Don Allen Holbrook LLC Sues Soapboxmom & Half of the Planet

[notorial dissent]

That, and it would seem, everything else that came Donny's way.

I wonder if he will amend his suit yet again because of this latest epic fail on his part? He's now, what 0 for all? I think?

[wserra]

My lovely answer will be filed on Friday. I will post it the second it is filed.

Looking forward to it.

[soapboxmom]

I just released my latest book, “The Art of the Deal Today,” which is based on my most popular speaking platform that has been in great demand since the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. You can purchase it on Amazon and Kindle.

Holbrook announced his new book on Sunday on his blogs. Hilariously, big wig in the International Economic Development Council that he claims he is, it landed with a big thud. Not one comment or congratulations. Holbrook is reduced to reviewing his own book.

His next title will no doubt be "The Art of Suing the Pants off of Everyone" or "Death by Media."

Soapboxmom

[Judge Roy Bean]

Does anyone have insight into how Hollbrook's enterprise sustains itself economically?

[notorial dissent]

From appearances, it would seem to have been basically a ponzi scheme using the money coming in from new and unknowing customers to convince the older ones that he was actually doing something for the money they'd already given him, when in fact the money had long since been spent and all they were getting at best was the same old recycled word processing documents and cute sketches. The problem seems to have come about when some of the new ones checked with some of the old ones and found out that they were still pretty much where they started, other than being light a good piece of change they'll never see back, that and that those nasty old reporters and bloggers started telling the truth about what he was doing and too many of the wrong people finally heard it, and that is when the gravy train started to come to a screeching halt.

[wserra]

My lovely answer will be filed on Friday. I will post it the second it is filed.

And . . . ?

No teasing, now, SBM. Next thing you know, you'll claim to be writing a book.

[soapboxmom]

My lovely answer will be filed on Friday. I will post it the second it is filed.

And . . . ?

No teasing, now, SBM. Next thing you know, you'll claim to be writing a book.

The Affidavit I wrote sure won't help in that regard. Boy, will that book be on the thin side. I wish the filing would show up on the docket already.

http://www.calfee.com/ArticleView.aspx?ArticleID=873

I think that is the case that got Holbrook's attorney all lathered up. Unfortunately, Holbrook is not a resident of Ohio. And, his business and reputation clearly are not centered in Ohio. His business only registered as a foreign corporation on April 25, 2012, which is one day after Huber Heights filed suit. So, any allegedly tortious acts happened before he had any real presence in that state. And, as the city gave him the heave-ho on March 14, 2012 those statements Holbrook imagines must predate that. Holbrook has rambled endlessly about defamatory statements (which are in fact truthful and opinions), but he doesn't seem to grasp those statements he is referring to are centered around the defunct Earthquest Institute, stalled Earthquest theme park project and a proposed project in Pahrump, Nevada. So, the statements Holbrook has been melting about are not targeting Ohio or about his business there in any way.

None of those Holbrook sued could have had any intent or reasonable expectation of injuring anyone in Ohio by discussing matters of public concern related to their states of residence, which are Texas and Nevada. My comments are on the site I admin for, the Pahrump Valley Times and numerous sites devoted specifically to the area local to Earthquest. I wonder how many Ohioans regularly read the Kingwood Underground, The Roman Forest Online Message Board, or the Houston Dino Park forum? I actually lived just outside Houston for a while and love the area.

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?pa ... SizeDisp=7

Civ.R. 14(A) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 14(a) are, in relevant part, identical. "The primary purpose of any procedure authorizing the impleader of third parties is to promote judicial efficiency by eliminating `circuity of actions.'" 6 Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure (1990), Section 1442, at 289. Civ.R. 14(A), like Fed.R.Civ.P. 14(a), "is intended to provide a mechanism for disposing of multiple claims arising from a single set of facts in one action expeditiously and economically." Wright, Miller & Kane, supra, at 291. It cannot, however, be used to combine all claims tangentially related to one another:
"mpleader is available only against persons who are or may be liable to defendant for part or all of plaintiff's claim; it cannot be used as a way of combining all controversies having a common relationship in one action." Wright, Miller & Kane, supra, at 295.
In order for a claim to be appropriately brought pursuant to Civ.R. 14(A), it must be "derivative of the outcome of the main claim." United States v. Joe Grasso & Son, Inc. (C.A.5, 1967), 380 F.2d 749, 751. The third-party defendant must be "secondarily liable" or "liable over." Id. "t is clear that impleader under Rule 14 requires that the liability of the third party be dependent upon the outcome of the main claim." Id. at 751-752.

