Latest Entry: American Pravda and New York's Sixth Crime Family     Latest Comments: Talk Back Here

« Sentence For Holocaust Denial Sends Wrong Message | Main | U.S. Warns Iraq: 'Create Nonsectarian Government' »

February 20, 2006

HarryTho 2/20 Natalee Holloway Commentary

Topics: Natalee Holloway

This evening, I thought I would peruse the lawsuit filed in the Supreme Court (Civil) of the state of New York against the Paulus and Joran van der Sloot. In a prior editorial, I discussed the jurisdiction and other related matters with the case. Setting those discussions aside, I will look over the lawsuit and comment on various items of entry.

The entire 15-page pleading filed with the court can be extracted ... page by page ... from the Joran van der Sloot blog. The lawsuit contains 89 paragraphs (allegations) compiled into eight headings (A-H) and four causes for action.

The allegations are asserted in paragraphs: 66, 72, 76 and 80.

Governing laws are cited in paragraphs:

7: New York Civil Practice Law and Rules Section 503(a) for venue.
71, 89: Alabama Code 6-5-390
75: Alabama Code 6-5-170

The chapters of this lawsuit are called:

A: The Graduation Trip
B: The Predator
C: Joran Meets Natalee
D: Natalee's Nightmare
E: The Cover-Up
F: Joran's First Set of Lies
G: Joran's Second Set of Lies
H: Joran's Third Story

Some of the more touching allegations that may prove difficult to prove:

11: No stranger to sexual assault on women
12: three Aruban girls date-raped
13: Ecstacy date-rape drug of choice ... and blondes
15: psychological counseling for problems
17: parents aware of dangerous tendencies ... did nothing to prevent them
23: habitual stalking of women
36: sexual assault ... drifting in and out of consciousness
37: Natalee did not consent
38: wrongful detained
39: Joran came home at 3:30 AM with no shoes
41: Natalee never returned to the Holiday Inn
44: Parents advice to suspects
48: Police incompetence and Jailhouse corruption
49: Joran and Paulus received FBI files
65: Only Joran, Deepak, Satish and possibly Paulus know what happened to Natalee.
69: sexual assault
73: Unlawfully detained
74: false imprisonment
78: Joran's knowledge of parents non-consent
79: malicious interference
81: Paulus knew of Joran's sexual assaults on young women
82: Paulus knew of Joran's underage drinking
83: permissive environment ... utterly without bounds
84: knowing facilitated Joran's predatory and tortious behavior
85. violent proclivities
86: Paulus breached duty to Nattalee Holloway ... sexual assault by Joran
89: Paulus negligent

Potential accurate allegations:

8-10: Graduation trip
25: many facts unknown ... some not in dispute
40: Deepak cleaned his car of ants
47: Joran told some tales
50: Joran told three tales
51-55: Joran's first tale
56-58: Joran's second tale
59-64: Joran's third tale
67: Plaintiffs are natural parents of Natalee
82: Paulus knew of Joran gambling

I will return to analyze these allegations in tomorrow evening's editorial.

Please understand that it will take some time to juxtapose all these allegation and see if they make sense. Those allegations that are considered doubtful and requiring proof, other than hearsay, will become most troublesome for the plaintiffs. Oral depositions of the plaintiffs may not be necessary, if these allegations are denied in the defendants' response ... which is expected. The burden of proof for these allegations resides with the plaintiffs.

From just a glance of what is considered known in this case, someone telling three tales and gambling falls a little short of the causes for action demanded by the plaintiffs. Then again, I am not associated with an international law firm and a star, wrongful death litigator.

I could not read where wrongful death was alleged in any of the 89 paragraphs.

Some information on the Supreme Court of the state of New York:

The Supreme Court is the trial court of unlimited original jurisdiction, but it generally only hears cases that are outside the jurisdiction of other trial courts of more limited jurisdiction. In New York City, the Court exercises civil jurisdiction and jurisdiction over felony charges.

New York County
Supreme Court, Civil
60 Centre St
New York, NY 10007

The State Supreme Court handles large civil cases throughout New York State, and also handles felony criminal cases within the five counties that make up New York City.


Although the New York Supreme Court in theory has unlimited general original jurisdiction over civil litigation, in practice it does not normally hear cases with lower monetary claims that are within the powers of a New York state trial court of limited jurisdiction such as County Court or N.Y.C. Civil Court. By statute, the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction over three areas: matrimonial actions (such as for divorce or annulment), declaratory judgments, and so-called Article 78 actions, but effectively has exclusive jurisdication over other areas sounding in equity such as specific performance and rescission of contract, which have been defined by applicable caselaw as unsuitable for adjudication by the lower courts. Jurisdiction is clearly stated as New York State! The Supreme Court of the State of New York is one of several New York State trial courts in which cases originate. The court sits in each of New York State's 62 counties, although some of the smaller counties share judges with neighboring counties. All but the most populous counties are grouped into judicial districts from which the justices are elected, unwritten agreements allotting the justice seats among the counties of the district. (See List of New York counties.) In New York, unlike most other states, the Supreme Court is not the highest court of the state - which is instead called the Court of Appeals of New York; this nomenclature sometimes causes confusion. ... Part II tomorrow evening!

Rita Crosby interviewed John Q. Kelly and David Kock. Despite all promotions that Beth Twitty and Dave Holloway would be interviewed, they never showed.

John Q. Kelly reports that both Joran and Paulus van der Sloot were totally surprised by the service. Joran was served on a Delta (changed from American) Airliner at JFK Airport in New York. John admits that his man cornered Joran on the airplane, as Joran waited a security escort.

Interestingly, in contradistinction to Dave Holloway's statements, as reported by Mia Martinez, that he knew nothing of the lawsuit and the service, John Q. Kelly reported that he received authorization from Beth Twitty and Dave Holloway to file the lawsuit. Either John or Dave is being untruthful.

John refused to reveal who tipped him off that the Van der Sloots would be in New York.

Rita stated that a report from Aruba revealed that the Van der Sloots felt comfortable with the lawsuit, and said that it was performed for a publicity stunt only. The lawsuit has no basis in law.

John Q. retorted with an issue of trying to prevent the Van der Sloots from putting their spin on things (as he puts it). Apparently, John Q. clients were concerned about any statements that the Van der Sloots would air about their daughter's behavior in Aruba. John mentions that he had to stop their spin. And, John Q. got quite defensive.

When asked what happens if the Van der Sloots just thumb their noses out at him and not respond. He responds with a motion for default judgment would follow. With the default, he would conduct a default inquisition which he agrees they will not participate in. With the judgment, he feels that he can go to Aruba and collect. (He has beautiful dreams!)

When asked about the difficulty of the case, John admits that it will be a tough road.

John then reported that the Dutch will search the sand dunes with their dogs and ground penetrating radar.

David Kock maintained his position that neither Deepak nor Satish Kalpoe picked up Joran from the Marriott Beach. David runs down Joran's endless changing of stories, as a response as to why Joran would suddenly change his story again.

On the question of Deepak and Satish Kalpoe, David Kock said he would not allow them to come to the USA, until the criminal trial was over. He would never have advised this lawsuit without a decision from the criminal case in Aruba.

Comment: Either Satish did pick up Joran at the Marriott Beach or this issue is an investigation trip wire. Also, we should be mindful that the Van der Sloots may have been willing participants in this impromptu lawsuit in order to be able to state that Satish picked up Joran on the Marriott Beach. Satish may have picked up Natalee, too. After Joran was dropped off at his home, Satish may have left with Natalee. If I am not mistaken, there is one story stating just that, except the group had come from California Beach.

Rita hosted a council of Wendy Murphy and Anne Bremner, both anti-Van der Sloot.

Wendy praised John for the lawsuit. She claims that under subject matter, the fact that the Van der Sloots accepted the airfare and hotel makes them considered employed in the state of New York, satisfying the subject matter jurisdiction question. Anne Bremner agrees. She extends the Van der Sloots a Welcome to New York greeting with a lawsuit.

Comment: WOW ... talk about thin! They avoid all the other issues of jurisdiction.

Both Wendy and Anne agree that if the Van der Sloots do not respond to the lawsuit, they will be defaulted and have to pay damages. They feel the Van der Sloots have inside influence in Aruba and are protected. In America, they have no influence and are laid bare by John's lawsuit. Of course, they neglect to mention John's influence in America doing precisely what they have alleged of the Van der Sloots.

Rita poses some tough question, if in the event that the Van der Slots defend the lawsuit. Both Wendy and Anne mention a constant interface with the Hague in the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Witnesses deposed from Aruba can just ignore the case. It will be extremely difficult to obtain discovery, if any. However, both Wendy and Anne feel that a cover-up in Aruba will never resolve this case without John's lawsuit. Both agree this will take a few years to get through.

Comment: John Q. Kelly is in trouble with this lawsuit. Interestingly, David Kock is under some pressure.

Greta of Fox News interviewed Beth Twitty. Beth says John Q. Kelly just explained the basics of lawsuit in order to get some answers in Aruba. She gave John the green light to go forward. She stands behind John 1000%. Beth claims she was in DC. She got 47 calls from the media that she logged.

Beth ignores the question about Dave Holloway's participation in the lawsuit. All Beth wants is the answer of what happened to Natalee. I suspect, Dave knew nothing of the lawsuit, and he certainly did not attest to any of the contents. His only participation in the lawsuit could have come from some form of power of attorney that he gave either Beth or John Q. Kelly. It seems that John Q.'s masterpiece might have another problem ... lack of authentification.

Beth is prepared for anything, if the lawsuit gets thrown out of court. She refers to the lawsuit as a marathon. Beth wants discovery in order to acquire answers. She plays off the money aspect of the lawsuit.

Beth will go on her crusade to inform students of the dangers of young adults going overseas.

Comment: This lawsuit is in deep trouble!

Larry Garrison, author and undercover agent, coordinated Joran media exposure in New York. He claims he did not tip off the Twitty-Holloway camp. He reports that sour grapes from Aruba that Julia Renfro tipped off the Twitty-Holloway.

Larry Garrison reports that Julia Renfro believes that Natalee is alive with Jug Twitty's baby.


Law Professor Freer of Emory University feels that the plaintiffs have personal and subject matter jurisdiction. He approved personal jurisdiction, because the defendants were served in the state of New York. He claims that the simple act of serving has been good since Roman times. He feels that subject matter is OK as well, because he merely identifies the issue as a power the court has over a defendant. I disagree here completely. This professor feels the case will be thrown out (dismissed) for lack of convenience. He argues the Aruba drag on the taxpayers of New York.

This law professor's contention that jurisdiction is OK is just too flimsy. His explanation I would attack on how he believes that a state court in New York can have power over an Aruban in Aruba. He even expresses my argument in his position on convenient location, as why would the state of New York take on such a problem without an ability to depose any Aruban witnesses.

Greta holds her council of Jim Hammer, Bernie Grimm and Jeff Brown. Bernie has questions about the service. Jeff claims that there are no answers forthcoming from this lawsuit. He makes some remarks about abuse of process with the lawsuit and dirty hands by John Q. Kelly forgetting to inform Karin Janssen about the lawsuit. He feels the lawsuit has dome nothing but damage to the case in Aruba.

Jim Hammer feels the part of a pattern of sex assault in the lawsuit, if true and provable, could be beneficial to the case in Aruba.

The entire council advises the Van der Sloots to just allow the lawsuit to default and answer no questions, whatsoever.


With Aloha, Posted for HarryTho

Posted by Richard at February 20, 2006 10:50 PM

Articles Related to Natalee Holloway: