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.
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.
_____________________________
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
 |
| Fredric Rittereiser aka Freddy. |
 |
| Freddy speaking on one of those fake stock promotion "interviews." |
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,
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.
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)
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.
