FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2001
Mary
Cummins wins Ashton Technology lawsuit
UPDATE: 02/29/2016: SEC busts Fred's partner Van Gothner for accounting fraud. I predicted this how many
years ago? These people never change.
https://www.sec.gov/News/PressRelease/Detail/PressRelease/1370541102314
I just read many more articles. Van and Freddy had to flee US
investments because of their stupid lawsuit against me and my DD page. They
went to China because of language barrier and distance. Freddy is considered a
"whale" of a con. Too funny.
_____________________________
http://web.archive.org/web/20070630231518/www.johndoes.org/html/pr3.html
A Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas judge has thrown out a lawsuit filed
earlier this year by Ashton Technology Group, Inc. and its CEO, Freddie Rittereiser, against a frequent online message board critic
of the company and its CEO. The lawsuit was filed by Rittereiser
and Ashton after the internet poster uploaded documents and other information
connecting Ashton and Rittereiser to individuals who
work for the Mafia, and who have been arrested by the FBI and indicted by
the U.S. Attorney on charges of securities fraud, money laundering, and other
Mafia-related activity. In the lawsuit, Rittereiser
and Ashton sought court intervention to prevent the defendant, a self-employed
Southern California business woman, from posting her research findings and
opinions about the plaintiffs to investors on a Yahoo! stock message board.
The allegations were published in the midst of FBI and
SEC investigations of Ashton’s financial partners. Earlier this year, Ashton
(symbol: ASTN) received notice that its stock would be delisted by Nasdaq by
the end of the year. Following the investigations, several former Ashton
consultants were indicted and jailed on the fraud charges. Ashton has never
derived a profit from its operations since its launch in 1994, but instead
relies on revenue from the sale of stock to feed its cash-hungry
operations and management. Recently the company announced that it would be
relying on death-spiral financing to meet its financial needs for 2001, thus
sealing for good any hope that ASTN investors may have of ever recovering their
losses. Death-spiral financing usually involves severe dilution of the outstanding
shares, causing share value to plummet amidst short perks of market
manipulations. Since Ashton filed the lawsuit against the Yahoo! board
posters, its stock price has fallen approximately 90% from about $3 to 30
cents, the price at the time of this writing.
The Pennsylvania court ruled that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania held no
personal jurisdiction over the defendant, because she had no minimal contacts
within the state which would permit jurisdiction under Pennsylvania’s
“long-arm” statute. The defendant, who represented herself pro se, relied on
the well-publicized case Barrett v. Catacombs Press in which a Philadelphia
federal court had previously ruled that Pennsylvania held no jurisdiction in a
similar internet case. That ruling by Judge Antwerpen
has been cited by state and federal courts in many different states as a model
for determining jurisdiction in states which have “long-arm” statutes similar
to Pennsylvania.
Frequently companies such as Ashton file so-called SLAPP lawsuits (Strategic Litigation
Against Public Participation) claiming “defamation” when the real intent is to
somehow prevent the person from exercising his/her constitutionally protected
right of free speech. The Ashton case follows a familiar pattern we have seen
repeatedly, that is, that the corporation (we call them “bully corps”) will
file suit outside of the state of residence of the defendant, making it
difficult of the defendants to defend and to object to discovery. That is
because it is known to the company that the suit is frivolous from the outset,
and the plaintiffs are counting on the inability of defendants to hire sufficient legal counsel due to economic and other
circumstances. For example, one California law firm will not even make a
telephone consultation to a defendant without first receiving a $10,000.00
cash retainer. Therefore, many SLAPP plaintiffs are relying on the odds that a
defendant will not have the cash resources to launch a substantial defense and
counterclaims, and therefore the plaintiff may win by default.
The John Does Anonymous Foundation provides a free legal referral service for
anonymous defendants in jurisdictions where lawyers have made their services
available to defend on a pro bono or reduced fee basis. In situations where the
Foundation is unable to make a referral, or, in cases such as Ashton where the
Defendant wanted to represent herself, the johndoes.org web site provides
various networking tools where pro se defendants can share information
and experiences with one another.
Ashton Technology Group and Freddie Rittereiser were
represented by the Pennsylvania law firm of Frank & Rosen. The lawyers for
the plaintiffs have requested that the judge in the case reconsider her ruling.
