SI
SI

 Coffee Shop | Investment Chat Board Lawsuits


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (11020)3/26/2010 2:03:03 PM
From: anniebonny   of 11759
 
Well Ted Leon - in-house Federated Mutual legal counsel - apparently was privy to those nasty letters. He even quoted form one of them on Prinna's blog a week or so ago.
Conveniently doesn't put in the part where they ask for money and/or statement to be put on blog though.

Ted Leon said...
The following is an exact quote from a letter sent from Federated's attorneys to both Prinna Boudreau and Mr. Boudreau's attorney on October 5, 2009:

"If Mr. or Mrs. Boudreau chooses to identify any other specific personal files included in the directories provided to them four (4) months ago, we will attempt to provide them as well. As mentioned in the previous six communications, the laptop and tower computers are still available for pick up. For the SEVENTH time, please have Mr. or Mrs. Boudreau come and collect their computers."

Ted Leon
Senior Legal Counsel
Federated Insurance
March 10, 2010 11:21 AM


fedupwithfederated.blogspot.com 

=============
Don't these attorneys have better things to do than babysit Prinna's blog and write nasty threatening letters on behalf of Federated? The policyholders ought to love hearing this is how their hard earned premiums are being spent. Blog babysitting and harassment letters - probably hundreds of thousands of dollars on that part alone.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: anniebonny who wrote (11022)3/26/2010 3:41:34 PM
From: scion   of 11759
 
Apparently not, but perhaps Federated could elucidate.

Don't these attorneys have better things to do than babysit Prinna's blog and write nasty threatening letters on behalf of Federated?

And it's all billable hours, I'd surmise.

The policyholders ought to love hearing this is how their hard earned premiums are being spent. Blog babysitting and harassment letters - probably hundreds of thousands of dollars on that part alone.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: mmmary who wrote (11010)3/27/2010 3:04:36 AM
From: SI Bob6 Recommendations   of 11759
 
It defies belief that you think the tripe you'd made up about me was fact, but so be it. If you truly believe it, I'll only take exception with your position and your critical thinking skills. If, however, it's simply more of the same "Look at me! Look at me! I'm important!" stuff I've seen from you before and you yourself don't actually believe all of it 100% yourself, my opinion of you would be what it is/was. Because I don't think you believe it any more than I do. Take a graphic from a WSJ story but not notice the contents of the story?

But that's way in the past.

I'm curious. I was vilified by you for finding a loophole through which the company wasn't legally bound by an agreement a naive young Matty had made (verbally) that put the company in the unacceptable position of being a tout's tool, so in your opinion I screwed a bad guy, making me a bad guy, which would mean I'm also a bad guy for testifying against Goelo.

Miro Zecevic. Good guy and I'm a bad guy because he says I am?

And why did I leave iHub and my great salary and unvested stock options and go from riches to rags to repurchase SI and keep it running?

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: SI Bob who wrote (11024)3/27/2010 2:30:44 PM
From: mmmary   of 11759
 
You bought SI because you like to control the message boards

It's obviously an ego thing for you. You're no great stock whiz or you'd be doing that instead.

When I outed stock scams it was never about "look at me!" I hate scammers. I hate seeing people get ripped off. I posted in my own name so people knew I had nothing to hide. I was attacked constantly by stock promoters, scammers and deluded investors. Who would wish that upon themselves? Any person posting honest negative news will be attacked. In retrospect I wish I'd been totally anonymous. When I out bad guys nowadays, I am totally anonymous.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: scion who wrote (11023)3/27/2010 3:38:27 PM
From: anniebonny   of 11759
 
Good question
Anonymous said...
I wonder what the other partners in the law firm, Briggs and Morgan, think about the way this case is being handled. I saw that Greg Stenmoe already has the Federated v. Boudreau case listed in his BIO as a "Representative Case". Geesh.
Is he responsible for these letters? Did he sign off on the letters or just get copies? How many other lawyers in the firm are aware of these letters? Do they have conferences at the law firm to discuss these tactics? Does the law firm
bear some of the responsibility here? Allowing one of their attorneys to push so hard it lands the wife of their intended "victim" in the hospital? Do they applaud this type of behavior?

briggs.com 
Gregory Stenmoe
Representative Cases
Federated Mutual Insurance Company v. Boudreau, 74-CV-08-2234 (State of
Minnesota, Steele County, August 21, 2008)

Stenmoe was also the lawyer in Federated's case against Michael L. Pehrson. Wonder if they used similar tactics on that guy.

"Appellants Federated Mutual Insurance Company and Federated Life Insurance Company (Federated) challenge the district court's summary judgment in favor of Michael Pehrson, their former employee, whom they had sued for violation of a non compete agreement, misappropriation of trade secrets, and unjust enrichment."

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1998).
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com 

Last time I checked I noticed that Hedican doesn't have any open cases on the court dockets - perhaps that's why he has the time to write these letters? Are they all from him? Perhaps when things go bad (and I assume they will) he would be the fall guy and Stenmoe would be safe? Who is signing these letters? Perhaps Ted Leon can tell us since he posted part of one of the letters on this blog. Or were the letters HIS idea?

A lot of finger pointing going to happen on this one.

fedupwithfederated.blogspot.com 
(see comments)

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: SI Bob who wrote (11014)3/29/2010 11:37:00 PM
From: SI Dave1 Recommendation   of 11759
 
I seem to recall that it was an auto vs. pedestrian.

Automobile: 1
Pedestrian: 0

We never heard if it happened on a street, sidewalk, parking lot or other venue. Considering the history and caliber of said miscreant, anything is possible.

Damn shame, because we had a slam dunk counter claim once we learned of the lawsuit. When we told his attorney we'd be going after him along with his client, the next thing we knew he'd withdrawn from the case. And the rest is hist-o-ree.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

From: Glenn Petersen3/30/2010 9:26:37 PM
   of 11759
 
Technology Coalition Seeks Stronger Privacy Laws

By MIGUEL HELFT
New York Times
March 30, 2010

SAN FRANCISCO — A broad coalition of technology companies, including AT&T, Google and Microsoft, and advocacy groups from across the political spectrum said Tuesday that it would push Congress to strengthen online privacy laws to protect private digital information from government access.

The group, calling itself the Digital Due Process coalition, said it wanted to ensure that as millions of people moved private documents from their filing cabinets and personal computers to the Web, those documents remained protected from easy access by law enforcement and other government authorities.

The coalition, which includes the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Center for Democracy and Technology, wants law enforcement agencies to use a search warrant approved by a judge or a magistrate rather than rely on a simple subpoena from a prosecutor to obtain a citizen’s online data.

The group also said that it wanted to safeguard location-based information collected by cellphone companies and applications providers.

Members of the group said that they would lobby Congress for an update to the current law, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which was written in 1986, nearly a decade before Internet use became mainstream. They acknowledged that some proposals were likely to face resistance from law enforcement agencies and the Obama administration.

Under a proposed set of principles, law enforcement agencies or other government representatives would have to obtain a search warrant based on a showing of probable cause before they could obtain a person’s e-mail, photos or other electronic documents stored in a service like Gmail, Flickr or Facebook. Under current law, much of that information is accessible through a simple subpoena, which can be issued under looser rules.

Obtaining access to information about where people are located or the places they have visited would be protected under the same standard. Currently, courts are divided on whether access to location information requires a warrant or a subpoena.

Advocates of the changes said that the new rules were merely intended to ensure that protections that Americans have enjoyed in the past remain in place as technology evolves.

“The U.S. Constitution protects data in your home and on your PC very strongly,” said Mike Hintze, an associate general counsel at Microsoft.

“We don’t believe that the balance between privacy and law enforcement should be fundamentally turned on its head,” Mr. Hintze added, simply because people now choose to store documents online rather than in their homes.

Members of the coalition acknowledged they would probably face resistance. This year, Justice Department lawyers argued in court that cellphone users had given up the expectation of privacy about their location by voluntarily giving that information to carriers. The coalition said it expected a long debate before Congress agrees to change the law.

“We are not expecting that these will be enacted this year,” said Jim Dempsey, vice president for public policy at the Center for Democracy and Technology. “But it is time to begin the dialog.”

Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, said he welcomed the work of the coalition and planned to hold hearings on the issue. “While the question of how best to balance privacy and security in the 21st century has no simple answer, what is clear is that our federal electronic privacy laws are woefully outdated,” he said in a statement.

The coalition said that the new principles would not affect the access of private digital information for national security purposes. And they would not affect the use of personal information for commercial purposes, like marketing, a mounting source of concern among users.

Some privacy advocates welcomed the proposals but said that they hoped that Congress would consider broader protections.

“We also need some consumer protections against private data being reused for commercial purposes,” said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

While some earlier coalitions between industry and advocacy groups have failed in their efforts to promote changes in privacy law, Digital Due Process is remarkable for its breadth. While it includes groups often affiliated with left-leaning causes, like the A.C.L.U. and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, it also has libertarian groups like the Progress and Freedom Foundation and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

The coalition includes rivals, like Google and AT&T, and court adversaries. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, for example, is involved in longstanding class-action lawsuit against AT&T over the company’s participation in a plan by the National Security Agency to monitor the private communications of consumers.

