Legal Notice: UCSY v. Dembovich, Villaseñor
.
.
https://viewer.zoho.com/docs/icWabB
- Service of Process - Quashed
- Default - Vacated
- Injunction - Vacated
- Contempt order - Vacated
- Sanctions - Vacated
- Attorney Fee Award - Vacated
- Any and all previous Orders - Vacated
________________________________________
.
https://viewer.zoho.com/docs/icWabB
- Service of Process - Quashed
- Default - Vacated
- Injunction - Vacated
- Contempt order - Vacated
- Sanctions - Vacated
- Attorney Fee Award - Vacated
- Any and all previous Orders - Vacated
________________________________________
posted by the_worm06 | 6/20/2006 01:09:00 PM
14 Comments:
Congratulations!
shorts
Shorts,
Thank you.
It was an 18 month lawsuit with much unethical behavior by Plaintiffs attorney.
Current lawsuit count since 2000:
the_worm06 - 7 wins
Michael J. Zwebner - 0 wins
regards,
the_worm06
The Zwebnoid gets slapped down again! WTG!
Congratulations, worm! You just showed that David can sometimes win against Goliath.
I've been reading some documents in UCSY v. Lycos (Case 1:05-cv-11172-REK in the District Court of Massachusettes). There is one document in particular that sheds some light on the lawsuit you just won. Anyone interested should go to PACER and download the Memorandum In Support Of Defendant Lycos' Motion For Rule 11 Sanctions Against Plaintiffs and Attorney John Faro. (Document 91-1) I am quoting from pages 3 - 4 of that document:
There is more. In another case filed by the Plaintiffs, Florida Circuit Court Judge Marc Schumacher excoriated Plaintiffs and their attorneys--including Attorney Faro--after the judge discovered that Plaintiffs' attorneys had tried to obtain an injunction against Lycos by trickery. Stymied by their inability to obtain an injunction in several lawsuits pending directly against Lycos, on December 28, 2004, Plaintiffs filed suit in Florida state court--not against Lycos--but against "John Doe" defendants who had allegedly made defamatory postings about the Plaintiffs on the Lycos Raging Bull message board. See Universal Communications Systems, Inc. et al v. Pedro Dembovich, Roberto Villasenor AKA worm_06, scri852, worm_06A, no_insiders, quondo1, 65175RBlacksheep9110, ovenjanegra(), Blacksheepdip, doggonebad911, pinherring, ovanegra(), busholini, sivesterca, and wolfblitzzer(), Case No. 04-27383CA01 (11th Jud. Cir. Fla. 2004)(Schumacher, J.)
Predictably, the "John Doe" defendants defaulted. At a hearing on March 7, 2005, the Plaintiffs presented Florida Circuit Court Judge Marc Schumacher with an ex parte motion to enter an injunction by default against the "John Doe" defendants. After Judge Schumacher agreed to enter the injunction, he asked Plaintiffs' Counsel to submit a proposed form of order for him to sign. Deceitfully, Plaintiff's Counsel drafted and submitted (ex parte) an order for the Judge's signature that permanently enjoined the John Doe defendants and all Internet providers from publishing statements about the Plaintiffs. Se id. (Hearing Tr. of May 11, 2005, Ex. B hereto.) The injunction, as worded, required Lycos to constantly police its website and investigate the identities of any posters submitting commentary about Plaintiffs or otherwise be in contempt.
As a result of Plaintiff's bait and switch tactics, the Judge mistakenly signed a permanent injunction which far exceeded the scope of his prior ruling. Judge Schumacher soon discovered he had been duped. The transcript of Judge Schumacher's lecture to the Plaintiffs' counsel at a hearing on May 11, 2005 speaks for itself:
"I never made any findings or rulings concerning a portion of this order as it relates at the bottom of page 2; and it was never brought to my attention, and for that, I think Mr. Cooper, you were here at the time.
I never intended to enter an order and I'll tell you right now with the words, 'anyone or any entity . . .' I mean that was never the court's intention and I can tell you when an order is given to the court ex parte after notice, you have an obligation really to just track what the court did, not put words in the court's mouth especially that it is published in an order.
