from Rourke(Plaintiffs) v Peter( Defendant). 11) Defendant argues that Plaintiffs Paragraph 9 is not lawful and Defendant cannot be sued for Libel Per Se for “QUESTIONING EVERYTHING.” Plaintiffs failed to state Laws prohibiting Defendant from questioning everything. Defendant maintains that the right to question everything is granted and guaranteed in the First Amendment of the Constitution. a) Defendant argues that the United States and New York Constitutions grants every person the right to participate in government, to speak freely on public issues, and petition government for redress of grievances. Yet, Plaintiffs are suing Defendant for exercising these basic constitutional rights. Plaintiffs Lawsuit is a textbook frivolous and “SLAPP” Lawsuit and must not be allowed to proceed. b) Plaintiff Brian Rourke, being an elected Town Judge and held to a higher standard, is using the power of the judicial system via this SLAPP and frivolous Lawsuit, as a weapon against Defendant, especially since Plaintiffs are Attorneys, having unlimited resources and very familiar with the Legal process. Defendant is a layman, who lost everything in the fire, does not have the financial means, resources, and knowledge to mount a defense.
Posted on: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 23:10:22 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015