This explains a lot about Scoville and his business "acumen".
From a posting on USENET by Spamtrap@spamcop.net:
(1) Richard Morton Scoville was described in a Friday, November 16, 1990 San Antonio Business Journal article ("Artesia Water Loses Moneyin Judicial Victory") as the "owner" of ArtesiaWaters.
In that article, "Rick Scoville" was described as having brought suit in February 1987 against a glass bottle manufacturer in Mexico and winning, in December 1989, a substantial judgment in a jury trial:
$ 28,060 actual damages
$ 2,000,000 exemplary damages
$ 136,000 attorney's fees
However, in May of 1990, a judge reduced the award to actual damages only. Per the article:
"My greatest fears had become a reality -- that a judge, not a jury of my peers, would tender a verdict which was predicated by something other than right versus wrong," says company president Scoville. Judge Whittington was unavailable for comment. But jury foreman Darla Allen, who LEARNED OF THE CHANGE IN THE AWARD THROUGH LETTERS FROM SCOVILLE, says she is disillusioned about the system.
...
Scoville was FINED FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT DURING THE TRIAL and fined $ 500 when he protested to the judge against an ACCUSATION BY THE DEFENSE THAT HE WAS BOTTLING TAP WATER. ... "We almost did go out of business because of this," Scoville says.
(2) On Wednesday, April 10, 1991, the Wall Street Journal published an article with this title:
FDA FINDS BUNK IN BOTTLEDWATER CLAIMS
In summary, the article stated:
Food and Drug Administration survey of US bottled-water industry suggests that water of number of domestic companies may not be as pure and natural as consumers have been led to believe; ArtesiaWaters ... is heavily processed and COMES FROM THE SAME UNDERGROUND SOURCE THAT SANANTONIO TAPS FOR ITS MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY...
(3) This article was followed by more public discourse regarding bottlers and their claims, including specific discussion regarding Richard Morton Scoville's company, Artesia Waters. As noted in theMonday, April 15, 1991 article in 'Adweek Marketing Week' (BRANDWEEK):
Water Brands Face New Scrutiny
Last week the $ 2.6 billion category won more unfavorable publicity as Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.) conducted hearings on the industry.
In testimony, the FDA revealed a bit of common industry knowledge -- that bottledwater sources are often the same ones used by municipalcities. For the White House's favorite water brand, Artesia, ArtesiaWaters Inc. USES THE SAME ACQUIFIER AS THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
...
I think if I lived in San Antonio," ... "I'd feel a little cheated."
(4) In a Monday, July 10, 1991 article in the "Marketing News", Scoville announced his plans to sue the Wall Street Journal, and a professor who was a source for the WSJ's article, and "possiblelitigation against [U.S. Representative John D.] Dingell".
Bottled-water firm set to sue over charges
ArtesiaWaters Inc., San Antonio, Texas, which is threatening legal action, said it watched sales plummet 45% in May, a month after a General Accounting Office report, ...
The charges that Artesia is the same quality as San Antonio's tap water are "totally ludicrous," Scoville said. ...
But Scoville said it was the The Wall Street Journal's preview of the House hearings, which included allegations against Artesia, that had the "most damaging marketing effect."
...
the company is putting together a "major, major lawsuit" against the Journal and one of the story's sources, ... a professor of environmental health and hydrology at University of Texas at Houston. ...
The congressional hearing "stirred up some unnecessary controversy" but "I really don't think it hurt the industry," said Hellen Berry, vice president of marketing at Beverage Marketing Corp., New York. Consumers were skeptical about bottled water but that lasted "no more
than a week." ... Artesia was one of the few brands "actively affected" and it has "already starting making its explanations." Berry said other bottled water marketers "would be well advised to ignore [the controversy] totally."
(5) According to a Friday, August 14, 1992 article in the San Antonio Business Journal, Scoville and ArtesiaWaters filed yet another lawsuit, this time in July against another bottle supplier, claiming "2 millionin sales ... and $ 5 million a year in potential sales".
Artesia, Bottle Supplier Negotiating to Settle Legal Dispute
Artesia's petition alleges that [Vidriera Oriental, S.A. de C.V. (VOSA) of Mexico] misrepresented its ability to produce bottles before entering into its contract, violating the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Under the act, Artesia should be able to recoup its
attorneys fees from the defendant in addition to three times its actual damages, according to the suit. ...
The suit is not the first Artesia has filed against a Mexican bottle company. ...
In that suit, a Dallas County judge pitched out a jury's decision togrant Artesia $ 2 million in punitive damages and legal fees, instead awarding the company $ 28,060 in damages from the lengthy case. The judge's decision cost Artesia $ 150,000 in legal fees that it would have partially recouped if the jury's decision had been allowed tostand.
Within six months of the decision, Artesia appealed the suit and came to an out-of court settlement with Vitro, Scoville says. He would notreveal the amount of the settlement.
(6) In a Monday, January 25, 1993 article, the "Legal Intelligencer" announced the jury's verdict AGAINST Scoville and ArtesiaWaters in theWSJ lawsuit:
JURY: ARTESIA WATERS WAS NOT LIBELED
A federal court jury ruled Thursday that ArtesiaWaters, Inc., was not libeled by a story in the Wall Street Journal that said the companymisled consumers about the source of its product.
Artesia President Rick Scoville said he planned to appeal,...
Both Scoville and his attorney, George Shaffer, said they won a moral victory because the jury did find that the company had not distributedcontaminated water and did not have to recall any of its products.
(7) A Monday, Frbruary 15, 1993 article in "Texas Lawyer" describes the
verdict additionally:
ARTESIA WATERS INC. v. BRUCE INGERSOLL and THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
... Austin's George, Donaldson & Ford successfully defended The Wall Street Journal and one of its reporters in a $10 million libel suitfiled by San Antonio-based ArtesiaWaters Inc.
Artesia was represented by brothers George Shaffer and Robert Shaffer & Shaffer.
U.S. Magistrate Judge John W. Primomo of San Antonio on Jan. 25 entered a take nothing judgment and dismissed the suit with prejudice. An eight-member jury ... found Jan. 21 that statements in an article published April 10, 1991, were not false and defamatory to Artesia.
...
The suit, filed in March 1992, alleged that the article implied that Artesia sells city water, has had false or misleading promotions, has bottled contaminated water and has conducted a recall. The jury found only that the article stated or implied that Artesia sells city water and has had false or misleading promotions. But the jury said those statements were not false and defamatory.
(8) The case had interest in the publishing community, as noted in a Saturday, February 20, 1993 article in "Editor & Publisher Magazine":
WSJ cleared in libel case
...
The jury found that the "article is a substantially true account of the activities of the FDA" and a congressional committee.
Scoville claimed in the $ 10 million libel suit, filed in March 1992, that the story damaged the company's reputation and reduced its sales.
Journal lawyer R. James George said the company misled the public by claiming the water was "bottled at the source" and showed a waterfall on the label. However, George said, there was no waterfall at the source. He claimed Scoville even kept the source a "trade secret" forsome time
(9) It is unclear if Scoville's string of unsuccessful lawsuits led to this, but, as noted in this Friday, November 25, 1994 article in the San Antonio Business Journal, the "financial backer of firm-founder Rick Scoville" sold ArtesiaWaters Inc. to an employee, MARGARET K. SHODROCK, and two outside investors:
Artesia: New owners, focus
ArtesiaWaters Inc., Texas' oldest bottler of mineral water, has quietly changed hands.
...
...Shodrock says the deal was "very attractive." The Business Journal was unable to reach Scoville before press time or find out the name of Scoville's backer.
The firm's new owners have also changed Artesia's name to Alamo City Beverage Inc., but will continue to offer products under the Artesianame.
Alamo City Beverage currently has a work force of 18 people, but employs more during its peak seasons during the summer. It operates at a 37,000-square-foot bottling plant at 4671 Walzem Road. The companypurifies and bottles water from the Edwards Aquifer.
Shodrock has been employed by Artesia for seven years, serving in positions ranging from corporate comptroller to operations manager.
The firm's new president, Cheryl K. Randol, formerly maintained a local dental practice, served in a teaching position at the University of Texas Health Science Center and as a senior vice president at Texas Dental Plans Inc. Randol and her husband are now co-owners of Alamo
City Beverage. ...
The company has replaced its old trademark brown glass bottles with plastic.
...
According to Shodrock, the company under Scoville suffered declining market share because of its emphasis on carbonated and flavored water.
"It was a management decision." Shodrock says. "(Carbonated water) was the emphasis that (Scoville) wanted." Scoville is no longer with the company.
Scoville, a former industrial glue salesman, launched the company in 1980, taking on France's Perrier, the dominant brand of bottled waterat the time.
Scoville, an aggressive pitch man for his products, took the company through a series of ups and downs during his tenure as CEO. During the late 1980s, Artesia outsold Perrier's name-brand carbonated water inTexas.
But, the firm also felt a slap when the Wall Street Journal ran an article claiming the company misled consumers about the source of its product. The company filed a $ 10 million libel suit against thepublication, but a federal jury found the story not to be libelous.
During the trial, testimony pointed out that the firm's earnings decreased from 1989 to 1991, according to media reports. In better times--1985--Scoville turned down a buyout offer from brewing giantAnheuser-Busch.
(10) An amusing footnote to the foregoing, and a preview of his current net lunacy, is provided by this report of harassment by Scoville ofsamspade.org:
http://static.samspade.org/flynow.html
A usenet spammer, using the name of Margaret Morice, using the email addresses fly...@swbell.net, mamor...@aol.com, KRic...@aol.com and a number of flyno...@aol.com addresses is harassing both SamSpade.org and centergate.com (the nice company that donates all of SamSpade.orgs huge bandwidth requirements).
So far the harassment has taken the form of mailbombing, obscene email, frivolous complaints to providers, harassing phone calls, bogus police reports, threats of lawsuits and a number of other things. These have gone to not only myself and the employees of Centergate and associated companies but also to others who sit on the same commitees as Centergate staff members. There have also been false allegations, including what appears to be forged porn spam, sent to businessassociates, risking significant business costs.
The users real name appears to be Richard Morton Scoville, of San Antonio, TX
...
The user concerned uses a static DSL line, provided by swbell.net at 65.66.180.192/29:
CustName: Margaret Morice
Address: 2701 W 15th St PMB 236 Plano, TX 75075
Country: US
Comment:
RegDate: 2002-05-07
Updated: 2002-05-07
...
The website served by those addresses is freespeechstore.com:
Organization:
Free Speech Store
Margaret Morice
P.O. Box 120442
San Antonio Texas 78212
United States
Phone: 1111111111
mamor...@aol.com
Registrar Name: addresscreation.com
Registrar Whois: whois.addresscreation.com
Registrar Homepage: http://addresscreation.com
Domain Name: freespeechstore.com
Created on: 05/28/2001
Expires on: 05/28/2003
Record Last Updated on: 04/18/2002
...
posted by Son-of-a-gun at 1:49 PM
8 Comments:
http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/rules/TRCP/
Let's have a competition! See how many of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure scotumvile has broken in this k00ksuit!
First prize: a bottle of Artesia Water!
Second prize: 2 bottles
Texas Rules of Civil Procedure
RULE 215. ABUSE OF DISCOVERY; SANCTIONS
215.3 Abuse of Discovery Process in Seeking, Making, or Resisting Discovery.
If the court finds a party is abusing the discovery process in seeking, making or resisting discovery or if the court finds that any interrogatory or request for inspection or production is unreasonably frivolous, oppressive, or harassing, or that a response or answer is unreasonably frivolous or made for purposes of delay, then the court in which the action is pending may, after notice and hearing, impose any appropriate sanction authorized by paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), and (8) of Rule 215.2(b). Such order of sanction shall be subject to review on appeal from the final judgment.
215.2 Failure to Comply with Order or with Discovery Request.
(b) Sanctions by court in which action is pending. If a party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a party or a person designated under Rules 199.2(b)(1) or 200.1(b) to testify on behalf of a party fails to comply with proper discovery requests or to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, including an order made under Rules 204 or 215.1, the court in which the action is pending may, after notice and hearing, make such orders in regard to the failure as are just, and among others the following:
(1) an order disallowing any further discovery of any kind or of a particular kind by the disobedient party;
(2) an order charging all or any portion of the expenses of discovery or taxable court costs or both against the disobedient party or the attorney advising him;
(3) an order that the matters regarding which the order was made or any other designated facts shall be taken to be established for the purposes of the action in accordance with the claim of the party obtaining the order;
(4) an order refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses, or prohibiting him from introducing designated matters in evidence;
(5) an order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, or staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed, or dismissing with or without prejudice the action or proceedings or any part thereof, or rendering a judgment by default against the disobedient party;
(6) in lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in addition thereto, an order treating as a contempt of court the failure to obey any orders except an order to submit to a physical or mental examination;
(7) when a party has failed to comply with an order under Rule 204 requiring him to appear or produce another for examination, such orders as are listed in paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4) or (5) of this subdivision, unless the person failing to comply shows that he is unable to appear or to produce such person for examination.
(8) In lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in addition thereto, the court shall require the party failing to obey the order or the attorney advising him, or both, to pay, at such time as ordered by the court, the reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, caused by the failure, unless the court finds that the failure was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. Such an order shall be subject to review on appeal from the final judgment.
SECTION 5. INJUNCTIONS
RULE 680. TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
No temporary restraining order shall be granted without notice to the adverse party unless it clearly appears from specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the applicant before notice can be served and a hearing had thereon. Every temporary restraining order granted without notice shall be endorsed with the date and hour of issuance; shall be filed forthwith in the clerk's office and entered of record; shall define the injury and state why it is irreparable and why the order was granted without notice; and shall expire by its terms within such time after signing, not to exceed fourteen days, as the court
fixes, unless within the time so fixed the order, for good cause shown, is extended for a like period or unless the party against whom the order is directed consents that it may be extended for a longer period. The reasons for the extension shall be entered of record. No more than one extension may be granted unless subsequent extensions are unopposed. In case a temporary restraining order is granted without notice, the application for a temporary injunction shall be set down for hearing at the earliest possible date and takes precedence of all matters except older matters of the same character; and when the application comes on for hearing the party who obtained the temporary restraining order shall proceed with the application for a temporary injunction and, if he does not do so, the court shall dissolve the temporary restraining order. On two days' notice to the party who obtained the temporary restraining order without notice or on such shorter notice to that party as the court may prescribe, the adverse party may appear and move its dissolution or modification and in that event the court shall proceed to hear and determine such motion as expeditiously as the ends of
justice require. Every restraining order shall include an order setting a certain date for hearing on the temporary or
permanent injunction sought.
Is Dick crazy?
RULE 204. PHYSICAL AND MENTAL EXAMINATION
204.1 Motion and Order Required.
(a) Motion. A party may - no later than 30 days before the end of any applicable discovery period - move for an order compelling another party to:
(1) submit to a physical or mental examination by a qualified physician or a mental examination by a qualified psychologist ; or
(2) produce for such examination a person in the other party's custody, conservatorship or legal control.
(c) Requirements for obtaining order. The court may issue an order for examination only for good cause shown and only in the following circumstances:
(1) when the mental or physical condition (including the blood group) of a party, or of
a person in the custody, conservatorship or under the legal control of a party, is in controversy ; or
(2) except as provided in Rule 204.4, an examination by a psychologist may be ordered
when the party responding to the motion has designated a psychologist as a testifying
expert or has disclosed a psychologist's records for possible use at trial.
FSS on his website claims to have 2,300 members @ $40 each that would be an annual income of $92,000.00. I hope that Scoville is claiming this income to the IRS.
Perhaps this is why his domain name is registered under an alias?
