February 21, 2006
HarryTho 2/21 Natalee Holloway CommentaryTopics: Natalee Holloway
This evening, I will commence a deconstruction of the complaint filed on 16 February 2006 in Supreme Court of the state of New York. In last evening's editorial, I categorized the complaint into various parts and identified specific areas of interest. This evening, page one of the complaint seems appropriate to explore, given the revelations in last evening's telecast by MSNBC and Fox News.
The highest marking on page 1 indicates the stamp of the New York County Clerk's Office. Accompanying the county clerk's seal, the date Feb 16 2006 is affixed. Below the date, also in rubber stamp fashion resides a disclaimer: NOT COMPARED WITH COPY FILED. Lastly, just below the county clerk's disclaimer, we find the Index number for the Complaint: 102254/2006.
Let us stop here and analyze what these entries by the country clerk mean.
The date refers to the date that this complaint was received by the New York County Clerk (NYCC).
JEC Magistrate Benchbook Section 1.2-1 Complaint
"Before accepting the complaint for filing, the court determines or supervises a clerk who determines that the complaint is complete (including signature, demand or waiver of jury trial and name and address or whereabouts of each defendant). However, a clerk shall not refuse to accept for filing any paper presented for that purpose solely because it is not presented in proper form as required by [the] rules."
The NYCC acknowledges receipt by affixing his stamp and entering a date. Additionally, the NYCC announces that he has merely acknowledged receipt of the complaint by affixing a disclaimer and not verified the accuracy of any copies.
With the Index number (docket number) in hand, the plaintiff may initiate notification of the defendant via a summons. The summons essentially informs the defendant that he must respond within 20 days of being served the summons.
When the defendant receives a summons, he/she also receives:
a. a copy of the summons;
b. a copy of the complaint, along with any written documents filed with the complaint;
c. a copy of any other pleading filed at the time of the initial pleading in the case such as a notice of disqualification of the first assigned judge, a jury demand or a motion to vary the usual rules for some reason; and
d. a copy of the form for an answer
Proof of service:
Proof of service is the method by which the person serving process certifies to the court that process has been served. The form used for proof of service is called a return or Notice and Receipt of Summons and Complaint.
The original summons with proof of service shall be returned to the court.
Proof of service shall be made promptly to the court and, in any event, within the time during which the person served must respond to the service. Failure to make proof of service shall not affect the validity of service.
Proof of service shall be by certificate of an attorney of record or of the sheriff or a deputy sheriff, or if made by any other person, by affidavit of the person.
Clearly, this all seems pretty straight forward. It would be difficult to mess it up. You have a disagreement. You desire to resolve it, so you request an accredited institution to umpire the resolution of your disagreement. Once you acquire the accredited institutions concurrence, you notify the person your have the disagreement with to prepare to resolve the dispute. In order to expedite matters, the accredited institutions allows your opponent time to prepare his response to your concern. You opponent is allowed 20 days from the time that he is notified. That is it.
For this complaint to acquire a document number, the parties and their location needed to be identified. That is it. Clearly, Page 1 contains some of that information. The plaintiffs and defendants are identified in the block to the left of the County Clerk's stamp. Page 2 contains the general location (Alabama, Mississippi and Aruba) of the parties. That is it.
Let us focus in on the critical steps on the initiation of the complaint. For this complaint to commence, the first issue of concern is the acquisition of an Index number. The procedure in general has been explained above. However, a filing fee needs to be paid to the county clerk of $210.00.
Filing a complaint essentially consist of acquiring an Index number with a subsequent serving of the defendants. On Page 1, the plaintiffs are identified as Beth Twitty and Dave Holloway; however, they did not acquire the Index number. the Index number was acquired, as best I can decipher, by the law firm of Chadbourne & Parke LLP. And, Pages 14 &15 indicate the desire of Beth Twitty and Dave Holloway to resolve the complaint as submitted by the law firms of The John Q Kelly Goup P. C. and Chadbourne & Parke LLP. Interestingly, Beth Twitty and Dave Holloway averred allegations in the complaint on Pages 66, 72, 76 & 80.
What I am getting at here is the plaintiffs who submitted the complaint did so via their legal representative. If they had not used their legal representatives, then they could not have submitted the complaint and acquired the index number.
Are Beth Twitty and Dave Holloway both represented by these law firms? Did these law firms, in some manner, acquire the permission of Beth Twitty and Dave Holloway to file this complaint?
To date, only Beth Twitty has been identified as being legally represented by John Q. Kelly. Presumably, we can make the association that the John Q. Kelly Group P. C. represents Beth Twitty. There has been no such representation for Chadbourne & Parke LLP. On the hand, Dave Holloway does not appear to have any representation from John Q. Kelly nor Chadbourne & Parke LLP. This begs the question as to whom represented Dave Holloway in the acquisition of this index number? If no one did, then Dave Holloway had to have been present in New York at the NYCC desk at the time the index number was issued, and he would have had to sign as submitting the complaint. His signature does not appear on the complaint.
I believe that it is safe to conclude that complaint 102254/2006 was filed without the authority of one of the plaintiffs: Dave Holloway. If this is true, then the law firms of The John Q. Kelly Group P. C. and Chadbourne & Parke LLP have entered inaccurate information in the complaint. Without Dave Holloway's signature affixed to the complaint or some power of attorney allowing the law firms to proceed with this complaint, it seems clear that the law firms were deceptive when they acquired the index number.
In support of the foregoing, Mia Martinez of Birmingham, AL, when interviewed by one of the cable news networks, revealed that Dave Holloway denied to her any knowledge of the law suit or the service of a lawsuit. That revelation makes the statement in the complaint that Dave Holloway contended some 89 allegations on pages 66, 72, 76 & 80 rather specious. Furthermore, Beth Twitty stated on Fox News that she had given John Q. Kelly the green light to proceed with a lawsuit of which she had not sighted, simply because she trusted John Q. Kelly 1000%. Clealry, Beth Twitty has never seen the allegations for which the law firms, acquiring the index number, attributed to her. However, it could be argued that since John Q. Kelly acquired some attorney-client relationship with Beth Twitty that he could act in her steed and file a complaint.
Whatever the case may be, the acquisition of the index number becomes suspicious. A cloud begins to form as to whether or not the plaintiffs truly intended to file this complaint. Clearly, in order for the complaint to be attributed to the plaintiffs so identified in the complaint, both plaintiffs had to agree to the complaint ... and more specifically to the plethora of allegations attributed to them.
Is this important?
Of course, it is! If the plaintiffs did know of the complaint or its contents, then the argument surfaces that the index number was improperly obtained. The index number is tainted, at best. If the index number is tainted, then the subsequent service of the summons is void. All subsequent actions to the summons are likewise dissolved.
Naturally, this must be adjudicated via a motion to dismiss for improper service. And, I suspect, it will occur during discovery in which Dave Holloway will be deposed to explain his complicity (if any) in the complaint filed on 16 February 2006. Also, the cable news airing of Mia Martinez, Beth Twitty and John Q. Kelly will be subpoena-ed as supporting documentation.
Without an Index number, there exists no lawsuit ... and the service of the summons is void.
...until tomorrow when we continue to appraise John Q. Kelly's masterpiece...
Rita Crosby of MSNBC News interviewed Julia Renfro, Beth Twitty, Do Dietl, Clint van Zandt, Tim Miller and Larry Garruison. Julia explained the tip that was received by Police Chief Dompig last month. For whatever reason, the tip is now being considered credible, and some Dutch assistance is forthcoming to search the 8-football-field-size sand dunes are around the lighthouse.
Beth Twitty discounts the new tip until her lawyer John Q. Kelly ascertains it. Bo Dietl agrees with Beth. He feels the suspect served in New York City is the prime concern in this case. Bo claims that Joran was on the FBI watch list. He states that Joran crumpled up the complaint and tossed it away. Bo continued to follow Joran and tried to talk to him into a confession. Actually, it reads more like harassment then friendly conversation. Beth feels the Van der Sloots were taunting her by coming to New York City.
Clint van Zandt explores the idea of dehumanizing the victim, as a psychological escape for Joran. Clint seems puzzled by the new tip from someone out of country, speaking in the local language and with remorse.
Tim Miller came on to state that Police Chief Dompig absolutely refused to allow Miller onto the sand dunes.
Larry Garrison said he spoke with Dave Holloway, and they feel that the tip in Aruba is old news. He feels the ABC News airing on Thursday is just another spin against the family. On Joran's issue, Larry felt that he was trying to tell both sides of the story. He is on a gag order about the ABC News promotion. Larry says the Van der Sloots met with an attorney in New York City.
Greta interviewed Bo Dietl, a former homicide detective, who served Joran just outside US Customs inside the airport terminal. He admitted to pushing someone assigned to protect Joran. No blows or scuffle occurred between Dietl and Joran.
Dielt is the one with the FBI watch list story about why Joran was detained for two hours in US Customs. Dietl admits having a conversation with Joran... and clearly it was taunting and confrontational. He boasted about asking Joran about something he did to Natalee. Clearly, Bo was using his position as a server in order to entice Joran into a crime of preventing service. Bo statements convict him of organizing a setup in order to entrap Joran. Most importantly, Bo admits to having contacts in the Airport and US Customs ... that he utilized that day!
John Kelly claims the new lead in Aruba is just nonsense. John says Karin Janssen congratulated him on the civil lawsuit. He feels the new lead is cruel and misleading to the family. It is shameful, he says.
Greta discounts that Karen Janssen congratulate John. She discounts the FBI watch list story, as well. Clearly, Greta suspect that John Q. and Bo Dietl are lying. So, do I!
Greta calls her council Jeff Brown, Jim Hammer and Gloria Allred. Jeff and Gloria say the case will be tossed. Gloria maintains lack of subject matter jurisdiction ... my conclusion to the letter! Greta retorts with her academic, bow-tie professor at Emory University claiming that New York has both personal and subject matter jurisdiction, but lacks forum of convenience. Clearly, there are two comments about the Professor Bow-tie Bob: 1) he needs to leave his ivory tower and enter the real world, and 2) the fruits of his work speak volumes about his credibility. Jim Hammer was neutral.
Jeff states Joran could be on an FBI watch list, if they desired to talk to him. The fact that the FBI did not talk to Joran speaks volume about the two hour delay reported by Bo Dietl. Jeff feels the FBI should be investigated for letting Joran pass, if in the event he was on a watch list. Homeland Security failed as well!
Jeff feels that if John Q. Kelly fails in this lawsuit, it will convey the impression that the Van der Sloots are untouchable.
Greta announced that John Q. Kelly claims to have all the information that he needs to try the case in New York ... he does not need any discovery from Aruba. On the surface, to me, either John Q. Kelly is out of touch with reality or he fails to understand the litigation process. He could not be privy to any information kept sealed by the Aruban authorities. And, as long as the case is ongoing in Aruba, he cannot subpoena it. Witnesses? Every witness needs to be deposed in order to support any statements that he has amassed. John Q. is not a good poker player!
With Aloha, Posted for HarryTho
Posted by Richard at February 21, 2006 9:47 PM
Articles Related to Natalee Holloway:
- HarryTho 2/21 Natalee Holloway Commentary - Feb 21, 2006