1

KENNETH G. BADE
2 SEN 93774
6399 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 507
3 Los Angeles, CA 90048 0>,,. CO

(323) 782-8802
4
-o
5
Attorney for Plaintiff
'f,-1
^**
f\>
**

6 ^c en
^.E ^
7

8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10

11 KENNETH BADE, ) CASS

Plaintiff, ) b
12
vs. ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR
13 ) LIBEL; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
INVESTORSHUB.COM, INC., a Florida corp.,)
14 DOE 1, aka NO DUMMY, DOE 2, aka )
JANICE SHELL, DOE 3, aka FASTER183, )
15
DOE 4, aka STOCK MAVFN, DOE 5, aka )
16
RENEE, DOE 6,aka VIRTUAL DREW, DOE )
7, aka BOB 41, DOE 8 aka OVERACHIEVER, )
17 DOE 9, aka DOBERMAN, and DOE*1£) )
)
18 Defendants. )

19

20 PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS

21
Plaintiff, KENNETH BADE, hereby alleges as follows:
22
1. Plaintiff, KENNETH BADE, is a citizen of the state of Arizona, and does
23
business in Los Angeles, California, as a licensed California attorney with a practice before the
24
Securities Exchange Commission.
25
2. Defendant INVESTORSHUB.COM, INC. is a corporation, duly formed and
26
existing under the laws of the state of Florida, with its principal place of business in the state of
27
Missouri.
28
3. Defendants DOE 1, aka NO DUMMY, DOE 2, aka JANICE SHELL, DOE 3,

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR LIBEL; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - T~

 aka FASTER183, DOE 4, aka STOCK MAVIN, DOE 5, aka RENEE, DOE 6, aka VIRTUAL
1

2 DREW, DOE 7, aka GEO56p, DOE 8, aka TIMO 33, DOE 9, aka BOB 41, DOE 10, aka

3 OVERACHIEVER, DOE 11, aka DOBERMAN, and DOES 12 through 100, are unknown to
4
plaintiff, who therefore sues such defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and
5
believes that each of the defendants have diverse citizenship to the plaintiff, and plaintiff will
6

7
seek leave of court to allege their true names and citizenship when ascertained.

8
3. This Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 USC §1332 (diversity).
9
The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
10
4. The Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants and venue is proper in
11
this Court, in that defendants all have sufficient minimum contacts with California, and the
12
transactions herein alleged occurred and the injury to the plaintiff occurred in this judicial
13
district.
14
5. Defendant, INVESTORSHUB.COM, INC. (hereainafter “IHUB”) is a company
15
run by MATTHEW W. BROWN, a serial stock manipulator and convicted securities fraudster,
16
and is engaged in the business of attempting to manipulate up (“pump”) the prices of common
17
stock for companies hired by holders of stock in certain publicly held and traded companies, or
18

19
to manipulate down (“bash”) the prices of common stock for companies hired by brokers who

20 hold short positions in certain publicly traded companies, through its Internet bulletin board,

21 “www.investorshub.com” (hereinafter “bulletin board”). BROWN founded IHUB and then

22 sold it to ADVN, PLC, but has stayed on as an employee of ADVFN, he is the administrative

23 and technical contact for IHUB, and he continues to supervise, manage and consult IHUB.
24 6. Defendants DOES 1 through 100, are individuals who work for IHUB, either
25 posting flowery messages on the IHUB bulletin board for stocks that IHUB has been hired to
26 promote, or posting negative messages on the IHUB bulletin board for companies that IHUB
27 has been hired to discredit.
28 7. IHUB has hundreds of thousands of followers, most of them day traders in over
________________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR LIBEL; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 2
 1 the counter “pink sheets” and “bulletin board” stocks, over 7 million page views per month, and
2 generates approximately $10 million per year in revenues, mostly gained from its attempted
3 manipulation of the prices of publicly held common stocks. IHUB inserts meta tags into its
4 bulletin board postings, which meta tags result in links being posted on the popular search
5
engines, “Google” and “Yahoo,” and others, and placed in the top 10 results of any particular
6
key word search involving names of individuals and companies named in IHUB posts.
7
8. IHUB allows the creation of a bulletin board for any stock. Anyone with access
8
to a computer can sign up for an anonymous alias (“alias”) of their choice, and can post on any
9
bulletin board. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each of the
10
DOE defendants named in the caption of this complaint has more than one IHUB alias. IHUB
11
protects and will not divulge the true identity of any alias. Each IHUB bulletin board is
12
supervised by a moderator, who has the power to edit and remove any post made by any alias
13
poster, subject to the permission of IHUB, who has administrators who post their alias names in
14
conjunction with the moniker, “ADMIN.”
15
The primary role of these ADMIN posters are to eliminate messages that are contrary to
16
IHUB’s agenda, much like editors of a regular publication. When IHUB takes a particular
17

18
interest in any one particular bulletin board, such as the one for Supatcha Resources, Inc. (OTC:

19 SAEI) the ADMIN posters monitor every post on each such bulletin board, and posters

20 employed by or contracted by IHUB add their own posts. Any post expressing any adverse

21 point of view to the one desired by IHUB is removed, whether it violates IHUB’s terms of

22 service or not. Anybody posting messages contrary to IHUB’s agenda will be temporarily or
23 permanently banned by IHUB from posting on its site, and all such messages will be removed.
24 Some IHUB posters, contracted by and employed by IHUB, act under the guise of being
25 independent “due diligence investigators” and even have formed a bulletin board on IHUB that
26 purports to “discuss scams, scammers and legitimate enterprises,” with an expressed mission to
27 “stamp out crime from the microcap markets, thereby helping those to try to do it the right
28
way.” Ironically, the members of this group support and defend IHUB’s recidivist securities
________________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR LIBEL; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 3
 1 offender, IHUB administrator MATTHEW W. BROWN.
2 9. Plaintiff is an attorney specializing in securities law; specifically taking small
3 companies public, mergers and acquisitions, private placements, registration statements and
4 disclosure compliance. Plaintiff’s clients are mostly small companies that trade or hope to trade
5
their securities on over-the-counter securities quotation mediums, such as the over-the-counter
6
bulletin board or the “Pink Sheets.” In 2010, several of plaintiff’s clients were gold mine
7
companies, including Gold Standard Mining Corporation.
8
10. In 2006, Plaintiff was an officer and director of IMPERIA ENTERTAINMENT,
9
INC., a publicly held motion picture and television production company whose stock traded on
10
the Pink Sheets, and was also the executive producer of IMPERIA’s two successfully finished
11
feature films, “All That I Need,” and “Say it in Russian.” Approximately one-third of the
12
financing for the higher budget film, “Say it in Russian,” came from the sale of Imperia
13
common stock in private placements, approximately one-third came from the private sale of
14
interests in the film and one-third came from the Plaintiff’s personal savings and earnings.
15
11. On or about February 2008 plaintiff took public Independent Film Development
16
Corporation, a company with a plan of operations to distribute filmed entertainment, which now
17

18
trades on the over-the-counter bulletin board. Plaintiff is an officer, director and shareholder in

19 Independent Film Development Corporation.

20 12. On or about December 17, 2010, the United States Securities and Exchange

21 Commission temporarily suspended trading on the stock of one of plaintiff’s former clients,

22 Supatcha Resources, Inc., due to questions raised about the accuracy and adequacy of publicly
23 disseminated information, concerning, among other things, geological report concerning the
24 company’s mining prospects in the Ukraine and a purported tender offer of the company’s
25 common shares. None of the legal work the plaintiff had done for Supatcha had anything to do
26 with the publicly disseminated information and plaintiff knew nothing about said information.
27 13. On or about February 7, 2011, the United States Securities and Exchange
28
Commission filed a lawsuit against Wall Street Capital Funding, LLC, and others, for violations
________________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR LIBEL; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 4
 1 of sections 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
2 Act, involving their activities in promoting the stock of PrimeGen Energy Corp., Caliber
3 Energy, Inc., Fidelis Energy, Inc., Supatcha Resources, Inc. and other penny stock companies.
4 Both Fidelis Energy, Inc. and Supatcha Resources, Inc. were former clients of the Plaintiff, and
5
Fidelis Energy, Inc. rented office space from the Plaintiff.
6

7
FIRST COUNT FOR LIBEL
8
14. Plaintiff hereby repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained within
9
paragraphs 1 through 13 of the complaint, and incorporates the same by reference as though set
10
forth in full herein.
11
15. From September 2010 through the present date, defendants DOE 3, aka
12
FASTER 183 and DOE 4 aka STOCK MAVIN, published statements on the IHUB bulletin
13
board for IMPERIA ENTERTAINMENT, stating that the plaintiff had “stolen everyone’s
14
(investors’) money,” that plaintiff was running a “gold scam,” that plaintiff was a “scamster,”
15
and a “swindler,” that Plaintiff was running a new scam called Independent Film Development
16
Corporation, that “nothing Ken (plaintiff) does is legitimate,” and that Independent Film
17

18
Development Corporation was a company plaintiff created to “scam the masses.” Both said

19 DOE defendants serve as moderators on IHUB’s Imperia Entertainment board and DOE 3

20 serves as the moderator for IHUB’s bulletin board on Independent Film Development

21 Corporation.

22 16. From July 2010 through the present date, defendants DOE 3, aka FASTER 183
23 and DOE 4 aka STOCK MAVIN, published statements on the IHUB bulletin board for
24 INDEPENDENT FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (IFLM) stating that the plaintiff
25 created IFLM to steal money from shareholders, that plaintiff was running a “gold scam,” that
26 plaintiff was involved in scams, that plaintiff’s next pump and dump was Gold Standard
27 Mining, and that plaintiff was guilty of stock “manipulation”.
28
17. From December 2010 through the present date, defendants IHUB, DOE1, aka
________________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR LIBEL; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 5
 1 No Dummy, DOE 2 aka Janice Shell, DOE 3, aka Faster 183, DOE 6 aka Virtual Drew, DOE
2 10, aka Overachiever, DOE 5 aka Renee, and DOE 9 aka Doberman, published statements on
3 the IHUB bulletin boards for Supatcha Resources, Inc., Southridge Energy Corp., Santana
4 Mining, Cannon Exploration, Inc. and Gold Standard Mining Corp. that Plaintiff was someone
5
to “be wary of,” that Gold Standard Mining was plaintiff’s scam, that Plaintiff was engaging in
6
illegal actions, that plaintiff was engaging in a “pump and dump,” that plaintiff was creating
7
shell companies to sell stock for his own personal gain, that Gold Standard Mining was “another
8
one of (Plaintiff’s) scams,” that Gold Standard Mining was a “Kenny Eade Classic” scam, that
9
Plaintiff was “behind the Supatcha Resources scam,” that Gold Standard Mining must be
10
suspected of being a scam just like all the other companies that plaintiff was involved in, that
11
Gold Standard Mining was a paid pump and dump and to be cautious of anything with
12
plaintiff’s name on it. Defendant DOE 3, aka Faster 183 published on the Gold Standard
13
Mining Corp. IHUB board that Plaintiff “lied to me and stole my money.”
14
18. From December 2010 to the present date, defendants IHUB, DOE 1 aka No
15
Dummy, DOE 2 aka Janice Shell, DOE 6 aka Virtual Drew, DOE 8, aka Overachiever, and
16
DOE 7 aka Bob41, published statements on the IHUB bulletin board for Supatcha Resources,
17

18
Inc. that plaintiff is behind the scenes in mining pump and dump companies using media

19 based/promotion oriented approach, that he’s (plaintiff’s) been doing it for years and is still

20 actively doing in now, that WallStreet.net is a company that has been compensated for pumping

21 many of plaintiff’s companies, that there is proof that plaintiff is behind the Supatcha Resources