The defendant, Mary Cummins, a commercial real estate appraiser in southern
California, represented herself pro se.
Staff Report
November 10, 2001
________________
UPDATE: Plaintiff appealed and lost again. Plaintiff can never refile case
against Cummins. After the stock scam finally unraveled Ashton Technology went
bankrupt.
SEC action against Ashton Technology
March 8, 2001 SEC initiated action against First United Equities
who pump and dumped Ashton Technology's IPO. They pled guilty in
2003.
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/33-8282.htm
October 14, 2005 they impose sanctions and slap Winston's wrist
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/33-8627.pdf
January 2006 they do the same to Hirsch.
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/33-8658.pdf
Mary Cummins to be interviewed about "busting" stock scams on public
message boards, on the French Connection tonight November 6
LOS ANGELES --Nov. 6, 2002--Mary Cummins an internet "scambuster"
will be interviewed tonight on the French Connection radio show. The show will
deal with her experiences with public company Ashton Technology now called Vie
Financial Group (OTCBB: VIEF). Listen to her talk about being threatened by the
CEO and ultimately sued by the company for her honest message board posts. Hear
about how she represented herself pro se and ultimately prevailed in the
lawsuit. Learn how to avoid stock scams on the internet and how to protect
yourself from being sued for posting the truth about dishonest companies.
JohnDoes.org will be the host. Tonight at 9:00 PM ET, 6:00 PM PST. Please see
**** for other air times and more information. Be sure to download your radio
player.
The French Connection airs every Wednesday night, "two hours of passionate
empowerment of common people with uncommon valor." The show is broadcast
on over 100 public radio stations and on the internet on Fair Network on
Live365, the world's largest internet broadcaster.
______________
Wall Street Journal interviewed me and Fredric for an article. They were
putting it all together when 9/11 hit, end of article. More important things to
write about.
I can't seem to find the case in Pacer any more so I
will copy/paste what I have of the old docket. I have all docs on disc. I may
post some docs.
I just checked again. All negative lawsuits against Fredric Rittereiser
and Ashton Technology are gone from the Pacer system. Very strange. His lawyer
did offer me money right before our last hearing if I would just shut up about
Freddy. He told me I could speak about the company as much as I liked but he
wanted me to leave Freddy alone. I didn't take the offer. I won that hearing
and the case was dismissed. I only appeared once in Philadelphia in person at
that hearing.
Right before the hearing the plaintiff's lawyer swore "on the eyes of my
wife and child" that I will lose the hearing. He told me if I went into
the hearing, I'd lose. He told me not to go into the hearing. What an awful lie
to tell. Why are some of these lawyers so ruthless? They also refused to send
me a copy of anything they filed. Thank god it was all on Pacer quickly. I'd
end up only getting a day to reply because of this. The judge reprimanded the
lawyers at my last hearing.
Some documents. I don't know if these were my final documents because I see a
lot of typos, grammatical errors and mistakes. I had to dig up a CD from over
ten years ago. Some formatting may have fallen apart. I can't open some files
because they are old .doc files.
My first appearance
http://www.marycummins.com/ashton_appearance.pdf
Letter from their lawyer. They promised to send me copies of what they filed
but they didn't
http://www.marycummins.com/frletter.jpg
My old due diligence page on Ashton. Most links don't work.
http://www.marycummins.com/ashton_dd.pdf
Request for deposition of Fredric Rittereiser
http://www.marycummins.com/ashton_deposition.pdf
Request for interrogatories from Rittereiser
http://www.marycummins.com/ashton_interrogatories.pdf
Letter from Ashton to me about scheduling discovery
http://www.marycummins.com/astn_letter_discovery.jpg
My objections, answer to their complaint.
http://www.marycummins.com/ashton_objections.pdf
A proposed order. I meant "with prejudice."
http://www.marycummins.com/ashton_proposed_order.pdf
My request for documents from Ashton Rittereiser
http://www.marycummins.com/ashton_request_for_documents.pdf
A sample post which they called "defamatory." This is not defamatory
at all. It's the truth.
http://www.marycummins.com/4.jpg
I found
some interesting audio files while I was going through my old disks. I did
indeed call up "Fridays with Freddy" and ask him about the status of
his lawsuit against me. I wanted him to publicly state why he was suing me. I
did not make any other calls or send any other letters to him. And FTR I never
had an affair with John Westergaard. He was 75 when I
was 25. I kept refuting his paid touts and reporting him to the SEC while he
threatened to sue then "destroy" me. I still have my dd page on WBN
and Westergaard if anyone wants it. I never met him
in person. He later died of prostate cancer which spread to his spine, karma.
