Shore, David
Robinson and George Chelekis.

Here's a recap:

http://home.snafu.de/tilman/prolinks/chelekis_libel.txt

(BW)(MARKET-NEWS-PUBLISHING) RE: Apology to David Baines and Southam
from Market News Publishing

Business Editors

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sept. 12,
1997--Market News Publishing On September 29, 1994, Market News
Publishing Inc. disseminated an article that made allegations that
Vancouver Sun business writer David Baines was trading against his
column. This article was written by George Chelekis, a stock
tipster from Clearwater, Florida.

The allegations against Mr. Baines were completely false.
We sincerely apologize to Mr. Baines and The Vancouver Sun for
disseminating this material and for any inconvenience or
embarrassment this may have caused.

--30--bk/ny*

CONTACT: Market News Publishing Inc.
Robert Shore, 604/689-1101


======
Vancouver Stock Exchange -
Southam traps Shore with his own libel

Vancouver Stock Exchange VSE
Shares issued 0 1899-12-30 close $0

Friday Sep 12 1997

See Southam Inc (STM) Street Wire

INSURANCE LAWYER AMBUSHED BY HIS OWN CLIENT

by Stockwatch Business Reporter

The libel, slander and bad feelings trial between Southam
Inc and David Baines as plaintiffs and Robert Shore, David
Robinson and George Chelekis as defendants continued in BC
Supreme Court on Thursday, September 11, 1997.

Resuming his testimony before Mr Justice John Rowan was
Robert Shore, the owner, publisher and admitted libeler at
Market News Publishing Inc. Mr Shore and Market News are
accused of distributing two of Mr Chelekis's articles and a
press release that impugned the integrity and honesty of
Vancouver Sun business reporter David Baines and Howe
Street investigator Adrian du Plessis.

Neither Mr Chelekis nor David Robinson, publisher of the
Florida-based tout sheet Bull & Bear, are represented in
court, though both attempted unsuccessfully to derail their
trial. Mr du Plessis is pursuing a separate legal action
over the libelous allegations that he conspired with Mr
Baines and unnamed short sellers to profit from driving
down the price of a number of VSE companies over a six-year
period. In addition, Mr Chelekis told about 150 people at a
May 1996 investment conference in Vancouver that Mr Baines
was HIV positive and had not told his wife.

Under cross-examination by Southam counsel Barry Gibson, Mr
Shore said the first time he met Mr Chelekis was when Howe
Street habitue, David Elrix, brought to him the August 1994
edition of the Bull & Bear, which contained allegations of
impropriety on the part of Messrs Baines and du Plessis. Mr
Elrix thought Mr Shore ought to meet Mr Chelekis, and
helped set up a meeting with its author. Mr Shore then met
Mr Chelekis -- for the first time ever, he told the court
-- at the Four Seasons hotel in late July or early August
1994.

Asked why Mr Chelekis was in town, Mr Shore said he
believed the Florida-based writer was attending one of the
many roadshows organized by newsletter writers and similar
species to promote their products and generate subscribers.
"Did he indicate that he was a journalist for hire?" Mr
Gibson asked, meaning that he was paid specifically to
write the kind of articles that promoters of penny-stock
companies wanted to read. "At that point, no," Mr Shore
replied. "I believe this was a loss leader for him, to get
subscribers for his newsletter."

Mr Shore said he could not recall when he figured out Mr
Chelekis accepted money or stock for his articles. Asked if
he knew by late August or early September 1994 that Mr
Chelekis accepted shares in the various companies for which
he wrote nice things, Mr Shore said: "I'm not sure."

Mr Gibson also wanted to know whether Mr Shore inquired as
to who was paying for Mr Chelekis's trips to Vancouver,
which consisted of himself, the "research assistant" Lisa
Petrella and high-class accommodation. Mr Shore replied he
did ask, but that Mr Chelekis said that no one but himself
was picking up the tab.

Mr Shore said he subsequently met with Mr Chelekis one or
two more times.

