michigan-federal-courts « WordPress.com Tag Feed

Proving Fault: Actual Malice and Negligence

alegalknot — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 15:54:30 +0000

Proving Fault: Actual Malice and Negligence

Unlike other countries that hold a publisher liable for everydefamatory statement regardless of what steps he or she took prior topublication, under U.S. law a plaintiff must prove that the defendantwas at fault when she published the defamatory statement. In other words, the plaintiff must prove that the publisher failed to do something she was required to do. Depending on the circumstances, the plaintiff will either need to prove that the defendant acted negligently, if the plaintiff is a private figure, or with actual malice, if the plaintiff is a public figure or official.

Celebrities, politicians, high-ranking or powerful government officials, and others with power in society are generally considered public figures/officials and are required to prove actual malice. Unlike these well-known and powerful individuals, your shy neighbor is likely to be a private figure who is only required to prove negligenceif you publish something defamatory about her. Determining who is a public or private figure is not always easy. In some instances, the categories may overlap. For example, a blogger who is a well-known authority on clinical research involving autism may be considered a public figure for purposes of controversies involving autism, but not for other purposes.

We discuss both of these standards and when they apply in this section.

Actual Malice

In a legal sense, “actual malice” has nothing to do with ill will or disliking someone and wishing him harm. Rather, courts have defined “actual malice” in the defamation context as publishing a statement while either

knowing that it is false; or
acting with reckless disregard for the statement’s truth or falsity.

It should be noted that the actual malice standard focuses on the defendant’s actual state of mind at the time of publication.Unlike the negligence standard discussed later in this section, the actual malice standard is not measured by what a reasonable person would have published or investigated prior to publication. Instead, the plaintiff must produce clear and convincing evidence that the defendant actually knew the information was false or entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication. In making this determination, a court will look for evidence of the defendant’s state of mind at the time of publication and will likely examine the steps he took in researching, editing, and fact checking his work. It is generally not sufficient, however, for a plaintiff to merely show that the defendant didn’t like her, failed to contact her for comment, knew she had denied the information, relied on a single biased source, or failed to correct the statement after publication.

Not surprisingly, this is a very difficult standard for a plaintiff to establish. Indeed, in only a handful of cases over the last decades have plaintiffs been successful in establishing the requisite actual malice to prove defamation.

The actual malice standard applies when a defamatory statement concerns three general categories of individuals: public officials, all-purpose public figures, and limited-purpose public figures. Private figures, which are discussed later in this section, do not need to prove actual malice.

Public Officials

The “public officials” category includes politicians and high-ranking governmental figures, but also extends to government employees who have, or appear to the public to have, substantial responsibility for or control over the conduct of government affairs. Courts have interpreted these criteria broadly, extending the public figure classification to civil servants far down the government hierarchy. For example, the supervisor of a county recreational ski center was held to be a “public official” for purposes of defamation law. See Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75 (1966). Some courts have even extended the protection to all individuals engaged in matters of public health, such as hospital staff, given the importance of health issues for the general public. See Hall v. Piedmont Publishing Co., 46 N.C. App. 760, 763 (1980).

In general, if an individual is classified as a public official, defamatory statements relating to any aspects of their lives must meet the actual malice standard of fault for there to beliability. Moreover, even after passage of time or leaving office, public officials must still meet the actual malice standard because the public has a continued interest in the misdeeds of its leaders.

Public Figures

There are two types of “public figures” recognized under defamation law: “all-purpose” public figures and “limited-purpose” public figures.

All-purpose public figures are private individuals who occupy “positions of such persuasive power and influence that they are deemed public figure for all purposes. . . . They invite attention and comment.” Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 345 (1972). For these individuals, the actual malice standard extends to virtually all aspects of their lives.

This category includes movie stars, elite professional athletes, and the heads of major corporations. Tom Cruise is one; that character actor you recognize instantly but can’t quite name is probably not an all-purpose public figure.

As with public officials, the passage of time does not cause this class of individuals to lose their public figure status as long as the original source of their fame is of continued interest to the public.

Limited-Purpose Public Figures

The second category of public figures is called “limited-purpose” public figures. These are individuals who “have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved.” Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (U.S. 1974). They are the individuals who deliberately shape debate on particular public issues, especially those who use the media to influence that debate.

This category also includes individuals who have distinguished themselves in a particular field, making them “public figures” regarding only those specific activities. These limited-purpose public figures are not the Kobe Bryants, who are regarded as all-purpose public figures, but rather the journeymen basketball players of the league.

For limited-purpose public figures, the actual malice standard extends only as far as defamatory statements involve matters related to the topics about which they are considered public figures. To return to our basketball example, the actual malice standard would extend to statements involving the player’s basketball career; however, it would not extend to the details of his marriage.

As regards figures who become prominent through involvement in a current controversy, the law is unfortunately rather murky. In general, emphasis is placed not on whether the controversy is a subject of public interest, but rather:

The depth of the person’s participation in the controversy.
The amount of freedom he or she has in choosing to engage in the controversy in the first place (e.g., if they were forced into the public light). See Wolston v. Reader’s Digest Association, 443 U.S. 157 (1979).
Whether he has taken advantage of the media to advocate his cause. See Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448 (U.S. 1976).

