When the lawyers get involved ... (4)
From defendant's brief, addressing plaintiff's interference with prospective business advantage cause of action in Rather v. Rove (2005):
... Plaintiff in essence accuses defendant of so manipulating plaintiff that plaintiff is not responsible for his own actions. The thrust of plaintiff's accusation is that defendant somehow arranged for Mr. Burkett, an individual fiercely hostile to defendant and to defendant's employer: (1) to supply forged documents to plaintiff; (2) without either Burkett or plaintiff realizing that Burkett had done so at defendant's instigation; and (3) without either Burkett or plaintiff ever having had any contact, either direct or indirect, with defendant.
Defendant requests that the court take particular note of the similarities between the instant cause and the fact situation the U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh resolved in United States ex rel. Mayo v. Satan and his Staff, 54 F.R.D. 282 (W.D. Pa.), 1971. In Mayo, plaintiff asserted that "Satan has on numerous occasions caused plaintiff misery and unwarranted threats, against the will of plaintiff, that Satan has placed deliberate obstacles in his path and has caused plaintiff's downfall." (at 283)
That court dismissed Mayo's claim: "We question whether plaintiff may obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant in this judicial district. The complaint contains no allegation of residence in this district. While the official reports disclose no case where this defendant has appeared as defendant there is an unofficial account of a trial in New Hampshire where this defendant filed an action of mortgage foreclosure as plaintiff. The defendant in that action was represented by the preeminent advocate of that day, and raised the defense that the plaintiff was a foreign prince without standing to sue in an American Court. This defense was overcome by overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Whether or not this would raise an estoppel in the present case we are unable to determine at this time. ...
"We note that the plaintiff has failed to include with his complaint the required form of instructions for the United States Marshal for directions as to service of process." (at 283)
The Mayo decision asserts that a federal court is not the appropriate venue for determining disputes grounded in blind faith, paranoia, and Manichean theory, but supported by no evidence whatever ...
... Plaintiff in essence accuses defendant of so manipulating plaintiff that plaintiff is not responsible for his own actions. The thrust of plaintiff's accusation is that defendant somehow arranged for Mr. Burkett, an individual fiercely hostile to defendant and to defendant's employer: (1) to supply forged documents to plaintiff; (2) without either Burkett or plaintiff realizing that Burkett had done so at defendant's instigation; and (3) without either Burkett or plaintiff ever having had any contact, either direct or indirect, with defendant.
Defendant requests that the court take particular note of the similarities between the instant cause and the fact situation the U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh resolved in United States ex rel. Mayo v. Satan and his Staff, 54 F.R.D. 282 (W.D. Pa.), 1971. In Mayo, plaintiff asserted that "Satan has on numerous occasions caused plaintiff misery and unwarranted threats, against the will of plaintiff, that Satan has placed deliberate obstacles in his path and has caused plaintiff's downfall." (at 283)
That court dismissed Mayo's claim: "We question whether plaintiff may obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant in this judicial district. The complaint contains no allegation of residence in this district. While the official reports disclose no case where this defendant has appeared as defendant there is an unofficial account of a trial in New Hampshire where this defendant filed an action of mortgage foreclosure as plaintiff. The defendant in that action was represented by the preeminent advocate of that day, and raised the defense that the plaintiff was a foreign prince without standing to sue in an American Court. This defense was overcome by overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Whether or not this would raise an estoppel in the present case we are unable to determine at this time. ...
"We note that the plaintiff has failed to include with his complaint the required form of instructions for the United States Marshal for directions as to service of process." (at 283)
The Mayo decision asserts that a federal court is not the appropriate venue for determining disputes grounded in blind faith, paranoia, and Manichean theory, but supported by no evidence whatever ...
posted by S.Y. Silverstein at 9:17 AM
<< Home