Mary Cummins Investigative Reporter Los Angeles, California

Tuesday, May 4, 2004

Kathy Knight-McConnell v Mary Cummins - Cummins wins the lawsuit

Mary Cummins copy of memorandum in support of Defendant's Rule 12(b) Motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue and failure to state a claim. Judge Naomi Buchwald.

Mary Cummins, Defendant pro se

Phone 323-651-1336

Fax 323-651-1335

359 N. Sweetzer Avenue

Los Angeles, CA 90048

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

KATHY KNIGHT-MCCONELL, Plaintiff, v. MARY CUMMINS, DefendantCivil No. 03 CV 5035 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S RULE 12(b) MOTIONS TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION, LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION, IMPROPER VENUE, and FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM Judge: Buchwald

MEMORANDUM

Background

Plaintiff Kathy Knight-McConnell’s (“Plaintiff”) lawsuit expresses Plaintiff’s discontent with Defendant Mary Cummins’ (“Defendant” or “Cummins”) opinions which were published by Cummins on the internet, related to Plaintiff’s former activities as a paid stock promoter and as a paid stock tout. What is at issue here are Cummins First Amendment free speech rights, not matters prohibited by any federal statute.

Plaintiff seeks to misuse the federal statutes cited by Plaintiff outside of their intended legal meaning and jurisdictional authority as a basis for jurisdiction in federal court and for venue in New York. Further, she alleges actions and conduct for which no law exists upon which relief can be granted. A careful reading of the complaint in question implies claims that the statements allegedly published by Defendant are derogatory to Plaintiff, but any such claims would have to be brought under state, not federal, law. What this really boils down to is that Plaintiff is attempting to abridge the free speech rights of Defendant.

Defendant Cummins was never properly served in this case. The court previously struck an earlier proof of service filed by the Plaintiff, and instructed Plaintiff to effect service of process by mail according to court rules. Instead of following the court’s instructions to complete service by mail, Plaintiff, by way of a third party, left the new summons and complaint papers in a hedge row in a rain storm. At this time, Cummins prefers to move for dismissal on other grounds without further delay in this matter. Therefore, Cummins considers this appearance to be voluntary, since a second motion to strike Plaintiff’s proof of service on the grounds stated above will not resolve disposal of this case in finality.

Argument A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Rule 12(b)(1))

Plaintiff alleges several claims pursuant to the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15 USC §§ 78i, 78j, 78t, and 78aa; and 15 USC § 80b-2). Reliance by Plaintiff on these statutes is preposterous. No allegation or statement of fact in Plaintiff’s complaint has any connection, even remotely, with the sale, offering for sale, issuance, purchase, or any statement made in conjunction with, a security.

The Exchange Act and the rules promulgated under it provide for a shareholder derivative action, and then only when the plaintiff has standing as the buyer or seller of the security involved. Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723 (1975). In such case, a plaintiff may have standing, upon court certification, to bring a private action. However in the instant case, the Plaintiff has not alleged that either the Plaintiff or the Defendant is the issuer of any security, or that any party has purchased or sold any security. Without such a basic premise as standing, the court need not look further to determine whether any other of the numerous and complex elements for bringing a private securities action even exists. This subject is covered in full below under the argument for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).

Even the Plaintiff were legitimately bringing a suit pursuant to any claim under the Exchange Act, Sec. 78aa specifically permits that a civil action may be brought in district court, but venue lay where the defendant resides, transacts business, or may be found. Because defendant has not purposefully availed herself of a New York venue in any constitutionally relevant sense (see Declaration of Mary Cummins), only the appropriate California district can hold venue. The matter of personal jurisdiction will be discussed more fully below.

Plaintiff alleges claims under 15 USC § 1125, claiming some sort of trademark infringement or dilution pertaining to a registered domain name. No information is alleged from which a claim under this statute could possibly be inferred, because this section deals with trademark infringement from improper registration of domains. Even if such a claim has been alleged, the statute specifically directs venue and jurisdiction to the residence of the registrar. No registrar is even alleged in the complaint.

Even if Plaintiff alleges that Plaintiff published public documents on the internet, and that Defendant allegedly linked to those public internet pages from Defendant’s web site. The absurdity of Plaintiff’s charges lay in the fact that the internet is a World Wide Web, that is, millions of published documents which are linked by unique registered locators, or URL’s. Not only is Plaintiff’s belief that creating URL’s which link to public documents on the internet are illegal, but it has nothing to do with trademark infringement within the context of a domain name, which is legal authority she is claiming. Specifically, she claims these links from mary.cc to investortoinvestor.com were illegal because they allegedly were done without permission. This is ridiculous, because any alleged link or URL from any web page would simply direct the reader to the target website.

