advertiser.gif (1679 bytes)    advertiser.gif (1679 bytes)

The Friends of Keith Maydak

AT&T's Motion To Close This Site...


                           IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                        FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA



           AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND        )     Civil Action No. 93-1824
           TELEGRAPH COMPANY,            )
                                         )
                      Plaintiff,         )     JUDGE ZIEGLER/MAGISTRATE
                                         )     MITCHELL
                V.                       )
                                         )
           KEITH MAYDAK, SHAWN KOVACK,   )
           ZANKLE INVESTMENT GROUP, INC.,)
           and CONFIDENTIAL SERVICES OF  )
           AMERICA, INC.,                )
                                         )
                      Defendants.        )


                              NOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER


                      AND NOW COMES Plaintiff, AT&T Corp. (formerly known as

           American Telephone & Telegraph Company) ("AT&T"), by and through

           its attorneys, Thorp, Reed & Armstrong, and files the following

           Motion for a Protective Order.


                      1.   Keith Maydak ("Maydak") has represented both to this

           Court and to counsel for AT&T that the Keith Maydak Foundation (the

           "Foundation") is providing financial and legal support to him in

           connection with this case.  Maydak thus controls, for all intents

           and purposes, the Foundation.


                      2.   Given the relationship between Maydak and the

           Foundation, the Foundation is privy to information otherwise not

           available to the general public (i.e., discovery responses).


                      3.   It was recently discovered that the Foundation has

            a World Wide Web cite at http://www.epinet.com/introduction.html.

            A copy of the information available at this cite is attached hereto

            as Exhibit A.

                      4.   The World Wide Web cite makes repeated reference

            both to this action and the related criminal action at C.R. No. 93-

            133.  As detailed in the accompanying Brief in Support, which is

            hereby incorporated by reference, the cite is littered with

            defamatory remarks concerning AT&T and blatant mischaracterization

            of the facts relevant both to the related criminal proceeding and

            this action.

                      5.   The web cite identifies Michael R. Bucci,  Jr.'s name

            and address as AT&T's counsel.  Mr. Bucci has been contacted as a

            result of the inflammatory remarks contained in the web cite.  A

            copy of the message is attached hereto as Exhibit "B."

                      6.   Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6

            prohibits an attorney from making an "extrajudicial statement that

            a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of

            public communication if the lawyer knows or should know that it

            will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an

            adjudicative proceeding."

                      7.   Rule 3.6(b) explains that statements relating to the

            character, credibility or reputation of a party are likely to

            materially prejudice an adjudicative proceeding.


                      8.  Accordingly, the Foundation's statements violate

           Rule 3.6.


                      9.   Maydak's status as a pro se litigant should not

           afford him greater leniency with respect to pretrial publicity than

           AT&T's attorneys are afforded.


                      WHEREFORE, AT&T respectfully requests that this Honorable

           Court assess Keith Maydak and/or the Keith Maydak Legal Foundation

           costs and fees associated with the filing of this Motion and order

           Keith Maydak to remove or cause the removal of any information

           pertaining to this action or the related criminal action at C.R.

           No. 93-133 from World Wide Web/Internet, and prohibit Defendants,

           or anyone affiliated with the Defendants, from publishing any

           similar information in the future.


                                                Respectfully submitted,

                                                THORP, REED & ARMSTRONG



                                                By:
                                                     Michael R. Bucci Jr.
                                                     Pa. I.D. 133394
                                                     Carolyn A. Holtschlag
                                                     Pa. I.D. 170547

           Dated: December 13, 1995                  One Riverfront Center
                                                     Pittsburgh, PA 15222
                                                     (412) 394-2366

                                                     Attorneys for AT&T







                         VOICE MAIL RE: Maydak - 10/30/95



                       Hi. My name is David.  I'm in Los Angeles.  I'm reading
           on the WEBB about a case regarding AT&T and Keith Maydak and I have
           checked up on quite a bit of the reference material and can't find
           any discrepancies at all other than what AT&T has done to this poor
           individual.

                      I've worked in the studios all of my life and I'm
           forwarding all of this information onto my employer - Channel 4 NBC
           - and I'm also getting rid of AT&T.  I am an AT&T customer although
           I am no longer an AT&T customer.

                     I am also forwarding this to all of the news groups on
           the Internet that I think would be interested in this and I find
           this highly despicable and disgusting that anyone would do
           something like this in my nation when my fathers have died and my
           grandfathers have died fighting to make sure that things like this
           don't happen.  I think that every lawyer joke in the country as I
           see it most likely applies to yourself and the lies and the way
           that you treat American citizens.  I think its just disgusting that
           men across this country have died so that people like you can put
           innocent men in jail for crap.  For bills that have already been
           paid.

                     Thank you very much for your time and I hope you like
           everyone knowing what it is that AT&T and Thorp, Reed & Armstrong
           have to do with American justice.  Thank you sir.





                                   EXHIBIT "B"

                           IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                        FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA



           AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND              Civil Action No. 93-1824
           TELEGRAPH COMPANY,

                     Plaintiff,                JUDGE ZIEGLER/MAGISTRATE
                                               MITCHELL
                V.

           KEITH MAYDAK, SHAWN KOVACK,
           ZANKLE INVESTMENT GROUP, INC.,
           and CONFIDENTIAL SERVICES OF
           AMERICA, INC.,

                     Defendants.


                   BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF NOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER


                     AND NOW COMES Plaintiff, AT&T Corp. (formerly known as

           American Telephone & Telegraph Company) ("AT&T"), by and through

           its attorneys, Thorp, Reed & Armstrong, and files the following

           Brief in Support of Motion for a Protective Order.


                                        ARGUMENT


                     (1) Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6
                          Prohibits Certain Pretrial Publicity.


                     Because "the right to a fair trial necessarily entails

           some curtailment of the information that may be disseminated about

           a party prior to trial, particularly where trial by jury is

           involved," (see Comment to Rule 3.6 of the Pa.  Rules of Prof.

           Conduct) certain pretrial publicity is prohibited.


           Rule 3.6 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional

           Conduct provides, in relevant part:


                             (a)  A lawyer shall not make an extrajudicial
                                  statement that a reasonable person would
                                  expect to be disseminated by means of
                                  public communication if the lawyer knows
                                  or reasonably should know that it will
                                  have   a   substantial    likelihood  of
                                  materially prejudicing an adjudicative
                                  proceeding.

                             (b)  A statement referred to in paragraph (a)
                                  ordinarily is likely to have such an
                                  effect when it refers to a civil matter
                                  triable to a jury. . . and the statement
                                  relates to:

                                  (1)  the     character,      credibility,
                                       reputation or criminal record of a
                                       party,   suspect    in   a    criminal
                                       investigation    or   witness,     the
                                       identity of a witness, or the
                                       expected testimony of a party or
                                       witness;

                                       . . .  (or]

                                  (5)  information the lawyer knows or
                                       reasonably should know is likely to
                                       be inadmissible as evidence in a
                                       trial and would if disclosed create
                                       a substantial risk of prejudicing an
                                       impartial trial. . . .

            Pa. R. Prof.  Conduct 3.6.


                       Thus, any statements that impinge upon the character,

            credibility, reputation or criminal record of either a party or a

            witness are presumed to materially prejudice an adjudication

            proceeding.  Such statements are therefore prohibited.


                       (2) Rule 3.6 Should Apply to Pro Se Litigants.

                      Rule 3.6 was enacted to ensure the right to a fair trial.

           Absent Rule 3.6's limitations, "the result would be the practical

           nullification of the rules of forensic decorum and the exclusionary

           rules of evidence." See official Comment to Pa.  R. Prof.  Conduct

           3.6. Failure to evenly apply the restrictions set forth in Rule

           3.6 would thus thwart the goal of an impartial trial.

                      Specifically, were pro se litigants immune from Rule

           3.6's prohibitions, a fair trial would be only a remote

           possibility.  Indeed, the pro se litigant would be free to attack

           and defame the opposing party, while the opposing party would be

           without recourse.  To avoid this illogical result, Rule 3.6 must,

           therefore, apply to pro se litigants as well as to attorneys.

                      (3) The World Wide Web Cite Contains Numerous
                           Violations of Rule 3.6.

                      The World Wide Web cite is nothing more than a

           compilation of attacks on AT&T, blatant misrepresentations of the

           factual circumstances surrounding this case, and derogatory remarks

           about the federal judicial system and the individuals involved in

           the prosecution of the related criminal case.




                      The following represents only a selection of the inflam-

            matory remarks contained in the World Wide Web cite:


                           (1)   "Why is Keith in Jail?      Because AT&T
                                 Framed Him." See Exhibit A, Title:'

                           (2)   "One company orchestrated this frame-up
                                 (though they had help).     We can only
                                 speculate on their reasons, but avoiding
                                 paying CSA the $1,200,000 they claim to
                                 hold in escrow, keeping another four
                                 million that was paid to them by Local
                                 Exchange   Carriers,   and     distracting
                                 federal   agencies   from    AT&T's    own
                                 $261,000,000 liability to the Federal
                                 Government for violating their tariffs
                                 seem like powerful incentives."        See
                                 Exhibit A, pg. 1;

                           (3)   "We need your help to spread the word
                                 about AT&T's shams.  You can do so much
                                 to help.  Write to the Attorney General--
                                 demand an investigation into AT&T's
                                 perjury and cover up. . . .  (Demand that
                                 the Attorney General) investigate why
                                 U.S. Attorney Paul Hull isn't concerned
                                 about AT&T's perjury. . . . See Exhibit
                                 A, pg. 2;

                           (4)   "Call or write to AT&T's attorneys in
                                 Pittsburgh.   Ask them why AT&T didn't
                                 explain that they weren't allowed to bill
                                 for the calls from the Flying J's at
                                 Keith's trial. Ask them   why AT&T didn't
                                 tell the government that they were paid
                                 for those calls."    See  Exhibit A, pg.
                                 2.

             -------------------------------------

                 1    Exhibit A is attached to the Motion for Protective Order.

                 2   The Web cite identifies Michael R.  Bucci, Jr.'s name and
            address as AT&T's counsel.     Mr. Bucci has been contacted as a
            result of the inflammatory remarks included in the Web cite.
            copy of the message is attached as Exhibit B to the Motion for


                              (5)  "Complain to the FCC.         Demand they
                                  investigate AT&T's production of illegal
                                  bills in violation of 47 U.S.C. 203 and
                                  their use at Keith's trial.  Demand they
                                  investigate    whether    AT&T's     tariffs
                                  allowed those calls (it didn't.)"        See
                                  Exhibit A, pg. 3.

                             (6)  "Apparently AT&T drops their contracts at
                                  the drop of a hat.      See Exhibit A, pg.
                                  4.

                             (7)  (Referencing a witness appearing at the
                                  criminal trial.) "One person was Nick
                                  Campbell,     a    16-year     old     thug.
                                  Interestingly, Campbell was previously
                                  arrested for breaking into a vehicle
                                  owned by CSA and stealing Maydak's
                                  wallet.     I'm sure this incident has
                                  nothing to do with his subsequent
                                  testimony    against Maydak.  Because
                                  Campbell    was   a   juvenile,     Maydak's
                                  attorney was prohibited from telling the
                                  jury about Campbell's past." See Exhibit
                                  A, pg. 5;

                             (8)  (Referencing another witness) "(W]e will
                                  never know how much those who approached
                                  this clerk told him about Maydak before
                                  he remembered Maydak's proposal.  But of
                                  course, what reason would he have to lie?
                                  Read on.  Before trial, this clerk drove
                                  himself into a pole and died.  The Oregon
                                  State Police ruled the accident a
                                  suicide.  A further investigation by OSP
                                  revealed that the potential witness was
                                  arrested    several     times    on    child
                                  molestation charges (the ideal person to
                                  entrust with the keys to hotel rooms,
                                  right?), had drug convictions, and had a
                                  civil judgment against him in excess of
                                  $1,000,000 as well as several pending
                                  charges." See Exhibit A, pg. 5;

            --------------------
            Protective Order.
            #227191                            5

                              (9)   "The Keith Maydak Foundation was formed
                                    after the trial.      It was organized by
                                    friends of Keith Maydak who were shocked
                                    at the deception that the government and
                                    AT&T has gotten away with." See Exhibit
                                    A, pg. 7;

                             (10)  "It sounds to us like AT&T was defrauding
                                   Pacific Bell by accepting payments for a
                                   service   when  it was    not    properly
                                   disbursing those same payments according
                                   to its contractual obligations."              See
                                       Exhibit A, pg. 7;

                             (11)  "Who's the thief? . . . .  Even if    you
                                   assume AT&T is completely correct    and
                                   protected itself from Keith's evil scheme
                                   by withholding payments to CSA, why have
                                   they still not allowed the real victims
                                   (those billed for the calls and who paid
                                   for them) to share in the financial
                                   benefits of their wisdom?"  See Exhibit
                                   A, at pg. 10;

                             (12)  "Who's the lawbreaker? . . . .  Based upon
                                   AT&T's own allegations, they owe the
                                   government $261,000,000.00.    AT&T
                                   fraudulently   billed for  calls  not
                                   permitted by its tariff.      They then
                                   collected the funds and held them,
                                   neither distributing them to CSA as
                                   required by their contract nor refunding
                                   them to those who paid them.   Is there
                                   any question now why AT&T must maintain
                                   that these calls were part of some scheme
                                   to defraud them?"        See, Exhibit A, pg.
                                   10;

                             (13)  "Who's the victim? . . . .     Using this
                                   figure, AT&T would still owe CSA $110,000
                                   over the $552,000 they have already paid.
                                   This calculation assumes that 54% of both
                                   the calls AT&T did and did not reimburse
                                   CSA for were fraudulent.  Meanwhile, AT&T
                                   withheld payments to CSA totaling about
                                   $1,200,000.      Is there any question now
                                   why AT&T needs Maydak's conviction to
                                   stand?     Is there any question who the
                                   victim is?" See Exhibit A, pgs. 10-11;




              #227191                                 6

                             (14)   "Do not send Keith Maydak money.              The
                                    government will take it and apply it to
                                    the bogus $433,000 restitution order, and
                                    $75,000 fine.  If you want to help Maydak
                                    financially, send your contribution to:

                                    The Keith Maydak Foundation, Inc.
                                    613 Cross Street
                                    East McKeesport, PA 15035.11

                                    See, Exhibit A, pg. 13;

                             (15)  (Referencing call forwarding services)
                                   "Did the government and AT&T not know
                                   that this service was unavailable?  Did
                                   they not think to cheat?  Or did they
                                   lie?" See, Exhibit A, pg. 19;

                             (16)  "AT&T was paid for the 43,500 calls
                                   allegedly made from the Flying J's Travel
                                   Plaza.    They were paid by GTE Northwest
                                   long before Maydak was even indicted.
                                   AT&T never informed the government or
                                   Maydak.

                                   The following two excerpts are from
                                   AT&T's Plaintiffs    Responses       and
                                   objections to Defendant Keith Maydak's
                                   and Shawn Kovack's Request for Answers to
                                   Interrogatories Directed to Plaintiff.

                                   Keith asks AT&T to answer the following
                                   question:     'Did GTE Northwest transmit
                                   payment to AT&T for the 900-prefix calls
                                   which GTE Northwest billed on behalf of
                                   AT&T regarding the Flying J telephones?'

                                   AT&T responds: 'GTE purchased from AT&T
                                   a block of AT&T's receivables which
                                   included those accounts pertaining to the
                                   Flying J telephones.       When it was
                                   subsequently determined that the Flying J
                                   accounts were involved in the fraudulent
                                   scheme perpetrated by the defendants in
                                   this action, GTE filed a claim requesting
                                   refund of the payment.    The parties are
                                   presently   engaged   in   a     dialogue
                                   concerning payment for these accounts.


              #227101                                7

                                  AT&T and GTE Northwest have not entered
                                  into a settlement of any kind.  AT&T will
                                  disclose the substance of its dialogue
                                  with GTE Northwest only under court
                                  order.'

                                  In other words, AT&T was paid before
                                  Maydak was even indicted.  Again, Maydak
                                  was indicted for defrauding AT&T.      Here
                                  we see that AT&T profited from these
                                  calls and still has kept the money.

                                  Later, Keith asks: 'Did AT&T notify any
                                  federal agent or government employee of
                                  the fact that AT&T was paid by GTE
                                  Northwest prior to July 26, 1993 for the
                                  900 prefix calls by GTE Northwest
                                  regarding Flying J telephones?      If so,
                                  please state the person notified.'

                                  To which AT&T responds:      " No, because
                                  AT&T and GTE Northwest have not yet
                                  resolved the issue of who is entitled to
                                  the money.'

                                  If this isn't the height of arrogance --
                                  like killing your parents and then asking
                                  for mercy on the grounds that you are an
                                  orphan.   AT&T accuses Keith Maydak of
                                  defrauding them and obtains a conviction
                                  and order of restitution    and then they
                                  have the gall to refuse to reimburse GTE
                                  Northwest for the calls because they
                                  don't know who should take   the loss!

                                 If Keith Maydak defrauded   them -- their
                                 accusation -- they should   reimburse GTE
                                 Northwest.   If AT&T was defrauded, why
                                 should GTE pick up the tab?        Clearly,
                                 they haven't been defrauded of one penny
                                 -- they made $33.33 on each call.      They
                                 not only kept the portion of that money
                                 they were entitled to, but also the
                                 portion they should have remitted to the
                                 service operator, Keith Maydak."





           #227191                            8

                       Through this Web cite, Maydak accuses AT&T of fraud,

           perjury, and deception.  Each remark is thus in direct violation of

           Rule 3.6's prohibition against making statements relating to the

           character, credibility or reputation of a party.


                      Maydak does not, however, restrict his attacks to those

           on AT&T.    Indeed, he attacks the reputation of Nick Campbell

           (referring to him, in part, as a "thug"), an individual listed as

           a witness on both AT&T's and Defendants' pretrial statements.  In

           revealing information about Mr. Campbell's juvenile record, Maydak

           not only makes prohibited remarks concerning a witness' credibility

           and character, but divulges information which he knows would be

           inadmissible in court.


                      Finally,    the    cite    contains    blatant     factual

           misrepresentations.  The fact that this information is available to

           anyone with access to the Internet or World Wide Webb means that

           potential jurors may, in fact, be reviewing this propaganda.


                      Maydak's Web cite is nothing more than another in

           Maydak's exhaustive attempts to harass AT&T and the individuals

           which it employees.       The information contained in the cite

           undoubtedly materially prejudices AT&T's right to a fair trial.  As

           such, the information should be removed, and Maydak (or anyone

           under his control) must be prohibited from engaging in such conduct

           in the future.

                                                  Respectfully submitted,

                                                  THORP, REED & ARMSTRONG


                                                  By:
                                                        Michael R. Bucci, Jr.
                                                        Pa. I.D. 133394
                                                        Carolyn A. Holtschlag
                                                        Pa. I.D. #70547

           Dated: December 13, 1995                   


Copyright  1996-1997 -- The Friends of Keith Maydak