Here's the audio from that portion of Freddy's audio show 1.6MB. Keep in
mind Freddy was an ex-NJ cop who'd gotten friendly with the mob. There's an in depth article about this on Silicon Investor. It may be
linked in my dd page. He then got involved in mob stock scams. This audio is pretty funny.
I never emailed, called, faxed, sent a letter to the company before this show.
The show asked for questions for the Friday with Freddy show. It was posted on
the Yahoo message board. I of course sent in a question asking him why he sued
me and what was the status of his lawsuit against me. It was all so ridiculous!
While a few were sued, I was the only one identified. I posted in my real name,
location... The others were anonymous. I'd prepared motions to quash subpoena
for identities but they were never sent. I was the
only one served, sued and I replied. I won.
I did my research, sent it to FBI, SEC, posted my report. FBI, DOJ arrested 50
Ashton Tech people, filed charges against the company. Freddy sued me for
defamation for my report to the FBI! For that reason I
really started to DIG DEEP! I unearthed more info which sent 25 more to the
slammer!
Freddy still kept suing me so I kept DIGGING, DIGGING,
DIGGING. I dug so much many more people were arrested. The stock scam was busted and they went bankrupt.
The lesson here is don't sue message board posters for posting the truth about
your stock scam. You just draw more media, FBI, public attention to your shitty
stock scam. Your scams fails more quickly and in
flames.
Frederic Rittereiser talks with his paid interviewer
Ted during "Fridays with Freddy" online stockholder radio question/answer
show. I have a lot more recordings, files...
Ted: Alright, uh, Mary Cummins wants to know what is the status of the lawsuit
against Mary Cummins and the John Does.
Freddy: You know, he he he,
the only answer I, I can give you because there are SO many Mary Cummins out
there. You wouldn't believe how many people claim they are Mary Cummins calling
up here sending us letters and so forth, so on. But I'm sure there's only one
that WE SERVED, so she's been SERVED. Uh, um, she sort of controlled the statements
and things (?) and she leads a poupourri of subject
matter that, dats, totally irrelevant to our business
or the implementation of our business plan but I mean, what can I say, I, you
know, I've received, we've received calls from supposed share
holders who claim that are "the" Mary Cummins. One of them
claimed to have had an affair with Westergaard (he
was 75 and dying I was 25 and living) and was mad at him and was out to destroy
him . We don't even pay attention to these people
whether they are writing us, whether, we, we just don't pay attention to them.
Ted: Well, but people have asked on this topic, Fred why go after uh,
someone as the company has.
Freddy: Well, well, well, well, you know, there are certain things she can say
and , there are , there are many things she can say, but when you start harming
the company or you start harming someone's reputation
Ted: Ahum.
Freddy: Dats when you go after 'em.
And, ya know, so, der are certain aspects to, to
these types of people, um, dat uh, have defamed the
company
Ted: Uhuh
Freddy: And, you know, we just ask them to stop . We
don't mind 'em trowing a
little baloney out . You know, dis, dis, uh is
America.
Ted: Uhum. Alright, uh, fair enough, couple ...
http://www.marycummins.com/fred3.wav
Many people were indeed pretending to be me. I'd threatened to fly to NY for
the shareholder meeting if someone would pay my fare. I didn't go but a woman
dressed in a red dress showed up and everyone thought that was "the"
Mary Cummins. If I were there, I would have asked the tough questions during
the Q&A as I did at the Easyriders and Ultra
shareholder meetings. They actually tried to lock me
out of the Ultra shareholder meeting. I went because I was local. Other out of
state investors asked me to go to ask questions for them.
