Mary Cummins, Real Estate Appraiser, Real Estate Appraisal, Los Angeles, California, Mary Cummins.

Mary Cummins is a real estate appraiser in Los Angeles, California with 38+ years of experience. Cummins provides real estate appraisals for banks, lenders, mortgage brokers, Appraisal Management Companies (AMCs), lawyers, Courts, factors and private parties for lending, lawsuits, probate, estate planning, divorce and all types of litigation. Cummins provides 1004, 1073, 1025 and other form reports, narrative reports and historical appraisals besides real estate research and appraisal advice.

Thursday, August 10, 2006

Los Angeles County makes amendment to zoning to allow wildlife rehabilitation, alpacas, llamas, 2005 by Mary Cummins

amendment zoning, los angeles county, mary cummins, real estate appraiser, california, llama, alpaca, wildlife

Byline: Troy Anderson Staff Writer

Los Angeles County officials gave animal lovers some good news Tuesday, making it legal to operate small wildlife rehabilitation facilities in unincorporated areas and easing rules for raising llamas and alpacas.

The practice of rehabilitating small wildlife had been illegal in unincorporated areas but legal in the city of Los Angeles.

``I'm ecstatic,'' said Mary Cummins, president of the nonprofit animal rescue organization Animal Advocates, which has a wildlife permit to operate in the city. ``This amendment will help protect the public and save animals.''

Cummins said about 50 people and organizations have been illegally rehabilitating thousands of wild animals each year in the county.

Last year, wild animal rehabilitators saved more than 80,000 animals statewide, including bobcats, skunks, opossums, racoons, wild mice and pack rats, Cummins said.

The new ordinance approved by the Board of Supervisors will allow facilities to temporarily care for sick or injured small wild animals until they become healthy and can be put back in their native habitat, said Department of Regional Planning Ordinance Studies Section official Leonard Erlanger.

The new ordinance also is expected to help relieve the county's overburdened animal shelters.

``We do occasionally get opossums,'' said Brenda Sanchez, spokeswoman for the county Department of Animal Care and Control. ``A lot them are either trapped by residents in the area or injured and we have to euthanize them.''

The state Department of Fish and Game requires all licensed wildlife rehabilitation facilities to show they have zoning clearances before it will grant a wildlife rehabilitation permit.

Before Tuesday's vote, the county did not have a mechanism to provide such clearances.

Under the new ordinance, people seeking to operate such a facility will need to obtain a state permit for the animals. Under the new requirements, the animals also must be indigenous to the county, weigh less than 30 pounds and cannot be dangerous, such as bears and mountain lions.

The provision also limits the number of animals in a facility to 20, but that limit could be waived under some circumstances.

The supervisors also voted to make it easier for people to raise llamas and alpacas in unincorporated areas.

Currently, the county's zoning laws refer to alpacas and llamas as wild animals and prohibits them in light agricultural areas - which essentially precludes Antelope Valley residents from raising the animals.

The new ordinance allows the animals in light agricultural areas and classifies them as pets that can be kept in residentially zoned areas - just like horses, cattle, sheep and goats.

Troy Anderson, (213) 974-8985

troy.anderson(at)dailynews.com

Links to county documents

http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/22556.pdf

I worked for two years to get an amendment to zoning to allow wildlife rehabilitation in LA County. Some people wanted to add llamas and alpacas as farm animals while we were at it. It was covered by all the newspapers. Below is the actual amendment.

http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/data/ord_drp-wild-animal-ord.pdf

http://file.lacounty.gov/bos/supdocs/22556.pdf

WILD CRITTERS NO MORE LLAMAS, ALPACAS NOW ARE FARM ANIMALS.(News)

Daily News (Los Angeles, CA)
January 25, 2006 |

Byline: Karen Maeshiro Staff Writer

Llamas and alpacas are now officially livestock instead of ``wild animals'' in Los Angeles County, legitimizing their breeding in rural areas of the Antelope Valley and elsewhere in Los Angeles County.

The change came about in part because of an Antelope Valley couple who wanted to raise alpacas but found that the county classification of the South American mammal as a wild animal prohibited them on their agriculturally zoned property.

