March 5, 2006
HarryTho 3/5 Natalee Holloway CommentaryTopics: Natalee Holloway
This evening, I will explore the Cause for Action section of the lawsuit 102254/2006. It is important to reiterate that no substantive information was available in order to support any of these Causes for Action. The preceding novelette, though alluring to a cartoon or soap opera audience, was bankrupt of evidence and argumentation.
Page 11: As and For a First Cause of action (Against Joran van der Sloot for Injury to a Minor Child under Alabama Code 6-5-390 and at Common Law).
Alabama Legislative Information System Online
Section 6-5-391 Wrongful death of minor.
(a) When the death of a minor child is caused by the wrongful act, omission, or negligence of any person, persons, or corporation, or the servants or agents of either, the father, or the mother as specified in Section 6-5-390, or, if the father and mother are both dead or if they decline to commence the action, or fail to do so, within six months from the death of the minor, the personal representative of the minor may commence an action.
(b) An action under subsection (a) for the wrongful death of the minor shall be a bar to another action either under this section or under Section 6-5-410.
(c) Any damages recovered in an action under this section shall be distributed according to the laws of intestate succession, Article 3 (commencing with Section 43-8-40) of Chapter 8 of Title 43.
(Code 1876, §2899; Code 1886, §2588; Code 1896, §26; Code 1907, §2485; Code 1923, §5695; Code 1940, T. 7, §119; Acts 1995, No. 95-774, p. 1834, §1).
Allegation 66: Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-65 as if fully set forth herein.
This is an important statement in that, the plaintiffs make clear that they are alleging each and every statement made in 102254/2006 to this point. There can be no sanctuary from Allegations 1-65, after this statement is recorded. It is now upon the plaintiffs to support each and every allegation. Of most importance are Allegations 11, 12 & 13 in which the plaintiffs contend that Joran van der Sloot drugged and gang-raped three young Aruban women. Clearly, these allegations represents the keystone of the entire lawsuit 102254/2006.
Allegation 67: Plaintiffs are the biological parents of Natalee Holloway.
To best of my knowledge, this is a true statement
Allegation 68: Plaintiffs have the right to Natalee's services and affection, and have been deprived of such services and affection.
Since the case in Aruba remains open, this notion that the plaintiffs have been deprived of Natalee's services and affection is premature. The notion of a right to Natalee's services and affection, likewise, could argued otherwise.
Allegation 69: Defendant Joran van der Sloot willfully caused personal injury to Natalee Holloway as a result of his sexual assault upon her.
Plaintiffs have presented absolutely no evidence to support such a claim of personal injury much less that he sexually assaulted Natalee, or, for that matter, anyone else. Allegation 69 represents a leap beyond the wildest imagination of even individuals deranged by hallucinogens. I do not believe that an attorney, submitting such an allegation, could be excused as not knowing of its untruthfulness and/or malevolence. There has to be a benchmark for ridiculousness in the state of New York. If not, then I trust that the Supreme Court of the state of New York should be disenfranchised as an institution capable of any form of adjudication.
Allegation 70: Plaintiffs suffered damages as the normal and proximate result of injuries sustained by Natalee.
Plaintiffs have failed to show any injuries suffered by Natalee. The only injures identified in 102254/2006 emanate form the wild allegations contained within 102254/2006. I would contend that Allegation 69 creates more injuries than evidence provided by the plaintiffs.
Allegation 71: Defendant Joran van der Sloot is liable to plaintiffs under Alabama Code 6-5-390 and at Common Law.
Once again, we have the unfortunate opportunity to read another leap of imagination by the plaintiffs. If Alabama Code 6-5-390 is to be taken literally, then plaintiff Beth Twitty should be liable to plaintiff Dave Holloway for circumventing Alabama Code Section 28-5 (legal age for consumption of alcoholic beverages) and allowing her minor child, Natalee Holloway, to travel to Aruba into a alcoholic beverage paradise, unsupervised. If harm eventually came to Natalee Holloway in Aruba, then Beth Twitty clearly, via a willful departure form the guidance of the Mountain Brook Anti-Drug Coalition, took it upon herself to place her daughter in harm's way. This First Cause for Action is more aptly applied to Beth Twitty than to Joran van der Sloot.
Alabama Legislative Information System Online
Wrongful death of minor.
(a) When the death of a minor child is caused by the wrongful act, omission, or negligence of any person, persons, or corporation, or the servants or agents of either, the father, or the mother as specified in Section 6-5-390 ....
In reading Section 6-5-390, clearly Beth Twitty can be held liable to Dave Holloway for negligence of letting Natalee travel into an alcohol paradise unsupervised. As Section 6-5-390 indicates, if Natalee was considered a minor child, as 102254/2006 contend, then Beth Twitty neglected her parental duties in allowing Natalee Holloway to travel into harm's way by circumventing guidance for the Mountain Brook Anti-Drug Coalition and the codes enacted by the Alabama Legislature in order to protect her minor child from the dangers of alcohol prior to the age of 21.
As for a Second Cause for Action: Against Joran van der Sloot for False Imprisonment Under Alabama Code 6-5-170 and at Common Law.
False imprisonment consists in the unlawful detention of the person of another for any length of time whereby he is deprived of his personal liberty.
(Code 1907, §4238; Code 1923, §7967; Code 1940, T. 7, §962.)
Allegation 72: Plaintiffs repeat and allege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 71 as if fully set forth herein.
What holds true for my commentary on Allegation 66 applies to Allegation 72.
Allegation 73: Joran van der Sloot wrongfully, unlawfully and intentionally detained and directly restrained Natalee Holloway, deprived her of personal liberty through force and/or the threat of force.
Obviously, this allegation is entered in order to support the Second Cause for Action. Once again, there exists absolutely no evidence to suggests that Natalee was in any way detained by any of the suspects. This allegation ranks up there with the epitome of frivolousness. This allegation exceeds even the remote connotations of the ridiculous. This allegation severs any relationship with reality.
Page 12: Allegation 74: As a natural and proximate result of Joran van der Sloot's false imprisonment of Natalee, the plaintiffs have suffered damages.
This allegation could only have been concocted under some hallucinogenic trance. I would recommend drug testing of the plaintiffs and their attorneys. I fear that not even the most neurotic imagination could capture such ridiculousness.
Allegation 75: Defendant Joran van der Sloot is liable to plaintiffs under Alabama Code 6-5-170 and at common law.
Only on another planet, plagued with witchcraft with different dimensions with which to interpret reality, could such a conclusion be possible. I have to remind myself that attorneys, licensed to practice law in the state of New York and deemed meritorious enough to be entitled with Professional Company, submitted this conclusion. I can only surmise that the Court Clerk of the Supreme Court of the state of New York must be a vending-like machine that merely accepts some $260.00 and stamps the complaint document with an Index number. Unfortunately, the Index-number vending machine is not mounted on a commode wall in the Supreme Court of the state of New York. Had it been, the author of complaint 102254/2006 could have wiped his backside with it in order to add substance to his pleading. After all, after reading this complaint, the Supreme Court of the state of New York must only about ambiance.
As for the Third Cause for Action (Against Joran van der Sloot for Intentional and Malicious Interference with Custodial Relations)
Allegation 76: Plaintiffs repeat and allege each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1-75 as if fully set forth herein.
What holds true for my commentary to Allegation 66 holds true for Allegation 76.
Allegation 77: Plaintiffs have a right to the care, custody and services and companionship of Natalee.
Plaintiffs have a responsibility for Natalee, as well, that they intentionally neglected by circumventing Alabama Codes, designed to protect their minor, unsupervised child from the dangers of alcohol. Clearly, the plaintiffs were not good parents, at all. It could be argued that Natalee should have been taken into protective custody by the state of Alabama. Accordingly, the right claimed in this allegation could be argue as abused.
Allegation 78: Joran van der Sloot, with knowledge, or with reason to believe, that her parents would not consent, abducted Natalee Holloway and prevented her from returning to the custody of her parents, plaintiffs.
After reading this allegation, maybe the drug monitoring of the plaintiffs should be doubled in intensity. What nonsense! It seems clear from the declarations that Natalee would have consented to anything ... anything! We must remember that her parents circumvented the Alabama Codes on alcohol consumption by allowing Natalee to travel to Aruba. If her parents could be so reckless, one as to wonder just where they would draw the line?
Allegation 79: Plaintiffs have been injured as a natural and proximate result of Joran van der Sloot's intentional and malicious interference with their custodial relations.
Does this allegation mean that Joran should have taken the jelly shot out of Beth Twitty's navel? Should Joran had taken a rain check on the sexual interface with Natalee on the Marriott Beach and waited for Beth or Dave to provide him with sexual relief?
The custodial relationships referred to Allegation 79 seem rather bizarre considering what circumventions took place in order to allow Natalee to experience Joran's company. I suspect that this allegation will fall upon its own sword.
As for the Fourth Cause for Action (Against Paulus van der Sloot's for Injury to a Minor Child under Alabama Code 6-5-390 and at Common Law)
Allegation 80: Plaintiffs repeat and allege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 79 as if fully set forth herein.
What holds true for my commentary to Allegation 66 holds true for Allegation 80.
Page 13: Allegation 81: Defendant Paulus van der Sloot knew that his minor child, Joran van der Sloot, had a long history of sexual assaults on young women.
This allegation requires the proof of Allegations 11 and 12. Without any evidence to support Allegations 11 and 12, Allegation 81 is pure malicious thinking.
Allegation 82: Defendant Paulus van der Sloot knew his minor child, Joran van der Slot, engaged in underage drinking and gambling and that he would leave his house late at night.
Whether Paulus knew anything about Joran's underage drinking is a matter for the investigation and of the norms of the Aruban community. It seems that gambling is authorized on certain occasions for persons normally under the minimum entrance age for casinos. Whether this statement is true, partially true or false pales in comparison to task ahead for the plaintiffs to provide proof for Allegations 11, 12 and 13.
Allegation 83: Defendant Paulus van der Sloot created a permissive environment, utterly without boundaries, in which his minor child's proclivities were permitted to fester and be acted upon, unchecked.
Allegation 83 requires the support of Allegations 14, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23 and 24. To date, each of these allegations represent nothing more than evil gossip and malicious rumor. Allegation 83 lacks a foundation in any medium, except the imagination of psychics and other loonies.
Allegation 84: On May 29, 2005, Paulus knowingly facilitated his own son's predatory and tortious behavior toward Natalee Holloway.
With Allegations 11, 12 and 13 unfounded, this allegation begs for anything in support. There exists no evidence whatsoever that Joran was a predatory. The whereabouts of Natalee Holloway remains a mystery. Allegation 84 could be viewed simply as mindless drivel.
Allegation 85: Defendant Paulus van der Sloot owed a duty of care to all reasonably foreseable victims of his son's dangerous and violent proclivities.
Once again, without the firm support of Allegations 11, 12 and 13, this allegations is a waste of words and page space. Nonsense overwhelms this allegation.
Allegation 86: Natalee Holloway was a reasonably foreseable victim for Joran van der Sloots dangerous and violent proclivities.
Allegations such as this burden the art of critical thinking, because they reside entirely within the realm of the imagination ... a deranged imagination. Only someone under the influence of hallucinogens could navigate through this nonsense.
Allegation 87: Paulus van der Slot breached his duty to Natalee Holloway, and to the plaintiffs, by failing to take reasonable steps to prevent Joran van der Sloot from sexually assaulting Natalee Holloway.
Without any proof that Natalee Holloway was even sexually assaulted, this allegation departs the realm of sanity. As in my commentary to Allegation 86, we are in the world of the shamans and voodoo doctors, now.
Allegation 88: As a natural and proximate result of Paulus van der Sloot's negligence, plaintiffs have been injured.
Even a voodoo doctor would have difficulty with this kind of reasoning. Please refer to my commentary on Allegation 86.
Allegation 89: Defendant Paulus van der Sloot is liable to plaintiffs under Alabama Code 6-5-390 and at Common Law.
This conclusion would cause a voodoo doctor to experience a cardiac arrest. The spirit world ... even a deranged one ... could not recover from the effects of this line of thinking.
Page 14: WHEREFORE, Elizabeth Ann Twitty and Dave Edward Holloway respectfully demand judgment against the defendants in an amount to be determined at trail, plus interests, attorneys' fees and any and all other relief that this Court may deem just and proper. In addition, by virtue of the defendant Joran van der Sloot's malicious, wanton and willful disregard for rights, safety and well-being of the plaintiffs and their daughter, Natalee Holloway, plaintiffs demand punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
By virtue of this conclusion for remedy, it would appear that as a result of the willful disregard for the rules of evidence, maliciously unfounded allegations, shaman-like concoctions of the imagination and dime-store novelette appeal contained herein, this document 102254/2006 should be destroyed in order to protect the integrity of the Supreme Court of the state of New York, and the plaintiffs committed for an evaluation as to their ability to interpret our reality.
In response to the forthcoming claims from the van der Sloots against the Twitty-Holloway camp, Section 6-5-182 of the Alabama Code suffices:
Libel or slander - Burden of proof.
In an action for libel or slander, the plaintiff must prove, unless it shall be admitted by the defendant, the facts showing that the alleged defamatory matter was published or spoken of the plaintiff.
(Code 1923, §7357; Code 1940, T. 7, §910.)
In a counterclaim and/or a new action against the Twitty-Holloway camp, the plaintiffs will be the van der Sloots. In Alabama Code 6-5-182, all the van der Sloots have to do is to prove that the alleged defamatory matter was published. Index number 102254/2006 provides an enormous benefit to the van der Sloots. The very nature of the comments: kidnapped, drugged, gang-raped and murdered are sufficient unto themselves as to prove that the van der Sloots reputations were tarnished.
In defense, the Twitty-Holloway camp must prove that: 1) the statements are true, 2) the van der Sloots consented to the publication of the defamatory material, 3) the defamatory statements were published in a privileged medium or 4) the statements are considered fair comments.
Proving the statements are true is the best defense. Given that many of the defamatory statements were published in a lawsuit, the burden of proof seems to fall upon the statements being true.
I doubt that the van der Sloots consented to their names being so defamed, as kidnappers, gang-rapers and murderers.
Statements made during a judicial procedure have immunity against claims for libel or slander. I doubt that absence of malice applies here. Allegations in the lawsuit could come under the privilege sanctuary; however, many of these statements have aired on the cable news networks, long before they appeared in print within the lawsuit.
The last defense is fair comment. Fair comment usually refers to expressions made in the public's interest; however, they must be based upon facts. They cannot be baseless statements.
Accordingly, in either a counterclaim or a new complaint, the Twitty-Holloway camp would need to prove that Joran van der Sloot kidnapped, drugged, gang-raped (sexual assaulted) and murdered Natalee Holloway. To prove that someone else committed those crimes would not suffice. Joran van der Sloot has to have done them. Some of damages could be reduced by proving that others close to Joran van der Sloot committed the crimes. Retraction of the defamatory statements would likewise be beneficial. Without positive proof that Joran van der Sloot committed these crimes, the Twitty-Holloway camp will suffer as a result of their publications.
Posted for HarryTho
Posted by Richard at March 5, 2006 9:32 PM
Articles Related to Natalee Holloway:
- HarryTho 3/5 Natalee Holloway Commentary - Mar 05, 2006