Plaintiff also alleges that the Uniform Resource Locator “URL” somehow violates trademark properties. This is equally ridiculous. a URL is simply a directory or sub-directory filing system on a computer. It identifies the directory tree under which the requested document may be found using the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (“HTTP”). Furthermore, the content of those pages are public documents, which is the nature of the internet, unless the publisher has made specific efforts to restrict access to those documents, which is not the case here. The URL’s in question are clearly located under the mary.cc domain, a domain which Plaintiff alleges is owned by, and registered to, Defendant Cummins. There is no dispute relating to improper domain name registration under the federal trademark statute. Therefore, there is no possible application of this statute even when applied in the greatest stretch of the imagination.

Each and every other alleged “claim” asserted by the Plaintiff, which include false light, defamation, and business interference, are state claims under state common law. Because Plaintiff has alleged no ultimate facts alleging valid claim under Rule 10B-5 of the Exchange Act, this court cannot take jurisdiction over the state law claims as alleged by the Plaintiff.

B. Personal Jurisdiction (Rule 12(b)(2))

Plaintiff further cites New York’s “long arm statute” as a basis for jurisdiction. Under this state statute, the federal district court is required to exercise jurisdiction under the same standards and guidelines as would be considered by the state courts. Bank Brussels Lambert v. Gonzalez, 171 F.3d 779 (2d Cir. 03/26/1999). Once the standards are applied under New York’s C.P.L.R., then the district court must determine whether an exercise of jurisdiction under these laws is consistent with federal due process requirements. Met Life, 84 F.3d at 567.

Plaintiff alleges no ultimate facts that Defendant has had any minimal contact with the forum state. Indeed, Plaintiff alleges that Cummins resides in, and conducts business in, California (see Complaint at par. 10, pg. 3).

Defendant is a citizen of California, and lives and is employed in California. See Affidavit of Mary Cummins at 2, 3, and 4. Defendant has no contact with the forum state, and there is no basis upon which Cummins could “reasonably be expected to be hailed” into the forum state of New York. Accordingly, due process cannot be served in New York. Kernan v. Kurz-Hastings Inc., 175 F.3d 236 (2d Cir. 04/15/1999).

C. Improper Venue (Rule 12(b)(3))

Plaintiff further alleges jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC § 1332. Because there is no federal cause of action alleged or implied by Plaintiff under any federal statute, Defendant’s due process rights dictate that the only proper venue is California, and that any allegations made by the Plaintiff should be applied under California State law. The standard for venue even in Internet cases is well established, that the Plaintiff must allege ultimate facts proving that the alleged conduct is directed expressly at the forum state more than at any other state or venue. See GTRE New Media Services Incorporated v. BellSouth Corp., 199 F.3d 1343 (D.C.Cir. 01/11/2000), where the plaintiff relied upon District of Columbia’s long-arm statute in allegations similar to this case. Even if Plaintiff were properly alleging a trademark infringement, which she is not, allegations of ultimate facts must be pleaded in order to claim venue in New York. Mattel, Inc. v. Barbie-Club.com, 310 F.3d 293 (2d Cir. 11/07/2002).

Plaintiff also alleges that there is an agreement on the investortoinvestor.com web site which binds venue in New York. A copy of this purported “agreement” is attached as Exhibit A. There is no basis for this claim because (a), Investor to Investor, Inc. is NOT a party to this lawsuit; (b), there is no “venue clause” in this purported “agreement” as alleged by the Plaintiff. (3), there are no factual allegations linking Defendant Cummins to this, or any other purported “agreement”; and (4) no legal basis has been established wherein an internet computer user is bound to any published rules binding venue on a website just by casually visiting or using that web site. See GTRE supra.

D. Failure To State A Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted (Rule 12(b)(7))

As described above, Plaintiff has not pleaded any factual allegations relating to any federal statute cited by Plaintiff as a basis for her complaint. Specifically, Plaintiff has not alleged any claims as follows:

(1) Misappropriation or conversion (presumably of Plaintiff’s “trademarks” under the federal statute).