Mr Gibson spent considerable time enquiring whether or not
Mr Shore made efforts to verify the veracity of the
material he accepted for publication and possible
publication. (Mr Shore acknowledges disseminating the
August Bull & Bear story and a press release tipping the
October 1994 Bull & Bear story. However, he claims the
second story was sent out inadvertently and without his
authorization.)

Mr Shore replied that he asked Mr Chelekis for the names of
the sources for specific allegations contained in the
August story and was assured credible people gave him the
information; both that and the subsequent October Bull &
Bear stories offered no attributions. Mr Gibson pressed Mr
Shore, demanding to know the names of one -- even one --
individual, gleaned from his several meetings with the
writer, that formed the basis of the allegedly defamatory
material in the first article. Mr Shore said names were
mentioned, but his memory had gone blank: "I don't remember
any of the names."

"Did you take notes?" Mr Gibson asked. "No," replied the
electronic journalist.

Mr Gibson pressed further: "I just want you to name for the
court one name as a source for the first article." Replied
Mr Shore: "I can't say he'd named any specific people . . .
only that he'd spoken with a number of people."

Mr Gibson then wanted to know about the $2 fee he charged
Mr Chelekis for publishing the articles. "I was under the
mistaken impression that he'd been very careful about the
material and that I could rely on him for the veracity of
the material," Mr Shore testified. From that, Mr Gibson
posited that Mr Shore knew the material was "pretty
dangerous stuff" and that he needed to take measures to
protect himself from libel, which he thought he did by
charging Mr Chelekis $2 for publishing the material and by
printing three disclaimers on the articles absolving
himself from responsibility for their content.

"You wanted to transfer all responsibility to Mr Chelekis?"
Mr Gibson asked. "No, I wouldn't say that," Mr Shore
replied.

Mr Gibson read aloud the laborious disclaimers that were
transmitted with the electronic version of the October
story sent out over the Star Data and Bloomberg news-wire
services: "Distribution of this article has been paid for
by the author, and as such the text is carried in full and
unedited. Distribution of this material has been paid for
by the author, who takes full responsibility for its
contents. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the
publisher or distributor."

Mr Shore said he had never before charged to distribute a
bylined article, nor had he ever before placed such a
disclaimer on a story.

"Didn't you ask the names of sources for specific
allegations" in the second story? Mr Gibson asked.

Mr Shore replied, "I was told there were sources for the
allegations."

"I just want to know any of the sources for the second
article," Mr Gibson demanded. "Which did you check on?"

Mr Shore replied, "Some of the people that Adrian du
Plessis traded with on the floor . . . and I don't remember
their names."

"Did you ask for the sources for allegations that Baines
was trading on his column?" Mr Gibson asked.

"Yes, I asked," Mr Shore told the court. "I relied on the
assurance he had a source."

"Didn't you make any independent effort to verify"
allegations Mr Baines traded against his column and kept
his short-selling riches in Panamanian banks, Mr Gibson
asked.

"I didn't know how," Mr Shore replied.

Mr Gibson then levelled a hitherto unmentioned charge that
Mr Chelekis was planning a third article - this time
bringing into the alleged short-selling conspiracy
Stockwatch owner and publisher John Woods. This was
presaged in an Internet posting which referred to Mr Woods
and Mr Baines as two of Vancouver's "terrible trio" of
stocks reporters (Mr du Plessis was the third).

"Did you encourage him to add Woods into it?" Mr Gibson
said. Mr Shore replied only that Mr Woods may have been a
subject for discussion. "That's possible," he said. "I
don't recall."

Mr Gibson then wondered aloud whether Mr Shore understood
that an article of this kind could spell the end of Mr
Baines's career. "Mr Chelekis assured me he had sources"
for all of his allegations, Mr Shore countered.

The Southam counsel then returned to his line of
questioning about the third story that may have been
planned but not written. "The first two take out David
Baines and Adrian du Plessis and the third would take out
John Woods," Mr Gibson said. Mr Shore denied the statement.

Mr Gibson then pressed Mr Shore on his motives for taking
such a risk in publishing the Chelekis material. "What I
want to know is, what was in it for Robert Shore?" Mr
Gibson asked. "We were attempting to get more information,
to expand the company, to get more news (from the US)," Mr
Shore said. In addition, if Mr Chelekis was right, he
added, that meant Mr Chelekis had "something significant to
offer the industry."

"But what about Bob Shore?" Mr Gibson demanded.

"I'm not really sure there was anything in it for me,
except to gain more information and to make contact with
companies in the US," he said.

Mr Shore also confirmed he had later travelled to a gold
show in Florida and had stayed overnight as a guest in Mr
Chelekis's home, adding that he subsequently met with the
tipster-cum-promoter "a couple of times" when he visited
Vancouver, and talked many times over the phone.

Mr Shore was sued by Mr Baines and Southam in May 1995. Mr
Gibson then asked whether Mr Shore took any steps at that
time to "find out facts" from Mr Chelekis about the story
and who provided information on the specific allegations.
Mr Shore replied that he did, and that Mr Chelekis assured
him the sources were solid and that he should not worry.

"Did you worry?" Mr Gibson asked. "Oh, I worried," Mr Shore
replied.

Mr Shore said he tried to ensure that Mr Chelekis would
appear in court to defend himself and provide information
about his sources, adding he last spoke to Mr Chelekis
"eight to 10 weeks ago, possibly longer." (In fact, Mr
Chelekis didn't appear, claiming through a lawyer he hired
by cell phone on September 5 that he didn't know about the
court date. Lawyer Andrew Davis requested a delay of
proceedings on September 8, but Mr Justice Rowan denied the
request, agreeing with Mr Gibson that he should have known
about the date because it was set in late 1995.)

After the June discovery hearings, Mr Shore tried to
contact Mr Chelekis but was told his numbers had been
disconnected. That followed Mr Chelekis's plea of no
contest on February 25, 1997 to charges by the SEC that he
was touting shares in an illegal fashion and was fined
US$162,000. After that, his presence on the Internet ended.

Mr Shore, the self-proclaimed computing expert, had spent
much effort the day previous and again today patiently
trying to help the gathering of computing neophytes
understand the computing intricacies of the Bloomberg news
system. According to Mr Shore, Bloomberg's mainframe news
computers work like a great big wheel. The news enters the
big wheel (really a buffer), and then when the wheel is
full, all news that is not filed with a recognized stock
exchange ticker symbol is dropped. It is simply a matter of
how long it takes for news stories to fill the big wheel.
Two days, maybe four, definitely not five, was Mr Shore's
evidence. Then, poof goes the story into the ether,
providing it was filed without a recognized symbol. Since
the libel, which Mr Shore variously said he did distribute,
did not distribute or was not sure (depending on when he
was asked) had no recognized symbol attached, it would have
disappeared into the ether in 2-4 days. In other words,
none of it could possibly have been available on Bloomberg
for more than four days, even if it was distributed in
August and September and October of 1994.

Mr Gibson then yanked the carpet out from under his quarry,
the way courtroom lawyers do it in the movies. "Well then
Mr Shore, what is this?," he asked, placing in front of the
witness a copy of the offending libel. Up jumped the
defendant's lawyer, Bryan Baynham, who headed for the
witness box. After a long, pained look, the ambushed Mr
Shore answered the question with, "How'd you get this?"

Plaintiff Baines had pulled the libel off his Bloomberg
terminal minutes before heading to the courthouse that
morning. Mr Gibson handed copies of them to Mr Shore and
asked for an explanation. "I gave instructions to have it
deleted," he said, apparently not remembering much of his
previous evidence.

In addition, Mr Gibson produced a fax of the story that
indicated it was faxed from Market News's office on October
24, 1994 - nearly three weeks after he received notice from
the Vancouver Sun that its parent company intended to sue
over the October Bull & Bear story. Mr Shore said the
makeup of the fax indicated it was an "internal document"
not meant for distribution. As for who sent it out, "I
would assume it was an employee who is no longer with us,"
he said.

Asked if he was considering an apology for his 1994
libeling of Adrian du Plessis, Mr Shore replied: "I haven't
had an opportunity to discuss that with my attorney."

Mr Gibson again questioned the sincerity of Market News's
apology to Mr Baines which was sent out two working days
before the trial. Mr Gibson also pointed out that it didn't
come from Mr Shore personally, but from Market News.
"Anyone seeing this wouldn't know you're the one issuing
the apology," Mr Gibson stated.

In addition, Mr Gibson produced evidence the apology was
distributed shortly before 10 pm. "How many brokers are in
their offices at that time?" he inquired. Mr Shore
testified his office had been the victim of a power
breakdown around 5 pm that night, just before it was due to
go out. Besides, said Mr Shore, it makes little difference
when transmissions are made; brokers could access the
material when they arrived at work. "That was not at all
the intention," he said of the after-dark distribution. "We
had a major scramble and we put it out when the power came
back on."

In summary arguments, Mr Gibson turned the Chelekis
conspiracy theory on its head. Instead of Messrs Baines and
du Plessis - and possibly Mr Woods - being in on a scheme
to drive down the value of stocks, the conspiracy lay with
Mr Chelekis, Mr Robinson's Bull & Bear, Mr Shore's Market
News, and unnamed figures on Howe Street backing the deal
in a bid to bring down their enemies in the press. "There
is simply no other explanation for his conduct," he said.

Mr Gibson painted a picture of a writer with no visible
means of support, coming to Vancouver with an assistant,
and staying in one of the city's finest hotels, and having
enough money to hire private investigators to snoop on Mr
Baines. "In spite of his efforts, he found absolutely
nothing," Mr Gibson adds. "He certainly found a host of VSE
promoters who did not like David Baines or Adrian du
Plessis. But he found no evidence whatsoever of
wrongdoing."

Nor could Mr Chelekis find evidence Mr Baines lived
extravagently. At the time, Mr Baines drove a 1980
Volkswagen, living with his wife and three children in a
middle-class Richmond neighbourhood.

As a result, Mr Chelekis decided to make it all up, the
counsel stated. In the August Bull & Bear story, he tried
to dislodge Messrs Baines and du Plessis without resorting
to clear libel, with statements such as "together, Baines
and du Plessis connived to create a pipeline of
disinformation."

When that didn't have the desired effect, Mr Gibson adds,
he went quite a bit further, making "sensational
allegations" in the October Bull & Bear story, alleging the
conspiracy to short sell and trade on his column, and that
the two had fat overseas bank accounts. Mr Chelekis also
wrote Mr Baines "casually altered facts or manufactured
outright lies" to drag down share values.

But Mr Chelekis needed a better vehicle for his lies than
the Bull & Bear, Mr Gibson continued. "George Chelekis
found the perfect ally in Robert Shore." Mr Shore could
feed material to electronic news services worldwide, and he
himself was looking to boost his own reputation and
credibility both on Howe Street and around the world. "Best
of all, Robert Shore has his own reasons to dislike David
Baines and Adrian du Plessis - they are close associates of
John Woods, his competitor and adversary."

Mr Gibson said the fallout for Mr Baines has been
significant and lasting. "While David Baines had enemies,
he nevertheless enjoyed a good reputation," he told the
court. "He had won numerous awards for his coverage of the
VSE. Most important, even his enemies didn't question his
honesty."

Mr Gibson continued: "George Chelekis's attack on David
Baines could have ended his career. The one thing that
saved him was the support of Southam Inc." But despite that
support, Mr Baines became the subject of a vicious and
obscene fax campaign. Furthermore, other news outlets
picked up the affair for their publications, repeating the
allegations in publications such as Vancouver Magazine and
the Globe and Mail.

"In fact, it's still going on, on the Internet," Mr Gibson
added.

Mr Gibson stated the awards for damages should rival that
of a recent case involving the Church of Scientology, which
tallied $1.6 million in punative, general and compensatory
damages.

The trial continues.

(c) Copyright 1997 Canjex Publishing Ltd.
http://www.canada-stockwatch.com

========
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Scientologist stock tout George Chelekis and cohorts hammered in Supreme Court of British Columbia
From: "Adrian du Plessis" <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Apr 98 15:34:02 GMT
--------
Thursday 16 April 1998 The Vancouver Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sun business writer wins $875,000

by Petti Fong Vancouver Sun

Vancouver Sun business writer David Baines was awarded the second-largest
libel suit judgment in Canadian history on Wednesday.

Baines was awarded $875,000 plus an additional $75,000 in special costs
after B.C. Supreme Court Justice John Rowan found a Florida journalist had
carried on a "campaign of vilification with the intention that Baines be
left with no credibility. His intent was to destroy Baines' career."

There were three defendants in the case: David J. Robinson, the Florida
publisher of the Bull & Bear, Market News Publishing Inc., a
Vancouver-based electronic publisher of business news, and Florida
journalist George Chelekis.

Justice Rowan found Chelekis liable for most of the damages.

Baines, who is on vacation, was unavailable for comment.

The suit against Chelekis and the publishers was filed by lawyers for
Southam Inc., which owns The Sun, after a series of articles written by
Chelekis was reprinted in the two newsletters and over the Internet.

Chelekis accused Baines of threatening his life and that of his secretary,
and of working with former Vancouver Stock Exchange trader and private
investigator Adrian du Plessis to manufacture negative news about selected
companies to drive down the prices of their shares.

"In the course of his campaign, Chelekis manufactured three separate and
deliberate lies, the first, that David Baines threatened his life; the
second, that Baines was trading against his column, and third, that Baines
was involved in a homosexual relationship with Adrian du Plessis," Rowan
wrote in his judgment.

Rowan termed Chelekis' conduct as arrogant, vindictive and continuous
during the two-year campaign against Baines.

Sun editor-in-chief John Cruickshank said the suit against Chelekis and the
two publishers was not the newspaper's preferred course.

"We did it after it was clear Chelekis was attempting to destroy the
credibility and career of David Baines and damage the credibility of The
Sun's business section and doing it with a calculated smear campaign
fabricated entirely of lies, many of them despicable."

Baines' work has always been in the public interest, Cruickshank said.

"His powerful investigative stories about the VSE have always been
important for investors and important for the health and welfare of the
exchange itself."

The largest libel award in Canadian history was against the Church of
Scientology, which was held liable for $1.6 million over statements made
about an Ontario lawyer.

Du Plessis, who has also launched a suit against Chelekis and the two
publishers, said the judgement is gratifying.

"I can only hope when my lawsuit goes through the system, there will be
similar results," he said.

Copyright 1998 The Vancouver Sun



======
Subject: Liar and tout George Chelekis nailed along with cohorts in B.C. Supreme Court
From: "Adrian du Plessis" <[e-mail]>
Date: 1998/04/16
Message-ID: <01bd68f0$ba8ec380$568af4cc@adrian>
Newsgroups: misc.invest.stocks

Penny stock shill and con-artist George Chelekis, who went underground when
the SEC nailed him for making false statements about companies he'd been
paid to tout, has now been nailed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia
over his lies. In February 1997 Chelekis agreed to pay more than US
$162,000 to the SEC after US regulators charged he'd been paid by more than
150 public companies to tout their shares. Chelekis is a liar who lacked
any credible background in the junior stock world - he used what knowledge
others had to try and appear as an expert when, in truth, he was a shill.
He was paid by companies to promote their inflated shares and he was also
engaged in a vicious smear campaign to discredit those who exposed his
crooked supporters. Today the Supreme Court of British Columbia has awarded
a journalist and his employer (David Baines of the Vancouver Sun) $875,000
- the second largest libel award in Canadian history - over the outrageous
lies that Chelekis told. The libel judgement is against Chelekis
($425,000), a Florida tout sheet, The Bull & Bear ($200,000), that
published his lies in print form, and Bob Shore/Market News Publishing
($250,000), a Vancouver-based news service that republished the lies
electronically. Of course, with Chelekis having gone underground it may be
a challenge getting him to pay up for his dishonesty - but it should be of
benefit to all public investors to know that a liar and fraud like Chelekis
is out of action. (Another judgement against Chelekis, obtained by myself,
will also be pursued as will the other cohorts in the libel scheme.)


