Samblis emails are "privileged"
- Last Updated: Tuesday, 16 June 2020 15:00
Yes, that's right folks...
(This is dated information, and added here as historical information)
Mr. Steven Samblis is threatening legal action if we don't remove his emails from our sites. See the email thread HERE. This is troubling news, but not for the reasons you may think.
Its disheartening that the CEO of a publically traded company does not know that once the "intended" recipient receives an email... it is theirs to do as they please with it. Its also disheartening to think that the CEO of this publically traded company would waste the investors hard earned money on frivolous legal action. He does not deny those are his emails, and he does not deny that have been represented accurately. Mr. Samblis is apparently so arrogant as to believe anything and everything he writes is so important that it most certainly is protected by law, and "privileged"
Anyone with a rudimentary capability to read the statute he adds to his emails can see that the statute applies to Wiretap Act. For those curious about the details, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521 is the federal Wiretap Act. It prohibits the real-time interception of the contents of any communications sent over any communications network without the permission of one of the parties. In 1986, the law was amended by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act to apply to “electronic communications,” which basically means all computer communications. Under the 1986 Act, it is a crime to intercept any electronic message between its send and delivery points absent an exception to the statute. Importantly, the Wiretap Act only applies when the communications are in transit. As was stated to Mr. Samblis in the reply… Larry was the intended recipient, therefore there was no “interception” involved. The “if you are not the intended recipient…” part does not apply here because Larry WAS the intended recipient.
As can be seen by the previous email chain, Mr. Samblis is also threatening legal action over the ownership of the domain name “stevensamblis.com” and .net (which he subsequently lost). Here again, this is troubling because this would be another frivolous legal action (and a waste of investor funds) because he is upset that someone has acquired the rights to his namesake domain address. Also seen in the email threads, Mr. Samblis, in his oh-so-professional demeanor, has reverted to name calling. He calls Larry a “cyber squatter” and a “dirt bag” (see Site History). As most understand the cyber squatter term, it applies to individuals or entities that buy the rights to domain addresses for the sole purpose of selling them later at a substantial profit. We use the site to drive viewers to our other sites, not as an investment vehicle. As can also be seen in the email threads, we had no intention of selling the domain name, and in the end, flat out refused to sell it. This does not meet the cyber squatting criteria. However, as many know, speculating on domain names is not unlike any other risky investment, and it is extremely common place. Just do a search on some common domain names such as viewtv.com. You will see that it is taken… but for sale. It is owned by CSC Corporate Domains, Inc, and is likely for sale in the tens of thousands of dollars. Most anything tv related is either taken (and being used) or taken and for sale. In fact, we have recently been approached about buying pnch.com. The asking price... $10,000.00 If this practice were illegal, the courts would be clogged up with tens of thousands of lawsuits over domain names.
Now we move to how Mr. Samblis came to no longer own his namesake domain name. As is stated in one of the emails, he once owned the domain address… and let it lapse (see excerpt from attempted takeover suit) . This begs the question… why? Was it a financial thing? If that’s the case that he couldn’t afford the 20-bucks to renew, then this PNCH thing is in BIG trouble. Could it be he simply forgot? No way, as a domain name owner you are reminded numerous times (to the point of annoyance) of the impending renewal request, months in advance. Then, after it lapses, most domain name providers give you a grace period to renew. So… what’s left? Incompetence maybe? Arrogance maybe… thinking no one would dare to buy the address? Who knows… but the one thing is clear… it was Samblis’s fault, and no one else’s.
Here is the most troubling aspect of all of this. If Mr. Samblis pursues his threats of legal action, with it being obvious he stands zero chance of being successful (now proven)… what other like minded decisions is he making as CEO of the IC Punch Media, Inc. company? This is the same CEO that let his namesake domain address lapse. This is a troubling thought for most investors of his company.
Additionally, we would welcome a lawsuit over this website ownership issue. This would allow us to subpoena ALL the records of the company in support for our defense. Documents that would likely never see the light of day lacking court ordered production of such. This would allow the public airing of such information for all investors to see. Mr. Samblis would then have an opportunity to be questioned regarding his actions related to the operation of the company, movement of funds, and his decisions with regard to the public shares of the company, if not in court, then by the investing public. Perhaps the SEC and the IRS would be interested in these documents as an inducement to begin a more in-depth investigation into the ongoing operation of this public company, and perhaps its historical operations as well.
Mr. Samblis just makes bad decisions... frequently.