Kevin Bankston, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said that members of the coalition disagreed on several issues, but he added, “We can all agree that this area of the law needs to be updated to reflect changes in technology.”

nytimes.com 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: SI Dave who wrote (11027)4/1/2010 3:25:24 AM
From: SI Bob   of 11759
 
Same cop who told me I should instruct my daughter to shoot to kill if someone forced their way into the house is that not only does the view down the barrel tend to make one reconsider, "dead men can't testify against you".

I really was looking forward to the Mehrib case if he persisted. I've been libeled a lot, but that was some of the most egregious nonsense I've seen.

I note that some Serbian thug domiciled in the Great White North claims (yeah, right) that he's going to sue in Florida as if it's only just now occurring to him that a Canadian judgement is unenforceable against a yank.

The original reason I was writing (but decided to reply to your public post): Is there a way to trim the TOU queue so closed entries go away so I don't have to keep going to the next page to get to open ones? Or does it trim every night?

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: John A. Sladek4/5/2010 3:51:23 PM
   of 11759
 
OSC takes aim at firm's investor chat rooms

Grant Robertson

For the past several years Agoracom Investor Relations Corp. has run a burgeoning Internet forum for attention-starved mining, energy and tech companies, where investors could gather to muse about the stock they hold in those firms.

But what the companies were never told, the Ontario Securities Commission alleges, is that much of the online chatter about those stocks was instead the work of Agoracom's own employees.

Operating under dozens of online aliases, and sometimes holding fake conversations with themselves, the staff actively tried to push up share prices, the regulator alleges.

In documents filed Thursday, the OSC alleged representatives of Toronto-based Agoracom made more than 24,000 online posts under more than 670 fake names to promote stocks in firms it represented.

“The representatives created fictitious usernames and posed as investors blending in with other users, investors and interested persons,” the OSC alleged.

“On occasion, Agoracom staff conversed with themselves on the forums using different aliases.”

None of the allegations have been proven.

George Tsiolis, the company's founder, said Agoracom will defend itself against the allegations, which he called a misunderstanding. The company was preparing a more detailed response Thursday night.

The OSC alleged that for a fee and some stock options in the companies it represented, Agoracom oversaw Internet chats from September, 2006 to July, 2009, that involved fake postings.

Agoracom promoted itself to companies as a place where investors could hold credible, moderated discussions on stocks.

But the regulator alleged that Agoracom representatives “as part of their daily responsibilities,” were required to post anonymously to the Internet forums of the companies who signed up for the service.

Several of the company's staff had between 40 and 50 aliases, and some had up to 200, the OSC alleged. Employees were required to make a requisite number of posts per hub per day or risk having their pay docked, the regulator said in its statement of allegations.

Some of the postings originated from Mr. Tsiolis's Toronto home, and many on the site were used to promote stocks in the companies who paid for the service, the OSC alleged.

In exchange for its services, Agoracom collected a monthly fee and stock options in each of the companies it represented, the OSC said, and the stock options were equal to 250,000 shares or 0.5 per cent of the firm's stock. The OSC alleged Agoracom stood to gain from the online postings, since they could induce other clients to sign up, and to increase the value of its own options. “Neither the public users nor Agoracom's clients were aware that representatives of Agoracom were posting on their hubs using aliases,” the OSC alleged in the documents. “In fact, [Agoracom] knowingly deceived clients about the traffic and activity generated on their hubs.”

The head of Vancouver-based mining company Bard Ventures Ltd. said he was shocked by the allegations. Eugene Beukman, president of the company that trades on the TSX Venture exchange, said he paid the company “a few thousand dollars” along with options to provide an online forum for investors to discuss his mining projects. He said the moderated forum appeared more responsible than the unmoderated chat boards that can be populated by short-sellers and the like.

However, Mr. Beukman said he didn't see much impact from the service, since his shares have been stuck at about 10 cents for the past year.

“If the stock was trading at a few dollars, I'd be thinking ‘Ok, it's working guys,” Mr. Beukman joked of the allegations. “But whatever they were doing wasn't working for me as of yet.

“I thought this was always decent, organized. I've never had any reaction on my share price because of whatever was posted or not posted on this. My share price was normally regulated by news with exploration results.”

The OSC alleged Agoracom “took steps to actively conceal the fraudulent posting activity.” In March 2009, when an online poster revealed he was an Agoracom representative posting with an alias, the company posted a statement condemning that person's actions. The statement said the actions were carried out by a single representative and that Agoracom would be taking steps within 60 days to ensure it didn't happen again.

ctv.ca 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: John A. Sladek who wrote (11030)4/6/2010 10:00:07 AM
From: anniebonny   of 11759
 
There always was some weird connection between some of the cyberslapps suits and Agoracom.

Message 24177400

Message 24177480

Message 24177517

Message 25920191

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (3)
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.