Freddy also sued John Does 1-5. They were anonymous posters. I posted in my own
name. I had prepared motions to quash for them so their identities would not be
revealed. Freddy didn't even try to go after them. He just wanted me because I
had my dd page with evidence of his illegal activity. I just went through some
files. He only attached posts by marycummins,
notrealbright_2000 and seersucker_for_sheersuckers. I
think he also sued blitz_bud and oily_kittens,
not sure. I did not know the names of any of the other posters. They stopped
posting after the lawsuit was served on me. They returned when I won. Of course by then the company was toast.
Here are two message boards about ASTN. I am user MMMARY and was_mmmary I think. The Yahoo and Raging Bull boards for
ASTN are gone. It was the posts on Yahoo that bothered Freddie the most.
ASTN on iHub
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/board.aspx?board_id=558
ASTN on Silicon Investor
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/subject.aspx?subjectid=4251
I just checked up on Freddy. He's 75 y.o. and still
doing the same thing. He's still in a public company with
his old scam buddy Ivan Gothner! He now
calls himself Van Gothner. Chinese AgFeed, I should have known. He has not changed.
AgFeed is the new stock scam. Few years back it was
anything nano. Before that it was anything having to do with cell phones. CVGC
trading on the pinks at .28 These Chinese companies held by US public companies
are the new scam du jour. The Chinese companies generally don't exist or have
no real assets. The unsuspecting US investor can't tell because he doesn't
speak Chinese. There is a shorter named Left who got some translators and has
been Googling the companies and outing them for a nice profit. You can only
view CVGC on otcbb.com Last trade was a month ago. Look at the numbers.
You can probably see a theme in my last three defamation lawsuits. I tell the
absolute truth about bad people who are breaking the law and harming people. I
turn them in to authorities. They sue me for defamation. I end up doing a ton
more research showing them to be truly bad people. In the end I end up winning
the case. Notice all three of these people have huge egos and have personality
issues. All three attack other people viciously. Here is a letter Freddy sent
to a shareholder. He basically said "quit
moaning!" when asked why the company wasn't doing well as promised. Generally CEOs of scam companies say "have faith, just
believe, sooooon, great things are happening..."
they don't attack the shareholder.
http://www.marycummins.com/fredric_rittereiser_email.pdf
Judge Flora Barth
Wolf's final ruling. I won. The case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Then the company went bankrupt as I predicted. Judge Flora Barth Wolf was a
wonderful judge. She was fair, kind and didn't put up with crap from
Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs refused to give me copies of documents and refused to
communicate with me. Before the only hearing I attended in person Plaintiffs'
attorney swore to me "on the life of my wife and child" that if I
went into that court room, I would lose. He offered me hush money. He said "talk about Asthon
Technology all you like, but we'll give you money if you shut up about
Freddie." I refused the hush money, went into the hearing and won. Judge
reprimanded attorney for refusing to give me copies of documents and refusing
to communicate with me (except for the one chat before the hearing).
61-01062261 UPON CONSIDERATION OF MARY CUMMINS' MOTION TO DETERMINE PRELIMINARY
OBJECTIONS, THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT THEREOF, AND PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE
THERETO, AND THIS COURT FINDING THAT MARY CUMMINS LACKED SUFFICIENT MINIMUM
CONTACTS WITH THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND
DECREED THAT THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS ARE SUSTAINED AND THE COMPLAINT IN THIS
MATTER IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AS TO MARY CUMMINS ONLY FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFFS' PRAECIPE TO OVERRULE
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS IS DENIED AS MOOT...BY THE COURT, JUDGE WOLF, 8-28-01.
Link to official docket (no files)
http://fjdefile.phila.gov/efsfjd/zk_fjd_public_qry_03.zp_dktrpt_frames?case_id=010402722&uid=L0bNTorMyIolqsSYDxam&o=R2h1NYhcS!rzHdb
Full docket as a pdf
http://www.marycummins.com/ashton_technology_v_mary_cummins_docket.pdf
Case Description
Case ID: Case Caption:
Filing Date: Court: Location: Jury: Case Type: Status:
Related Cases
010402722 RITTERREISER
ETAL VS CUMMINS ETAL Monday , April 23rd, 2001 MAJOR NON JURY 100 PENN SQUARE
EAST NON JURY EQUITY - NO REAL ESTATE (TRO) DISCONTINUANCE ORDERED
No related cases were
found.
Case Event Schedule
No case events were
found.
Case motions
No case motions were
found.
Case Parties
Seq #
Assoc
Expn Date
Type
Name
1
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
FRANK, ALAN L
Address:
ALAN L. FRANK LAW
ASSOCS PC 135 OLD YORK ROAD JENKINTOWN PA 19046 (215)935-1000
Aliases:
none
2
1
PLAINTIFF
RITTEREISER, FREDERIC
Address:
3
Address:
4
Address:
11PENNCENTER1835
MARKET ST 4TH FLOOR PHILADELPHIA PA 19103
1
1835MARKETSTSTE 400
PHILADELPHIA PA 19103
906 N DOHENY DR #214
LOS ANGELES CA 90069
Aliases: none
PLAINTIFF
Aliases: none
DEFENDANT
Aliases: none
Filing Party
FRANK, ALAN L
FRANK, ALAN L
ASHTON TECHNOLOGY
GROUP INC
CUMMINS, MARY
Disposition Approval/
Amount EntryDate
23-APR-2001 10:58 AM
23-APR-2001 12:00 AM
23-APR-2001 12:00 AM
Docket Entries
Filing Date/Time
23-APR-2001 10:57 AM
Docket Type
ACTIVE CASE
DocketEntry: none.
23-APR-2001 11:11 AM
COMMENCEMENT OF CIVIL
ACTION
DocketEntry: none.
23-APR-2001 11:11 AM
DocketEntry:
23-APR-2001 11:11 AM
COMPLAINT FILED NOTICE
GIVEN
COMPLAINTWITHNOTICETODEFENDWITHINTWENTY(20)DAYSAFTER
SERVICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 1018.1 FILED.
WAITING TO LIST CASE
FRANK, ALAN L 23-APR-2001 MGMT CONF 12:00 AM
DocketEntry: none.
11-MAY-2001 02:07 PM
TRANSFERRED TO MAJOR
NON-JURY
SHEPPARD, JR., ALBERT
W
11-MAY-2001 02:09 PM
Docket Entry:
AFTER A REVIEW OF
PLAINTIFF'S(S') PLEADING AND THE COMMERCE PROGRAM CASE CRITERIA, IT IS ORDERED
THAT THIS CASE IS INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE COMMERCE PROGRAM BECAUSE IT DOES NOT
INVOLVE A DISPUTE BETWEEN OR AMONG TWO BUSINESS ENTERPRISES. ADMINISTRATIVE
DOCKET 01 OF 1999 IN RE: COMMERCE CASE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, B.1.2. IT IS FURTHER
ORDERED THAT THE CASE IS TRANSFERRED TO THE NON JURY
PROGRAM AND PLACED IN A WAITING TO LIST STATUS CONFERENCE STATUS. BY THE
COURT....SHEPPARD J 5/11/01
11-MAY-2001 02:10 PM
NOTICE GIVEN
11-MAY-2001 02:10 PM
Docket Entry:
none.
11-MAY-2001 02:10 PM
WAITING TO LIST STATUS
CONF
11-MAY-2001 12:00 AM
Docket Entry:
none.
14-MAY-2001 03:50 PM
REFUND OF FEES/PROTHY
APPROVED
15-MAY-2001 12:00 AM
Docket Entry:
$22.00 REFUNDED TO
FRANK & ROSEN. OVERPAYMENT.
21-MAY-2001 10:36 AM
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
FILED
CUMMINS, MARY
22-MAY-2001 12:00 AM
Docket Entry:
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE OF
MARY CUMMINS FILED ON BEHALF OF DFT, MARY CUMMINS (PRO-SE) $102.00 FEE PAID
FILED.
29-MAY-2001 03:45 PM
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
CUMMINS, MARY
30-MAY-2001 12:00 AM
Docket Entry:
DEFENDANT, MARY
CUMMINS PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS PURSUANT TO PA RCP 1028(A) TO PLAINTIFFS'
COMPLAINT.
14-JUN-2001 03:55 PM
ANSWER TO PRELIMINARY
OBJCTNS
FRANK, ALAN L
15-JUN-2001 12:00 AM
Docket Entry:
ANSWER TO DEFENDANT
MARY CUMMINS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS.
20-JUN-2001 09:23 AM
LISTED FOR STATUS
CONFERENCE
20-JUN-2001 09:23 AM
Docket Entry:
none.
21-JUN-2001 04:05 PM
NOTICE GIVEN
21-JUN-2001 04:05 PM
Docket Entry:
none.
28-JUN-2001 02:13 PM
MOTION TO DETERMINE P
O FILED
CUMMINS, MARY
29-JUN-2001 12:00 AM
Docket Entry:
61-01062261 RESPONSE
DATE 7-30-01
29-JUN-2001 11:36 AM
PRAECIPE/OVERRULE
PRELIM OBJS
FRANK, ALAN L
05-JUL-2001 12:00 AM
Docket Entry:
35-01062335 PRAECIPE
TO OVERRULE PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
05-JUL-2001 03:17 PM
MOTION ASSIGNMENT
UPDATED
05-JUL-2001 12:00 AM
Docket Entry:
35-01062335 PRAECIPE
TO OVERRULE PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS ASSIGNMENT DATE UPDATED TO 7-30-01
19-JUL-2001 10:52 AM
STATUS HEARING
DISPOSED
TERESHKO, ALLAN L
19-JUL-2001 10:53 AM
It is hereby ORDERED
and DECREED as follows: 1. Development of Joint Statement of Uncontested and
Contested Facts. (a) Plaintiff's Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law
and Legal Issues for Trial. By 1/18/02, plaintiff shall provide the Court with
a narrative statement listing all facts proposed to be proved by him or her at
trial in support of his or her claim(s) as to liability and damages.
Additionally, plaintiff shall provide the Court with all relevant conclusions
of law based upon his or her proposed findings of fact and any
and all legal issues presented thereto. (b) Defendant's Response and
Proposed
Docket Entry:
Facts. By 2/18/02,
defendant shall provide the Court a statement: (1) indicating the extent to
which defendant contests and does not contest the plaintiff's proposed facts:
(2) listing all additional facts proposed to be proved by defendant at trial in
opposition to, or in special defense of, the plaintiff's claim(s) as to liability
and damages; (3) listing all facts proposed to be proved by defendant at trial
in support of any counterclaim(s), and/or third-party claim(s) if such claims
exist; (4) listing any and all conclusions of law which arise from all
contested and uncontested facts as proposed by the plaintiff; and, (5) listing
for the Court all legal issues presented based upon proposed facts and
conclusions of law. (c) Statement of Uncontested Facts. By 1/18/02, the same
date as that listed in paragraph 1 (a) of this order, the parties shall submit
a joint statement of uncontested facts. This statement is separate and distinct
from any other submitted. As such, agreement or disagreement, which terms are
defined below, with any proposed fact by a defendant does not obviate the
requirements of this paragraph. 2. Identification of Witnesses and Exhibits.
(a) Plaintiff's Witnesses. By 1/18/02, plaintiff shall provide the Court with a
list of all possible witnesses, including a brief narrative of each respective
witness's expected testimony. (b) Plaintiff's Exhibits. By 1/18/02, plaintiff
shall provide the Court with a list of all possible exhibits which he or she
may use during the course of trial. (c) Defendant's
Witnesses. By 2/18/02, defendant shall provide the Court with a list of all
possible witnesses, including a brief narrative of each respective witness's
expected testimony. (d) Defendant's Exhibits. By 2/18/02, defendant shall
provide the Court with a list of all possible exhibits which he or she may use during the course of the trial. 3. Definitions. (a)
Narration of Proposed Facts. In stating facts proposed to be proved, counsel
shall do so in simple, declarative, self contained,
consecutively numbered sentences. In a case with multiple parties, if a fact is
to offered against fewer than all parties, counsel
shall indicate the parties against which the fact will (or will not) be
offered. (The facts to be set forth include not only ultimate facts, but also
all subsidiary and supporting facts except those offered solely for impeachment
purposes.) (b) Agreement and Disagreement. Defense counsel shall indicate that
he or she does not contest a proposed fact if at trial they will not controvert
or dispute that fact. In indicating disagreement with a proposed fact, defense
counsel shall so set forth those disagreement(s) as explained above. (c)
Objections. Objections to the admissability of a
proposed fact (either as irrelevant or on other grounds) may not be used to
avoid indicating whether or not the party contests the
truth of that fact. (Counsel shall, however, indicate any objections, both to
the facts which they contest and those which they do not contest.) (d)
Individual Positions. To the extent feasible, counsel with similar interests
are expected to coordinate their efforts and express a joint position with
respect to the facts they propose to prove and to the facts other parties
propose to prove. Subject to the time limits above, each party may, however,
list additional proposed facts to cover positions unique to it. 4. Annotations.
For each proposed fact, the parties shall, at the time of proposing to prove
the fact, list the witnesses (including expert witnesses), documents, and (with
line-by-line references) any depositions and answers to interrogatories or
requests for admissions that they will offer to prove that fact. In his or her
response, defense counsel shall, if he or she objects to any such proposed fact
or proposed proof,
state precisely the grounds of their objections and, if they will contest the
accuracy of the proposed fact, similarily list the
witnesses, documents, depositions, interrogatories, or admissions that they
will offer to controvert that fact. Except for good cause shown, a party will
be precluded at trial from offering any evidence on any fact not so disclosed
and from making any objection not so disclosed. 5. Effect. (a) Preclusion of
other facts. Except for good cause shown, parties shall be precluded at trial
from offering proof of any fact not disclosed in their listing of proposed
facts (except purely for impeachment purposes). 6. Sanctions. Unjustified
refusal to admit a proposed fact or to limit the extent of disagreement with a
proposed fact shall be subject to sanctions. Excessive listing of proposed
facts (or of the evidence to be submitted in support of or denial of such
facts) which imposes obvious burdens on opposing parties shall also be subject
to sanctions. BY THE COURT: Allan L. Tereshko,
Supervising Judge
19-JUL-2001 10:53 AM
LISTED FOR SETTLEMENT
CONF
19-JUL-2001 10:53 AM
Docket Entry:
none.
19-JUL-2001 10:54 AM
LISTED FOR TRIAL
19-JUL-2001 10:54 AM
Docket Entry:
none.
30-JUL-2001 09:17 AM
ANSWER
(MOTION/PETITION) FILED
RITTEREISER, FREDERIC
31-JUL-2001 12:00 AM
Docket Entry:
61-01062261 ANS FILED
TO PO'S
01-AUG-2001 04:21 PM
MOTION ASSIGNED
01-AUG-2001 04:21 PM
Docket Entry:
35-01062335 PRAECIPE
TO OVERRULE OBJECTIONS ASSIGNED TO JUDGE WOLF ON, 8-2-01.
01-AUG-2001 04:21 PM
MOTION ASSIGNED
01-AUG-2001 04:21 PM
Docket Entry:
61-01062261 MOTION TO
DETERMINE PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS ASSIGNED TO JUDGE WOLF ON 8-2-01.
29-AUG-2001 03:24 PM
ORDER ENTERED/236
NOTICE GIVEN
WOLF, FLORA B
29-AUG-2001 03:28 PM
Docket Entry:
61-01062261 UPON
CONSIDERATION OF MARY CUMMINS' MOTION TO DETERMINE PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS, THE
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT THEREOF, AND PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE THERETO, AND
THIS COURT FINDING THAT MARY CUMMINS LACKED SUFFICIENT MINIMUM CONTACTS WITH
THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED THAT THE
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS ARE SUSTAINED AND THE COMPLAINT IN THIS MATTER IS
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AS TO MARY CUMMINS ONLY FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFFS' PRAECIPE TO OVERRULE PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
IS DENIED AS MOOT...BY THE COURT, JUDGE WOLF, 8-28-01.
06-SEP-2001 12:00 PM
PETITION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
10-SEP-2001 12:00 AM
Docket Entry:
24-01090224 PETITION
FOR RECONSIDERATION FILED (FILED BY FREDERIC RITTEREISER AND ASHTON TECHNOLOGY
GROUP)
10-SEP-2001 12:04 PM
MOTION ASSIGNED
10-SEP-2001 12:04 PM
Docket Entry:
24-01090224 PETITION
FOR RECONSIDERATION ASSIGNED TO JUDGE WOLF ON 9-11-01.
16-OCT-2001 03:17 PM
ORDER ENTERED/236
NOTICE GIVEN
WOLF, FLORA B
16-OCT-2001 03:18 PM
Docket Entry:
24-01090224 IT IS
ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS DENIED AND THE ORDER
ENTERED AUGUST 27, 2001, GRANTING DEFENDANT MARY CUMMINS' PRELIMINARY
OBJECTIONS IS HEREBY AFFIRMED. ...BY THE COURT: WOLF, J. 10-11-01.
25-JAN-2002 12:21 PM
CONFERENCE CANCELLED
25-JAN-2002 12:21 PM
Docket Entry:
none.
25-JAN-2002
OTHER EVENT
25-JAN-2002
03:13 PM
CANCELLED
03:13 PM
Docket Entry:
REFER TO THE ORDER OF
JUDGE WOLF DATED 8/28/01.
15-MAR-2002 10:04 AM
NOTICE GIVEN UNDER
RULE 236
21-MAR-2002 10:05 AM
Docket Entry:
none.
15-MAR-2002 10:58 AM
PRAECIPE TO
DISCONTINUE
FRANK, ALAN L
18-MAR-2002 10:58 AM
Docket Entry:
ORDER TO DISCONTINUE
WITHOUT PREJUDICE FILED BY PLAINTIFF(S) ATTORNEY.
21-MAR-2002 10:04 AM
DISCONTINUANCE ORDERED
TERESHKO, ALLAN L
21-MAR-2002 10:05 AM
Docket Entry:
DISCONTINUED 3/18/02
BY THE COURT: JUDGE ALLAN L. TERESHKO
30-DEC-2005 02:36 PM
RECORD DESTROYED
30-DEC-2005 12:00 AM
Docket Entry:
THIS RECORD HAS BEEN
DISPOSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE COUNTY RECORDS ACT AND PA.
R.J.A. NO. 507(A)
Part of
old Pacer docket
Case Description
Case ID:
010402722
Case Caption:
RITTERREISER ETAL VS CUMMINS ETAL
Filing Date: Monday , April 23rd, 2001
Court: CZ -
COMMERCE
Location: CH - CITY
HALL
Jury: N - NON JURY
Case Type: E3 - EQUITY
- NO REAL ESTATE (TRO)
Status: CLWCM -
WAITING TO LIST CASE MGMT CONF
Related Cases
No related cases were
found.
Case Event
Schedule
No case events were
found.
Case Parties
Seq # Assoc Expn Date Type ID Name
1 ATTORNEY FOR
PLAINTIFF A34414 FRANK, ALAN L
Address: 1835 MARKET
ST STE 320
11 PENN CENTER
PHILADELPHIA PA
19103
(215)864-2900 Aliases:
none
2 1 PLAINTIFF @4247418
RITTEREISER, FREDERIC
Address: 11 PENN
CENTER 1835 MARKET ST
4TH FLOOR
PHILADELPHIA PA 19103
Aliases: none
3 1 PLAINTIFF @4247426
ASHTON TECHNOLOGY GROUP INC
Address: 1835 MARKET
ST STE 400
PHILADELPHIA PA 19103
Aliases: none
4 DEFENDANT @4247429
CUMMINS, MARY
Address: 906 N DOHENY
DR #214
LOS ANGELES CA 90069
Aliases: none
Docket Entries
Filing Date/Time
Docket Type Filing Party Disposition Amount
23-APR-2001
10:57 AM ACTIV - ACTIVE
CASE
Docket Entry:
none.
23-APR-2001
11:11 AM CIVIL -
COMMENCEMENT OF CIVIL ACTION FRANK, ALAN L
Docket Entry:
none.
23-APR-2001
11:11 AM CMPLT -
COMPLAINT FILED NOTICE GIVEN FRANK, ALAN L
Docket Entry:
COMPLAINT WITH NOTICE TO DEFEND WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS AFTER SERVICE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 1018.1 FILED.
23-APR-2001
11:11 AM CLWCM -
WAITING TO LIST CASE MGMT CONF FRANK, ALAN L
Docket Entry: none.