Al Capone was taken down by the IRS.
2300 x $3.99 = $9177
I suspect the 2300 "members" are those who have been sucked into going to scotumville's libel site once and never went back again.
What sort of idiot would waste $40 to read kookshit for 12 months?
Even so, the amount of the suit is grossly overestimated... $9k or $92k is a long way from $3m.
Scrotumville would need to prove actual harm to the "business" and the fact is the lawsuit will increase hits to the site because of the publicity given to this kooksuit. Scotumville's traffic will increase... win, lose, or draw, so it'll be hard to convince the court how the kook's "business" has being harmed, it only adds weight that scrotumville's kooksuit is vexatious.
Who is willing to be a party to a countersuit?
The two Marcs and Darryl should go seaching for others who are in the same situation as themselves with scrotumville (there are bound to be many), get together, hire ONE attorney and file ONE joint action together for a huge sum of damages.
The more ways you split the attorney's fees, the cheaper it gets for everyone to get involved and participate in a suit, and there are many who would be willing to come aboard once the ball got rolling.
If you are serious about stopping scrotumville, the only way you'll do it is in the courts, NOT by flaming his ass on usenet or emailing his family. Once you do anything like that and sink to scrotumville's level, you don't have "clean hands" and it makes getting a judgement in your favor that much harder.
Taking scrtumville to court won't be cheap or easy, but it depends if you're serious about ending his abuse, or you enjoy poking the kook and the kook poking back.
For one thing, the stalker with the remailer has posted shit about Darryll on scrotumville's site, which means scrotumville must have the IP addresses of the remailer stalker. If there is an RCMP investigation open already on "Mikey" that IP can be passed back to the ISP by the RCMP, and then referenced back the the ISP's radius records... and that's how they get a username and someone to charge.
So scotumville also has the complication of withholding evidence to a police investigation, if the "Mikey" RCMP investigation is still ongoing.
There are other options available to you but as scrotumville is reading this blog too, why give the kook any hints?
anonymous remailers use a double blind encrytion. this means that the remailer doesn't log or can they screen content (seems like it was designed for abuse) but really they do have a legitimate purpose ie; whistle blowers or protection from harsh regimes.
mikey from the headers appears to run a triple redundant setup;
on his PC he runs gigamesh to encrypt packets before sending his post via Rogers to dizum.com the dizum remailer then mails to a second anonymous mail2news gateway like mail2news@nym.alias.net
seems like a lot of work just for a troll. too much effort for richie.
note: mikey stirs the pot and then hides for awhile, when richie loses steam mikey cranks up the heat.
mikey's best accomplishment was in june before anyone on ott.general except marc wigle ever heard of scoville was to forge olaf, darrel, marc b et al in a round of sickening paedophile chat/posts. this did get a few bystanders upset (and rightly so) suddenly scoville found that marc b who just stumbled into the marc wigle scoville feud had authored (forged) posts along with others on ott.general
mikey had tried a year earlier to do a similar tactic a year earlier. like a worm mikey crawls out the slime, ooze and mud to start his campaign of rumours, lies and innuendo.
mikey is very good (almost too good)at projecting hs own shortcomings onto his targets. his main target has suddenly aged to 61, is fat and bald but the truth is this target is around mikey's age late 40s. he like richie fabricates his own proof.
sad
1. Stay Clear of Artesia Springs, LLC..It Is Not Artesia Waters!
Author: WATER.WIZARD
Abstract: Be sure to check the source of this fledgling copycat water company. Do not buy anything but natural water bottled at the source! The old Artesia Waters
Relevant Website: http://www.freespeechstore.com/Qresults.asp?Search_Keyword=Water+
size 150 bytes - date created 2/8/2006 8:14:03 PM - last revision 2/8/2006 8:14:03 PM
Seems like Dick is in hot water with some competition!
want to bet they aren't sell San Antonio carbonated tap water!
I guess he'll sue them next...
Does anyone have the cause number for the WSJ vs. Scoville action
Post a Comment
<< Home