FRANK MERHIB SUES INVESTORSHUB.COM FOR FAILING TO REMOVE LIBELOUS PUBLICATION FROM THERE MESSAGE BOARDS
Pembroke Pines, FL – 12/17/2008 Frank Merhib filed a lawsuit in Broward county court against http://www.investorshub.com/ ; a Florida Corporation for allowing a Libelous Publication to remain on there message boards for over 5 years.
Before this suit was filed Investors Hub who is owned & operated by President Bob Zumbrunnen & Matt Brown were contacted and asked to please remove the post.
They were also offered proof that the posting about Frank Merhib was filled with Lies that were False, malicious, defamatory and harmful to his reputation.
Investor Hub’s response to our concerns over this post is "That there policy is not to remove any posting that are put on there message board’s regardless of the facts being true or not". (unless it has some beifits to them or there friends & family)
The Balls these Scum Bag's Have are unreal. They will Manipulate, Alter, Change or Delete The Post of Members & User Names They dont like. Proving to anyone who use a Message Board what true Scum bag's they really are.
<----Douche Bag on the left of this Photo is
Matt(Maggot) Brown.
On December10 2008 the complaint to sue Investors Hub was posted on www.InvestorsHub.com as a reply to the original Libelous post on the MODG board.
It appears to us that Investors Hub only want to enforce there policy when it seems to suit them and there interest’s. Within 5 days of the suit being added to the MODG Investors Hub message board it was removed and the poster’s Privileges were Suspended Until 9/7/2011.
Frank Merhib advises anyone who feels that any message board that is being used to cause there personal or business name to be harmed in a manner that is False, malicious, defamatory and libelous to Take action immediately.
INVESTORS-HUB & SILICONINVESTOR
Message boards amount to no more then a venue for people to Gossip and spread lies That either cause harm to innocent people’s reputations or business or as a outlet to pump stock’s to uninformed investors or Drive stock prices down with lies to benefit short sellers in the stock market .
What Doe's Bob Zumbrunnen & Matt Brow have to Benifit from a False, Malicous, defamatory post about Frank Merhib staying on there board? A board they control and can remove any time they feel like.
1) It Seems that someone is paying them to keep this post up,To Cause Frank Merhib's reputation damage
2) Any one with information on Bob Zumbrunnen & Matt Brown Please let me know. Might Be Some $$$$ in it for you. Thing's Im Looking For Are.......
A) There home address ( Not PO boxes) I want the address to there front door.
B) Home or cell phone numbers
C) Cars they drive & or Licence plate Numbers
D) Where there Family lives.. Mother,Father,Brothers,Sisters
E) Any one that knows the true ID of this Bitch poster (ANNIEBONNY) Give A Hollar Might be some $$$$$$ in it for you.
Email Me At Tank@Hush.com
3) Some of you might ask why sue? Why after all this time. Well its time to put an end to these POS scammers running these message boards with total disregard to other peoples reputations.
Seems like THE TWO DOUCHE BAG'S BOBBIE ZUMBRUNNEN & MATT BROWN NEED TO BE TAUGHT A LESSON OLD SCHOOL STYLE. And if they had any Balls At All They would meet Frank Face to Face.
But we all Know What Kind of Cowards we are dealing with here on the Internet. Its easy for These Coward's to Hide Behind a PC and Talk Shit on a Message Board.
The owners of these web-site message boards need to be held accountable for what is posted on there Boards. If you feel you have been victimized Start a Blog and Bash them Right Back.
WARNING.......................WARNING....................WARNING........
It is STRONGLY!!!!!!! Recommended that before you BUY or SELL any STOCK from any Message Board posting on
www.InvestorsHub.com or http://siliconinvestor.advfn.com/ contact the Securities and Exchange Commission at www.sec.gov to confirm that the information you are reading on there boards is true and correct and not the work of a PUMP and DUMP or SHORT SELLING SCHEME.
Email them at enforcement@sec.gov
CHECK OUT THIS NICE FIND!!!!