Keeping in mind the difficulty of making the determination of who is a limited-purpose public figure, we’ve collected the following cases which might be helpful. Courts have found the following individuals to be limited-purpose public figures:

A retired general who advocated on national security issues. See Secord v. Cockburn, 747 F.Supp. 779 (1990).
A scientist who was prominent and outspoken in his opposition to nuclear tests. See Pauling v. Globe-Democrat Publishing Co., 362 F.2d 188 (1966).
A nationally-known college football coach accused of fixing a football game. See Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967).
A professional belly dancer for a matter related to her performance. See James v. Gannet Co., 40 N.Y.2d 415 (1976).
A Playboy Playmate for purpose of a parody. See Vitale v. National Lampoon, Inc., 449 F. Supp 442 (1978).

Courts have found the following individuals not to be limited-purpose public figures (and therefore private figures):

A well-known lawyer and civic leader engaged in a very public trial involving police brutality. See Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1972).
A socialite going through a divorce who both collected press clippings on herself and held press conferences regarding the divorce. See Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448 (U.S. 1976).
A Penthouse Pet for purposes of parody. See Pring v. Penthouse Int’l Ltd., 695 F.2d 438 (1982).

Individuals who are considered to be limited-purpose public figures remain so as long as the public has an “independent” interest in the underlying controversy. Unlike all-purpose public figures, it is relatively easy for a limited-purpose public figure to lose his status if the controversy in which he is involved has been largely forgotten. But most will still maintain their status. For example, a woman who had publicly dated Elvis Presley over a decade earlier, but who had since married and returned to “private” life, was found to remain a public figure for stories related to her relationship with Presley. See Brewer v. Memphis Publishing Co., 626 F.2d. 1238 (5th Cir. 1980).

Evaluating Public Officials, Public Figures, and Limited-Purpose Public Figures

A public official is a person who holds a position of authority in the government and would be of interest to the public even if the controversy in question had not occurred.

The actual malice standard extends to statements touching on virtually any aspect of the public official’s life.
Even after passage of time or leaving office, public officials must still meet the actual malice standard because the public has a continued interest in the misdeeds of its leaders.

All-purpose public figuresare those whose fame reaches widely and pervasively throughout society.

The actual malice standard extends to statements involving virtually any aspect of their private lives.
Passage of time does not affect their status as public figures as long as the source of their fame is of continued interest to the public.

A limited-purpose public figureis either:

1. One who voluntarily becomes a key figure in a particular controversy, or
2. One who has gained prominence in a particular, limited field, but whose celebrity has not reached an all-encompassing level.

The actual malice standard applies only to subject matter related to the controversy in question or to the field in which the individual is prominent, not to the person’s entire life.
Passage of time does not affect an individual who has achieved fame through participation in a controversy as long as the public maintains an “independent” interest in the underlying controversy.

See this Chart of Public vs Private Individuals for additional examples.

Defining who is a public figure for purposes of First Amendment protections is a question of federal constitutional law, and therefore the federal courts say on the matter is decisive and binding on state courts. Accordingly, state courts cannot remove public-figure status from those who have been deemed public figures by the federal courts, but states canbroaden the scope of the the classification. For example, while the Supreme Court has not spoken on the status of educators, most states have recognized teachers as a class of public figures. But some states, for example California, have not done so. Consult your State Law: Defamation section for specific guidelines on your jurisdiction.

Negligence Standard and Private Figures

Those who are not classified as public figures are considered private figures. To support a claim for defamation, in most states a private figure need only show negligence by the publisher, a much lower standard than “actual malice.” Some states, however, impose a higher standard on private figures, especially if the statement concerns a matter of public importance. You should review your state’s specific law in the State Law: Defamation section of this guide for more information.

A plaintiff can establish negligence on the part of the defendant by showing that the defendant did not act with a reasonable level of care in publishing the statement at issue. This basically turns on whether the defendant did everything reasonably necessary to determine whether the statement was true, including the steps the defendant took in researching, editing, and fact checking his work. Some factors that the court might consider include:

the amount of research undertaken prior to publication;
the trustworthiness of sources;
attempts to verify questionable statements or solicit opposing views; and
whether the defendant followed other good journalistic practices.

While you can’t reduce your legal risks entirely, if you follow good journalistic practices you will greatly reduce the likelihood that you will be found negligent when publishing a defamatory statement. Review the sections in this guide on Practical Tips for Avoiding Liability Associated with Harms to Reputation and Journalism Skills and Principles for helpful suggestions.

Credits: Citizen Media Law Project

Plaintiffs post DNA/DNR on another party

alegalknot — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 15:43:33 +0000

Posted openly for all to see is a DNA/DNR on a Sara Willmott in CT via the CCAC Rescue Team. Now I don’t know who this Sara Willmott is and that’s not even the issue here, what I find more interesting is the content itself.

CCAC Rescue Team just publically slandered and defamed the name of one Sara Willmott yet this is the same group that filed in a Michigan Federal Court for the exact same thing on another set of individuals. ( Ever heard of crying wolf?)

So what’s good for the Goose isn’t good for the Gander, is that how the ole saying goes.