======
Subject: NOTICE FOR PUBLICATION - George Chelekis et al
From: "Adrian du Plessis" <[e-mail]>
Date: 1998/01/24
Message-ID: <01bd28f4$58b91de0$3f8af4cc@adrian>
Newsgroups: alt.invest.penny-stocks

NOTICE FOR PUBLICATION



No. C965502



Vancouver Registry

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

BETWEEN:
ADRIAN du PLESSIS



PLAINTIFF
AND:

GEORGE CHELEKIS,
THE BULL & BEAR FINANCIAL NEWSPAPER INC.,
DAVID J. ROBINSON, PETER HUNT,
CANADIAN CORPORATE NEWS INC.,
MARKET NEWS PUBLISHING INC.
and ROBERT SHORE



DEFENDANTS

TO: THE DEFENDANT, GEORGE CHELEKIS

TAKE NOTICE THAT on September 25, 1997 an Order was made for substituted
service upon you of a writ of summons issued from the Vancouver Registry,
Supreme Court of British Columbia, in Action No. C965502 by way of this
advertisement.

In the proceeding a claim is made against you by the Plaintiff Adrian du
Plessis for damages for defamation arising out of the publication of two
articles in The Bull & Bear, dated August, 1994 and October 1994.

You have 28 days to enter an appearance in the Vancouver Registry of the
Supreme Court of British Columbia, failing which proceedings in default may
be taken against you.

You may obtain a copy of the writ of summons and the order for substituted
service from the Vancouver Registry at 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver,
British Columbia, V6Z 2E1.

CAMPNEY & MURPHY
Barristers and Solicitors
P.O. Box 48800
2100 - 1111 West Georgia Street
Vancouver, B.C. V7X 1K9
Canada
Telephone: [phone]


======
Southam Inc -

Robert Shore et al hit with $875,000 libel award

Southam Inc STM Shares issued 77973923

1998-04-16 close $26.1 Thursday Apr 16 1998

LOCAL LIBELLER MUST PAY $250,000

Robert Shore and his Vancouver Market News Publishing have to come up with
$250,000 to pay their share of damages won by Vancouver Sun business writer
David Baines following last September's libel trial in BC Supreme Court.

Mr Justice John Rowan assessed $250,000 in general damages jointly and
severally against tout-sheet journalist George Chelekis, Market News and Mr
Shore. The total award to Mr Baines was $875,000 -- the second highest in
Canadian legal history -- which included $50,000 for a slander by Mr Chelekis
made against Mr Baines in 1995. Justice Rowan said co-complainant Southam Inc
was not damaged by the defamations and dismissed its action, leaving Mr Baines
the sole beneficiary.

Mr Shore was described by the judge as being one and the same
as Market News. Either his or Market News' legal and libel costs may be
partly covered through Wawanesa Insurance. Wawanesa reportedly offered Mr
Baines and the Sun $50,000 ahead of the trial, but this was rejected as
inadequate. What is not known is whether $50,000 is the extent of Mr
Shore's libel coverage or whether Wawanesa's lawyer was simply making a
low-ball offer. The awards stem from a series of libels -- two of which
(one story and one press release) were distributed by Mr Shore's news
service -- in 1994. In these, Mr Chelekis alleged Mr Baines traded against
his column and that he and Howe Street investigator Adrian du Plessis
conspired to drive down the price of stocks over a six-year period. They
were in league with short sellers, Mr Chelekis said in a story that
attributed none of the information to named sources, and they hoarded their
ill-gotten gains in offshore banks.

Individually, Mr Chelekis was assessed $350,000, in addition to being named
jointly and severally in the remaining $525,000 of the overall assessment.

The libels originally were carried in two articles written by Mr Chelekis in the
August and October 1994 editions of stock tout-sheet Bull & Bear Financial
Newspaper, published in Florida by David Robinson. Both the Bull & Bear and Mr
Robinson were also held liable for the defamations, although neither were
represented in court. A third libel was contained in a press release that also
was distributed by Market News, but no complaint was made by Southam or Mr
Baines for damages against Market News or Mr Shore relating to this press
release. The court was especially concerned that various untrue statements about
Mr Baines were forwarded by Market News for worldwide distribution through links
with Star Data and Bloomberg. "By supplying its material to Bloomberg, Market
News can, and sometimes does, achieve worldwide distribution of the
material it publishes," Mr Justice Rowan notes.

The judge also noted that Mr Shore paid Mr Chelekis $2 to publish the
libellous October article. "Why the payment was $2 is not apparent," Judge
Rowan says. "Perhaps it was under a mistaken idea on Shore's part that this
might absolve him from responsibility for what Chelekis wrote." Although Mr
Chelekis was the most culpable for the defamations, the local man, Mr Shore,
also was singled out for harsh comments from the judge in his reasons for
judgement. Most notably, the court decided Mr Shore "intended" to libel Mr
Baines, a nationally recognized business writer and bete noir of Howe Street
frauds and scam artists.

The judge also says he viewed publication of the October 1994 article as the
most egregious and damaging of the libels, and it was for writing and
distributing this article that Mr Chelekis, Mr Shore, and Market News
"shall be liable for the sum of $250,000 damages for the libels
contained in the second article and publishing them." The court also
assessed Mr Chelekis and Mr Robinson separately an additional $200,000 in
damages for writing and publishing the second Bull & Bear article. That
assessment was made in spite of the Bull & Bear's modest circulation of
26,500 -- of which only 217 were distributed in BC.

The judge assessed Mr Chelekis, who describes himself as an award-winning
journalist, $100,000 for writing a libellous press release announcing the
second story. Mr Chelekis was not represented in court because his lawyers
had resigned shortly before the trial, stating they could not contact their
client. Mr Robinson also was not represented in court.

The smallest defamation was made before a shocked audience at a mining
conference in Vancouver in May 1995. In this slander, Mr Chelekis said Mr
Baines was HIV positive and cruised gay bars with Mr du Plessis. "Many
might realize the statement was a lie, but it was an outrageous lie,
uttered with malice and meant to destroy Baines."

In addition, the colourful Mr Chelekis was hit for $100,000 in special
damages and $100,000 in punitive damages.

In his remarks concerning punitive damages, the judge said that in the
course of his defamatory "campaign", Mr Chelekis "manufactured three separate
and deliberate lies." He states the first lie was that David Baines threatened
his life; the second, that Mr Baines was trading against his column; and
third, that Mr Baines was involved in a homosexual relationship with Adrian
du Plessis. "It was Chelekis' intention to inflict on Baines the maximum
damage he could," he states.

In assessing aggravated damages, Justice Rowan summarized Mr Chelekis' conduct
as "arrogant, vindictive and continuous." The judge noted that in a December 19,
1994 letter to Sun business editor Gerald Prosalendis, Mr Chelekis stated:
"This program will continue until Mr Baines is left with zero credibility."

"His intention was to destroy Baines' career," continues the judge. "With
that in mind, he arranged for the publication and republication of his
articles with the intention they would reach a worldwide audience. He did
reach the worldwide audience."

Mr Chelekis, the Bull & Bear, and its publisher David Robinson were jointly
and severally assessed $75,000 for the August libel, and $200,000 for the
September libel. Mr du Plessis, who is pursuing his own legal action
against the same list of defendents for the identical defamation, says he
is extremely encouraged by the high dollar award. "That cannot be read as
anything but very good news for my legal position, and my lawyers are very
confident and very encouraged by this decision," Mr du Plessis says.
"We'll be going at it like gangbusters. This now is part of our ammunition."

The freelance investigator notes that aside from the HIV charge levelled at
Mr Baines, he was named in every one of Mr Baines' defamations. "It's a rare
situation where counsel can not only point to a similar fact pattern, but
in this case you can say we are dealing with identical libels. We're like
the two halves of this case."

Mr du Plessis also argues that a court may be even more inclined to
sympathize with his complaint because while Mr Baines' employer would have
stood by him regardless of the defamations, as a freelancer he is in a
particularly vulnerable position. "My whole job in securities investigation
is my reputation," he says. "It could be argued that I'm entitled to a much
larger award than Baines. But the other side could use that and argue that I'm
entitled to much less because I'm not working for a major newspaper."

Alluding to a theory that Mr Chelekis' attacks were financed by well-known
Vancouver moneymen, Mr du Plessis also says the decision "sends a message
to the Howe Street cabals that these sorts of sleazy campaigns will not
ultimately succeed."

On March 10, 1998, Mr du Plessis won a default judgement against Mr
Chelekis; damages and costs are to be assessed, a court document states.

Defense lawyer Brayan Baynham, QC, who defended Mr Shore after the
publisher sued Wawanesa, indicates an appeal may be in the works. While
saying it is too early to say for sure, he says first, the judge did not
take into account Mr Shore's heartfelt and sincere apology, and that the amount
of the judgement against his client was extraordinary. Mr Baynham says the
defense had accepted that there would be a judgement against his client "because
he did publish it." What apparently surprised Mr Baynham was that there was no
reduction in the award because Mr Shore apologized "immediately after he
realized he published it . . . The fact that Shore apologized, I thought would
have been reflected in a very sizeable reduction in the award against Shore
vis-a-vis Chelekis."

The "heartfelt and sincere apology" from Mr Shore for "disseminating an
article that made allegations that Vancouver Sun business writer David
Baines was trading against his column" appeared the day the trial began --
September 8, 1997, three years after original publication. "The allegations
against Mr Baines were completely false," the statement read. "We sincerely
apologize to Mr Baines and the Vancouver Sun for disseminating this
material and for any inconvenience or embarrassment this may have caused."

The trial proceeded.

The plaintiff's side scoffed at what amounted to a courthouse-steps
apology. During the trial Mr Shore approached Mr Baines outside the
courtroom with another late effort at a personal apology. Mr Baines
pointedly rejected Mr Shore's overture, saying it came too late and
that he doubted his sincerity. A frantic Mr Shore then made a
less-than-moving apology to Mr Baines while he was on the stand. He
has not apologized to Mr du Plessis, but in court explained it this way:
"I haven't had an opportunity to discuss that with my attorney."

Mr Baynham also says an appeal also could be based on the size of the
award, which is more than double the size of the previous record holder in
BC, and five times his lowball offer. "Obviously, there's a potential
ground for appeal insofar as the total amount of the awards are concerned,
the global amount; it's an extraordinary judgement in that regard," he says.

The star of the trial, Mr Chelekis, seems to have disappeared. Like Elvis,
there are occasional reports of Chelekis sightings, although the once
flamboyant tout-sheet luminary now maintains a very low profile.

The Securities and Exchange Commission had charged Mr Chelekis with
illegal profits of at least US$1.1 million from his touting activities
and early in 1997 he was fined US$162,000. Soon after, he was effectively
banned from the VSE, where he had worked for dozens of companies.

(c) Copyright 1998 Canjex Publishing Ltd.
http://www.canada-stockwatch.com

[ID Supermoney]

YOU DO NOT KNOW IF SEC DID NOT ALSO GIVE THEM TO SPNG!!!

You will find out in court!!

Do you have a good lawyer, Who is he so I can ask him a few questions??

ID

[udontnome]

How about you begging to suspend the stock? Did that come from your site, too?

I envy you, Patch. You get to go into a court of law and FINALLY prove beyond a reasonable doubt everything you posted here. Congratulations.

[Karmasaur]

Is the NY Post providing Patchman with council in the SPNG defamation lawsuit, or are they gonna hang him out to dry.

They will probably try to pin it all on Patch and Sykes, knowing that their respective finances do not permit quality council.

Of course, they could also be concerned that the "duo" may "roll" on em, and would rather "watch their friends more closely".



If Patch was not a pawn before, indeed, he will be now.