I can tell you that had this been brought to my attention, and its my fault for signing it, and I'll tell you I shouldn't have signed it; but it's also incumbent on counsel to let the court know if, in fact, anything that's going to be contained in an order goes beyond the issue that was placed before the court that the Court ruled upon on that day."
(Ex. B, hereto.)
Just what the hell is wrong with Judge Schumacher anyway? Even a first year law student should know that the order he signed was unconstitutional because it was a prior restraint on your freedom of speech. And what was he thinking, extending that prior restraint to Lycos and other third parties in that Mickey Mouse Order that he signed?
Oh, wait! He didn't read the order before he signed it!!! LOL! I wonder if he'd cut me a break if I got hauled before his Court on a contract dispute and I asked him for mercy because I had not read the contract I signed.
For that matter, what was he doing granting an ex parte order on the request of Zwebner's attorney. Is that standard operational procedure down in Florida???
I think it is important to read the original injunction against you to realize just what an outrageous order Schumacher signed. Zwebner issued a Press release on March 8, 2005 and its obvious intention was to suppress your freedom of speech along with the freedom of speech of anyone who quoted from a post made by an alias that might belong to you.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2005_March_8/ai_n11854239
Universal Communication Systems Inc. & Subsidiary Air Water Corporation and Michael J. Zwebner Obtain Default Judgment and Mandatory Permanent Injunction
MIAMI -- Court Issues Mandatory Permanent Injunction, and Warning of Potential Criminal/Civil Contemp for Violations
Universal Communication Systems Inc. (OTCBB:UCSY) and Subsidiary Air Water Corporation and company Chairman and President Michael J. Zwebner, obtained a FINAL DEFAULT JUDGMENT which includes a MANDATORY PERMANENT INJUNCTION, against Pedro Dembovich, Roberto Villasenor, (including all aliases, past, present and future).
Michael J. Zwebner, makes the following statement: "This ruling, will now finally put a stop to the unending evil, malicious and false postings that have besmirched and slandered my name, my family and the good name of the company(ies) I have worked with for the past 5 years. We will continue to monitor the Internet web sites, and will absolutely and without any hesitation, take to court and report all alleged and actual violations of the court ordered Mandatory & Permanent Injunction, and immediately seek of the court, both civil and criminal contempt orders with demands for financial sanctions."
The court ruling is as follows:
FINAL JUDGMENT OF INJUNCTION
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion for Default and Default Judgment. Defendants Pedro Dembovich and Roberto Villasenor (aka worm_06A, no_insiders, quondo1, 65175R, jacoblehman, Henry_Johnson123, Tobias95, CrawleySmith,65l75R, Blacksheep9110, ovejanegra0, Blacksheedip, doggonebad911, pinkherring, ovanegra0, busholini,silvesterca), and wolfblitzzer0) were properly served with process in this action. Defendants Dembovich and Villasenor have not responded to the Complaint as required by law and a default and default judgment are hereby entered against them.
This Court has the authority and ability to enforce an injunction that bars the Defendants from using tortuous speech to interfere with a business interest. DeRitis v. AHZ Corp., 444 So.2d 93 (Fla 4th DCA 1984). This court has the ability to enforce this injunction against the Defendants and against any person or entity which has notice of this injunction which aid and/or assist either Defendant in violating this injunction. See Temporarily Yours v. ManPower, Inc., 377 So.2d 825 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); US v. Hall, 472 F.2d 261 (5th Cir. 1973) (Holding courts of equity have inherent jurisdiction to preserve their ability to render judgment between original parties, and those who disrupt it.)
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED
Defendants, Dembovich and Villasenor (aka: worm_06A, no_insiders, quondo1, 65175R, jacoblehman, Henry_Johnson123, Tobias95, CrawleySmith,65l75R, Blacksheep9110, ovejanegra0, Blacksheedip, doggonebad911, pinkherring, ovanegra0, busholini, silvesterca, and wolfblitzzer0), are forever barred from making, stating, mentioning, posting on the internet anything which included the words "UNIVERSAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS, INC." and "Airwater Corp." "UCSY" or "Michael Zwebner" or any derivations thereof.
