« Marks - Chapter 15 | Main | - Qrush don't have experience! »
August 13, 2004
Motion to Dismiss
By QBlog in
After publishing and discussing the lawsuit filed by Team of Destiny against Scott Larsen I learned the definition of a "Motion to Dismiss."
See, I'm not a lawyer and since PACER charges seven cents (not a lot but it can add up quickly) for each downloaded page I only wanted to pay for relevant information. Stuff like "VFM Fee Received" or "Proof of Service" didn't interest me because that seemed like routine legal crap. And so I skipped the "Motion to Dismiss," thinking it was just more routine legal crap. What I now understand is that the "Motion to Dismiss" is sort of like the defendant's version of the case.
» Download your copy of the Motion to Dismiss (pdf)
I must warn you, the Motion to Dismiss (while brief) is not a "page-turner." It's filled with legalese that is somewhat difficult for a person like me to read. However, there is one point made in the MOD that I found especially intriguing. Apparently the Team of Destiny has not denied the veracity of any of Scott Larsen's claims.
TOD has not asserted a libel claim or made any claim for damages because of false statements by Larsen.Is this omission because Larsen speaks the truth? Or is it due to some stealth-ninja lawyer tactics? Ninja Lawyer Death Squad ACTIVATE!
;0)
Comments
It's a good thing Scott is fighting back against these people. Maybe they will learn their money won't always protect them. After this court case, I wonder if some legislative body will finally i
investigate all these AMO scams
Traamp
I think TOD's case is just not valid. maybe they thought it would save court (and lawyer) time to just bring these two issues to light because it would be harder to prove libel (legally, as opposed to it just being libel), than it would be to prove a copyright or wiretap infraction.
by reading the motion to dismiss, i would dismiss the case unless further evidence was provided by TOD. They might have to bring up the libel issue if they want to continue. (if they even can prove libel).
Agreed, maiki. This suit is purely intimidation, in the Scientology Mode. I hope Scott, once victorious, sues back for malicious prosecution.
I doubt we will see further evidence from TOD. Because what we need to see next is evidence that Scott is lying and/or distorting what is being said and done by TOD and its leaders. And if TOD brings forth any new information, it will allow for Scott and his lawyer(s) to verify TOD's claims. At this point, Scott could probably ask for TOD and their leader's books and could potentially enter them into court record, potentially making them public record! This is why I truly doubt TOD will present any real, hard evidence, and if they continue, it will be more smoke, mirrors and intimidation.
FYI: Larsen has requested specific numbers from TOD to see their damages and they're refusing to provide them until he signs NDA or a protective order or something to keep those numbers a secret. It's on PACER.
I misspoke in my FYI comment.
I went back and read the PACER court documents and what I found mentioned a Protective Order but it dealt with the TOD Web site, not a request for info from Larsen.
"Plaintiff will produce an entire printout of its website to Defendant as soon as Defendant agrees to a protective order. Based on Defendant's past conduct, any information that he obtained about Plaintiff, he distributed throughout the country and world via his websites. Plaintiff, therefore, wants to insure that producing its website information to Defendant will not result in Defendant or Defendant's acquaintances posting it on various websites."
That's from the Amended Complaint and my memory was faulty in recalling the details of that specific paragraph.
Also, there was this from the Plaintiff's Brief in Opposition to MOD:
"Plaintiff believes, based on Defendant's own words, that Defendant desires for Plaintiff to allege separate tort counts so that he can expand the scope of his discovery and obtain financial information about Plaintiff to place on his website, much like he has already done with Orrin Woodward's mortgage information. Indeed, Plaintiff believes that Defendant has been goading Plaintiff into suing him for some time so that he can use the discovery process to obtain personal and financial information about Team of Destiny and its agents that he would not be able to obtain in any other manner. Plaintiff, for the reasons set forth below, does not believe Defendant's argument has merit; however, in the event the Court believes Plaintiff's tort allegations should be pleaded separately, Plaintiff would request permission from the Court to amend its complaint in order to do so."
So, my mistake. Sorry for any confusion. I was in a hurry when I posted that comment but I probably should have qualified it by saying, "if my memory serves me right" or something.
Interesting piece of lawyering if you will. If I'm reading it correct, TOD lawyers are claiming that Scott Larson is "goading" Woodward and TOD into suing Scott in order to look at the TOD financials and because of this, Scott should not benefit from his "goading" and should not see the financials! Sorry, but this is a little ridiculous to me. The whole point of Scott's web-site, long before Orrin and TOD came around, was to show that Amway/Quixtar is a scam. Scott has often asked for numbers before, and rarely received them, and while absence of proof isn't irrefutable proof, all Quixtar or TOD would have to do to prove libel is release their numbers if the numbers told a different story then Scott.
Basically, Orrin and TOD are trying to have their cake and eat it too. Sorry, but the US judicial system doesn't work this way, and I believe any judge, who is only interested in truth and facts, would want to see the books so he and/or a jury could be able to judge the merits of Scott's arguments.
Thanks for the link to the rebuttal.
Like I said before, I learn something every time I link here...
Posted by: Doug | August 14, 2004 6:19 AM