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.
onlyblacksocks@no-spam (Ben Quick) wrote
> 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...
Seems to me there is a potential case here on a
slander issue.
> 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
Obviously whoever wrote this posting is not
being objective and has it in for the corporation.
> 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.
What is the issue here? That you think the
company is lousy--or that the case is unfounded
due to wrong jurisdiction?
> 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.
Nothing presented in this post suggests the
Ashton action was a SLAPP lawsuit. The defendant's
activities, if true, were an active effort to
defame the company. I can't say whether that
meets the legal standard of libel/slander, but
it certainly is worth considering.
A SLAPP suit is when a private citizen attends a
public hearing, speaks out against a proposed
development, and gets sued by the developer for
merely speaking out at a duly constituted
public meeting held for that purpose.