NikSam, Welcome to RealScam. Your third post contained a URL link and as an antispam measure if any new user posts a link (in their first three posts) it get's queued until approved. Sorry for the delay, your next post puts you past that restriction.

What is this blog you speak of? If there's any info there in jeopardy ask the blog owner if he'd like to archive it here. We have a bit of experience dealing with matters like this and thus far we've never deleted a word. As far as P.C. goes, I wouldn't worry much about that ever so very soon to be sunk ship.

From the letter you quoted:

You accuse Mr. Dockstader of illegal activity in his previous affairs. Again, what proof do you have? I hope you realize that when you accuse a person of a crime in this country, you are committing slander per se. Your only defense is if you speak the truth, and can prove it! Again I ask where is your proof? The fact is, that Mr. Dockstader has no criminal record. His conviction was overturned. Yes, he spent time in jail, but this country is full of stories of innocent people going free after wrongful convictions. For you to continue to state that he is a criminal without any law enforcement agency to back you up is foolhardy to say the least.
I'll quote and actual attorney on the issue of Mr. Dockstaders criminal conviction:

Re: Elite Activity Resurrected (Connecting Us All)!

by wserra » Thu Feb 24, 2011 9:11 pm


I don't have access to Texas state court records, either, other than those indexed by Google. Moreover, while I saw Lambert's post, it doesn't matter. Here's why.

Dockstader's conviction was affirmed, in an opinion that made it clear that Elite was in fact a ponzi. He was sentenced to two years, which sentence he began serving in May of 2008 (release date 5-10-10). In March of 2010, a Texas court granted his motion for a new trial - not based on innocence, but instead on a blatant conflict of interest of his original attorney, a since-disbarred piece of work named Henry Curtis. He was released on bond in April of 2010. In other words, he served 23 months of his 24-month sentence. If he were tried a second time and convicted again, he could generally not receive a greater sentence than he did originally. North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U. S. 711 (1969). Under these circumstances, most prosecutors (and judges) would think it a waste of time and resources to try him a second time just so that he could serve the last month of his sentence. I'm not at all surprised that's what happened.
From this thread over at Quatloos.