22 scam, that plaintiff never hires anyone real (hires fictitious people to pose as figurehead leaders
23 of companies), that plaintiff “is, of course, involved with PrimeGen Energy,” that “how, out of
24 all the sleazy legal representatives and lawyer wannabees did Supatcha Resources stumble upon
25 (the plaintiff), that plaintiff’s gold deal is cooling off and its “easy to spot his fingerprints,” that
26 plaintiff is a crook who uses the same system of fraud time after time, that plaintiff definitely
27 has a reputation of running promotional/media driven pump and dump companies, that plaintiff
28
is the likely candidate in running the Southridge Energy gold mine pump and dump, and that
________________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR LIBEL; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 6
 1 plaintiff is involved in “another penny stock scam.”
2 19. The publications, and all of them, referred to plaintiff by name throughout, were
3 made of and concerning the plaintiff, were distributed throughout the Internet on other web sites
4 and on the search engines “Google” and “Yahoo,” and were so understood by those who read
5
the publications.
6
20. All of the said statements made in the publications were false as they pertain to
7
the plaintiff.
8
21. The above-referenced publications, and all of them, are libelous on their face.
9
They clearly expose plaintiff to hatred, ridicule, and obloquy because they charge plaintiff with
10
being a criminal, being a thief, having engaged in securities frauds and scams, having engaged
11
in illegal actions and being dishonest as a securities lawyer.
12
22. In publishing the above-referenced publications, IHUB inserted meta tags in
13
them so that the link to the publications would be seen on search engines, including “Google,”
14
and “Yahoo”.
15
23. In publishing the above-referenced publications, IHUB was acting as both an
16
interactive service provider and a content provider, as such terms are defined by the
17

18
Communications Decency Act (47 USC section 230, et. seq.). and, through its particular

19 editing process, using moderators supervised by IHUB, inserting posters who purport to

20 “investigate” or provide allegedly neutral (albeit biased and slanted) due diligence, and placing

21 ADMIN editors on the Supatcha Resources IHUB bulletin board to slant the bulletin board in

22 the direction of a particular point of view (in this case a negative point of view that Supatcha
23 engaged in securities fraud and that plaintiff was behind that securities fraud) and its paid
24 agents, employees and contractors actively contributing defamatory information and eliminating
25 and removing alternative points of view, it collaborated with DOES 1 through 100 in co-
26 developing and materially contributed to the said defamatory publications of and concerning the
27 plaintiff, which falls within the exception to 47 USC section 230, makes IHUB an Internet
28
content provider, and not protected by the immunity provisions of the Communications
________________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR LIBEL; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 7
1 Decency Act. When plaintiff attempted to post messages declaring his innocence and his point
2 of view, the messages were immediately removed, and, within 24 hours of said postings,
3
I plaintiff was banned from posting messages on any IHUB board until 2013, and his subscription
4 to IHUB was cancelled.
5 24. The above-referenced publications were seen and read on or about July 2010
6
through the present date, by GARY ZOEPHEL, FABIAN DERSHAW, and others, and was
seen by persons "googling" plaintiffs name on the top ten search results on Google and the top

15 search results on Yahoo.

9
25. As a proximate result of the above-described publications, plaintiff has suffered
10
loss of his reputation, shame, mortification, damages to his professional reputation, loss of
11
respect of his clients, loss of future business, and emotional and mental distress, all to plaintiffs
12
damage in the amount of $100,000,000.
13
26. The above-referenced publications were not privileged because they were
14
published with malice, hatred and ill will toward plaintiff and a desire to injure the plaintiff or a
15
reckless disregard of the foreseeable consequences of injury to the plaintiff, justifying punitive
16
and exemplary damages in the amount of $300,000,000.

18
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for relief as follows:

19 1. For compensatory damages according to proof;

20 2. For punitive and exemplary damages according to proof;

21 3. For costs of suit; and

22 4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

23

24 Dated: February 9, 2011

25

26

27
G. BADE,
28 Attorney for Plaintiff

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR LIBEL; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 8

1
2
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Please take notice that the Plaintiff demands a jury trial in this action.

Dated: February 9, 2011

5

7
G. BADE,
/ Attorney for Plaintiff
9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR LIBEL; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 9