Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jul 25, 2014 18:25:09 GMT -6
Motion granted.
|
|
|
Post by Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. on Jul 25, 2014 19:10:09 GMT -6
Your honor, I am going out of town this weekend and request two weeks to prepare my response.
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jul 26, 2014 17:35:28 GMT -6
Granted.
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Sept 1, 2014 12:21:08 GMT -6
Your honor, I am going out of town this weekend and request two weeks to prepare my response. I have been rather overgenerous in the response time on this - are you ready to present a response at this point?
|
|
|
Post by Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. on Sept 2, 2014 14:29:58 GMT -6
My apologies for the delay. My amended complaint (see section 5 for an expanded analysis) is attached. Davinescu Amended.docx (26.53 KB)
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Sept 17, 2014 11:22:41 GMT -6
The Cort receives the amended brief, noting its decision about the charges against S:reu Tresplet (ie, that they have been dismissed). Would the defence like leave to reply?
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Sept 20, 2014 13:36:09 GMT -6
The Cort receives the amended brief, noting its decision about the charges against S:reu Tresplet (ie, that they have been dismissed). Would the defence like leave to reply? Your Honour, The defence respectfully submits that Plaintiff has failed to comply with the court's order of 25 July to provide a more definite statement of the allegations in the complaint. In granting the defence's Motion to Make More Definite and Certain of that date, the court ordered Plaintiff to: 1. Clarify whether the complaint is based on the tort of defamation or whether Plaintiff maintains that the complaint sets forth a cause of action based on any other theory; and 2. State with particularity the statements allegedly made by Defendant that Plaintiff believes to be defamatory, as well as when, where, and in what manner they were made. The defence made this motion because "the complaint as currently framed is too vague to provide Defendant a reasonable opportunity to respond," and therefore Plaintiff should be required to "state his legal theory and/or theories more definitively in the interest of judicial economy and avoiding unfair surprise to Defendant." Plaintiff's amended complaint appears to be identical to its original complaint, save for the addition of a new section 5, titled “Legal Analysis”. As regards point 1 of the court's 25 July order, the new section of the complaint identifies a new false light claim, but continues to avoid the main question of whether plaintiff is alleging defamation. The new section contains no clear mention of a defamation cause of action, but for the first time provides citations to legal authority in support of the complaint, and both cases cited are defamation cases. Thus, the addition of section 5 leaves the complaint no more "definite and certain" with respect to point 1 of the order than it was to begin with. As regards point 2 of the court's order, the defence noted that: The new section 5 of the complaint does nothing to identify with particularity the statements made by the Defendant (including when, where, and in what manner they were made) on which Plaintiff's action is based. Section 5 contains three statements in quotation marks (“cabinet minister”, “Member of the Cosa”, and “abusive”), but these do not appear to be actual quotes of anything actually said or written by Defendant, with the exception of “Member of the Cosa” (which is a direct quote from a 2 March Wittenberg post of Defendant cited at page 2 of the complaint). But “Member of the Cosa” is a statement about Defendant himself, not about Plaintiff. If anything, the amended complaint is less clear regarding the statements challenged by Plaintiff than was the original complaint. The defence's position, as stated in its motion of 25 July, is that the complaint is “too vague to provide Defendant a meaningful opportunity to respond,” and must be made more definite and certain for the case to proceed. The court agreed in granting the defence's motion and ordering Plaintiff to provide a more definite statement of its case. Plaintiff has failed to meaningfully do so. “An unresponsive response is no response”, and Plaintiff should be “defaulted for refusing to respond to the motion”. See Kirksey v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co., 168 F. 3d 1039 (7th Cir. 1999). By failing to respond, plaintiff “has waived his opportunity to oppose the motion”. See Perkins v. Wisconsin Laborers Health Fund, Case No. 11-CV-846-JPS (Eastern District of Wisconsin, 20 Dec. 2011) (which also cites Kirksey, supra). Because the court's order for a more definite statement is based on the premise that the case cannot proceed without clarification of Plaintiff's allegations, and Plaintiff has failed to comply with the court's order, the defense respectfully requests that default judgment be issued in favour of Defendant. The defence also respectfully requests that the court admonish Plaintiff to refrain from restating its allegations against S:reu Tresplet, who is no longer a party to this case, in future filings or argument (at least without acknowledging that those allegations have been dismissed).
|
|
|
Post by Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. on Sept 21, 2014 12:51:49 GMT -6
Your honor, we have presented statements which, to date, appear undisputed by the defendant. We allege that these statements were made purposely in an attempt to portray me in a false light. That the defendant wishes to, rather than defend himself, insist that he simply hasn't the foggiest idea what I am upset about should not detract the court from the matter at hand. The defense is merely attempting to Americanize our judicial system by employing delay tactics rather than answering to the offense.
Further, we object to defense's motion to admonish on the basis of "restating" allegations against S:reu Tresplet. We amended the original complaint to contain more legal theory to clarify, for the defendant's benefit, to enable him to respond to the damages alleged. Again, counselor appears to be simply attempting to force all filings in these courts to follow the US standard, despite Talossan law lacking such requirements.
We again assert that we have clearly laid out the damages we allege as well as the events leading to these damages. We ask that the defendant either present a defense or admit his culpability.
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Sept 24, 2014 9:49:22 GMT -6
The proceeding is a false-light tort as per Amended Complaint 5.1. I know of no precedent in Wisconsin ruling against false-light cases (and would be happy to order the plaintiff to rewrite the complaint as a defamation case if such a one was discovered). The plaintiff alleges that public statements made by S:reu Davinescu presented him in a false light; his argument would seem to suggest that the statements were *also* defamatory (ie false), but the plaintiff is permitted to pursue the charges he wants. It seems to the Cort that the evidence presented (in Amended Complaint 1) is evidently intended as the basis of the case, and is sufficient to proceed.
To clarify this Cort's understanding of the proceeding in front of it: The specific allegations relate to plaintiff being accused of abusing his power as Attorney General in privately abusing then-MC Davinescu, most significantly in Beric'ht Talossa, despite the defendant's (alleged) full knowledge of the fact that plaintiff had resigned as Attorney General by the time of the private conversation. The false-light allegedly cast was such as to make plaintiff appear to have abused public office to bully a truth-seeking MC.
The case will proceed. Could the defence inform the Cort as to a likely timetable for response to the charges themselves?
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Sept 30, 2014 11:00:38 GMT -6
Your Honour,
My apologies for not responding to the court's request before now. This month is my busiest time of year, professionally. The defence intends to file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. I have a filing due in a non-Talossan forum on Friday afternoon, but hope to file the motion to dismiss in this case sometime this weekend.
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Oct 1, 2014 8:40:12 GMT -6
Let's give a deadline of the 8th instant, then.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Oct 8, 2014 17:25:32 GMT -6
Begging the court's indulgence once again, a combination of professional and personal issues has prevented me from devoting more than a negligible amount of time to Talossan affairs since my last post in this thread. I respectfully request that the court allow the defence until Saturday, 18 October to file a motion to dismiss.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Oct 19, 2014 7:15:03 GMT -6
Your Honour, the defence again respectfully moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, for the reasons identified in the attached motion.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Case 14-04
Nov 12, 2014 18:18:07 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Nov 12, 2014 18:18:07 GMT -6
Judge Owen Edwards, I hope you are getting settled in your new home and have regular Internet access again. Can we expect proceedings in this case to resume in the near future?
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Nov 14, 2014 13:11:55 GMT -6
Yes - we had Internet put in a couple of days ago, so I'll be able to get this moving very soon. Thankyou for your indulgence.
|
|