| Red hot news, fresh off the wires, is all about a wickedly hard done by Marcus New and Thom Calandra suing the bejeezus out of a public type for abusing the SH site.|
Yes folks, this is the very same public site that censors truthful facts out of existence for its' paying customers crooked benefit. There is no defense possible for abusing the public trust, something these fools do as a matter of course every day, so its gonna be interesting whatever the outcome.
|This monkey has no clue, yet, what this frivoulous and completely vexatious claim is all about. Something about SH having a poorly run, sub-standard website which they don't like upgrading because it costs money I'm supposing. The REAL intent (no doubt) by the gruesome twosome is to impose "libel chill" on this and other blogs, and that ain't gonna happen in this lifetime.|
|Stay tuned citizens, its bound to be ultra good. And nothing in the world would be more fun than doing discovery on this horrid enterprise and its grossly ethically challenged operators.|
The truth, some day, will be an amazing thing to behold thats certain.
|Update March 16, 2012. - Our defendant cannot get an e-mail returned from Stockhouse counsel, and that is highly curious given the rush to file without any effort at service or contact. In any normal course litigation the plaintiff is expected to give notice. Without it the legal process becomes a grotesque abuse of the court.|
One cannot be faulted for thinking that a pre-emptive default judgement without service was the goal all along, a practice that fits perfectly with how Stockhouse principals do business.
"This will be the third e-mail without a response.
As time is of the essence, and this matter is proceeding WITHOUT service of any kind, I would strongly suggest you make the effort to commuicate so that you may discharge your duties properly.
It is my firm belief this fully hopeless litigation is inspired by "libel chill", and as such represents a clear abuse of process ... something I look forward to proving.
Continued foot dragging, particularly at this critical stage by counsel is wholley unacceptable."