The defendants are further ordered to remove and cause to be removed from all web sites and any all references caused to be posted by them under the above and any other alias all postings which reference either Plaintiff and/or Plaintiffs's President Michael Zwebner. Defendants are forever barred from making, stating, mentioning, posting on the internet anything which included the words "UNIVERSAL COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC." and "Airwater Corp."; "UCSY" or "Michael Zwebner" or any derivations thereof. Defendants are not to post, host, or make available any libel, slander, or any defamatory statements against the Plaintiffs nor Michael Zwebner, via the internet, television, radio, print or any other forms of media. Defendants shall not create any new alias, nor use any old alias, to post, host, or make available any statement regarding Plaintiffs or Michael Zwebner, via the internet, television, radio, print or any other forms of media.
PERMANENT INJUNCTION APPLIES TO ANYONE OR ANY ENTITY (THIRD PARTY) WHICH REPUBLISHES ANY PAST POSTING MADE BY DEFENDANTS.
Anyone, or any entity, with notice of this judgment which republishes any past internet posting made by Defendants or any of Defendant's alias (or any other alias of Defendants known to said persons or entities) which identifies Plaintiffs or Michael Zwebner and/or which aids and/or assists either Defendant in violation of this order is also in violation and could be held in criminal and/or civil contempt. (emphasis added)
The whole thing is disgusting, but the worst part is the last paragraph. How could the judge possibly sign an order that took away the freedom of speech of third parties who didn’t even have the chance to be represented in Court??? And who the hell did he think he was claiming that “ This court has the ability to enforce this injunction against the Defendants and against any person or entity which has notice of this injunction which aid and/or assist either Defendant in violating this injunction” Looks like he is saying that he has the power to suppress speech not just of the citizens of Florida, but the citizens of the whole USA. Correction: It actually looks like he was claiming the power to suppress speech of people throughout the world! Not even Julius Ceaser or Napolean or Hitler had such powers! Pretty impressive claim coming from a judge in one of Florida’s lower state courts.
But wait! He didn’t really make that claim intentionally. Seems like these were words written by Cooper or Faro and one of them hoodwinked him into signing the order without reading it. What an idiot judge! For all he knew, he could have been signing an order calling for the execution of a prisoner. What a disgrace.
One question for you, worm. I think I read somewhere that The Court dropped the last paragraph of the injunction (The one pertaining to the freedom of speech of third parties) some time in May or June 2005. Do you know exactly when that happened? Do you know if the order ammending the injunction is published anywhere on the web?
Parts of the last paragraph of the Final Judgment of Injunction were deleted by the court during the hearing of May 11, 2005. The order was signed on June 23, 2005. I will post that order in the near future.
In addition, the Final Judgment of Injunction was again modified during the July 6, 2005 hearing and made a "Temporary Injunction". The order was signed by the court on August 5, 2005 and can be found in Exhibit A, paragraph (2) in my motion previously posted:
http://snipurl.com/s75n
.
Court Observer,
Here is the June 23, 2005 Court Order deleting the last paragraph in the Injunction:
http://snipurl.com/snex
.
Thank you for posting that. I now see that Judge Schumacher rescinded the last paragraph of his odious order on June 23, 2005. So to recap, on March 8, 2005, Zwebner issued a press release that included the Mickey Mouse order that his lawyer hoodwinked Judge Schumacher into signing. The press release looks like it was intentionally designed to shut people up and suppress not only your free speech, but the free speech of anyone who was too critical of Zwebner. It took the Judge two and a half months to figure out that the order he signed was an improper restriction on the rights of third parties. So anyone who read Zwebner’s press release would be intimidated from quoting the evidence provided in your posts for two and a half months because of idiot Judge Schumacher.