INVESTORSHUB & BOB Z HIT WITH "RICO"
18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/arizona/azdce/2:2008cv01942/409049/1/
http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/investors-hub-or-ihub-c129021.html
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/303/RipOff0303141.htm
http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/investorshubcom-c60662.html
http://theworm06.blogspot.com/2006/09/sljb-mr-paul-s-davis-paul-davis-rrufff.html
http://investorshubcrime.blogspot.com/
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Friday, December 26, 2008
Frank Merhib Vs Investorshub.com Case No. 0811215 08
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
FRANK MERHIB, CASE NO. 0811215 08
Plaintiff,
vs.
INVESTORSHUB.COM, INC., a
Florida Corporation,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Frank Merhib (“Plaintiff”) sues Defendants, Investorshub.com, Inc., a Florida corporation (“Defendant”) for injunctive relief and damages, and alleges as follows:
1. This is an action for injunctive relief and damages based upon the Defendant’s libelous representations made via the website, http://www.investorshub.com/.
2. The Plaintiff has been a resident of Broward County, Florida, for the past 7 years. Prior to the publication of the libelous material that is the subject of this lawsuit, the Plaintiff enjoyed a reputation for honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness in this community.
3. The Circuit Court has jurisdiction because the damages sought exceed Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00).
4. Defendant is, and at all times material hereto was, a Florida corporation and is sui juris.
COUNT I
LIBEL
5. Plaintiff re-alleges Paragraphs 1-4 as if fully set forth herein.
6. On December 28, 2002, Defendant published libelous information at the web address: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=641538 (“the Website”) regarding the Plaintiff,
The details of which are included in the following paragraphs.
7. On the date in question, the Defendant published on the Website, “…the pair [Merhib and Wilding] attempted a two pronged stock scam on MODG that is resulting in criminal complaints against the pair.” This statement is false.
8. On the date in question, the Defendant published on the Website, “Six days later, the pair then allegedly tried to palm off a bogus opinion letter from a Colorado based lawyer lifting restrictions to another 20 million shares of MODG stock.” This statement is false.
9. On the date in question, the Defendant published on the Website, “The Company alerted its transfer agent of the scam-in-progress, and managed to block the transfer according to a source close to the event.” This statement is false.
10. On the date in question, the Defendant published on the Website, “Wilding is presently serving a serving a 14-month Florida probation for drug possession. This statement is false.
11. On the date in question, the Defendant published on the Website, “Merhib is only about one year into a 7-year period of federal supervised release for corrupting a public official”
This statement is false.
2. On the date in question, the Defendant published on the Website, “He [Merhib] is currently being supervised by the federal probation office in Miami, Florida.” This statement is false.
13. On the date in question, the Defendant published on the Website, “Merhib reportedly served 40-months in federal custody before being released to the Miami area.”
This statement is false.
14. On the date in question, the Defendant published on the Website, “Prior to living in Miami, Merhib lived in Pembroke Pines, Florida…” This statement is false.
15. On the date in question, the Defendant published on the Website, “Neither Merhib nor Wilding responded to requests for interviews.” This statement is false.
16. On the date in question, the Defendant published on the Website, “Law enforcement sources in Miami say that state and federal action against the pair could occur as early as next Monday for possible parole or probation violations.” This statement is false.
17. Plaintiff has provided adequate notice to the Defendant pursuant to Florida Statute § 770.01, and has provided adequate time for the removal of the libelous publication on the Defendant’s website.
18. Defendant has provided no full and fair correction, apology, or other form of retraction to the Plaintiff in as conspicuous a place as the original printing, pursuant to Florida Statute § 770.02.
19. Pursuant to Florida Statute § 770.05, this is the only venue in which Plaintiff’s claim for damages is being litigated.
20. These statements, and the alleged acts that they embody, are false, malicious, defamatory, and libelous, and moreover, were published in complete disregard of their obviously harmful effect on the Plaintiff's reputation and good standing in this community. In addition, the words themselves have caused the Plaintiff to be regarded with scorn, contempt, ridicule, and disrespect by his friends, neighbors, business associates, and family, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
21. The libelous publication remains posted on the internet to this day and is widely available to the public. The statements contained therein are an irreparable and ongoing injury to the Plaintiff.
22. The balance of equities warrants injunctive relief. The Plaintiff’s reputation and business continues to be harmed by the libelous publication, while the removal of the libelous publication would be a simple task for the Defendant and costs him very little.
23. Given the ongoing nature of the harm to the Plaintiff, injunctive relief is the only adequate remedy at law to prevent further harm to the Plaintiff’s reputation.
24. The libelous publication has resulted in financial damages to the plaintiff in the amount of for loss of business, business prospects, and reputation within the community.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant, for damages, including special or consequential damages, costs, pre-judgment interest, and for such other and further relief that the Court deems just and proper. The Defendant also demands a preliminary injunction to prevent ongoing damage to his reputation.
COUNT II
LIBEL PER SE
25. Plaintiff re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 24 as if fully set forth herein.
26. The Defendant’s publication is, on its face, libelous and damaging to the personal reputation of the Plaintiff or anyone in the Plaintiff’s field of business.
27. The Defendant’s libelous publication materially tends to harm the Plaintiff’s career and reputation as a professional stock investor.
28. The Defendant’s libelous publication attributes to the Plaintiff conduct and characteristics which are incompatible with the proper, lawful exercise of the Plaintiff’s profession.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant, for damages, including special or consequential damages, costs, pre-judgment interest, and for such other and further relief that the Court deems just and proper. The Defendant also demands a preliminary injunction to prevent ongoing damage to his reputation.
COUNT III
LIBEL PER QUOD
29. Plaintiff re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 24 as if fully set forth herein.
30. Even if the court finds the statements on the Defendant’s Website to be not libelous on their face and harmless in and of themselves, the statements are still libelous by virtue of the situation.
31. As a professional stock investor, Plaintiff’s reputation in the investment community is essential to his ability to maintain and generate new business.
32. As a result of Plaintiff’s career, the nature of the Defendant’s publication on his investment message board Website is especially injurious.
33. Because of his circumstances, the libelous publication has resulted in financial damages to the plaintiff in the amount of for loss of business, business prospects, and reputation within the community.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant, for damages, including special or consequential damages, costs, pre-judgment interest, and for such other and further relief that the Court deems just and proper. The Defendant also demands a preliminary injunction to prevent ongoing damage to his reputation.
COUNT IV
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
34. Plaintiff re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 24 as if fully set forth herein.
35. The information was intentionally published in such a way as to harm the reputation of the Plaintiff so as to lower him in estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with the defamed party.
36. The Defendant’s conduct is outrageous as Plaintiff has warned the Defendant that the publication is false, and has requested over five times that the publication be removed from the Defendant’s website entirely. See Exhibits…
37. As a direct and proximate result of this false, malicious, and libelous publication, the Plaintiff has lost the respect and trust of his friends, neighbors, business associates, and, in general, has lost his reputation and good standing in the community. The Plaintiff has also thereby been caused to suffer great mental anguish and torment, as well as loss of sleep, and continuing humiliation, shame, and embarrassment.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff again demands judgment against Defendant, for damages, including special or consequential damages, costs, pre-judgment interest, and for such other and further relief that the Court deems just and proper. The Defendant also demands a preliminary injunction to prevent ongoing damage to his reputation.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Trial by jury is demanded on all issues so triable by jury.
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH FLORIDA STATUTE § 770.01
I hereby certify that on this 28 day of February, 2008, I delivered by next day courier a true and correct copy of the foregoing Complaint notice to:
Investorshub.com, Inc.
I further certify that, as required by Florida Statute § 770.01, I have allowed at least five (5) business days to pass from the date of mailing before filing the foregoing Complaint.
_________________________________
RUSSELL C. WEIGEL, III
Respectfully Submitted,
Dated: February 28 , 2008 By:
Russell C. Weigel, III
Fla. Bar No. 822159
Counsel for Plaintiff
RUSSELL C. WEIGEL, III, P.A.