In Southeast Mortgage Co. v. Mullins (C.A.5, 1975), 514 F.2d 747, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed a number of cases in which courts had found an attempt to bring a third-party claim inappropriate. The court noted that the common element in those cases was that the right or duty the defendant was attempting to enforce through the third-party claim was not dependent for its existence on the outcome of the main claim in the case:
"The common thread running through these cases * * * is that the right or duty alleged to have been violated in the third-party complaint does not emanate from the main claim but exists wholly independent of it. In each, the nexus with the principal action is not that it establishes the right to relief, but merely the need for relief." Id. at 750.
[ 91 Ohio App.3d 221 ]

In order to be the proper subject of a third-party action, the alleged right of the defendant to recover, or the duty allegedly breached by the third-party defendant, must arise from the plaintiff's successful prosecution of the main action against defendant.

wserra called it brillliantly on the issues.

The attorneys for the Pahrump Valley Times, Andrew Reitz J and Robert Barlett, are experienced litigators from a firm that is has an excellent reputation. They are now representing Craig Malisow and The Houston Press as well. All of their answers will be due on or before August 31, 2012 by agreement. I think that is hilarious. Why bother answering a case that may well fall apart or be stricken well before then. With all the answers and responses going in, the judge could rule in favor of the Motion to Strike the Third-party complaint and that will end this ridiculous circus show.

Soapboxmom

[soapboxmom]

Holbrook's goofy attorney is going up against the top litigators for business, defamation and First Amendment issues in the country. These are the folks representing Craig Malisow, The Houston Press and The Pahrump Valley Times:

http://www.ficlaw.com/practice/practice.html

http://www.ficlaw.com/site/peopleframe1.html

http://www.ficlaw.com/people/attorneys/reitz.html

http://www.ficlaw.com/recruiting/recruiting.html

Soapboxmom

[notorial dissent]

Somehow, I don't foresee any better success for her than any of Holbrook's other groundbreaking enterprises have had.

[wserra]

SBM - Did you serve your answer?

[soapboxmom]

The answer is beautiful:

http://www.realscam.com/f11/don-allen-h ... #post24972

Exhibit A is the first 14 posts on this thread:

http://www.realscam.com/f11/don-allen-h ... mber-1240/

Soapboxmom

[wserra]

Professionally done.

I am very curious as to what Holbrook's lawyer will say in response. Please link to it when it arrives. Prediction:

Bluster.
Bluster.
Bluster.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Professionally done.

I am very curious as to what Holbrook's lawyer will say in response. Please link to it when it arrives. Prediction:

Bluster.
Bluster.
Bluster.

Motion practice. Ain't it fun to watch?

[LaVidaRoja]

My Civ Pro prof said that motions was one of the most facinating things to watch. That was where (she said) you actually saw LAW in practice.

[wserra]

Where was she from again?

[soapboxmom]

The filings just get more and more idiotic:

http://www.realscam.com/f11/don-allen-h ... #post25064

Remember Timmy's flunky, Jason Charles Ciarochi???

Soapboxmom

[soapboxmom]

The city of Huber Heights filing contains comedic gold within. "Though Holbrook’s actions are under scrutiny across the nation, this Court need not resolve Holbrook’s affairs in Texas, Nevada, Arizona, or any other state in which its actions have faced scrutiny. "

http://www.realscam.com/f11/don-allen-h ... #post25367

Soapboxmom

[soapboxmom]

Cynthia Calvert individually, as the editor and the Tribune have all answered Don Allen Holbrook's silly suit. Holbrook's attorney, Sue Seeberger, asked for an extension of time to answer my Motion to Dismiss. I think Seeberger is having a very difficult time cooking up a response. Maybe she is brushing up on her geography and has discovered that Pahrump, NV in not in fact in Ohio!

http://www.realscam.com/f11/don-allen-h ... #post25987

Soapboxmom

[soapboxmom]

The idiotic filings continue:

http://www.realscam.com/f11/don-allen-h ... #post26179

[wserra]

I only read the filing addressed to SBM's motion (although I assume both filings are similar). It's poorly written and poorly organized. Its main authority is a recent opinion of the Ohio Supreme Court, Kauffman Racing Equip., L.L.C. v. Roberts, 126 Ohio St.3d 81 (2010). I took a look at the case, and it doesn't support their position.

Kauffman involved a Virginia resident (Roberts) who bought a customized engine block from an Ohio firm (Kauffman), was dissatisfied with it, and proceeded to trash Kauffman on various gearhead fora. No more than a quick skim of the opinion is necessary. It is completely clear that the court would have concluded that the exercise of Ohio jurisdiction would have violated Roberts' due process rights but for those two factors: (1) Kauffman was an Ohio business, and (2) Roberts bought the block in Ohio. Now, as I understand the facts here, (1) Holbrook is not an Ohio resident or business, and (2) SBM has nothing to do with Ohio.

At that, Kauffman was a 4-2 decision (one judge, for whatever reason, did not participate) with a strong dissent. The dissent, in objecting to it, characterized the majority as having "extended the personal jurisdiction of Ohio courts to cover any individual in any state who purchases a product from an Ohio company and posts a criticism of it on the Internet with the intent to damage the seller". Even if good law, I don't see how that helps Holbrook.