( Click on picture for larger view)

This case is getting very interesting with each day I’m in receipt of multiple of screen shots/ screen captures showing the Plaintiffs in this case for their own handy work. It’s taking me a great deal of time to sort thru all of this information and decide what I should post out. Yet to date I have only been sent 2 emails about the Defendants and those were not even relevant or about this situation.

Note: This page covers information specific to Michigan. For general information concerning defamation, see the Defamation Law section of this guide.

Elements of Defamation

In Michigan, the elements of a defamation claim are:

a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff;
an unprivileged publication to a third party;
fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
either actionability of the statement irrespective of special harm (defamation per se) or the existence of actual harm caused by the publication.

These elements of a defamation claim in Michigan are similar to the elements listed in the general Defamation section, with the following exceptions:

Defamation Per Se

Defamation per se exists if the communication is false and imputes a criminal offense or lack of chastity. Unlike in many other states, defamation regarding one’s business or profession is not defamation per se in Michigan. See George v. Senate Democratic Fund, 2005 WL 102717 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005); Pierson v. Ahern, 2005 WL 1685103 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005).

Seven Star Rescue announces Michigan location to open

alegalknot — Thu, 24 May 2012 01:38:33 +0000

December 2010

( click on picture for a larger view)

Seven Star Sanctuary & Rescue in Paris Kentucky announces their plans for a second location to open in Michigan on a North Carolina Face Book page of animals on death row in a County Shelter in Columbus County NC.

Now only using the documents I have from the State of Michigan, the Michigan location operated and ran for about 6 months without ever passing a single Inspection. Per the State of Michigan this location was visited by the Michigan Dept of Agriculture and Rural Development on May 20, 2011 and set a meeting for June 16, 2011 to discuss these issues. Per their State Documents they were in violation of MDARD MCL 287.336 Section 6. It as also noted that this location was in full operation and had animals on sight that had been brought into the State from Southern Shelters. Many are thrilled to see Southern animals saved, but does Michigan not have any animals being euthanized daily in their own Shelters? Seems like it would be cheaper for every rescue to save in their own state and would also eliminate the use of unlicensed animal transporters and long hauls for these animals packed in tiny crates for hours after hours.

I bring this out as now we are starting to see where from the very beginning Seven Star Rescue asked for public donations as they had not set up a operating budget before taking on this business, but also the fact that on these State Papers Pam Boyce was the signature and was also listed as the CEO. So why is Pam Boyce not listed in the Michigan Federal Lawsuit as a Plaintiff? Was this an over sight from a overzealous Law Firm or a strategic plan to dissolve ties with the main Kentucky Location so they could file in a Michigan Federal Court where their good friend was employed?

Seven Star Sanctuary and Rescue has from day one asked for donations from the general public, so how is it that these few defendants made it impossible for them to collect funds years after they opened for business? Was it by speaking out about many Animal Rescuers and Animal Transports not being properly licensed or registered with their states? So far it looks like the Defendants were on target with their statements in regards to these business filings and lack there of.

The blame game is about to be played out in court I would assume. An event we see all to often in Animal Rescue, someone makes a mistake on their own accord and they feel they need to blame other’s for their own mistakes. Grow up Animal Rescuers, learn the Rules and Regulations before you open up shop and find yourself in a world of hurt and blame everyone else instead of accepting you made a mistake, learn from it and move on.

Seven Star Sanctuary & Rescue Paris Kentucky

alegalknot — Thu, 24 May 2012 00:56:20 +0000

Dec 14,2010

Taken from Seven Star’s Paris Kentucky Face Book Page in their own words, we need money, it cost’s us about $125.00 a week to feed the dog’s and cat’s we have on our property.

( Click on picture for larger view)

Now we all know running an Animal Rescue is very costly, and I don’t begrudge anyone asking for help when the help goes back to the animals. However the point here is the date this plea was posted and the charge this same group filed in a Michigan Federal Court saying their funds only ran low to their Rescue due to the Defendants systemically running a defamatory enterprise against the Plaintiffs by publishing defamatory statements on Face Book. ( I took this right from the court complaint)

Now from the court complaint itself, the case was filed on Jan 26,2012 and most references from the complaint list a timeline of late June and July of 2011 only. So how it is events that took place in June and July of 2011 on Face Book diminished their donations 7 months prior back in time of December 2010? Does someone own a time machine they used for this act to be accomplished?

This is starting to look more and more like a personal vendetta from the Plaintiffs towards this set of Defendants. So far I have been able to find no real facts or evidence to show where a systematic campaign was operated by the Defendants. If anyone has any evidence to enlighten us all please email us at AlegalKnot@gmail.com.

POWABUNGA CRAZY

alegalknot — Tue, 22 May 2012 23:49:35 +0000

Powabunga seems to be where you can find Penelope Shaw Ashenhurst asking for money for a great number of causes.

It’s very rare that I have seen someone in Animal Rescue asking to Vet their personal cat’s or animals, ask the general public to maintain their personal car for repairs and inspection or even to donate monies to them so they can purchase new carpet for their home.

Is this what really is taking place in the Animal Rescue world these days? If so donator please beware, it seems your donations are now going for the life style of those who want to be rich and famous off the animals on death row.

I wonder if all the member of the Seven Star Rescue and Sanctuary behave in this fashion? We saw prior where Melissa Impens was asking for people to pay her rent, what has Mary Joe Thomas and Pam Boyce received from the donations thru their 501c3 Non profit rescue?

This is when we need the IRS to be watching the internet, maybe they will pick this up and set up a fresh audit for all these requested donations from this one group.

Click on the link for all her auctions

http://www.powabunga.com/sellerslistings/1818&ListingDate_desc_1

Melissa Impens Part of the CCAC Rescue Team

alegalknot — Tue, 01 May 2012 16:01:02 +0000

CCAC Rescue Team is not a State registered group in rescue. They only exist on a page thru Face Book, I feel that part is very important for all to understand. If they want to call themselves Seven Star Sanctuary and Rescue in the lawsuit then why don’t they use that same name when they post on Face Book or pull animals from the Columbus County Animal Shelter In NC? I find it odd one group goes by so many different names and has several Face Book pages. It seems if you are a legit rescue group you would run, operate and use that one State Registered Business name, but these ladies do not operate in the correct fashion. Also after viewing many of the Chip In’s, I see they used several different business names that are not state registered and several different emails address that are linked to their Chip In’s thru Paypal, now again why would anyone use so many different email addresses and unlicensed business name? However here is a post under the CCAC Rescue Team profile on Face Book signed by Melissa Impens that the Vet is holding the animal hostage. She left out she and her pal’s owe this Vet over $79,000.00 in outstanding bills. Again going back to the point of this Michigan Federal Lawsuit and the main drive being these 3 ladies need money and they choose to sue others for their own bad choices. I’m sure the judge and others who see the history here will now get a better picture of what took place down in North Carolina via these 3 ladies. ( Click on the picture to enlarge for view )

Asking for accountability of the donated monies

alegalknot — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 23:59:43 +0000

It seems many people have and are trying to ask for accountability of funds and can not get answers. Anytime you ask for donations via the public you should keep meticulous records and be prepared to show them upon request. So I wonder where all the donated money went it the Vet bills are still unpaid? ( Click on the picture to enlarge for view )

Animals left at several locations

alegalknot — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 23:51:52 +0000

This post shows this group’s situation of animals being left all over North Carolina. The lady named Dreaner Sanford is listed as their adoption helper and transporter. Their own Team Members refer to their actions towards this animals as a mess. I wonder why these members of the Team are not listed as plaintiffs on the lawsuit. ( Click on the picture to enlarge to view )

Asking for Rent money?

alegalknot — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 23:38:11 +0000

So I find this to be another reason why these 3 woman filed such a frivolous lawsuit, it IS all about the money. Not only can they not pay their NC Vet bills but it seems they can’t pay their rent either. You do not rush into court to sue someone due to your own bad choices. If you can’t afford to pay your own bills then you need to not be in Animal Rescue or any type of Rescue where cash flow is essential. ( Click on the picture to enlarge to view )

What took place to cause a Federal Lawsuit surrounding the Animal Rescue World

alegalknot — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 22:05:53 +0000

This will be an ongoing blog about Legal Knot’s that seem to take place and clog up our already over burdened court system. I hope to follow one case from start to finish but at times we might verve off track and post about another legal knot.

Once you file in court you need to be fully prepared for not only the truth coming out about the motion that you choose to file but also any events surrounding and leading up to the case. At no time should anyone run off to a Law Firm and file a Lawsuit without merit nor should a law firm take a case without merit and evidence. You need to remember merit is not just your view of you being wronged, it’s deeper than just your hurt feelings.

mer·it (mrt)

1. a. Superior quality or worth; excellence: a proposal of some merit; an ill-advised plan without merit.

b. A quality deserving praise or approval; virtue: a store having the merit of being open late.

2. Demonstrated ability or achievement: promotions based on merit alone.

3. An aspect of character or behavior deserving approval or disapproval. Often used in the plural: judging people according to their merits.

4. Christianity Spiritual credit granted for good works.

5. merits

a. Law A party’s strict legal rights, excluding jurisdictional, personal, or technical aspects.

b. The factual content of a matter, apart from emotional, contextual, or formal considerations.

v. mer·it·ed, mer·it·ing, mer·its

v.tr.

To earn; deserve. See Synonyms at earn¹.

v.intr.

To be worthy or deserving: Pupils are rewarded or corrected, as they merit.

So we use this current case file in the Michigan Federal Courts as our example. And as we go thru this process we hope to not only bring to light how this took place but also how to prevent our legal system from being used as someone’s personal playground and being abuse of power.

To start things off it appears we have 3 ladies ( 1 from Wisconsin, 1 from the United Kingdom and 1 from Michigan) who went to their good friend Nicole Thompson of Hardin Law Firm in Southfield Michigan and asked her to file a defamation suit against 5 other people ( 3 from North Carolina, 1 from South Carolina and 1 from Pennsylvania). This seems to steam from Face Book posts about a North Carolina Animal Shelter in Columbus County NC, animals pulled from that Shelter and then left at local North Carolina Vet’s Office’s and/or Boarding Locations including many of these locations have outstanding bills owed by the Plaintiffs in this case. And last but not least one family dog named Smokey that was taken by the Plaintiffs in some fashion via the Columbus County Animal Shelter.( Now that alone seems to raise my eyebrow). So we have unpaid/outstanding Vet Bills in NC by these 3 named Plaintiffs and a missing NC family dog and yet they have filed a Federal Lawsuit on 5 others in hopes to get their bills paid via a settlement. For me this sounds a little like blackmail and extortion.

At this time we have been able to verify with the local Columbus Animal Shelter in North Carolina and the Local North Carolina Vet’s Offices that the 5 Defendants in this case had nothing to do with any of these unpaid bills or animals that were left at different locations by these Plaintiffs. However it does seem these 5 Defendants did come in as some sort of a clean up crew to try and help find these animals homes, get some donations for these Vet’s and misc tasks. And oddly one of the dog’s seems to be a local North Carolina Family’s pet that got caught up in these events. A Face Book page was created for the family and friends of this family to help them gain support to reclaim their family pet called Smokey. ( Many of the complaints in the court filing seem to refer to a Help Bring Smokey Home Face Book page.)

At this point I need to take a break and review some facts as I’m still sorting out how this case was filed in a Michigan Federal Court when it all seems to stem around a North Carolina Animal Shelter, North Carolina Residents, North Carolina Veterinarian Offices and a North Carolina missing family dog named Smokey.

Frivolous Filings of a Lawsuit

alegalknot — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 17:07:23 +0000

Frivolous filing means one “that is both baseless and made without a reasonable and competent inquiry.” C & C Liberty Enterprises v. United States, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 32656 (9th Cir. Nov. 30, 1992)

Frivolous Lawsuits and Legal Definitions

alegalknot — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:58:25 +0000

Frivolous Lawsuits and Legal Definitions

Frivolous lawsuits are those filed by a party or attorney who is aware they are without merit, because of a lack of supporting legal argument or factual basis for the claims. Frivolous lawsuits waste time, money, and judicial resources, and fines and/or sanctions may be imposed upon a party or their attorney for filing such a claim.

Frivolous lawsuits may be filed for purposes of harassment or coercion, such as to coerce the defendant into paying more or accepting less money than is rightfully due. They may be filed due to lack of due diligence by an attorney in investigating a client’s claim, or other reasons. Generally, the defendant must win the lawsuit before seeking a remedy for the frivolous claim.

Chip In's for CCAC Animals

alegalknot — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:26:12 +0000

CCAC Rescue Funding Furmummy’s Feline Rescue set this Chip In up for asking for donations for animals pulled from the CCAC Shelter in Whiteville NC, notice the wording, they admit they pull WITHOUT a commitment for these animals.

One Chip In is for South Robeson Vet in NC for $4,150.00

Second Chip In is for Dog Wood vet in NC for $5,060.00.

Rescue is a very expensive act to do however many people rescue all day long and do not ask for money every single day and nor the amounts that I am seeing from this one group.

As for Furummy’s Feline Rescue I can not find in any state where this organization is registered or licensed. I can not find any CCAC Rescue Team that is registered or licensed. However the Furmummy’s Feline Rescue I could track to South Wales in the UK. Why is someone from the UK collecting donations of money for animals that are in North Carolina? What is so important about North Carolina for not just this group to flock to but others as well? If you only go to FaceBook and search North Carolina Rescue Groups, Animal Shelters or anything about that State you will find a bountiful numbers of posts. All for this one state, North Carolina what are you doing down there is the question?

( Click on the picture to enlarge for view )

Michigan Lawyer Nicole Thompson ties to CCAC in NC, the Michigan Federal Lawsuit on Smokey the Nc missing family dog

alegalknot — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:32:55 +0000

Linking ties with Nicole Thompson of Hardin Law Firm in Southfield Michigan to a NC Animal Shelter in Columbus County. This shows Nicole speaking back to Penny Ashenhurt who loves in South Wales, United Kingdom. Penny is posting under the Friends of the Animals of CCAC profile on Face Book. However she is not a registered agent of the Columbus County Animal Shelter. ( Click on the picture to enlarge to view )

Michigan Federal Court Case 1:12-CV00074 RHB 1/25

alegalknot — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 23:53:27 +0000

Make a Difference Rescue, Michigan

alegalknot — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 16:59:42 +0000

http://www.dleg.state.mi.us/bcs_corp/dt_corp.asp?id_nbr=70920P&name_entity=MAKE%20A%20DIFFERENCE%20RESCUE,%20INC. ( Click on the link to view state documents )

Nicole Thompson of Hardin Law Firm ties to Seven Star Rescue, CCAC Rescue Team and North Carolina

alegalknot — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 20:02:36 +0000

( Click on the picture to enlarge to view )

Nicole Thompsons of Hardin Law Firms ties to Seven Star Rescue and the CCAC Rescue Team

alegalknot — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 19:57:34 +0000

Nicole Thompson ties to CCAC

alegalknot — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 19:49:32 +0000

( Click on the picture to enlarge to view )

Nicole Thompson of Hardin Law Firm in Michigan asking for donations for CCAC dog's in NC.

alegalknot — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 18:27:38 +0000

( Click on the picture to enlarge to view )

Nicole Thompson of Hardin Law Firm in Michigan using Face Book as her new legal playround

alegalknot — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 18:22:48 +0000

I’m not sure this is the proper behavior our Law Students are taught in Law School. If so then I see we need to re-vamp the entire system. Now let’s tie this in with the Federal Lawsuit that she and her firm filed in the Michigan’s Courts on 3 North Carolina Residents, 1 Pa and 1 South Carolina Resident. ( A Federal Lawsuit surrounding her pal’s leaving NC Vet’s with over 85,000.00 in bills.) ( Click on the picture to enlarge to view )

Nicole Thompson of Hardin Law Firm posting "legal" letters to others out of State on Face Book

alegalknot — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 18:09:47 +0000

I’m not sure but is it normal and regular behavior in the practice of law for a lawyer in one state to post on Face book legal letters to people in other states about potential legal matters? This seems highly unprofessional for any Law Firm or Lawyer to use this tool for business. I guess I need to bone up on the Code of Ethics for Law Firms and Lawyers. ( Click on the picture to enlarge to view )

Seven Star Sanctuary & Rescue Inc.

alegalknot — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:21:47 +0000

Welcome to Fasttrack Organization Search

https://app.sos.ky.gov/ftshow/(S(upxvdc55aj1mr2b0hwbaefj4))/default.aspx?path=ftsearch&id=0775772&ct=09&cs=99999[02/12/2012 6:42:52 PM]

Printable Forms Additional Services Certificates

Secretary of State Home Organization Search Prepaid Account Status

Seven Star Sanctuary & Rescue Inc.

General Information Organization Number 0775772

Name Seven Star Sanctuary & Rescue Inc.

Profit or Non- Profit N – Non-profit

Company Type KCO – Kentucky Corporation

Status A – Active Standing G – Good

State KY

File Date 11/18/2010 1:14:07 PM

Organization Date 11/18/2010 1:14:07 PM

Last Annual Report 6/30/2011

Principal Office

2850 Millersburg Ruddles Mill Road

Paris, KY 40361

Registered Agent Pam Boyce

2850 Millersburg Ruddles Mill Road

Paris, KY 40361

Current Officers

President Pam Boyce Secretary Mary Thomas Treasurer Alicia Kay Brown

Director Pam Boyce Director Mary Thomas Director Alicia Kay Brown

Individuals / Entities listed at time of formation

Director Pam Boyce Director Mary Jo Thomas

KY Agencies KY Services

Welcome to Fasttrack Organization Search

https://app.sos.ky.gov/ftshow/(S(upxvdc55aj1mr2b0hwbaefj4))/default.aspx?path=ftsearch&id=0775772&ct=09&cs=99999[02/12/2012 6:42:52 PM]

Director Alicia Brown Incorporator Mary Jo Thomas

Images available online

Documents filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on September 15, 2004 or

thereafter are available as scanned images or PDF documents. Documents filed prior to

September 15, 2004 will become available as the images are created.

Annual Report

6/30/2011 1 page

PDF Amendment

12/13/2010 3 pages

tiff PDF Articles of Incorporation 11/18/2010 1:14:07 PM 1 page

PDF Assumed Names Activity History Filing File Date Effective

Date Org. Referenced Annual report 6/30/2011 10:39:04 AM

6/30/2011 10:39:04 AM

Amendment - Miscellaneous amendments

12/13/2010 11:15:41 AM 12/13/2010 Add 11/18/2010 1:14:07 PM

Chuck Grassley of Iowa - United States Senator

alegalknot — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:36:23 +0000

February 28, 2012

Put Brakes on Frivolous Lawsuits

Against a staggering national debt that’s surged by $5 trillion in just the last three years, voters will decide in November who will take the reins of Washington’s runaway spending. In the meantime, the fragile economic recovery is struggling to gain traction. Job creators in the private sector are vulnerable to rising gas prices, expiring pro-growth tax laws and swelling health care costs that influence hiring, investing and spending decisions.

Consumer confidence is a primary factor that affects the U.S. economic outlook. Paying $4 (or more) for a gallon of gas will arguably cause more households to pull back on spending money at their local restaurants, hair salons, retailers and charities. Higher shipping costs also eat into the profit margins for Main Street businesses, leaving less money for hiring workers.

While rising gas prices capture the spotlight in an election year, there’s another burden on the American economy. The costs of frivolous lawsuits are invisible price tags that add up to higher prices for consumers and another burden for businesses struggling to stay above water.

In an era when America is looking for economic growth to take root, billions of dollars are wasted on frivolous lawsuits that siphon money away from job creation. Frivolous claims also clog an already burdened legal system and delay the resolution of lawsuits that have merit.

Attorneys who file frivolous lawsuits today can do so without much fear of any consequence. These claims force innocent individuals and businesses to choose between years of litigation, court costs and attorneys’ fees, or paying a settlement. It’s a waste of time, money and resources.

A culture of suing at the drop of a hat is an albatross for start-ups and small businesses operating on tight margins. Small businesses rank the cost and availability of liability insurance as second only to the cost of health care as their top concerns. While it’s no secret that small businesses are the number one job creators in America, it’s not so well known how frivolous lawsuits block their road to prosperity and their ability to create jobs.

The U.S. legal system relies on Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to curb frivolous filings. Unfortunately, Rule 11 was watered down in 1993.

As the Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, I’ve introduced legislation that would help put the brakes on frivolous lawsuits by restoring the strength behind Rule 11. My bill, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, would install three reforms to bring more accountability to the U.S. tort system.

First, my bill would reinstate mandatory sanctions to deter the offending party from filing a frivolous claim. Currently, when a judge finds that a lawsuit is frivolous, it’s in the judge’s discretion whether to impose sanctions.

Second, my bill would require judges to impose financial sanctions against lawyers who file frivolous lawsuits, including attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by the defendant.

Third, my bill would reverse a rule that allows attorneys to avoid sanctions for making a frivolous claim by withdrawing them within 21 days after a motion for sanctions has been served.

Law-abiding Americans with a legitimate legal grievance are entitled to their day in court. But unscrupulous attorneys who litigate for jackpot justice stand in the way of that. Frivolous lawsuits need to be weeded out of the system. Putting the brakes on frivolous lawsuits that damage the economy and clog the legal system will go a long ways towards balancing the scales of justice, upholding the rule of law, and improving the public good.

Smith & Grassley Introduce Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act

alegalknot — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:23:12 +0000

For Immediate Release
March 9, 2011

Smith & Grassley Introduce Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act

Washington, D.C. – House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) today introduced legislation to reduce frivolous lawsuits that plague our legal system. The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act imposes mandatory sanctions for lawyers who file meritless suits in federal court. Federal rules mandating sanctions for frivolous suits were watered down in 1993, resulting in the current crisis of widespread lawsuit abuse. The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act restores the mandatory sanctions which hold attorneys accountable for lawsuit abuse.

Chairman Smith said, “Lawsuit abuse has become too common in American society partly because the lawyers who bring these cases have everything to gain and nothing to lose. Plaintiffs’ lawyers can file frivolous suits, no matter how absurd the claims, without any penalty. Meanwhile defendants are faced with the choice of years of litigation, high court costs and attorneys’ fees or a settlement. Our legal system encourages frivolous lawsuits while defendants are left paying the price even when they are innocent.
“The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act restores accountability to our legal system by reinstating mandatory sanctions for attorneys who file meritless suits. Though LARA will not stop all lawsuit abuse, it encourages attorneys to think twice before filing a frivolous lawsuit.”
Ranking Member Grassley said, “Without the serious threat of punishment for filing frivolous lawsuits, innocent individuals and companies will continue to face the harsh economic reality that simply paying off frivolous claimants through monetary settlements is often cheaper than litigating the case. This perverse dynamic not only results in legalized extortion, but it leads to increased costs for businesses that instead could be using that money to create new jobs.”
Every year, billions of dollars are wasted on frivolous lawsuits, costing jobs and damaging the economy. According to one analysis, the 2002 tort system’s direct costs were $233 billion, the equivalent of a 5 percent tax on wages. Today that number is even higher; the annual direct cost of American tort litigation exceeds $250 billion.

The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act takes three strong steps to help thwart frivolous lawsuits.

• Reinstates the requirement that if there is a violation of Rule 11, there are sanctions (Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was originally intended to deter frivolous lawsuits by sanctioning the offending party).

• Requires that judges impose monetary sanctions against lawyers who file frivolous lawsuits. Those monetary sanctions will include the attorney’s fees and costs incurred by the victim of the frivolous lawsuit.

• Reverses the 1993 amendments to Rule 11 that allow parties and their attorneys to avoid sanctions for making frivolous claims by withdrawing them within 21 days after a motion for sanctions has been served.
A copy of the bill can be found here and below is a copy of Grassley’s prepared introduction statement.
Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley
Introduction of the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2011
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce important civil justice legislation. This legislation is desperately needed for several reasons – the most important of which is to cut down on the costs and expenses that are preventing private businesses from creating jobs for our fellow citizens during these difficult times.
The billions of dollars wasted on frivolous lawsuits cost Americans jobs and severely damage our economy. The precise cost of America’s lawsuit culture is staggering. The tort system’s direct costs in 2002 were $233 billion, the equivalent of a 5 percent tax on wages. Today that number is even higher; the annual direct cost of American tort litigation exceeds $250 billion.

Indeed, frivolous lawsuits are helping to prevent the “innovation” that the Obama Administration is touting as the key to “job creation” and economic recovery. For example, firms with recent initial public offerings are most at risk to be sued. In fact, companies are most likely to be sued in their second year of public trading. In other words, the very corporations most likely to be the source of significant new job creation are at the highest risk of being sued just when they are seeking expansion capital through public offerings.
In particular, frivolous lawsuits hurt small businesses. Small businesses rank the cost and availability of liability insurance as second only to the cost of health care as their top concerns, and both problems are fueled by frivolous lawsuits.
Our front-line defense against frivolous lawsuits and the misuse of our legal system is Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This rule is intended to deter frivolous lawsuits by sanctioning the offending party. The power of Rule 11 was diluted in 1993. This weakening is unacceptable to those of us who want to preserve courts as neutral forums for dispute resolution.
That is why I’m introducing the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2011, which amends Rule 11 to restore its strength and ability to truly deter frivolous lawsuits. Senator Mike Lee of Utah is cosponsoring this bill. Representative Lamar Smith, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is introducing an identical bill today in the House of Representatives.
Specifically, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act takes three strong steps to help thwart frivolous lawsuits.
First, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act reverses the 1993 amendments to Rule 11 that made sanctions discretionary rather than mandatory.

One of the most harmful changes that took effect in 1993 was to make sanctions for proven violations of Rule 11 discretionary. This means that if a party files a lawsuit simply to harass another party, and the court decides that this is in fact the case, the offending party still might not be sanctioned.

This is unacceptable. The offending party might not be punished at all, which provides no deterrence for the offending party or anyone else who wants to misuse the courts. My bill reinstates the requirement that if there is a violation of Rule 11, there are sanctions.
Second, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act requires that judges impose monetary sanctions against lawyers who file frivolous lawsuits. Those monetary sanctions will include the attorney’s fees and costs incurred by the victim of the frivolous lawsuit.
Finally, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act reverses the 1993 amendments to Rule 11 that allow parties and their attorneys to avoid sanctions for making frivolous claims by withdrawing them within 21 days after a motion for sanctions has been served.
Because of Rule 11’s “safe harbor” provision, many frivolous claims are never fully reviewed by federal judges. Under the “safe harbor” provision, a person who is victimized by a frivolous claim must hire an attorney to draft a motion for sanctions. That motion cannot, however, be filed immediately. Rather, under Rule 11(c)(2), the motion is served on the offending attorney 21-days before it is filed. During that period, the offending attorney can withdraw the frivolous claim and thereby avoid any sanction. The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act would prevent such injustices by eliminating the “safe harbor” provision.
Although the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act would only amend Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the procedural rules in state courts are often amended to track changes in the federal rules. Consequently, it is our hope that many states would amend their rules governing frivolous lawsuits to reflect the changes implemented by the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, just as they did when Rule 11 was last changed in 1993.
Without the serious threat of punishment for filing frivolous lawsuits, innocent individuals and companies will continue to face the harsh economic reality that simply paying off frivolous claimants through monetary settlements is often cheaper than litigating the case. This perverse dynamic not only results in legalized extortion, but it leads to increases in the insurance premiums all individuals and businesses must pay. That’s money that could be going to create new jobs.
I want to work with those who are willing to be reasonable. I know that some have expressed concerns with similar bills in the past. We have considered those concerns and have drafted a bill that takes them into account. For example, this bill expressly provides that nothing in it “shall be construed to bar or impede the assertion or development of new claims, defenses, or remedies under Federal, State, or local laws, including civil rights laws.”
Requiring mandatory sanctions is not an extreme position. It is a reasonable and effective solution to the problem of runaway frivolous lawsuits.
Indeed, a mandatory sanctions requirement is currently the law in the area of securities litigation. In 1995, we enacted the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) over President Clinton’s veto. It essentially reinstates the 1983 version of Rule 11 for the purposes of securities litigation that falls within its coverage, and makes the imposition of sanctions mandatory. Upon a final adjudication of a case, the PSLRA requires courts to make written findings on whether the parties have complied with Rule 11. In other words, no motion for sanctions needs to be filed.

At the conclusion of the case, a judge must review the case for compliance with Rule 11 and, if he finds that there has been a violation, he must impose sanctions.
So addressing the damaging impact of frivolous lawsuits has had bipartisan support in the past. That bipartisan support should be even greater during these difficult economic times.
Let’s look at a few examples of the type of lawsuits that businesses must contend with:
In July 2009, three New Jersey residents, backed by an advocacy group, filed a class action lawsuit against several hot dog manufacturers claiming they were exposed to carcinogens by eating hot dogs. None of the plaintiffs had actually developed cancer. The lawsuit sought damages in the amount of the total cost of the plaintiffs’ hot dog purchases and a requirement that the companies place a new label on packages and advertising reading: “WARNING: CONSUMING HOT DOGS AND OTHER PROCESSED MEATS INCREASES THE RISK OF CANCER.”
The case was dismissed on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Thus, a federal court held that the plaintiffs had failed to even allege a claim, as a matter of law.
In another case, a customer alleged that a wild bird “attacked” her while in a Lowe’s outdoor garden center, causing her head injuries. She claimed negligence and a violation of the Illinois Animal Control Act. She maintained that the wild birds created a dangerous condition on the property and that Lowe’s failed to exercise ordinary care to ensure that the premises were reasonably safe and failed to prevent the birds from entering the garden center.
A federal court entered summary judgment in favor of Lowe’s holding that a “reasonable plaintiff” either would have noticed the birds or understood that contact with them was possible in any outdoor area with plants. The court also held that Lowe’s was not the “owner” of the
birds, a necessary element of the customer’s statutory claim.
These are just two examples of the scores of frivolous lawsuits that American businesses must contend with each year.
Requiring sanctions when judges find lawsuits are frivolous will deter these types of cases from being brought. The savings will result in cost savings for businesses and new jobs for American workers.
The time for words and rhetoric has long since passed. If the President means what he is saying about creating jobs, then we must take action. We need to help private business spur job creation. The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act is action and is a step in the right direction.

I urge all of my colleagues to work with me and to support this legislation.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.

http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=31492