5775 Blue Lagoon Drive
Suite 100
Miami, FL 33126
Tel: (786) 888-4567
Fax: (786) 787-0456
rweigel@InvestmentAttorneys.com
BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
FRANK MERHIB, CASE NO. 0811215 08
Plaintiff,
vs.
INVESTORSHUB.COM, INC., a
Florida Corporation,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Frank Merhib (“Plaintiff”) sues Defendants, Investorshub.com, Inc., a Florida corporation (“Defendant”) for injunctive relief and damages, and alleges as follows:
1. This is an action for injunctive relief and damages based upon the Defendant’s libelous representations made via the website, http://www.investorshub.com/.
2. The Plaintiff has been a resident of Broward County, Florida, for the past 7 years. Prior to the publication of the libelous material that is the subject of this lawsuit, the Plaintiff enjoyed a reputation for honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness in this community.
3. The Circuit Court has jurisdiction because the damages sought exceed Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00).
4. Defendant is, and at all times material hereto was, a Florida corporation and is sui juris.
COUNT I
LIBEL
5. Plaintiff re-alleges Paragraphs 1-4 as if fully set forth herein.
6. On December 28, 2002, Defendant published libelous information at the web address: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=641538 (“the Website”) regarding the Plaintiff,
The details of which are included in the following paragraphs.
7. On the date in question, the Defendant published on the Website, “…the pair [Merhib and Wilding] attempted a two pronged stock scam on MODG that is resulting in criminal complaints against the pair.” This statement is false.
8. On the date in question, the Defendant published on the Website, “Six days later, the pair then allegedly tried to palm off a bogus opinion letter from a Colorado based lawyer lifting restrictions to another 20 million shares of MODG stock.” This statement is false.
9. On the date in question, the Defendant published on the Website, “The Company alerted its transfer agent of the scam-in-progress, and managed to block the transfer according to a source close to the event.” This statement is false.
10. On the date in question, the Defendant published on the Website, “Wilding is presently serving a serving a 14-month Florida probation for drug possession. This statement is false.
11. On the date in question, the Defendant published on the Website, “Merhib is only about one year into a 7-year period of federal supervised release for corrupting a public official”
This statement is false.
2. On the date in question, the Defendant published on the Website, “He [Merhib] is currently being supervised by the federal probation office in Miami, Florida.” This statement is false.
13. On the date in question, the Defendant published on the Website, “Merhib reportedly served 40-months in federal custody before being released to the Miami area.”
This statement is false.
14. On the date in question, the Defendant published on the Website, “Prior to living in Miami, Merhib lived in Pembroke Pines, Florida…” This statement is false.
15. On the date in question, the Defendant published on the Website, “Neither Merhib nor Wilding responded to requests for interviews.” This statement is false.
16. On the date in question, the Defendant published on the Website, “Law enforcement sources in Miami say that state and federal action against the pair could occur as early as next Monday for possible parole or probation violations.” This statement is false.
17. Plaintiff has provided adequate notice to the Defendant pursuant to Florida Statute § 770.01, and has provided adequate time for the removal of the libelous publication on the Defendant’s website.
18. Defendant has provided no full and fair correction, apology, or other form of retraction to the Plaintiff in as conspicuous a place as the original printing, pursuant to Florida Statute § 770.02.
19. Pursuant to Florida Statute § 770.05, this is the only venue in which Plaintiff’s claim for damages is being litigated.
20. These statements, and the alleged acts that they embody, are false, malicious, defamatory, and libelous, and moreover, were published in complete disregard of their obviously harmful effect on the Plaintiff's reputation and good standing in this community. In addition, the words themselves have caused the Plaintiff to be regarded with scorn, contempt, ridicule, and disrespect by his friends, neighbors, business associates, and family, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
21. The libelous publication remains posted on the internet to this day and is widely available to the public. The statements contained therein are an irreparable and ongoing injury to the Plaintiff.