``We listed them as wild animals in the county code. The state does not list them like that,'' county planner Leonard Erlanger said. ``We took them off and are treating them like horses and cows. …

http://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20060125/county-relaxes-restrictions-on-llamas-animal-rehab

County relaxes restrictions on llamas, animal rehab
By Troy Anderson, Staff Writer
POSTED: 01/25/06, 12:01 AM PST | 0 COMMENTS

Los Angeles County officials gave animal lovers some good news Tuesday, making it legal to operate small wildlife rehabilitation facilities in unincorporated areas and easing rules for raising llamas and alpacas.

The practice of rehabilitating small wildlife had been illegal in unincorporated areas but legal in the city of Los Angeles.

"I'm ecstatic," said Mary Cummins, president of the nonprofit animal rescue organization Animal Advocates, which has a wildlife permit to operate in the city. "This amendment will help protect the public and save animals."

Cummins said about 50 people and organizations have been illegally rehabilitating thousands of wild animals each year in the county.

Last year, wild animal rehabilitators saved more than 80,000 animals statewide, including bobcats, skunks, opossums, racoons, wild mice and pack rats, Cummins said.

The new ordinance approved by the Board of Supervisors will allow facilities to temporarily care for sick or injured small wild animals until they become healthy and can be put back in their native habitat, said Department of Regional Planning Ordinance Studies Section official Leonard Erlanger.

The new ordinance also is expected to help relieve the county's overburdened animal shelters.

"We do occasionally get opossums," said Brenda Sanchez, spokeswoman for the county Department of Animal Care and Control. "A lot them are either trapped by residents in the area or injured and we have to euthanize them."

The state Department of Fish and Game requires all licensed wildlife rehabilitation facilities to show they have zoning clearances before it will grant a wildlife rehabilitation permit.

Before Tuesday's vote, the county did not have a mechanism to provide such clearances.

Under the new ordinance, people seeking to operate such a facility will need to obtain a state permit for the animals. Under the new requirements, the animals also must be indigenous to the county, weigh less than 30 pounds and cannot be dangerous, such as bears and mountain lions.

The provision also limits the number of animals in a facility to 20, but that limit could be waived under some circumstances.

The supervisors also voted to make it easier for people to raise llamas and alpacas in unincorporated areas.

Currently, the county's zoning laws refer to alpacas and llamas as wild animals and prohibits them in light agricultural areas - which essentially precludes Antelope Valley residents from raising the animals.

The new ordinance allows the animals in light agricultural areas and classifies them as pets that can be kept in residentially zoned areas - just like horses, cattle, sheep and goats.

It was in Best Friends Animal Sanctuary,

"No Horsing Around, You Can Leep Llamas & Alpacas"

Our press release

PRWeb: Los Angeles County to allow licensed wildlife rehabilitation

Today the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles approved an amendment to Planning and Zoning which would allow for the licensed rehabilitation of small wild animals in the County. Currently the California Department of Fish & Game permits licensed wildlife rehabilitators to treat ill, injured and orphaned wildlife for release back to the wild. Their permits are only valid if their work does not conflict with any other regulations or ordinances.

Mary Cummins President of Animal Advocates had been working on this amendment for over two years with Alyson Stewart and Leonard Erlanger of the Department of Regional Planning. "I am very grateful that the County of Los Angeles will now allow the licensed rehabilitation of small wild animals," stated Cummins. "This will allow us to have rehabbers in the County where they are so desperately needed."

Wildlife rehabilitators provide an essential service to the public and wildlife. Without rehabbers sometimes well meaning members of the public try to care for the animals themselves which can pose a danger to the person and animal. It is actually illegal for anyone to keep a wild animal over 48 hours without a permit. Rehabbers also pick up wildlife from local animal shelters besides providing public education about wildlife and humane wildlife control.

Currently Animal Advocates rehabilitates small wildlife such as bobcats, raccoons, skunks, opossums, squirrels and chipmunks rehabbing over 1,300 wild animals in 2005. In 2004 over 80,000 wild animals were rescued in California by state wildlife rehabilitators. Wildlife rehabilitators provide this service free of charge and most are 501 3c corporations such as Animal Advocates.

Mary Cummins
Animal Advocates
(323) 651-1336
www.AnimalAdvocates.us
Mary@AnimalAdvocates.us

Transcript of the meeting January 24, 2006

http://file.lacounty.gov/bos/transcripts/01-24-06%20Board%20Meeting%20Transcript%20(C).pdf

15 SUP. ANTONOVICH, MAYOR: OKAY. MARY CUMMINS. MARY? JUST GIVE
16 YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
17
18 MARY CUMMINS: I'M MARY CUMMINS, PRESIDENT OF ANIMAL ADVOCATES.
19 I'M A FISH AND GAME LICENSED WILDLIFE REHABILITATOR, EDUCATOR
20 AND EXHIBITER. I'D LIKE TO THANK THE PLANNING COMMISSION,
21 ESPECIALLY LEONARD AND ALLISON, FOR ALL THE HARD WORK IN
22 GETTING THIS AMENDMENT THIS FAR. THIS AMENDMENT WILL HELP
23 PROTECT THE PUBLIC AND SAVE ANIMALS. SOMEWHERE ALONG THE WAY,
24 MINIMUM LOT SIZES AND MAXIMUM ANIMAL COUNTS WERE ADDED TO THE
25 PROPOSED AMENDMENT. NOW, IF YOU'RE TALKING LLAMAS AND ALPACAS,
1 LARGE ANIMALS, THAT MAKES SENSE BUT THIS AMENDMENT IS JUST FOR
2 SMALL MAMMALS, JUST SMALL SUCH AS SQUIRRELS AND OPOSSUMS. NOW,
3 A BABY SQUIRREL IS ABOUT AN INCH LONG AND I CAN FIT 20 BABY
4 OPOSSUMS INTO A TEASPOON. I LIVE ON AN AVERAGE LOT WHICH IS
5 6,500 SQUARE FEET. I'D ONLY BE ABLE TO HAVE FIVE WILD ANIMALS,
6 MAXIMUM. NOW, LEGALLY, FIVE BABY SQUIRRELS MUST BE KEPT IN AN
7 INCUBATOR, WHICH IS A TUPPERWARE CONTAINER ABOUT 10 GALLONS. I
8 DON'T THINK I NEED A 6,500-SQUARE-FOOT LOT TO HAVE A 10-GALLON
9 TUPPERWARE CONTAINER IN MY HOUSE. AND I'M IN THE CITY OF L.A.,
10 FORTUNATELY. I CAN HAVE AS MANY WILD ANIMALS AS I CAN LEGALLY
11 HOUSE. CURRENTLY, THE FISH AND GAME AND U.S.D.A. ANIMAL
12 WELFARE REGULATIONS SEVERELY RESTRICT THE NUMBER OF ANIMALS
13 THAT WE MAY HAVE. THEY HAVE MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM CAGING SIZES,
14 WHICH GO DOWN TO THE CUBIC INCH AND WE ARE ALREADY HEAVILY
15 RESTRICTED AND I DON'T FEEL THAT THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND
16 MAXIMUM NUMBERS ARE NECESSARY. I'D LIKE TO ASK THAT THAT WOULD
17 BE REMOVED FROM THE REQUIREMENTS. I WAS JUST SPEAKING WITH
18 SOMEONE EARLIER OVER HERE AND HE STATED THAT THEY MIGHT BE
19 ABLE TO FIND A WAY AROUND THAT AND THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO
20 ME IF THAT WOULD BE APPROVED.

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 of Cummins Real Estate is a certified residential licensed appraiser in Los Angeles, California. Mary Cummins is licensed by the California Bureau of Real Estate appraisers and has over 35 years of experience.

