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

« The truth about Hamas - and its followers | Main | More on the Killing of Andrea Clark »

April 25, 2006

HarryTho 4/25 Natalee Holloway Commentary

Topics: Natalee Holloway

This evening, I will address Joe Tacopina's response to Kelly response to the motion to dismiss lawsuit 102254/2006.

Essentially, Tacopina responds to all of Kelly's comments. The main thrust targets a misapplied case: Schulz vs Boy Scouts of America, Inc. (hereinafter "Schultz") in which the plaintiffs contended would allow New York state to be convenient. The reference involves dual jurisdictions between New Jersey and New York state where rights of action took place. And, New Jersey had enacted some special provisions, limiting claims against charitable organizations. The plaintiffs argued that because of this restriction on damages, New York was a better forum. Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, the most significant rights of action took place in New Jersey. Accordingly, New Jersey was slated to be the correct forum.

Somehow, John Q. Kelly and his legal staff interpreted the case law (Schulz) to infer that since the plaintiffs came from Alabama and Mississippi, that they would be better represented in New York then Aruba. Like the plaintiffs in Schulz, they felt Aruba had similar restriction on damages. As Joe Tacopina writes, it was a "wide" reading of the case law. Joe reminds the court that none of the parties reside in New York and no rights action occurred in New York. Although one right of action under Alabama law could be construed to fall within the case law ... with a stretch of the imagination ... the fact, granting the argument of imagination, that three or the four rights of action occurred in Aruba, Aruba is the correct forum.

Second, the issue of rogatory letters arose. The plaintiffs felt that the case could be handled via the Hague with rogatory letters. (A rogatory letter is one sent by one court in one jurisdiction requesting another court's assistance in another jurisdiction: i.e., New York and Aruba) . Joe Tacopina counters with the fact that a rogatory letter cannot compel witnesses to appear. He points out how many witnesses would be needed to defend the claims of the plaintiffs. Joe states that witnesses "in person" are preferred to depositions and cites New York state law. Also, he has some problem with an old friend of ours ... third parties. In civil matters, a case can be dismissed, if all affected parties are not included. Joe lists third parties that have not been implead. A rogatory letter will be unable to implead these parties.

Third, the plaintiffs alleged that there was no pre-trial discovery in Aruba. Joe provides exhibits disclaiming any such notion. Apparently, this claim was bogus.

Fourth, with respect to danger in Aruba, John Q. Kelly resorted to worldwide references to terrorists and mafia gangsters running amok killing witnesses. He needs to turn off his late night TV. Joe points out with references that Aruba is the safest location on the planet.

Fifth, I will just write that all Beth Twitty's fears were a farce.

Sixth, Joe makes quick work of the Kelly's affidavits as persons of no value to the trial. Some witnesses, like West Point Cadet Brian Riser, made inconsistent statements to the FBI on 27 June 2005 and in his affidavit of 6 April 2006. This will be an honor code violation and should get him at least reprimanded at West Point, if not expelled.

Seventh, Joe points out that notwithstanding the plaintiffs response to the motion to dismiss, they established standing for a civil case in Aruba a long time ago when they requested 50,000 florins in damages, if Joran was determined to be guilty or convicted. In sense, the argument for convenience in New York state is moot.

Eighth, Joe includes an affidavit from Aruban attorney Helen LaJuez' Jane Doe. To be polite, it differs significantly from what Helen LaJuez swore under of penalties of perjury to be true and correct.

In conclusion, Joe Tacopina's response classifies John Q. Kelly's response to the motion to dismiss 102254/2006 as an exercise in fabrication and creative writing.

With Aloha,

Posted by HarryTho at April 25, 2006 11:21 PM



Articles Related to Natalee Holloway: