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

« Coffee-Gene Interaction Raises Heart Attack Risk | Main | Muslims ask French to cancel 1741 play by Voltaire »

March 8, 2006

HarryTho 3/8 Natalee Holloway Commentary

Topics: Natalee Holloway

We blaze ahead this evening with Joe Tacopina's Motion to Dismiss. This document is far more professionally prepared than the commencement document 102254/2006 (link provided by one of our posters!). We get into some real legal work.

The filing consists of three documents and two attachments. The two attachments are the summons served upon the van der Sloots and the complaint 102254/2006. The three documents essentially ask that the response of the defendants (van der Sloots) be postponed until after the motion to dismiss is heard.

The first document is entitled: Affirmation of Emergency. This is the document that requests additional time in order for the van der Sloots to respond. Joe Tacopina request immediate processing, since the date of response (8 March 2006) is upon the defendants.

The Roman words in paragraph 4: inter alia, translate into English as "among other things."

The second document is entitled: Order to Show Cause & Oral Arguments Requested. This document is the one that requests that the plaintiffs show cause that this case should proceed or be dismissed. In this document, Joe Tacopina re-states the request for more time in order to challenge the jurisdiction of the court and, if necessary, answer the complaint.

If this Order to Show cause is approved, then the time extension is approved.

From one of our posters:

"TWITTY, ELIZABETH ANN
v.
VAN DER SLOOT, JORAN
SUPREME COURT
NEW YORK COUNTY
Index Number: 102254/2006
Case Status: ACTIVE

By MOTION, originally made returnable on March 8, 2006, A PARTY MOVED THIS COURT, in IAS MOTION 12, seeking the following relief: EXTEND TIME. This motion is currently pending before the court and is assigned to Judge KAPNICK, BARBARA.

The most recent appearance on this motion was on March 8, 2006 before Judge KAPNICK, BARBARA in IAS MOTION 12, at which time the motion was marked as follows: ADJOURNED; 2:15PM.

Complete Motion Appearance Activity:
On May 17, 2006, an appearance is scheduled on this motion before Judge KAPNICK, BARBARA in IAS MOTION 12. The following additional comments exist: 2:15PM.

On March 8, 2006, an appearance was held on this motion before Judge KAPNICK, BARBARA in IAS MOTION 12. The clerk marked the motion ADJOURNED with the following additional comments: 2:15PM."

... the Order to Show cause was scheduled for 17 May 2006, staying the defendants' response time until at least 18 May 2006 ... a full two months form now.

At this appearance on 17 May 2006, the plaintiffs have to prove to the court that they have sufficient cause to proceed. If they do not, the case will be dismissed.

The next document is entitled: Affirmation in Support. In this document, Joe Tacopina lays out his reasons why the case should be dismissed for lack of any nexus and that Aruban Law should apply.

The word: nexus, is Roman and refers a binding connection or contract.

In this instance, Joe Tacopina is stating that the state of New York and this court have no binding connection (nexus) whatsoever with the parties or the cause for action. Joe emphasizes that case law has shown that the state of " ... New York will not entertain cases without substantial nexus within the state." This case has no nexus at all. He concludes that with no nexus, the case should be dismissed.

Continuing with his Affirmation of Support, Joe Tacopina commences his argument that the Motion to Dismiss for inconvenient forum assumes a threshold matter status in that, without a decision on the convenience, the case should not proceed. Here Joe visits the cause for action that has yet to be determined in Aruba. Specifically, we do not know of the status of Natalee Holloway. We do not know, if, in fact, Natalee Holloway has been harmed, as the plaintiffs contend. In a sense, there exists many questions of law in the plaintiffs' complaint that have yet to be determined in a foreign territory.

In strengthening his argument, Joe cited Islamic Republic of Iran vs Pahlavi 62 N.Y. 2d (New York's leading case on inconvenient forum). Joe cites his reasons: 1) cause for action in a foreign country, 2) burden for court, 3) potential burden for defendant, 4) parties are non-residents, and 5) alternate forum of Aruba. It is stressed that each and every factor favors dismissal of the complaint.

Joe closes with a request for the court to dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety.

With Aloha,
Posted for HarryTho

Posted by Richard at March 8, 2006 9:16 PM



Articles Related to Natalee Holloway: