vlpate
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2009
- Messages
- 7,113
- Reaction score
- 2,927
II can't get this to open...might be my tablet...is there another link? Very interesting.
Response to /in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
Filed by Howard S. Marks on behalf of Plaintiff Roy (Entered: 10/25/2013)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7DjeAMt_BpITnJhcjJVM0ItTVU/edit?usp=sharing
Casey, through her agents, made public comments to the media, outside of the courtroom, which defamed Kronk, accusing him of the murder among other things. There is no dispute that Defendant was well aware that Kronk was not involved in the murder of Defendants daughter.
Much of Caseys Motion to Dismiss consists of ad hominem attacks against Kronk, the exact type of statements which led to this Complaint in the first place.
Caseys Motion to Dismiss boils down to 3 distinct arguments.
1 since the statements were made by agents, Kronk is legally barred from relief
2 Kronk has not plead his allegations with sufficient particularity
3 all the alleged defamatory statements are protected by the litigation privilege
No showing of malice is required where a statement is considered actionable per se.
A communication is actionable per se... if it imputes to another... a criminal offence amounting to a felony ... or conduct, characteristics or a condition imcompatible with the proper exercise of his lawful business, trade, profession or office...
It is well established that under Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code, the intentional tort of defamation may constitute willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity, as long as the Debtor knew the published statements were false.
Kronk says that Casey authorized, adopted, and permitted her agents to make numerous defamatory and false statements, statements about Kronk, statements published to the media, statements alleging Kronk was guilty of a felony, and statements that damaged Kronks reputation. Kronk alleges, and the Criminal Trial made clear, that Casey knew all along that these statements were false.
...an attorney is an agent of a client whom he represents...
...a client can be liable for his attorney making defamatory statements ... to the news
Casey says she cannot be denied a discharge based on the alleged willful and malicious statements of an agent.
Kronk uses other law to say that Caseys liability for those willful and malicious statements is still non-dischargeable, because Casey was aware of the actions, and the actions took place during the Casey-Bae as her agent relationship, and the actions were taken on Caseys behalf, and Casey did nothing about the actions.
Kronk says Casey actively instructed, adopted, and permitted her agents [Baez and others] to make defamatory statements about Kronk even though Casey knew these statements were false.
...Kronk itemized twelve statements representing the gist of the false and defamatory statements, which were made to the media, including national television shows, and were broadcast and/or published across the country.
Statements made to the newspapers or press conferences are not part of a judicial proceeding. Statements made to the world at large through a website accusing a person of fraud and perpetrating a hoax on the public are not steps in the judicial process or part of a judicial proceeding.
If the judge is inclined to grant Caseys Motion to Dismiss, Kronk requests the dismissal be without prejudice to Kronks ability to amend his Complaint.