Plaintiff alleges that pages appearing on Defendant’s website misappropriate Plaintiff’s name. This is merely a conclusion, and is ridiculous because all of the pages and content appear on Defendant’s web site, not the Plaintiff’s. The pages contain both factual documents and opinions expressed by Defendant and others relating to Plaintiff or to some of the publicly trade companies that Plaintiff touts. This content is clearly published by the Defendant on

Defendant’s web site, under Defendant’s domain address (mary.cc). The uniform resource locator (URL), as explained above, is a unique address on a computer directory where the document is to be found. The domain portion of the address (i.e. “mary.cc”, with the “cc” being the top-level domain, and “mary” being the registered domain) is alleged to be registered to Defendant (which it is). Plaintiff therefore can make no trademark claim, because it is clear that the federal statute involves registered domain names (see DeGidio v. West Group Corporation, 355 F.3d 506, 69 U.S.P.Q.2d 1538 ( 01/14/2004). The remainder of the address are directory and document file names. No ultimate fact of trademark or other protected content is alleged by Plaintiff to be illegally published by Defendant, and Plaintiff has failed to allege any fact which proves she has registered any trademark which she alleges has been infringed upon. Rather, she appears to be perturbed that the post-domain document path contains her name, “Kathy Knight-McConnell” (which makes sense, since she is the subject of the published documents).

Thus ALL of Plaintiff’s trademark claims appear to be related to the post- domain path of the mary.cc documents. Each web page within a website has a corresponding uniform resource locator ("URL") (e.g., mary.cc/ kathy_knight_mcconnell.htm), which consists of a domain name and a post-domain path. A post-domain path (e.g., /kathy_knight_mcconnell.htm) merely shows how a web site's data is organized within the host computer's files. Interactive Products Corporation v. a2z Mobile Office Solutions, Inc., 326 F.3d 687, 2003 Fed.App. 0111 (6th Cir. 04/10/2003). Interactive Products Corporation is a case on point because the court found that a trademark found in a post-domain path is not protected when it is not likely to cause confusion, because the post-domain path is clearly stated under a fully registered domain name clearly belonging to another person. Further more, no

implication is made as to “source of goods”, nor would any reasonable person infer that the documents are published by any person other than the owner of the domain mary.cc. Finally, no factual allegation is made that “Kathy Knight-McConnell” is even a registered trademark. Even if it was, because it is the name of the person about whom the alleged documents were written, publication of a person’s name in a story or published opinion about the person would constitute fair use.

(2) Alleged Securities Violations.

Plaintiff’s “Sixth Cause of Action” does not allege even one single fact to bring any claim under Rule 17(b) or Rule 10b-5. Specifically, Plaintiff makes a speculative conclusionary statement that Defendant is acting in the capacity of a “securities advisor”, and that Defendant has received “undisclosed payment” for such. This claim is based upon Plaintiff’s conclusion that Defendant allegedly published on the internet her opinions that the penny stocks being touted by Plaintiff on her web site are not investment quality and that shorting them would be a good strategy.

Plaintiff has alleged no facts (a) identifying any security which was offered, sold, or purchased by any person, or that Defendant is involved in the purchase, sale, or offering of any security; (b) alleging any fact of injury which would give Plaintiff standing in bringing any such claim; (c) alleging any fact that Defendant is an advisor under the Exchange Act; or (d) alleging any fact to support Plaintiff’s conclusion that “upon information and belief, the defendant has been paid in an undisclosed manner...” (see Complaint at par. 38).

Specifically, Plaintiff’s conclusionary statement alleging “fraud” has not been pleaded with particularity as required by Rule 9(b), and therefore must be dismissed WITH PREJUDICE. Rombach v. Chang, 355 F.3d 164 ( 01/20/2004). Plaintiff does not allege negligence on the part of the defendant, and therefore the heightened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b) apply. Ibid.

Plaintiff also states a conclusion of “conspiracy”, but fails to allege one rudimentary fact of who the association of “conspirators” are, knowledge of such a conspiracy, any actionable conduct for which a conspiracy claim can be brought, or how or why the Plaintiff would have standing to bring such a claim. Plaintiff speculates that because Defendant was allegedly called as a witness to testify in a civil fraud case in which Plaintiff is a defendant, that there must be “civil conspiracy”.

Thus, the Plaintiff has not alleged even one rudimentary fact necessary to bring a claim under the federal statutes, let alone to lend this court jurisdiction.

The balance of Plaintiff’s claims are for state and common law claims of false light, defamation, and tortious business interference, and therefore need not be addressed here. While it is doubtful that any of these claims could survive a preliminary motion to dismiss in state court, any state claims which may survive under state pleading rules should be brought in the correct forum in Defendant’s state of residence, not in this federal district court.

Respectfully submitted this 25th Day of May, 2004.

_________________________________

Mary Cummins, Defendant pro se

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing Memorandum of Points And Authorities was served on the plaintiff y postage paid U.S. First Class Mail on the date below at the following address:

Kathy Knight-McConnell

98 Van Cortland Park South # 8C

Bronx, New York 10463-2921

Dated this 25th Day of May, 2004.