Mary Cummins, Mary K. Cummins, Mary Katherine Cummins, Mary, Cummins, #marycummins #animaladvocates #losangeles #california #wildlife #wildliferehabilitation #wildliferehabilitator #realestate #realestateappraiser #realestateappraisal #lawsuit real estate, appraiser, appraisal, instructor, teacher, Los Angeles, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Pasadena, Brentwood, Bel Air, California, licensed, permitted, certified, single family, condo, condominium, pud, hud, fannie mae, freddie mac, fha, uspap, certified, residential, certified resident, apartment building, multi-family, commercial, industrial, expert witness, civil, criminal, orea, dre, brea insurance, bonded, experienced, bilingual, spanish, english, form, 1004, 2055, 1073, 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, historical appraisal, facebook, linkedin

Mary Cummins

Mary Cummins of Cummins Real Estate Services has been in real estate since 1983, over 35 years. She is licensed by the Bureau of Real Estate Appraisers. Mary Cummins was an agent and broker licensed with the California Department of Real Estate selling residential income, commercial buildings, raw land and homes for Merrill Lynch Realty in Beverly Hills and Westside Properties in Los Angeles before concentrating on appraisals. Mary Cummins currently provides real estate appraisals, expert witness testimony, historical research, legal real estate research for mortgage brokers, banks, lawyers, factors, insurance companies, financial consultants and private individuals. Mary Cummins was born and raised in Southern California. Cummins attended Beverly Hills Good Shepherd Catholic School and Beverly Hills High School. Besides being on the Dean's list, Mary Cummins was a top ten national swimmer and competed on the men's water polo team. Mary Cummins began college at the age of 15 attending the University of Southern California on scholarship, majoring in Psychology/Sociology. http://www.animaladvocates.us http://www.facebook.com/AnimalAdvocatesUSA

Wednesday, August 10, 2005

Mary Cummins lunch with Eric Garcetti, Mayor of Los Angeles - real estate appraisere

Mayor Eric Garcetti, Mary Cummins, Los Angeles, California

Lunch with Eric Garcetti

Kevin Roderick • December 31 2005 5:56 PM

KCET's charity auction this week on eBay included lunch with incoming president of the city council Eric Garcetti. Billed as "a once-in-a-lifetime chance to get your viewpoint heard," bidders were told to "prepare to talk politics with Eric Garcetti with this certificate valid for lunch for two at City Hall or Hollywood location." The winner at $77 was Mary Cummins, president of the animal rescue group Animal Advocates. She really wanted this lunch, apparently, biddingagainst herself three times before swooping in on the final day to go a dollar over the last offer. (Cummins advises me that her bids were against reserve bids, which aren't shown in the final eBay tally.) Cummins own eBay profile says "I rehabilitate squirrels, skunks, opossums and chipmunks for release back to the wild."

http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2005/12/lunch_with_eric_garcetti.php

l had lunch in little Armenia with Garcetti and one of his staff. Fantastic food and fine conversation. The main reason l wanted to meet him for lunch was because l wanted to ask him how can l get animal friendly motions made and passed. He told me people should befriend each Councilmembers' staff who is in charge of animal issues. Stay in communication with them and also speak at Council meetings. l've since done that and have made a lot of progress. Spread the word.

Lunch with Eric Garcetti

Mary Cummins

Sunday, June 5, 2005

Mary Cummins wins Kathy Knight-McConnell lawsuit as a pro se, Mary Cummins

On July 7, 2003, Kathy Knight-McConnell sued Mary Cummins for securities law violations, trademark infringement, defamation, and other claims in federal court in New York. At the time of the litigation, Knight-McConnell ran a forum for investor discussions and published a newsletter on various stocks. According to a court decision in the case, Cummins, a stock trader from California, posted statements on website discussion groups and on her own website describing Knight-McConnell as a securities fraud "criminal" and "paid to lie to investors," among other things.

In addition, Knight-McConnell alleged that Cummins intentionally maligned certain stocks that she promoted in order to drive their price down in violation of the securities laws. Knight-McConnell also claimed that Cummins violated trademark law by linking to Knight-McConnell's website without permission, using Knight-McConnell's name in the post-domain path of URLs for seven of her web-pages, and posting links on Internet chat forums and discussion boards directing users to visit these pages.