So what did Zwebner and Cooper do when Judge Schumacher rescinded that part of the injunction that prevented third parties from exercising their freedom of speech? Did they publish a press release notifying the third parties that the injunction no longer pertained to them? No, of course not. But Zwebner did issue the following press release on July 6, 2005.
http://snipurl.com/so0m
Universal Communication Systems, Inc. Announces a Legal Notice
Universal Communication Systems, Inc. (OTC BB: UCSY) company chairman, Michael Zwebner, announced today that, following a hearing today in the Miami Court, the court denied the defendant's motion to "Quash Service of Summons for improper service," and further denied the motion to "Vacate the Default Order / Injunction." In addition, the court granted an order to compel the deposition of Roberto G. Villasenor, and he will be receiving new deposition dates shortly.
The following is a legal announcement addressed to Roberto G. Villasenor of Los Angeles, CA.
ROBERT H. COOPER P.A.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
Originally issued July 6, 2005
Immediate Notice to Cease and Desist
Via fax;
Roberto Villasenor
FAX 310-388-0145
Re: UCSY v. Villasenor
Roberto Villasenor,
I am writing you this letter on a most urgent basis. Despite your actual knowledge of the injunction for quite a long time, you have continued to publish postings on the Internet under various aliases in which you continue your illegal actions of cyber stalking and defaming Michael Zwebner.
You must immediately cease and desist from this illegal activity. There is already a pending motion for contempt against you, which by your own admission you are aware of.
Your obvious disregard for that motion may cause the court to issue a contempt order of criminal confinement. If such an order is entered by the court, the order will be sent to the sheriff of Los Angeles County for enforcement through the full faith and credit provisions of the United States Constitution.
Furthermore, your continued campaign of cyber stalking Mr. Zwebner is a criminal act in Florida as well as under federal law. Charges for cyberstalking are in the process of being filed with the police in California against you. Charges with the FBI have already been filed. There is ample proof of your illegal conduct.
You are hereby advised to immediately cease and desist from publishing derogatory postings regarding Mr. Zwebner and his companies. You are also obligated under the injunction to cause all of your prior postings about Zwebner and his companies to be deleted. Please provide evidence of any attempts to do so. Your failure to have made any attempt to remove your prior postings is a further violation of the injunction and additional charges for this violation of the injunction will also be filed.
If you continue to violate both the injunction and criminal law, you will only exacerbate the problems you've caused for yourself.
GOVERN YOUR CONDUCT ACCORDINGLY
Robert Cooper
Attorney for Michael Zwebner
For your and other persons / posters further information:
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610 states that every injunction "shall be binding on... those persons in active concert or participation with them (Defendants) who receive actual notice of the injunction."
Posters are advised to govern their postings accordingly. (emphasis added)
There are two things you should notice about this press release. First, it does not mention that the injunction had been lifted against third parties. Second, the last section (in bold) of the press release strongly implies that the injunction is still in effect against third parties and that their freedom to post is still restricted. In fact, the last sentence is a veiled threat that implied anyone who posted anything critical of Zwebner could end up having his ass hauled into Court before that judicial giant, Marc Schumacher.
Now, I don’t know whether it was Cooper’s idea or Zwebner’s idea to add the paragraph about Florida Civil Procedure, but whoever wrote it was a real sleazeball. This underhanded tactic shows that the real purpose of the lawsuit was to make sure that no one could ever cite any evidence from your posts. And Zwebner still hasn’t issued a press release announcing that the entire injunction has been rescinded (or that he and his lawyer got their asses kicked by a pro se defendant.) Anyone who read only UCSY press releases and did not follow the Court proceedings closely would still be thinking to this day that the “permanent” injunction was still in effect. And I bet that is the way Zwebner would like it.
I feel very confident in saying that the purpose of the lawsuit was to do more than just suppress allegedly libelous, harassing criticism of Zwebner. One reason for saying this was the sweeping nature of the injunction. I could understand it if Zwebner had gone to the Judge and asked him to order you to remove the specific posts that he considered libelous and harassing. But that does not appear to be what he did. Instead, it looks like he got the Judge to order you to remove ALL your posts, including truthful ones based solely on press releases and statements filed with the SEC. This post, for example, would have disappeared from the face of the earth, had Zwebner had his way.
http://snipurl.com/s05q
Zwebner and Cooper were, in fact, using the legal system to cover up evidence of highly suspicious activity. Justice is supposed to be blind, but with Judge Schumacher it was blind, deaf, and dumb. He unwittingly allowed Zwebner and Cooper to hijack a system designed to enforce the law and promote fair play and turn it into one that aided and abetted a coverup.
