Amount refers to monetary value. Circuit or superior courts are designed to hear claims requesting amounts in excess of a prescribed limit over district courts.

Personal jurisdiction refers to the parties and/or the act under claim occurring within the territory of the court's authority. Regardless of whether or not the claim is to be heard by a state or federal court, the state or federal court must have personal jurisdiction in order for its authority to be valid. Specifically, either the defendant or the act under claim must occur within the court's authority. If both do not occur or reside within the territory of the court: state or federal, then there is no jurisdiction.

Articles 6 & of the lawsuit files against the Van der Sloots claims jurisdiction by the fact that they were served within the state of New York with a summons and complaint. Article 7 identifies the venue under New York Civil Practice Law & Rules, because neither of the parties resides in the county (it omits that neither party even resides in the state), hence the plaintiff's chose this county.

Since the Paulus and Joran van der Sloot were served in New York City, then a potential personal jurisdictional claim is in effect; however, it still holds without reservation that neither party resides in the state of New York nor any of the charges occurred within the state of New York. Accordingly, in order to prevent a perfection of the personal jurisdictional claim, the lawyer for the Van der Sloots needs to file a motion to dismiss prior to responding to the lawsuit. If they respond to the lawsuit or appear for the hearing, they, in effect, would be perfecting the personal jurisdictional claim.Yet, we still maintain the issue of ability of the New York Supreme Court to exercise authority ... compel discovery.

This is a diverse jurisdictional issue and can only be tried in a US federal court.

In rem refers to a thing within the territory of the court; such as a parcel of land. In rem covers debts, insurance premiums, etc., as well.

Competence refers to the ability to adjudicate a particular matter; such as juvenile courts, tax courts, family courts, etc.

Of the foregoing categories of jurisdiction, for a court: state or federal, to have any jurisdiction in any matter whatsoever, it must have met the requirements for personal jurisdiction. Without personal jurisdiction, the court has no authority. There are no exceptions!

In the matter at hand with the Van der Sloots, both parties: plaintiffs and defendants, reside outside the territory of the state of New York. Second, all the claims attested within the lawsuit occurred outside the United States of America. Accordingly, no jurisdiction is available to the Supreme Court of the State of New York (a state court). What that further means is that any summons attached to the lawsuit is null and void. If moneys are expended on behalf of the defendants in order to bring this jurisdictional issue to the attention of the Supreme Court of the state of New York, then the attorneys for the plaintiffs could, and should, be held liable for those fees. A motion for damages may be required to be filed in order to attach the accounts of the law firm of Chadbourke & Parke LLP (attorneys for the plaintiffs).

When the requirements of personal jurisdiction cannot be met, because one of the parties resides outside a particular jurisdiction, the matter comes under the heading of diverse jurisdiction; such as, one of the parties resides in another state or country.

These interstate or inter-country matters must be adjudicated by the federal courts in the USA; however, personal jurisdiction must be in effect; that is, the act or thing under claim must reside within the territory of the federal court.

I pray this clears up the fiasco with the law suit against the Van der Sloots served in New York City.

Second, despite the lack of jurisdiction, some interesting developments as a result of the service of the lawsuit have occurred. While Chadbourne & Parke LLP perfected their service with witnesses, filming the service and announcing it thoroughly on Fox News to an international audience, they, likewise, ascertained that a document, containing sworn and notarized statements by Beth Twitty, was provided to Paulus and Joran van der Sloot. Consequently, there is no escape route for Beth Twitty to deny attesting to those statements in the lawsuit. The Dutch Government and the FBI have proof positive that Beth Twitty swore those statements to be true and correct. Accordingly, even though the service by Charbourne & Parke LLP failed and will be declared void, the affidavit by Beth Twitty will remain effective. Any oversight agency can call Beth Twitty on the contents of this lawsuit and charge her with perjury, if in the event that she cannot absolutely ascertain the validity of those statements. Furthermore, since the service of this document (lawsuit) occurred within the territory of New York City, the Van der Sloots can bring action against Beth Twitty for the less than admirable contents of the document in a USA federal circuit court either in New York City or the state of Alabama.

(Note: See court documents...)

Given that Aruba Truth has denounced the contents of the document, it seems a summary judgment waits to be filed against Beth Twitty, claiming damages of character for both the contents of the document and their airing on the cable news networks ... especially Fox News by the agent for the Beth Twitty, John Q. Kelly.

Aruba Truth

"The suit's allegations are a mix of known events, facts, and antecdotes that are unsubstantiated. And there is no reference to witnesses or corroboration for most of the charges. Still, the standards of proof in a civil case are less than in a criminal proceeding.

The suit seeks to establish New York as the city of jurisdiction and compel Paulus and Joran to testify in the case, if a New York judge agrees to the jurisdictional claim. New York attorneys like Mickey Sherman, an experienced litigator in those courts, believes it is unlikely jurisdiction will be granted, or that if granted the case will be accepted."

Despite all this bad news for the Twitt-Holloway camp, it gets worse! During last evening's airing of the Greta Fox News, John Q. Kelly admitted acquiring privileged information from American Airlines while en route to New York City from the Kingdom of the Netherlands. As an insight, the information, requested by John Q. Kelly, can only be obtained by an FBI agent with a need-to-know. In order for the FBI agent to acquire the information, he must record his badge number with American Airlines security personnel. The manner in which John Q. Kelly, operating from his base in Palm Springs, FL, responded, it would appear that Mr. Kelly obtained said information via another route.

Mr. Kelly's other route would be of interest to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Airport Security in New York City and the security for American Airlines ... as well as, the counter-terrorism units in the Kingdom of the Netherlands. We must realize that John Q. Kelly, operating from a base in Florida, was able to acquire privileged information about an American Airlines passenger plane en route to New York City and intercept a Dutch national at the airport for the purpose of embarrassment and intimidaiton.Mr. Kelly further went on to laud his three-continent caper that was pulled off to perfection.

Given the foregoing, it seems that Mr. John Q. Kelly, Chadbourke & Parke LLP and associated persons incognito are more adept at the methods of terrorists than international law. In 2001, a group of terrorists, operating from a base in Florida, also acquired information about American Airlines planes and managed to park them into the upper stories of the former towers of the World Trade Center, just before they murder some 3,000 Americans. Al-Queda (translated means: the base) terrorists were as jubilant over their success as John Q. Kelly.

CNN.com Specials

Please correct me, but it seems that American Airlines is as susceptible to penetration of their security systems, now, as they were prior to 911. I would think that a vacancy will soon be available for head of security for American Airlines if not the head of DHS in New York City.

In support of this analogy, the law firm of Chadbourne & Parke LLP has offices and dealings with Kazakhstan and offer specialty legal work in the oil and natural gas industry.

Greta interviewed Arlene Ellis Schipper about Joran van der Sloot's day in court in Aruba. Joran's lawyer requested clarification of the case against him. What this means is that the prosecutor will either be forced to continue with the case or end it: fish and cut bait decision. Karin Janssen defended the against the motion. Arlene estimates that the decision will be handed down in one week.

Greta hosted Jeff Felger, Jim Hammer, Ted Williams and Bernie Grimm.

The entire council feels that the case in Aruba is over, and it will cause the case in the USA to collapse. Plea bargaining was discussed. They panel was hard pressed to come up with what to tell the family, if Joran is released form the case.

On the current lawsuit, Jeff Felger disagrees that the parents have any right to make claims based upon their daughter's alleged sexual assault. Most of the panel discounted the New York lawsuit as not a good idea.

Some law made gave a position on the personal jurisdiction of the New York State Supreme Court. Apparently, there is no jurisdiction, according to all the lawyers on Greta council. The case is gone!

Greta interviewed Julia Renfro. Julio Renfro reports that Arubans feel Joran was deceived by Larry Garrison into traveling to New York City. There is only a rumor of an agreement between Larry Garrison and Joran van der Sloot. The extent of the agreement is unknown, as well as, if any cash is involved.

A sub for O'Reily interviewed Mia Martinez of WBRC-TV of Birmingham, AL about the latest lawsuit. Mia explained that Beth Twitty has been asked by her lawyer, John Q. Kelly, to not talk to the media until Monday. Apparently, John Q. Kelly needs to get his clients organized. Mia described the lawsuit as juicy and resembling what the Twitty-Holloway camp has been rambling abut the entire time. According to Mia, lawyers are shocked by the lawsuit's language. Mia confesses that most lawyers feel the lawsuit lacks jurisdiction and has no substance. Nonetheless, she feels that it was a good idea to keep the story alive of Natalee's disappearance. Mia believes the lawsuit was for the media attention only.

With this narration, I bid you all a wonderful weekend ... I will try to update as leads develop.

With Aloha,

Posted for HarryTho