In a July 2004 opinion, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald dismissed the securities and trademark claims. The court indicated that Knight-McConnell had no standing to bring a securities law claim because she did not allege that she purchased or sold the stocks in question in reliance on any statement by Cummins. The court dismissed the trademark claim because linking to Knight-McConnell's site without permission was not likely to cause confusion as a matter of law:

"Even if we assume that plaintiff's name is a valid and protectible mark, plaintiff has not alleged that the defendant engaged in any conduct that is likely to cause confusion as to the origin of the defendant's website. The mere appearance on a website of a hyperlink to another site will not lead a web-user to conclude that the owner of the site he is visiting is associated with the owner of the linked site. This is particularly true in this case because defendant's website advertises real estate and web design services, not investment services, and defendant is continuously dissassociating herself from plaintiff by criticizing her and accusing her of misconduct."

Judge Buchwald also determined that using Knight-McConnell's name in URL paths was not likely to cause confusion as a matter of law because a URL "merely shows how the website's data is organized within the host computer's files" and does not suggest affiliation, source, or sponsorship.

Looking at Knight-McConnell's many state law claims, Judge Buchwald determined that the complaint likely stated a cause of action for defamation, but that a defamation claim was not sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction on the court. Buchwald indicated that Knight-McConnell's tortious interference with contract claim might be sufficient to establish jurisdiction under New York's long-arm statute, but that Knight-McConnell had failed to adequately plead this cause of action. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice and granted Knight-McConnell permission to amend her complaint.

Knight-McConnell amended her complaint, but, upon a renewed motion by Cummins, Judge Buchwald dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction in June 2005.

Full docket report
http://www.freecourtdockets.com/Dockets/Knight-McConnell-v-Cummins-1-03-cv-05035-New-York-Southern-Federal-District-Court-Docket-Page-1-87407-87407.htm

Independent review of the case by Citizen Media Law Project. I have no idea why these people had an interest in this frivolous case. Of course this was the very beginning of internet law.
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/knight-mcconnell-v-cummins

Mary Cummins is a real estate appraiser in Los Angeles, California. She also advocates for the protection of investors from stock scams especially those perpetrated by company paid stock promoters. She aided the SEC in their prosecution of stock promoter John Westergaard in 2000 and 2001. She also warned investors about stock scams involving the following companies, TMOT Titan Motorcycle Company, EZR Easyriders, UMCC Ultra Motorcycle Company, NPCT Nanopierce, JNOT Jag Notes and others.

Kathy Knight-McConnell was a company paid stock promoter at the time of the lawsuit. She worked for Nanopierce symbol NPCT. NPCT was never profitable.

Here is her old website. I saved copies of all of it. Click "about" to see her photo of herself. Click "boycott raging bull" to see how she feels about me. Click "NPCT" to see her paid tout job.
http://web.archive.org/web/20030206180859/http://investortoinvestor.com/

Pdf copy of the docket from Pacer

http://www.marycummins.com/kathy_knight-mcconnell_vs_mary_cummins_docket.pdf

I wish I could find her original complaint. I had to read it three times just to try to figure out what the hell she was suing me for. It was all over the place. Finally figured it out and replied.

May 25, 2004. 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

http://www.marycummins.com/knight_mcconnell_motion_to_dismiss.pdf

Knight-McConnell then filed a motion to strike my motion to dismiss claiming I had a ghost writer. March 25, 2005 Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald orders me to "send an affidavit attesting to the fact and explaining how you obtained the legal scholarship that is reflected in the motion papers." It's called being stressed out of your mind that you are being sued so you stay up many long nights researching how to write and file papers. This was also my second pro se lawsuit as a defendant. I was previously sued for something similar in a Philadelphia court, see Ashton Technology vs Mary Cummins. I learned a lot from JohnDoes.org . They pointed me in the right direction to similar cases. I also learned a lot from Silicon Investor "Investment chat board lawsuits" thread. A lawyer did not write any of my documents or help me in any way.

http://www.marycummins.com/knight_Mcconnel_judge_order.pdf

April 26, 2005. The judge is satisfied with my affidavit. Plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's motion to dismiss is denied.

http://www.marycummins.com/knight_mcconnell_motion_denied.pdf

Knight-McConnell filed an amended complaint and I replied
http://www.marycummins.com/mary_cummins_reply_to_knight-mcconnel_amended_complaint.pdf

PIKE & FISCHER INTERNET LAW & REGULATION review of case. Note, I never had to pay any fees because the court never had jurisdiction over me. I should have never been served in the first place. The final current docket reflects this. I'm amazed they wrote such a lengthy article about this frivolous case. This was the beginning of internet law so maybe that's it. Or maybe it was because it was a pro se vs a pro se?

http://techlawadvisor.com/docs/knight-mcconnell.pdf

I found my old due diligence page for Kathy. None of the links work. Note, the photo of Kathy in question was posted on the main page of her own website. I added the "toxic funding is awesome!" part, that's it. This is a photo she herself had on the main page of her website.

http://www.marycummins.com/kathy_knight-mcconnel_stock_promoter.html

Mary Cummins wins lawsuit, Los Angeles, California, real estate, Animal Advocates

Mary Cummins

Sunday, August 3, 2003

Mary Cummins, Animal Advocates, Tiger Rescue, Real Estate Appraiser, Los Angeles, California

Mary Cummins, Animal Advocates, Tiger Rescue, Real Estate Appraiser, Los Angeles, California, 2003. Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates helped clean up Tiger Rescue in Riverside, California with Fish & Game and Chuck Traisi with Fund for Animals.

Mary Cummins, Animal Advocates, Tiger Rescue, Real Estate Appraiser, Los Angeles, California

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

Google+ Mary Cummins, Mary K. Cummins, Mary Katherine Cummins, Mary Cummins-Cobb, Mary, Cummins, Cobb, wildlife, wild, animal, rescue, wildlife rehabilitation, wildlife rehabilitator, fish, game, los angeles, california, united states, squirrel, raccoon, fox, skunk, opossum, coyote, bobcat, manual, instructor, speaker, humane, nuisance, control, pest, trap, exclude, deter, green, non-profit, nonprofit, non, profit, ill, injured, orphaned, exhibit, exhibitor, usda, united states department of agriculture, hsus, humane society, peta, ndart, humane academy, humane officer, animal legal defense fund, animal cruelty, investigation, peace officer, animal, cruelty, abuse, neglect #marycummins #animaladvocates #losangeles #california #wildlife #wildliferehabilitation #wildliferehabilitator #realestate #realestateappraiser #realestateappraisal #lawsuit

Mary Cummins

Saturday, April 19, 2003

Animal Advocates, Mary Cummins, Real Estate Appraiser, Los Angeles, California

Animal Advocates, Mary Cummins, Real Estate Appraiser, Los Angeles, California, Wildlife Rehabilitation

Animal Advocates, Mary Cummins, Real Estate Appraiser, Los Angeles, California

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

Mary Cummins

Friday, November 9, 2001

Mary Cummins wins Ashton Technology ASTN, Frederic Rittereiser lawsuit as a pro se, Mary Cummins

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.

Mary Cummins

Mary Cummins, Real Estate Appraiser, Animal Advocates, Los Angeles, California

Thursday, August 10, 2006

Los Angeles County makes amendment to zoning to allow wildlife rehabilitation, alpacas, llamas, 2005 by Mary Cummins

Wednesday, August 10, 2005

Mary Cummins lunch with Eric Garcetti, Mayor of Los Angeles - real estate appraisere

Sunday, June 5, 2005

Mary Cummins wins Kathy Knight-McConnell lawsuit as a pro se, Mary Cummins

Sunday, August 3, 2003

Mary Cummins, Animal Advocates, Tiger Rescue, Real Estate Appraiser, Los Angeles, California

Saturday, April 19, 2003

Animal Advocates, Mary Cummins, Real Estate Appraiser, Los Angeles, California

Friday, November 9, 2001

Mary Cummins wins Ashton Technology ASTN, Frederic Rittereiser lawsuit as a pro se, Mary Cummins