12:06:55 EST Fri 28 Jan 2022
Enter Symbol
or Name

Login ID:

Invictus ex-subsidiary Stockhouse sues MacAskill

2012-03-15 14:04 ET - Street Wire

This item is part of Stockwatch's value added news feed and is only available to Stockwatch subscribers.

Here is a sample of this item:

by Mike Caswell

Stockhouse Publishing Ltd. has filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of British Columbia seeking an injunction against a user who has been creating an excessive number of new accounts, sometimes at the rate of 184 per day. The suit complains that the user, identified as Vancouver resident Daryl MacAskill, has become a substantial drain on time and resources. Stockhouse is asking for a court order that would bar him from creating or using accounts on its website.

The allegations are contained in a notice of claim that Stockhouse filed at the Vancouver courthouse on Feb. 28, 2012. It identifies Mr. MacAskill as a sometimes carpenter who lives in downtown Vancouver. He has been a frequent user of Stockhouse's forums over the past 12 years, posting under various aliases including "stoxxman," "Ace Ventura" and "Jeff Drakes."

The problems that Stockhouse complains of began in November, 2011, when Mr. MacAskill started creating a large volume of accounts on the website using e-mail addresses that were in the names of other people. The suit does not say how many accounts he made, but states that at one point he was creating as many as 184 per day. He continued registering the accounts even after having been suspended, prohibited and blocked from the website, according to the suit. Mr. MacAskill used the accounts to post material to the forums that was either defamatory, inaccurate, threatening or inflammatory, Stockhouse claims.

The remainder is available to Stockwatch subscribers.
Sign-up for a FREE 30-day Stockwatch subscription and SEE NO ADS

© 2022 Canjex Publishing Ltd. All rights reserved.

Reader Comments - Comments are open to paying subscribers of Stockwatch and unmoderated, although libelous remarks, obscene language and impersonations may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Stockwatch.
For information regarding Canadian libel law, please view the University of Ottawa's FAQ regarding Defamation and SLAPPs.

It's about time Stockhouse got rid of this convicted Crininal who served 6 months in jail for gst fraud

Posted by Saml at 2012-03-15 22:15

To: Mr. Mike Caswell,

Thank you for posting your public Street Wire. Many are happy that swift action is being executed to deal with this harassing blogger. He has been hurting many investors and company's with his actions.

Respectfully, can you keep an eye on these proceedings and continue reporting through your Street Wire about this case on going? Many investors are interested to follow these proceedings.

Thank you,

Hurt Investor

Posted by Hurt Investor at 2012-03-16 10:38

It might not be so easy many may be thinking to prosecute this action. As mentioned in the story, he knows the legal system well, and although much of his approach is aggressive, so too is much of the content of his posts factual. Read the summary of the complaint carefully, as he is not being sued for libel, or defamation nor is any such claim being made so far as I can detect. The company is seeking relief from the irritation, bother and related expenditures, if any, that his activities alledgedly cause, by way of an injunction.

Costs and damages are an unlikely result. In any event, he is judgement proof, financially. Furthermore, nobody goes to jail in this country for engaging in such activity and it isn't a crime to be indigent, or without the means to pay any fine or penalty.

The best result the company can expect is for a sympathetic court to command this man to cease and desist. I'm skeptical that any court could even threaten jail time for someone not to comply with any such direction from a judge. Having said that, I wouldn't reccommend challenging any judge on this as it is possible to be incarcerated for contempt of court and I doubt even this gentleman will ignore such an order, if the plaintiff should succeed in having the court grant one.

I've always been curious why people get their panties in a knot over this anyhow. If you don't like it, don't read it.

In my opinion, and from my observations so far, most of his attacks, however displayed, are directed at those deserving of them.

Posted by catbird at 2012-03-16 14:55

Comments for this item are closed