I just realized that the URL to the original news release containging the injunction against you and third parties was too long post. Here it is again in shortened form in case anyone wants to see this piece of work.
http://snipurl.com/soec
Zwebner’s failure to issue a press release notifying third parties about the cancellation of the injunction should also be considered in light of the voluminous number of press releases he issued to announce his progress in litigation over the past two years. Take a minute to read post 59720 by mrbill140 on the Raging Bull UCSY board:
http://snipurl.com/so9a
Now read posts 59724 – 59730 in which mrbill140 posts roughly 15 press releases issued to either support or to publicize UCSY litigation. In light of this PR extravaganza, why has there not been one PR issued to tell third parties that the injunction announced in a PR on March 8 no longer applied to them?
Mrbill140 used an interesting term to refer to Zwebner’s obtaining a win over you by serving the complaint in a place where no reasonable person would expect you to see it: ”litigation by ambush.” That term could just as easily apply to the way Cooper got Judge Schumacher to sign a bogus ex parte and blatantly unconstitutional order.
I can’t help but wonder if there were any other instances of “litigation by ambush” throughout this fiasco.
Anyone who still doubts that Zwebner has been trying to use the legal system to stifle legitimate debate about his activities should look at his lawsuits against Terra Lycos, home of the Raging Bull UCSY board. Read the Amended Complaint for Universal Commmunication Systems, Inc and Michale J. Zwebner v. Lycos Inc. It was originally filed as Case No. 05-20149-CIV-Moreno/Garbur in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida before being transferred to Massachusetts District Court where it was assigned Case # 1:05-ev-11172-REK. The complaint lists four causes of action. It is that was the remedies sought that should raise eyebrows. In addition to demanding a Court award of $100 Million against Lycos for the second count, Zwebner also asked the court to enter a mandatory injunction requiring Lycos to
(a) permanently and irrevocably delete any and all postings on the TERRA LYCOS RAGING BULL web site that appear on the UCSY message board:
(b) permanently and irrevocably delete the UCSY message board: and
(c) enjoin TERRA LYCOS from creation and maintaining of a UCSY Message board.
Zwebner made a very similar demand for the third count as well. The only difference was that he for part (c), he asked the Court to “enjoin TERRA LYCOS from creation and maintaining of a UCSY Message board on the LYCOS NETWORK in the future.”
The fourth count, unlike the second and third count, did not include a demand for $100 Million from Lycos. It did, however ask for an injunction and permanent restraining order against Lycos with points (a) and (b) being identical to the demands for counts II and III. However, the last point of the prayed for injunction differed subtly but significantly:
(c) enjoin TERRA LYCOS from creation and maintaining of a message board containing postings on any message board (sic) on THE LYCOS NETWORK, including the RAGING BULL web site, relating to either of the PLAINTIFFS.
If the Court granted Zwebner the relief he prayed for in Counts 2 and 3 then no one could post on a message board dedicated to UCSY. However, if the Court granted Zwebner’s wish in count 4, no one could post about him on any message boards sponsored by Lycos. The wording in the demand is somewhat twisted so it is hard to understand exactly what it means. But if I am reading it correctly then no one would be able to post on any message board about Zwebner or UCSY—even a message board dedicated to the discussion of vexatious lawsuits.
A reasonable person would have demanded that Lycos remove specific posts that he deemed libelous. Or he might even demand that all the posts of a specific alias be removed if that alias made consistently false and outrageous posts. He might even have asked Lycos to try to block all messages coming from the specific IP of a poster (Though as a practical matter such a request would be useless since there are ways to disguise one’s IP.) But Zwebner demanded the removal of the entire board with all its posts. Now why would he do that unless his objective was to stop less than flattering information from being exposed about his company?
Thats good it serves you right, you are nothin but a liar and you know it, just grow a set you bottom feeder
Post a Comment
<< Home