By _______________________________

Mary Cummins

Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates is a wildlife rehabilitator licensed by the California Department of Fish and Game. Mary Cummins is also a licensed real estate appraiser in Los Angeles, California.

Mary Cummins, Mary K. Cummins, Mary Katherine Cummins, Mary Cummins-Cobb, Mary, Cummins, Cobb, real estate, appraiser, appraisal, instructor, teacher, Los Angeles, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Pasadena, Brentwood, Bel Air, California, licensed, permitted, single family, condo, pud, hud, fannie mae, freddie mac, uspap, certified, residential, certified resident, apartment building, multi-family, commercial, industrial, expert witness, civil, criminal, orea, dre, insurance, bonded, experienced, bilingual, spanish, english, form, 1004, 2055, land, raw, acreage, vacant, insurance, cost, income approach, market analysis, comparative, theory, appraisal theory, cost approach, sales, matched pairs, plot, plat, map, diagram, photo, photographs, photography, rear, front, street, subject, comparable, sold, listed, active, pending, expired, cancelled, listing, mls, multiple listing service, claw, themls,

Tuesday, November 25, 2003

Mary Cummins comment to the SEC

My comment to the SEC on a proposed rule for short sales

From: MMMARYinLA@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 1:48 PM
To: rule-comments@sec.gov
Subject: File No. S7-23-03

I have read a few articles about the new shorting regulations and would
like to comment. I believe that in order to have a balanced market the
investor should be allowed to play the market up and down equally with
the same set of rules. If there are not enough shares to borrow to cover
short positions, a short squeeze occurs and the price shoots up artificially
to the benefit of the "long" investors and companies. This balances out the
market. Someone can also borrow shares to play them in an up trend through
leverage. Borrowing is borrowing, if one plays it up or down. Investors need
to be able to play markets up and down. That's capitalism, that's the
American way.

I also believe that it is the broker who is responsible for processing the
paperwork and following the rules. The investor just puts in an order and
has no idea how that order is executed or what regulations are involved. With
that said I have a few more comments about the entities who are begging the
SEC to stop all this "criminalistic naked shorting that is taking food out of
orphans mouths."

The people who have filed suits over this naked shorting issue are not newly
formed innocent small companies selling shares to raise capital for legitimate
business activities. They are not 100% owned by Joe average investor. They are
owned by insiders, investment companies, stock promoters and major risk takers.
Take a look at some of these companies. Nanopierce NPCT is run by a CEO who
was sued three times by you, the SEC for fraud. The stock promoters were also
sued by the SEC for their fraud in hyping the stock price up. It's worth about
.001 yet went to over $6. Why didn't the company complain about that "artificial"
movement? Because they paid promoters to move the price up as per your own
lawsuit. A large investor is currently suing the company for fraud. Based on
what I know, this company is guilty of securities fraud. This company has
promised profits since 1999 and is on the verge of bankruptcy without meeting
any of its projections. Most of their press releases have turned out to be
unverifiable hype if not outright lies. They even agreed to do toxic funding
knowing full well that their shares would be shorted. Insiders may have even
shorted the shares themselves through holding companies. They used this shorting
to help fund the company. Without shorting, the company would be bankrupt and now
they complain? The SEC has allowed them to fraudulently hype the share price UP
yet now the company asks the SEC to make it even more difficult to short the price
down to it's true value. That is not a balanced market. That is one doomed to
collapse on a larger scale.

There are others on this list which I believe are total stock scams. They have
hired many stock promoters to hype the share price up fraudulently through
newsletters, message boards, "investor conferences," and direct marketing. These
promoters are telling people invested in these stock scams to copy/paste their
comments to the SEC en masse so you will be influenced artificially to change the
regulations. This is the same way they artificially hype share prices up. Please,
read these comments individually.

I follow stock scams so I can alert authorities and investors so the true few
innocent investors won't be scammed. I watched an elderly gentleman invest in a
total scam believing all the hype only to lose his entire retirement fund. Last
I spoke to him he was considering suicide over telling his wife that he lost all
their money. He was never heard from again. I have been sued by these fraudulent
stock promoters just so they can try to silence my honest information about bad
investments. I don't even short these stocks or profit in any way. I also helped
the SEC in two securities fraud cases. If anything, the SEC should be going after
these scamsters even more.