22. The balance of equities warrants injunctive relief. The Plaintiff’s reputation and business continues to be harmed by the libelous publication, while the removal of the libelous publication would be a simple task for the Defendant and costs him very little.
23. Given the ongoing nature of the harm to the Plaintiff, injunctive relief is the only adequate remedy at law to prevent further harm to the Plaintiff’s reputation.
24. The libelous publication has resulted in financial damages to the plaintiff in the amount of for loss of business, business prospects, and reputation within the community.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant, for damages, including special or consequential damages, costs, pre-judgment interest, and for such other and further relief that the Court deems just and proper. The Defendant also demands a preliminary injunction to prevent ongoing damage to his reputation.
COUNT II
LIBEL PER SE
25. Plaintiff re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 24 as if fully set forth herein.
26. The Defendant’s publication is, on its face, libelous and damaging to the personal reputation of the Plaintiff or anyone in the Plaintiff’s field of business.
27. The Defendant’s libelous publication materially tends to harm the Plaintiff’s career and reputation as a professional stock investor.
28. The Defendant’s libelous publication attributes to the Plaintiff conduct and characteristics which are incompatible with the proper, lawful exercise of the Plaintiff’s profession.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant, for damages, including special or consequential damages, costs, pre-judgment interest, and for such other and further relief that the Court deems just and proper. The Defendant also demands a preliminary injunction to prevent ongoing damage to his reputation.
COUNT III
LIBEL PER QUOD
29. Plaintiff re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 24 as if fully set forth herein.
30. Even if the court finds the statements on the Defendant’s Website to be not libelous on their face and harmless in and of themselves, the statements are still libelous by virtue of the situation.
31. As a professional stock investor, Plaintiff’s reputation in the investment community is essential to his ability to maintain and generate new business.
32. As a result of Plaintiff’s career, the nature of the Defendant’s publication on his investment message board Website is especially injurious.
33. Because of his circumstances, the libelous publication has resulted in financial damages to the plaintiff in the amount of for loss of business, business prospects, and reputation within the community.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant, for damages, including special or consequential damages, costs, pre-judgment interest, and for such other and further relief that the Court deems just and proper. The Defendant also demands a preliminary injunction to prevent ongoing damage to his reputation.
COUNT IV
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
34. Plaintiff re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 24 as if fully set forth herein.
35. The information was intentionally published in such a way as to harm the reputation of the Plaintiff so as to lower him in estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with the defamed party.
36. The Defendant’s conduct is outrageous as Plaintiff has warned the Defendant that the publication is false, and has requested over five times that the publication be removed from the Defendant’s website entirely. See Exhibits…
37. As a direct and proximate result of this false, malicious, and libelous publication, the Plaintiff has lost the respect and trust of his friends, neighbors, business associates, and, in general, has lost his reputation and good standing in the community. The Plaintiff has also thereby been caused to suffer great mental anguish and torment, as well as loss of sleep, and continuing humiliation, shame, and embarrassment.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff again demands judgment against Defendant, for damages, including special or consequential damages, costs, pre-judgment interest, and for such other and further relief that the Court deems just and proper. The Defendant also demands a preliminary injunction to prevent ongoing damage to his reputation.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Trial by jury is demanded on all issues so triable by jury.
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH FLORIDA STATUTE § 770.01
I hereby certify that on this 28 day of February, 2008, I delivered by next day courier a true and correct copy of the foregoing Complaint notice to:
Investorshub.com, Inc.
I further certify that, as required by Florida Statute § 770.01, I have allowed at least five (5) business days to pass from the date of mailing before filing the foregoing Complaint.
_________________________________
RUSSELL C. WEIGEL, III
Respectfully Submitted,
Dated: February 28 , 2008 By:
Russell C. Weigel, III
Fla. Bar No. 822159
Counsel for Plaintiff
RUSSELL C. WEIGEL, III, P.A.
5775 Blue Lagoon Drive
Suite 100
Miami, FL 33126
Tel: (786) 888-4567
Fax: (786) 787-0456
rweigel@InvestmentAttorneys.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)