Shorters tell the public the truth about stock scams and loser investments.
Shorters are generally sued frivolously because of releasing honest negative
information. They are doing a service to the public. They regulate the markets
better than the SEC. They should be allowed to play the stocks down just as
others are allowed to play the stocks up. There must be financial gain in order
for them to bear the huge risks and costs involved in releasing negative news.
Why in America do we think that we should only speak positively. That is what
causes our stock market collapses. It's bad enough the major news distribution
companies will not allow negative news to be released about any company unless
it comes from the company itself or they give expressed permission. The US
investor is only allowed to see positive news. All these factors make shorting
a necessity in these markets. If markets were allowed to go up and up, the entire
market would eventually collapse. We need shorters to let out a little market
steam from time to time so the entire market doesn't explode and collapse. Please
allow the markets to be balanced naturally by honest capitalism. It will help
sustain a healthy market and will help all investors in the end.

Mary Cummins
"Just say NO to stock scams"
MMMARYinLA@aol.com
Los Angeles, CA
_____________________

http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/s72303/mcummins112503.txt

Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates is a wildlife rehabilitator licensed by the California Department of Fish and Game. Mary Cummins is also a licensed real estate appraiser in Los Angeles, California.

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

Fredric Rittereiser aka Freddy.

Freddy speaking on one of those fake stock promotion "interviews."

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.

Thursday, June 17, 1999

Mary Cummins quoted in LA Times article, Easyriders

Easyriders Seeks Direction as the Road Gets Rough; Publishing: New managers grapple with stock crash and protests over the cleanup of the flagship magazine.
[Home Edition]

Los Angeles Times - Los Angeles, Calif.
Subjects: Magazines, Shareholder meetings, Financial performance, Stock prices, Turnaround management, Chairman of the board, Customer relations, Shareholder relations, Motorcycles, Image
Author: DAVID COLKER
Date: Jun 17, 1999
Start Page: 1
Section: Business; PART- C; Financial Desk
Text Word Count: 939

Abstract (Document Summary)

Shares of Easyriders, which made its American Stock Exchange debut in September, have fallen off a cliff. A plan to open a chain of Easyriders Cafes--a concept championed by Chairman John E. Martin, a former Taco Bell chief executive, and others who took over the company--has been abandoned. And in the wake of announced changes to the magazine, some hard-core biker types are grumbling that the new management does not embrace the Easyriders ethos.

Its tricky task to acquire new subscribers while keeping the loyalty of the old guard such as Beverly Hills real estate broker Mary Cummins 33 a critic of ...

Rest is here http://www.latimes.com

Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates is a wildlife rehabilitator licensed by the California Department of Fish and Game. Mary Cummins is also a licensed real estate appraiser in Los Angeles, California.

Saturday, January 10, 1998

Mary Cummins in Hot Bike magazine, Harley Davidson pink Babie bike

Mary Cummins, Hot Bike magazine, top 50 bikes

"Back before Evolution engines, Love Rides, Harley Davidson Cafes and high-profile celebrities cruising the Sunset strip on their lowered Fat Boys, a very young Mary Cummins fell in love. It wasn't with a boy in her class or a high school football star; Mary fell in love with an Ironhead Sportster. Somehow, she ended up with a '73 Sporty and would ride wearing a full face helmet with a tinted face shield so no one could tell that she was only 14 years old. And while she was too young to get a drivers license and had to keep the bike hidden from her parents for fear they would freak out, for the first time she really felt like she was doing something for herself. Even though Harleys weren't very "in" Mary found herself ignoring her friends' disapproving comments on a daily basis, she kept riding her Ironhead up until her second or third year in college. That was about the time Cummins found herself so busy attending school, working and looking after her ailing grandmother that she could no longer find time to enjoy her bike so she sold it. Hot Bike, January 1998, pg's 66-72. "Back in the Saddle, a return to two wheels." Courtney Halowell

To read more go here http://www.hotbikeweb.com/

Back before Evolution engines, Love Rides, Harley Davidson Cafes and high-profile celebrities cruising the Sunset strip on their lowered Fat Boys, a very young Mary Cummins fell i love. It wasn't with a boy in her class or a high school football star; Mary fell in love with an Ironhead Sportster. Somehow, she ended up with a '73 Sporty and would ride wearing a full face helmet with a tinted face shield so no one could tell that she was only 14 years old. And while she was too young to get a drivers license and had to keep the bike hidden from her parents for fear they would freak out, for the first time she really felt like she was doing something for herself. Even though Hrleys weren't very "in" an Mary found herself ignoring her friends' disapproving comments on a daily basis, she kept riding her Ironehead up until her second or third year in college. That was about the time Cummins found herself so busy attending school, working and looking after her ailing grandmother that she could no longer find time to enjoy her bike so she sold it.

To read more go here http://www.hotbikeweb.com/

Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates is a wildlife rehabilitator licensed by the California Department of Fish and Game. Mary Cummins is also a licensed real estate appraiser in Los Angeles, California.