Thread: Don Allen Holbrook IEDC Rogue Former Member / Jeff Finkle Orchestrates Cover-up

A Disneyland for gun lovers
Monday, February 20, 2012
Cynthia Calvert
Frank McCrady, president and CEO of the East Montgomery County Improvement District
(EMCID), announced last week that a preliminary agreement has been made with Front Sight
Firearms Training Centers to build a facility in East County. McCrady said the project will bring
significant economic impact.
The firing range project, which has an interesting connection to the questionable dinosaur theme
park, EarthQuest, supposedly coming to East County, also brings a controversial history.
Front Sight's headquarters is located in Pahrump, Nev., the same community that former
EarthQuest consultants Don Holbrook and Chris Brown have contracted with to develop a theme
park in that rural area.
<<PAGE-DIVIDER>>
According to the Pahrump Valley Times [ 10- 12-2011 ], after the EarthQuest project stalled,
Holbrook entered a contract with the rural, economically depressed Nevada community to
present the efficacy of building Think Tank!, a park where visitors can drive armored tanks.
Holbrook prepared a report for the town saying that Think Tank! would be a place, "Where
guests would be able to drive a military tank... in a fun, safe environment." There would also be
obstacles with special effects and explosions.
Holbrook added that millions more could be gleaned from tourists if Pahrump were to expand on
that idea and build'Adventure Springs,'which would include the tank/explosion range along
with a movie, a lake, a visitor center, a town, a hotel with a water park, a family entertainment
center, a golf range, an event space and retail and dining space.
Interestingly, this is the same situation that developed with EarthQuest, which went from a small
idea called Project Rex, then became the $50 million Dino-City which eventually morphed into
EarthQuest, a $600 million plus, 1600-acre resort with four "lands," a museum, rides, special
effects, a water park, hotels, conference center, restaurants, retail and office developments, with
Holbrook involved every step of the way.
Front Sight has a controversial history in Pahrump. Matt Ward, editor of the Pahrump Valley
Times, said that while the range is part of the peaceful community, it is known as a "gun nut
heaven." The owner, a former chiropractor named Ignatius Piazzo, originally touted the idea as a
residential development with a total gun focus. Piazzo, according to KLAS-TV in Las Vegas,
bought 550 acres in Pahrump in the late 1990s and promised to build "the safest town in
America'by building a'Disneyland for Gun Lovers."' KLAS-TV investigative reporter Colleen
McCarty (| 8 News NOW - Las Vegas News | Weather | Traffic) said, "Thousands of people bought in with memberships
ranging in price from a few thousand to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Most were guaranteed
a lifetime of weapons training and six-figure deals, called platinum memberships, and were
promised a one-acre home site."
But the master-planned community never happened. Piazzo, according to McCarty and Pahrump
Valley Times reporter Gina B. Good
(archive.pahrumpvalleytimes.conV2005/11/18/news/frontsight.html), was eventually sued by
several of those members.
California attorney C. Keith Greer filed a class action lawsuit in November 2005 on behalf of
several Front Sight members, alleging racketeering and fraud. Greer said Piazza de-frauded
thousands for his own personal gain, Good reported. She also reported, "The action demands a
jury trial under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The 26-page
complaint against Front Sight centers on membership benefits and promises. At the
organization's inception in 1998, memberships were sold to fund construction of shooting ranges.
Free classes for life with memberships that could be willed to family members were attractive to
gun owners who sought professional training. Additional benefits - like home sites - were
promised for higher priced memberships."
<<PAGE-DIVIDER>>
Greer said, "Piazza took other people's money for investment capital to start his operation and
then when he got it up and running, he hung them out to dry. Didn't follow through on the
promises he made, didn't give them what they expected, didn't give them their money back."
Eventually, by June of 2009, in response to Piazza's refusal to pay a multi-million dollar
settlement, a federal judge ordered a receiver to take control of Front Sight, its facilities, its
operations and its assets (www.pahr-umpvalleytimes.com/2009). Seven days later, Piazza made a
financial offer and regained control of his property. According to the KLAS-TV, Front Sight still
owes more than $5 million of the class action settlement.
Websites devoted to Front Site (THR - Powered by vBulletin) have lengthy complaints that Piazza is a
Scientologist or a former Scientologist. In fact, Piazza sued one of his former platinum members
for writing in her blog that she believed him to be a member of the controversial organization
(Diana Hsieh: Front Sight, Ignatius Piazza, and Scientology?).
Pahrump Valley Times editor Matt Ward says a mysterious death that occurred on the property,
along with the recession, stopped the home development side of the operation.
"A guy died out there, not by a gunshot, but it was some sort of accidental hanging. Then there
was a big lawsuit and the home development just never happened," he said. According to KLAS-
TV, a range visitor died in 2007 in a zip line accident and a lawsuit did take four years before it
was settled (www. 8new snow. com/story/l 5 691632)
Front Sight failed to meet Nevada state fire safety standards numerous times, according to
KLAS-TV reporter McCarty. The reporter said, "Front Sight has failed again to outfit its
classroom building with fire safety basics like sprinklers, fire pumps and water. It's no surprise
despite claims construction was on target; Front Sight has again failed to meet its deadline. This
is the fourth such failure in the last two years."
Controversy not withstanding, the Internet is also filled with glowing praise for Front Sight.
Numerous blogs, letters, articles and news reports show there are many who vouch for the
experience as exceptional, fun, beyond their expectations and that the gun range experience is
excellent.
Courses range from $1,000 to $2,000 and the website (Firearm Training Courses - Handgun ( Glock, etc.), Shotgun, Rifle, (Sub) Machine Gun - from FrontSight.com) is filled with dozens
of testimonials, course offerings, and options to learn or enhance individual firearms proficiency.
Final arrangements with Front Sight is pending; the final site has not been chosen yet.
As with EarthQuest, McCrady is assuring taxpayers that the development will not cost them a
penny. EarthQuest developers received millions of dollars from EMCID; taxpayers were given
assurance that parking fees at EarthQuest and intellectual property rights will make up for the
EarthQuest costs estimated to be as high as $10-15 million (The Tribune has made numerous
requests of EMCID for the total number of dollars spent to date on the EarthQuest project but no
answers have been provided). McCrady said the incentives given to Front Sight will come from
rebates of sales taxes and other revenues generated by the new business itself.
<<PAGE-DIVIDER>>
"None of the incentives will come from any existing source or take away from current funding,"
he said. "We're looking at venue taxes to provide the incentive needed to bring these businesses
to East County."
Where's the money?
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Cynthia Calvert
The East Montgomery County Improvement District (EMCID) is a public agency empowered by
the State of Texas to issue municipal bonds that are sold to the general public. The funds
received from the sale of the bonds can then be invested in various projects, with both public and
private interests, within EMCID's boundaries.
Generally speaking, in an improvement district such as EMCID, bond proceeds are utilized to
facilitate economic development within EMCID's district that will bene Fit the taxpaying public
with local job creation, new tax revenues, user fees, etc. The new and increased assessments can
then be used to fund a variety of civic, charitable, educational and other organizations to improve
the overall quality of life for local residents.
Consequently, there is a solemn obligation on the part of the EMCID leadership and board to
ensure that the bond funds are managed diligently and invested prudently.
The Tribune has now independently confirmed that EMCID issued $7,635,000 in sales tax
revenue bonds on April 15, 2009. The proceeds of that bond sale were used to reimburse the
promoters of the EarthQuest project for pre-development costs, primarily conceptual, and design
work.
The bonds were issued in two sets with different maturities, and a blended interest rate of 6.525
percent. The bonds will mature in two stages of 20 and 30 years, in 2029 and 2039, respectively.
In addition to the foregoing bond sale, EMCID President and CEO Frank McCrady said in a
recent Houston Chronicle article that EMCID has also incurred cash expenditures of $2.5 million
in non-developmental costs related to EarthQuest. This amount was apparently paid out of
existing tax collections, bringing the total (verified) cost of the project to $10.135 million.
Given the pending foreclosure of EarthQuest's intended site, the unending project delays, an
almost complete turnover of those involved in the venture and the continuing weakness in the
local and national economies, EarthQuest is, by any measure, a troubled project.
Notwithstanding, McCrady has given repeated assurances that "EarthQuest will be built". . .
[and] "it's not a question of if, but when."
But what happens if EarthQuest doesn't get built?
<<PAGE-DIVIDER>>
To answer that question it's necessary to first understand how the bond process works.
Simply stated, a municipal bond is a written promise on the part of a governmental agency (in
this case EMCID) to repay monies it borrows from private investors. As collateral for the bonds,
EMCID granted the owners of the bonds a lien on, and a pledge of, three fourths of I percent of
EMCID's sales and use taxes. This calculation equals 50 percent of the total sales tax base of
EMCID.
Thus, the bond is similar to a mortgage that would be taken out when a homebuyer purchases a
house. In the case of EarthQuest, the $7.635 million in bonds issued by EMCID represents the
,'mortgage" that
EMCID incurred in order to "buy" a "house", i.e. the EarthQuest theme park.
If the theme park subsequently becomes a reality, then new jobs will be created, new tax and
revenue streams will be generated and the "house" will produce sufficient income to pay off the
mortgage.
However, the EarthQuest project differs from a typical home purchase in one major respect: the
,'mortgage" was incurred in 2009, but no "house" has yet been built. Furthermore, there is no
guarantee that the "house" will ever be built. Nevertheless, EMCID has guaranteed to the
purchasers of its bonds that the "mortgage" will be repaid.
And like all mortgages, the bonds must be repaid with interest. Since these bonds were issued for
20-and 30-ycar terms, while paying 6.525 percent interest, the total interest cost to EMCID is
projected in the bond prospectus to be $10,960,254.
Consequently, the total cost and liability of the EarthQuest project is not $10.135 million as
previously mentioned, but is more than $21 million due to the future accrual of interest, the
payment of which has been guaranteed by EMCID.
So who will pay this "mortgage" if the house never gets built?
As usual, the answer is: the taxpayers. More specifically, the taxpayers that reside or shop within
the EMCID district.
If EarthQuest isn't built, EMCID will have no choice but to repay the principal and interest on
the bonds out of current tax revenues. In doing so, the annual debt service on the bonds will
significantly impair EMCID's ability to fund other projects. For example, the total annual debt
service of the EarthQuest bonds, by year, is: 2012 - $487,506; 2013 - $550,556; 2014 -
$551,506; 2015 - $552,156; and so on.
The foregoing scenario becomes even more disconcerting when the total bonded indebtedness of
EMCID is considered. That is, EMCID has additionally sold bonds on two other projects
unrelated to EarthQuest. The unpaid principal amount of these two bond sales equaled
<<PAGE-DIVIDER>>
$7,673,416.00 as of February 15, 2012. When the annual debt service of these two bond issues
are combined with the EarthQuest indebtedness, the above annual payments more than double.
For example, the total, combined annual debt service of all EMCID bonds, by year, is: 2012 -
$1,077,494; 2013 - $1,141,924; 2014 - $1,142,849; 2015 - 1,142,133; and so on.
With only a finite amount of tax receipts coming into EMCID, combined with EMCID's
outstanding bonded indebtedness, it is painfully obvious that EMCID will have to forego many
economic development opportunities if the EarthQuest project is not built.
So who will pay if EarthQuest isn't built? You will.

Following is the pdf version of the filing. I think very shortly Don Allen Holbrook is going to be standing alone in this legal circus. I think the judge is going to shut down the third-party third ring of this show.

Calvert Motion to Dismiss Don Allen Holbrook Suit.pdf

Soapboxmom

McCrady better hurry up and collect that $1.00 parking fee on that broke down 76 Chevy pick-up on the feeder road in front of the illegible EarthQuest sign. Maybe he could hire his pal, Sir Gasbag, out at $195.00 an hr. to pick up aluminum cans from the ditches of the proposed EarthQuest project to help defray the costs of interest paid by EMC taxpayers on the bond debt. Just think, Frank, you could report at the next meeting you're saving the taxpayers $200.00 an hr. on your pal's normal fee for providing an invaluable service to the community!

Has anyone told McCrady that a gun range already exists approx. 15 mi. from where the DreamQuest property is located? This business has been in operation for as long as I can remember, I believe it's called Thunder Gun Range and is located about 10 mi. W. of hwy 59, on F.M. 1314, close to the tiny community of Cut n Shoot, TX. Perhaps the owners could be convinced to provide a 10 min. tutorial on how the local Improvement District has squandered millions of of their clients money, especially the extravagant trips around the globe, (investigating) theme parks. With the proliferation of rednecks walking through the door already pissed-off at the government in not only Mont. Co. , but at the national level also, paper targets of the EMCID, in particular Frank McCrady and his good buddy Don Holbrook, could be provided to them to shoot at, with a dollar donated for every bulls-eye going to help alliviate the bond debt. pantherdad's prediction>>> millions of bullseyes with the debt eliminated within 5 yrs.

1. Income from employment or operation of business
State the gross amount of income the debtor has received from employment, trade, or profession, or from operation of the debtor's business, including
part-time activities either as an employee or in independent trade or business, from the beginning of this calendar year to the date this case was
commenced. State also the gross amounts received during the two years immediately preceding this calendar year. (A debtor that maintains, or has
maintained, financial records on the basis of a fiscal rather than a calendar year may report fiscal year income. Identify the beginning and ending dates of
the debtor's fiscal year.) If a joint petition is filed, state income for each spouse separately. (Married debtors filing under chapter 12 or chapter 13 must
state income of both spouses whether or not a joint petition is filed, unless the spouses are separated and a joint petition is not filed.)

AMOUNT SOURCE
Year to date (2011): $74,997.00
Last Year(2010): $99,996.00
Year before(2009): $90,000.00
MR. - EMCID


Year to date:$520.00
Last Year:$00.00
Year before:$00.00
MRS. - RODAN & FIELDS

2. Income other than from employment or operation of business
State the amount of income received by the debtor other than from employment, trade, profession, operation of the debtor's business during the two years immediately preceding the commencement of this case. Give particulars. If a joint petition is filed, state income for each spouse separately. (Married debtors filing under chapter 12 or chapter 13 must state income for each spouse whether or not a joint petition is filed, unless the spouses are separated and

Statement of Affairs - Page 1
Case 11-27072-lbr Doc 1 Entered 10/31/11 13:02:38 Page 26 of 37
Form 7 (04/10)
a joint petition is not filed.)

AMOUNT SOURCE
Year to date:$4,500.00
Last Year:$3,000.00
Year before:$3,000.00
RENTAL

Don Allen Holbrook was in chapter 7 in Arizona in 2007 and that sleazy filing wasn't discharged until 2010:

2) A summary of assets abandoned, assets exempt, total distributions to claimants, claims discharged without payment, and expenses of administration is provided below:

Claims Discharged Without Payment:$1,884,006.53
Assets Exempt:$97,415.00
Total Expenses of Administration:$2,375.85
Assets Abandoned:$376,185.00
Total Distribution to Claimants:$12,531.99

He made all his money off of the Earthquest debacle (EMCID) and rentals. No speaking engagements, successful projects, book sales or anything else is listed. So, again how is it he was able to tour Europe in 2009 and put his kids into the very expensive exclusive private school in Las Vegas, The Meadows? People making what he is do not have one or both children in a school costing an arm and a leg:

Private schools: Fending off an exodus of students - Tuesday, March 9, 2010 | 2 a.m. - Las Vegas Sun News

Tuition at the Meadows ranges from $15,800 to $21,200, with about 18 percent of students receiving financial aid.

http://www.themeadowsschool.us/TMSv2...ees2012-13.pdf

That is well over 30 grand a year for both boys to attend. He is also still in court with half of the planet and legal fees will be thousands of dollars a month. How is he funding that adventure??? Where did the 1.2 million he and his LLCs made off of Earthquest related things from 2007-2010 go? The IRS and DOJ should be asking a lot more questions. Holbrook's actual income, reported income and expenditures do not jive!!!!

Soapboxmom

I can take a good guess as to where that money went. I strolled over to the Facebook link where Holbrook's name was worth $31,000 +. A comment written (I'm going to assume it was the wifey) below it stated something along the lines of " Let's cash in, honey" Isn't that a common phrase heard in a casino? Given the Holbrook's close proximity to Las Vegas casinos, could it be that money was squandered in the Luxor? If so, I could just imagine Sir Gasbag standing at the craps table, wearing his robe, with his halo shining ever so brightly, furiously rolling the dice, funded with hard-earned EMC taxdollars generously doled out by Frank McCrady and Co. I could also imagine Holbrook 's response to a comment like that while he was ahead. "Not now, Sweetie-Pie, I'm trying to do the Christian thing and EARN the money to pay back my creditors and lawyers........ ( yeah, right, Donny-Boy....LOL )

and his response after blowing it all......"Oh well, Frank accidently left his AmEx card in my pocket, "F" my creditors and lawyers,let's go hit the buffet line!!!"

1
IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO
CIVIL DIVISION
CITY OF HUBER HEIGHTS, OHIO
Plaintiff,
v.
DON ALLEN HOLBROOK, LLC
Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff
v.
Heather Dobrott, et al.,
Third-Party Defendants.
CASE NO. 2012-CV-02947
JUDGE MICHAEL TUCKER
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION OF
DEFENDANT/THIRD-PARTY
PLAINTIFF DON ALLEN
HOLBROOK, LLC TO THIRD-PARTY
DEFENDANT FRANK MAURIZIO’S
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF
PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND
MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF
PROCESS
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Don Allen Holbrook, LLC (“Defendant” or “DAH,
LLC”) opposes Third-Party Defendant Frank Maurizio’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal
Jurisdiction and Motion to Quash Service of Process (“Maurizio Motion to Dismiss”) to dismiss
the Second Amended Third-Party Complaint (“Third-Party Complaint”) filed against him under
the holding in Kaufmann Racing Equip., LLC v. Roberts, 126 Ohio St.3d 81, 2010-Ohio-255, ¶
74, in which the Ohio Supreme Court refused “to allow a non-resident defendant to take
advantage of the conveniences that modern technology affords and simultaneously be shielded
from the consequences of his intentionally tortious conduct.” Id. Thus, DAH, LLC asks this
Court to deny the Maurizio Motion to Dismiss and to quash service of process and to conclude
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Tuesday, August 07, 2012 3:45:16 PM
CASE NUMBER: 2012 CV 02947 Docket ID: 17413323
GREGORY A BRUSH
CLERK OF COURTS MONTGOMERY COUNTY OHIO
2
that this Court has personal jurisdiction over Frank Maurizio (“Mr. Maurizio”) under R.C.
2307.382(A)(3) and (6) and Civ.R. 4.3(A)(3) and (9) and to conclude that exercising personal
jurisdiction over Mr. Maurizio will not violate the Due Process clause of the United States
Constitution.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
DAH, LLC is an Arizona limited liability company that is registered to conduct business
in the State of Ohio and conducts business around the United States of America and elsewhere as
an economic developer in the public and private sectors. Third-Party Complaint, ¶ 1. Mr.
Maurizio has not attached an Affidavit attesting and acknowledging that he has personal
knowledge of the facts or that he is competent to testify in court as to the facts stated in his
“Statement of Facts” on pages 3-4 of his Motion to Dismiss (which Motion appears to be nearly
identical to the motion to dismiss filed with this Court by counsel for Heather Dobrott and
Cynthia Calvert, Cynthia Calvert, The Tribune, aka, Ourtribune.com). While DAH, LLC
strongly objects to this Court relying on unattested statements, it will respond with the condition
that Mr. Maurizio file a proper affidavit with the Court in the near future. If Mr. Maurizio fails
to timely file a proper affidavit, this Court should entirely disregard Mr. Maurizio’s Statement of
Facts.
Mr. Maurizio is a resident of the State of Nevada, regularly and frequently posts
defamatory, derogatory, and false statements about DAH, LLC on websites (Pahrump Valley Times
opinion/community-viewpoint-background-on-mr-holbrook-the-music-man-part-1/;
http://pvtimes.com/opinion/community...music-manpart-
2/; http://pvtimes.com/opinion/community...rook-themusic-
man-part-3/), posts links on www.realscam.com and other websites and blogs to postings
3
and blogs written by Third-Party Defendant Heather Dobrott, Third-Party Defendant Craig
Malisow, Third-Party Defendant Cynthia Calvert, and others that include defamatory,
derogatory, and false statements about DAH, LLC, in order that such postings exploit search
engine optimization on websites such as Google, so that defamatory, derogatory, and false
statements about DAH, LLC, go “viral” and are listed at the beginning of any search results for
“Don Allen Holbrook, LLC”, “Don Holbrook”, “Holbrook” or other variations on the name, on
internet search engines and which postings have been seen and downloaded from the internet by
persons residing in the State of Ohio. Third-Party Complaint, ¶ 3. Mr. Maurizio has been
posting comments on the Internet about DAH, LLC since at least January 19, 2012. See
Affidavit of Shelli Nestle (“Nestle Aff.”), ¶ 2 attached hereto as Exhibit A; Affidavit of Roger
Reynolds (“Reynolds Aff.”), ¶ 2 attached hereto as Exhibit B; Affidavit of Steven Carne (“Carne
Aff.”), ¶ 2 and attached hereto as Exhibit C.
Internet postings by Mr. Maurizio have been seen and downloaded by persons in Ohio,
including Shelli Nestle, Steven Carne, and Roger Reynolds. See Nestle Aff., ¶¶ 1-2; Reynolds
Aff., ¶¶ 1-2; and Carne Aff., ¶¶ 1-2. All of these negative threads and postings began well before
February 28, 2012. Nestle Aff., ¶ 3; Reynolds Aff., ¶ 3; and Carne Aff., ¶ 3. The web address
http://pah.stparchive.com/Archive/PAH/PAH0119212p17.php cited in the Nestle, Reynolds, and
Carne Affidavits in paragraph 2 is an editorial written by Mr. Maurizio dated January 19, 2012,
from the Pahrump Mirror with the heading “Scammed by a snake oil salesman”, referring to Mr.
Holbrook with respect to projects in Pahrump, Nevada, and Houston, Texas. Nestle Aff., ¶ 2;
Reynolds Aff., ¶ 2; and Carne Aff., ¶ 2.
DAH, LLC entered an Agreement with the City of Huber Heights, Ohio (“City”) to
perform an economic development business case analysis with the assistance of the City Staff
4
and collaboration of the current developer. Third-Party Complaint, ¶¶ 14-20 and Exhibit 1
attached thereto. The City Council adopted a Resolution on December 12, 2011, approving the
Agreement and payments to DAH, LLC. Third-Party Complaint, ¶¶ 14-16 and Exhibit 2
attached thereto. Under the Agreement, the City was to be invoiced a total of $66,000.00, of
which the City has only paid $53,800.00 leaving an outstanding balance of $12,200.00 owed,
thereby breaching the Agreement. Counterclaim, ¶ 39.
The Agreement stated that the recommended “scope of work . . . . would require the
assistance of the City Staff and collaboration of the current developer to provide information and
collaborate on conceptual development strategies.” See Exhibit 1 attached to the Third-Party
Complaint. Donnie Jones, Assistant City Manager, was directed by former City Manager Gary
Adams to work with DAH, LLC on various incentives and financing models, but failed to do so.
Third-Party Complaint, ¶¶ 22, 24, 25, 30, 31, 33.
At a meeting on March 14, 2012 between DAH, LLC and members of the City Staff,
including Mayor Ron Fisher and Mark Campbell, a member of the City Council, Mr. Campbell
said, without any warning to DAH, LLC, that the City no longer wanted a relationship with
DAH, LLC, did not believe that the City had received any value for the monies paid, and
demanded a full refund of all monies paid under the Agreement. Third-Party Complaint, ¶ 34. It
is at this meeting that DAH, LLC claims the City breached the Agreement, not on February 29,
2012, as averred by Mr. Maurizio. See Maurizio Statement of Facts No. 8.
Mr. Carne attended an earlier meeting on March 14, 2012, as a member of the Executive
Board of the Montgomery County Agricultural Society and is also associated with DAH, LLC.
Carne Aff., ¶ 4. Mr. Carne spoke to Mayor Fisher on March 15, 2012, and Mayor Fisher told
Mr. Carne that Jim Borland, Acting City Manager (after Mr. Adams) gave Mr. Campbell copies
5
of internet research on DAH, LLC and that Mr. Campbell gave copies to Mayor Fisher. Carne
Aff., ¶ 6.
On April 8, 2012, Mayor Fisher told Mr. Carne that he wanted to drop the lawsuit against
DAH, LLC and walk away. Carne Aff., ¶ 7. On April 10, 2012, Mr. Carne told Mr. Holbrook
about his conversations with Mayor Fisher, including the statements about internet research.
Carne Aff., ¶ 8. DAH, LLC made a public records request of the City but the City did not
provide any hard or electronic copies of any internet searches on DAH, LLC or Mr. Holbrook on
internet sites or comments by bloggers later exchanged between the members of the City
Council, the City Manager, Donnie Jones, or any staff person employed by the City. Third-Party
Complaint, ¶ 38.
III. UNDER OHIO LAW, OHIO COURTS ARE OPEN TO ALL PERSONS.
As a preliminary matter, this Court must reject Mr. Maurizio’s implicit argument running
throughout his Motion to Dismiss that because DAH, LLC is not an Ohio limited liability
company, it cannot seek redress for an injury it suffered in Ohio in an Ohio court. Mr.
Maurizio’s argument is contrary to Ohio law. The Ohio Supreme Court has explained that the
“courts of this state are, and always will be, as open to a non-resident plaintiff as to citizens of
this state, provided they meet the necessary statutory requirements imposed by the General
Assembly.” Howard v. Allen, 30 Ohio St.2d 130, 137 (1972).
Article I, Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution, the “Open Courts” amendment, is entitled
“Redress in courts” and states in part:
“All courts shall be open, and every person, for an injury done him in his
lands, goods, person, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, and
shall have justice administered without denial or delay. . . .”
Emphasis added. Thus, under the Ohio Constitution, Ohio courts are open to “every person”, not
6
just residents of the state. R.C. 1.59(C) states that “‘[p]erson’ includes an individual,
corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, and association.” As the Ohio Supreme
Court explained above in Howard, a non-resident plaintiff may sue in Ohio courts provided it
meets the necessary statutory requirements, which in this case is R.C. 2307.382, the Ohio longarm
statute. Notably, R.C. 2307.382 does not include the word “resident” anywhere to restrict
who may bring a claim for affirmative relief against a non-resident defendant.
IV. UNDER OHIO LAW, THIS COURT HAS PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER
MR. MAURIZIO.
When a defendant asserts a lack of personal jurisdiction as a defense to a complaint, the
burden is on the plaintiff to establish that the trial court has personal jurisdiction over the
defendant. Enquip Technologies Group, Inc. v. Tycon Technoglass, S.r.l., Greene App. No.
2010-CA-23, 2010-Ohio-6100, at ¶ 10 (2nd Dist.), citing Jurko v. Jobs Europe Agency, 43 Ohio
App.3d 79, 85 (8th Dist. 1975). A plaintiff is required to make only a prima facie showing of
personal jurisdiction to withstand a motion to dismiss. Kauffman Racing Equip., LLC v.
Roberts, 126 Ohio St.3d 81, 2010-Ohio-255, at ¶ 27, citing Fallang v. Hickey, 40 Ohio St.3d
106, 107 (1988). Allegations in pleadings are accepted because under Ohio law, “an admission
in a pleading dispenses with proof and is equivalent to proof of the fact.” J. Miller Express, Inc.
v. Pentz, 107 Ohio App.3d 44, 48 (9th Dist. 1995), citing Rhoden v. Akron, 61 Ohio App.3d 725,
727 (9th Dist. 1988) (“. . . an admission made in pleadings dispenses with the need to prove the
truth of the matter admitted.”). Affidavits, depositions, interrogatories, or other oral testimony
may be used because matters relating to personal jurisdiction may not be apparent on the face of
the summons or complaint. Jurko at 85. Unattested statements in motions or other responses are
not proper evidence. In considering whether a plaintiff has made its prima facie showing, a court
must (1) view the allegations in the pleadings and any documentary evidence in a light most
7
favorable to the plaintiff; and (2) resolve all reasonable competing inferences in favor of the
plaintiff. Goldstein v. Christiansen, 70 Ohio St.3d 232, 236 (1994).
In order for an Ohio trial court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident
defendant, it uses a two-step analysis to determine: (1) whether R.C. 2307.382(A) and Civ.R.
4.3(A) confer personal jurisdiction; and, if so, (2) whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction
would deprive a non-resident defendant of the right to due process of law under the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution. Enquip Technologies Group at ¶ 10, citing
Kauffman Racing Equip. at ¶ 28. Ohio courts use this analysis because R.C. 2307.382 and
Civ.R. 4.3(A) do not confer personal jurisdiction to the limits of the Due Process clause.
Goldstein at 238 n.1. This two-step analysis applies to cases involving the use of the internet and
websites. Kauffman Racing Equip. at ¶ 25. Also, this Court may take limited judicial notice of
website addresses and whether a website is interactive or for informational purposes only. See
Malone v. Berry, 174 Ohio App.3d 122, 2007-Ohio-6501, at ¶ 13 (10th Dist.). Thus, DAH, LLC
has the burden to make a prima facie showing to this Court that it has personal jurisdiction over
Mr. Maurizio.
A. A plaintiff makes a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction by alleging
conduct to meet the requirements under R.C. 2307.382(A).
In order for an Ohio court to exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant,
a plaintiff must allege that an out-of-state defendant, directly or by an agent, engaged in specific
enumerated activities identified in R.C. 2307.382(A), including the following sections relevant to
DAH, LLC’s claims for civil conspiracy, tortious interference with contract and prospective
business relations, and defamation against Mr. Maurizio:
(A) A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person who acts directly or
by an agent, as to a cause of action arising from the person’s:
8
(3) causing tortious injury by an act or omission in this state; . . . .
(6) causing tortious injury in this state to any person by an act outside
this state committed with the purpose of injuring persons, when he
might reasonably have expected that some person would be injured
thereby in this state; . . . .
Emphasis added. To assert a tortious injury under R.C. 2307.382(A)(3) and Civ.R. 4.3(A)(3), a
plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing that it suffered a tortious injury in the state of
Ohio by an act or an omission by the defendant. In Kauffman Racing Equip., the Ohio Supreme
Court concluded that the tort of defamation had been committed in Ohio by a non-resident
defendant who posted allegedly defamatory statements on the Internet when the plaintiff showed
evidence that Ohioans had seen these statements on the Internet, thus meeting the material
element of publication of the comments in Ohio. Id. at ¶¶ 41-42, citing Keeton v. Hustler
Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 777 (1984); Fallang v. Hickey, 40 Ohio St.3d 106, 107 (1988).
The Ohio Supreme Court in Kauffman Racing Equip. also concluded that “even if” the
defendant had not published his internet postings within the state of Ohio, the defendant was “not
shielded from the reach of Ohio’s long arm” statute. Kauffman Racing Equip. at ¶ 43. The
Court concluded that R.C. 2307.382(A)(6) and Civ.R. 4.3(A)(9) allow an Ohio court to exercise
personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant and provide for effective service of process
“if the cause of action arises from a tortious act committed outside Ohio with the purpose of
injuring persons, when the nonresident defendant might reasonably have expected that some
person would be injured thereby in Ohio.” Kauffman Racing Equip. at ¶ 43, citing Clark v.
Connor, 82 Ohio St.3d 309, 313 (1998).
In Kauffman Racing Equip., the Ohio Supreme Court found that although the defendant’s
publication of his tortious comments did not emanate from Ohio, that the plaintiff made a prima
facie showing that the tortious comments were published in Ohio, meaning that the tort was
9
committed in Ohio. Id., citing Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 777 (1984);
Fallang at 107. The Ohio Supreme Court reasoned: “Roberts posted his allegedly defamatory
statements on the Internet, ostensibly for the entire world to see.” Kauffman Racing Equip. at
¶ 42 (emphasis added). Because the plaintiff produced evidence that Ohioans saw the
defendant’s postings, the Ohio Supreme Court found that the defendant’s statements were
published in Ohio, the alleged tort was committed in Ohio and that R.C. 2307.382(A)(3) and
Civ.R. 4.3(A)(3) were applicable. Id. Alternatively, the Ohio Supreme Court concluded in
Kauffman Racing Equip. that the requirements under R.C. 2307.382(A)(6) and Civ.R. 4.3(A)(9)
were met when defamatory statements made outside Ohio had the purpose of injuring persons in
Ohio, then there is a reasonable expectation that the purposefully inflicted injury will occur in
Ohio. Id. at ¶ 44.
B. If a Court finds personal jurisdiction under R.C. 2307.382(A), it must next
determine whether its exercise of personal jurisdiction will comport with an
out-of-state defendant’s Due Process rights.
Even if this Court concludes that DAH, LLC has made a prima facie showing under R.C.
2307.382(A) and Civ.R. 4.3(A), then Ohio law requires a court to consider whether exercising
personal jurisdiction will violate an out-of-state defendant’s rights to due process of law.
Goldstein at 235. The due process clause under the Fourteenth Amendment limits the power of
state courts to enter judgments against a nonresident. Kulko v. California Superior Court, 436
U.S. 84, 91 (1978). The Due Process clause permits a court to obtain either general or specific
jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant depending on the nature of the defendant’s contacts
with the forum state. Kauffman Racing Equip. at ¶ 46. DAH, LLC has not alleged that Mr.
Maurizio’s contacts with Ohio have been of a “continuous and systematic nature” for this Court
to exercise general jurisdiction. DAH, LLC has alleged that its cause of action is related to or
10
arises out of Mr. Maurizio’s contacts with Ohio for this Court to exercise specific jurisdiction.
Id. at ¶ 47, citing Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 (1984).
Specific jurisdiction is permitted if the defendant’s contacts with Ohio meet the factors
identified in the three-part test established in Southern Machine Co. v. Mohasco Indus., Inc., 401
F.2d 374, 381 (6th Cir. 1968). First, a defendant must purposefully avail himself of the privilege
of acting in the state or causing a consequence in the state. Second, the causes of action must
arise from the defendant’s activities. Third, the defendant’s actions or the consequences of
defendant’s actions must have a substantial enough connection with the state to make a court’s
exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant reasonable. Southern Machine at 381.
When the first two factors are met under the Southern Machine analysis, an inference
arises that the third “reasonableness” factor is also present. Kauffman Racing Equip. at ¶ 71.
Among the factors relevant to the reasonableness inquiry are that a state has a significant interest
in redressing injuries that actually occur within the state and “that a high degree of unfairness is
required to erect a constitutional barrier against jurisdiction.” Kauffman Racing Equip. at ¶ 72
(citations omitted).

V. THIS COURT SHOULD CONCLUDE THAT DAH, LLC HAS MADE A PRIMA
FACIE SHOWING THAT THIS COURT HAS PERSONAL JURISDICTION
OVER MR. MAURIZIO.
Under Ohio law, nonresident defendants cannot use the Internet as a shield to protect
them from the consequences of otherwise intentionally tortious conduct. Acting in concert with
others to tortiously interfere with another’s contracts or business relations and publishing
statements intended to injure another’s business reputation, exposing another to public ridicule,
shame and/or disgrace for the purpose of adversely affecting another in its trade, business, or
profession are intentional torts whether such acts are committed with older technology, such as
11
writing letters, or such acts are committed with new technology such as the Internet. This Court
must view all allegations in the pleadings and the documentary evidence in a light most
favorable to Kauffman Racing Equip. at ¶ 72, LLC and must resolve all competing inferences in
its favor. Kauffman Racing Equip. at ¶ 27. This Court should conclude that Kauffman Racing
Equip. at ¶ 72, LLC has made a prima facie showing in its Third-Party Complaint that this Court
should exercise personal jurisdiction over Mr. Maurizio and deny the Motion to Dismiss.
A. DAH, LLC has met its burden to make a prima facie showing of personal
jurisdiction under R.C. 2307.382(A).
DAH, LLC has made a prima facie showing under R.C. 2307.382(A)(3) that Mr.
Maurizio has caused tortious injury to it by an act in Ohio and/or under R.C. 2307.382(A)(6) that
Mr. Maurizio caused tortious injury in Ohio to DAH, LLC by an act outside of Ohio committed
with the purpose of injuring DAH, LLC, when Mr. Maurizio might reasonably have expected
that DAH, LLC would be injured thereby in Ohio. By alleging that Mr. Maurizio posted
comments and about alleged criminal activity and/or alleged unethical conduct by DAH, LLC
concerning other economic development projects in Pahrump, Nevada and Montgomery County,
Texas, DAH, LLC has made a prima facie showing that Mr. Maurizio has published statements
that are defamatory per se and/or per quod and has published those statements on the Internet
“ostensibly for the entire world to see.” Kauffman Racing Equip. at ¶ 42. DAH, LLC, has
presented the Affidavits of Steven Carne, Shelli Nestle, and Roger Reynolds, all citing to
http://pah.stparchive.com/Archive/PAH/PAH0119212p17.php (in paragraph 2 of each affidavit),
an archived letter to the editor published on January 19, 2012, calling Mr. Holbrook a “snake oil
salesman”, which is defamatory per se. Thus, at least 3 Ohioans have seen and downloaded
voluminous false and derogatory comments from various websites, which began well before
February 28, 2012. Furthermore, Mr. Maurizio has posted and re-posted comments by other
12
Third-Party Defendants including but not limited to Heather Dobrott, Cynthia Calvert, on
interactive websites such as www.realscam.com and Ourtribune.com, among others, to
exploit search engine optimization on search websites so that negative and defamatory postings
“go viral” and are listed at the top of search results for DAH, LLC, “Don Allen Holbrook”, or
“Don Holbrook”, which are seen and downloaded in Ohio. Thus, under the holding in Kauffman
Racing Equip., Mr. Maurizio’s comments and links posted on the Internet were published in
Ohio. Id.
Moreover, this Court should resolve any reasonable competing inferences in favor of
DAH, LLC by concluding that it is reasonable that the “internet research” given to Mr. Campbell
and to Mayor Fisher were printed pages from Third-Party Defendants, including Mr. Maurizio’s
defamatory statements about DAH, LLC’s business reputation and conduct relating to work with
development projects in Nevada and Texas. Furthermore, DAH, LLC has alleged, and Mr.
Maurizio has not denied, that Mr. Maurizio worked in concert with other Third-Party Defendants
by posting links to each others’ websites and comments, that the Third-Party Defendants were
engaged in a civil conspiracy, and as a proximate result of the civil conspiracy to defame DAH,
LLC, to tortiously interfere with the Agreement with the City by procuring its breach.
Under R.C. 2307.382(A)(3), DAH, LLC has made a prima facie showing that it was
injured in Ohio based on the statement that Mayor Fisher made to Mr. Carne on March 15, 2012,
the day after the City breached the Agreement, that “internet research” had been given to Mr.
Campbell and to him. Carne Aff., ¶ 6. Notably, none of the Third-Party Defendants to date have
denied posting negative statements on the Internet about DAH, LLC or have shown that others
not named as parties are responsible for the postings. Alternatively, under R.C. 2307.382(A)(6),
DAH, LLC has made a prima facie showing that it was injured by an act outside Ohio committed
13
with the purpose of injuring DAH, LLC, when Mr. Maurizio might reasonably have expected
that DAH, LLC would be injured thereby in Ohio. This Court should conclude that DAH, LLC
has met its burden to make a prima facie showing under R.C. 2307.382(A)(3) and (6) that this
Court has personal jurisdiction over Mr. Maurizio.
B. DAH, LLC has met its burden to make a prima facie showing that exercising
personal jurisdiction over Mr. Maurizio will not violate his due process
rights.
DAH, LLC has asserted that this Court has specific jurisdiction over Mr. Maurizio by
alleging that its causes of action arise out of or are related to his contacts with Ohio. Under the
three-part test from Southern Machine Co., DAH, LLC has shown first, that Mr. Maurizio
purposefully availed himself of the privilege of acting in Ohio or causing a consequence in Ohio
by posting defamatory comments on the Internet about the professional reputation and conduct
of DAH, LLC. Second, DAH, LLC has shown that the causes of action arise from Mr.
Maurizio’s activities on the Internet which have been seen in Ohio. Third, Mr. Maurizio’s acts
or the consequences caused by his acts have a substantial enough connection with Ohio to make
the exercise of personal jurisdiction reasonable. Southern Machine Co. v. Mohasco Industries,
Inc., 401 F.2d 374, 381 (6th Cir. 1968). If the first two factors of this test are satisfied, then a
reasonable inference arises that the third factor is also present. Kauffman Racing Equip. at ¶ 71
(citations omitted).
DAH, LLC has met its burden to show that Mr. Maurizio has purposefully availed
himself of the privilege of acting in Ohio or causing consequences in Ohio by posting comments
on interactive websites and re-posting links to others’ postings on the Internet intended to harm
the business reputation of and to adversely affect DAH, LLC in its trade, its business, or
profession. Mr. Maurizio’s actions, by posting and re-posting his own and others’ defamatory
14
comments about DAH, LLC, specifically exploit search engine optimization logarithms on
search engine websites so that the negative comments appear at the beginning of search results
for “Don Allen Holbrook, LLC”, “Don Allen Holbrook”, or “Don Holbrook” constituting cyberbullying,
cyber-stalking, and cyber-harassment, for the whole world to see on the Internet,
including Ohio.
In Kauffman Racing Equip., the Ohio Supreme Court followed the analysis in Calder v.
Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) and rejected the analysis in Reynolds v. Internatl. Amateur Athletic
Fedn., 23 F.3d 1110 (6th Cir. 1994), neither of which involved Internet communications of
defamatory material. Kauffman Racing Equip. at ¶ 61. Notably, the Court in Kauffman Racing
Equip. rephrased the conclusion in Calder to the following question relevant to the facts before
it: “should a company injured in Ohio need to go to Virginia to seek redress from a person who,
though remaining in Virginia, knowingly caused injury in Ohio?” Id. at ¶ 56. Then, examining
cases involving defamatory material on the Internet, the Court looked at Cadle Co. v.
Schlictmann, 123 Fed. Appx. 675 (6th Cir. 2005) (no personal jurisdiction because alleged
defamatory statements on defendant’s passive website were not related to plaintiff’s activities in
Ohio) and Oasis Corp. v. Judd, 132 F. Supp. 2d 612 (S.D. Ohio 2001) (no personal jurisdiction
because no evidence that defendants’ communications were received by anyone in Ohio other
than plaintiff). Id. at ¶¶ 62-63.
Given the voluminous nature of these comments by Mr. Maurizio in concert with others
on interactive websites which have been seen in Ohio, his contacts are not “random”,
“fortuitous”, or “attenuated”, but instead show that he has created a substantial connection with
Ohio rising to purposeful availment, by which he should have reasonably anticipated being haled
into court in Ohio, where DAH, LLC was also acting under an Agreement with the City of Huber
15
Heights as an economic developer. This Court should resolve competing inferences in favor of
DAH, LLC and conclude that Mr. Maurizio knew about the Agreement with the City at least by
February 7, 2012 or by February 29, 2012, when Mr. Adams reported receiving a telephone call
from a reporter.
The Court in Kauffman Racing Equip. concluded that the “effects analysis” in Calder
requires conduct “‘calculated to cause injury’ in a ‘focal point’ where the ‘brunt’ of the injury is
experienced.” Kauffman Racing Equip. at ¶ 66 (citation omitted). The content of Mr.
Maurizio’s postings and his actions in re-posting others’ comments shows that he intended to
harm the professional reputation of DAH, LLC and which proximately resulted in harm to DAH,
LLC in Ohio. This Court should conclude that DAH, LLC has made a prima facie showing that
Mr. Maurizio purposefully availed himself of Ohio law.
Second, Mr. Maurizio’s contacts with Ohio are related to the operative facts alleged in
the Third-Party Complaint so that the causes of action have a substantial connection with Mr.
Maurizio’s activities in Ohio. Id. at ¶ 70. By posting and re-posting comments on interactive
websites to exploit search engine optimization logarithms, so that any time the names “Don
Allen Holbrook, LLC”, “Don Allen Holbrook”, or “Don Holbrook” were searched on Internet
search websites, negative comments appeared at the top of any search results to the detriment of
DAH, LLC. Mr. Maurizio thus maintained contacts with Ohio.
Finally, this Court should infer because the first two factors are present, the third factor is
also met. Specifically, while there are a number of factors to consider under the reasonable
inquiry centering on a plaintiff’s residency in the forum, they are not the only factors to consider.
Id. at ¶ 72. Singular among the reasons that the claims against Mr. Maurizio should be tried in
Ohio is the fact that the City has sued DAH, LLC here. Notably, a state has a significant interest
16
in redressing injuries that occur within the state. Id. Moreover, the Court in Kauffman Racing
Equip. noted that a high degree of unfairness is required to erect a constitutional barrier against
jurisdiction. Thus, this Court should conclude that DAH, LLC has met the three factors under
the Southern Machine analysis and that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Mr. Maurizio
will not deprive him of his due process rights.
VI. CONCLUSION
In sum, this Court should view the evidence in a light most favorable to DAH, LLC,
should conclude that DAH, LLC has made a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction over
Mr. Maurizio under the long-arm statute, that the exercise of personal jurisdiction will not
deprive him of his rights of due process, and deny Mr. Maurizio’s Motion to Dismiss and to
quash service of process.
Respectfully Submitted,
s/Sue Seeberger
Sue Seeberger (0059730)
5975 Kentshire Drive, Suite D
Dayton, Ohio 45440-4264
Voice: (937) 291-8646
Fax: (937) 291-8650
sueseeberger@biegeltye.com
Attorney for Defendant Don Allen
Holbrook, LLC
17
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a copy of the foregoing was served by the Court’s e-filing system or by
ordinary mail on this 7th day of August, 2012, upon the following:
L. Michael Bly (mbly@pselaw.com)
Joshua M. Kin (jkin@pselaw.com)
Pickerel, Schaeffer & Ebeling Co.
2700 Kettering Tower
Dayton, Ohio 45423
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Robert P. Bartlett, Jr. (rbartlett@ficlaw.com)
Andrew J. Reitz (areitz@ficlaw.com)
Faruki Ireland & Cox PLL
500 Courthouse Plaza, SW
10 North Ludlow Street
Dayton, Ohio 45402
Attorneys for Third-Party Defendants Stephens
Media, LLC dba Pahrump Valley Times; and
The Houston Press, The Houston Press dba
Village Voice Media Holdings, LLC dba
Houston Press, LP dba Backpage.com, LLC
and Craig Malisow
Adam R. Webber
Falke & Dunphy, LLC
30 Wyoming Street
Dayton, Ohio 45409
Attorney for Heather Dobrott, Cynthia Calvert
The Tribune, aka, Ourtribune.com
Frank Maurizio
581 China Street
Pahrump, Nevada 89048-0782
s/Sue Seeberger

What a load!!

Remember what Seeberger alleged in her ridiculous and totally misleading original complaint:

26. Upon information and belief and sometime on or before February 29, 2012,
defamatory, untrue, derogatory, and false statements about Don Allen Holbrook, LLC were
posted by internet bloggers Dobrott, Maurizio, and articles were posted on the internet by
Malisow and Calvert on various websites, including but not limited to realscam.com,
pvtimes.com, houstonpress.com, ourtribune.com, and were re-posted to exploit search engine
optimization logarithms to cause harm to Don Allen Holbrook, LLC.

Seeberger is stuck with what she wrote. What will be considered by the court are these few early postings. The city sent that goofball packing on March 14th. Frank Maurizio and were not in touch during that time either. So, I guess for her conspiracy theory and interfering with the contract between Holbrook and the city of Huber Heights, she will have to prove that my time travel broomstick was employed. How idiotic!

one wonders if the fact Ohio notoriously has no anti SLAPP legislation is what's behind this whole suing-in-Ohio thing

Roger G Reynolds

Work and Education g.m.-delphi-tenneco Hourly · 1985 to present · Kettering, Ohio grinder operator Dayton Christian High School Dayton, Ohio none Top Of The World, California

Shelli Nestle

Don Holbrook had two old high school friends submit identical Affidavits.

Holbrook's Friends' Affidavits.pdf

http://www.realscam.com/f11/don-alle...html#post19630

Shelli Nestle's comments on here and the Facebook page were made at the end of April. She was reading and complaining long after Holbrook got the boot from Huber Heights, Ohio. All the comments she could have seen were about Pahrump and Texas. No one was discussing Ohio until the suit was filed. My first comment about Ohio was made on April 29th. And, notice 2 of the 3 things they list as defamatory threads or posts were not written by me. As yet, they have not identified a single false statement of fact by anyone. I assume Nestle, Reynold's and Seeberger have those false statements of fact enumerated and the substantiation needed to prove that up in court. What complete buffoons!

Soapboxmom

Perjury.

The third Affiant was present at the meetings with Huber Heights as a guest. He is obviously willing to ignore the obvious. There were very very few postings about Don Holbrook before Febrruary 28th and he isn't pointing out and refuting even a single false statement of fact. It looks like he might have well had some fingers in the pie hoping to milk this deal. No doubt Holbrook told him of the fortune he had made in Texas.

Steven Carne About

• Owner at Steven Carne Consulting ServicesStudied at The Ohio State UniversityLives in Dayton, OhioFrom Dayton, Ohio
  
  
  About
• 
  

Work and Education

Employers	Steven Carne Consulting Services Owner · Apr 2011 to present · Dayton, Ohio Owner of Steven Carne Consulting Services in Dayton, Ohio utilizing his 35 years experience, offering professional services to a wide range of clients in the private, public and non-profit sectors. Specializing in Economic development, site location, due diligence, land use, planning, zoning, historic preservation, project management, collaboration and fundraising. City of Dayton, Ohio Last position - Acting Manager of Building Inspection · 1977 to 2011 · Dayton, Ohio Worked in the Departments of Building Services, Economic Development and Planning
College	The Ohio State University Class of 1976 · Columbus, Ohio Sinclair Community College Dayton, Ohio University of Wisconsin-Madison Madison, Wisconsin
High School	Fairview High School, Dayton, Ohio Class of 1970 · Dayton, Ohio

Living

	Dayton, Ohio Current City Dayton, Ohio Hometown

History by Year

2011	Started Working at Steven Carne Consulting Services Left Job at City of Dayton, Ohio
1977	Started Working at City of Dayton, Ohio
1976	Graduated from The Ohio State University
1970	Graduated from Fairview High School, Dayton, Ohio

4.
CITY OF HUBER HEIGHTS
STATE OF OHIO
Administration Committee Meeting Minutes
Name of Body: Administration Committee
Date: August 31, 2011
Time: 5:00 P.M.
Place: City Hall — 6131 Taylorsville Road ~
Council Conference Room
Members Present:
Mark Campbell, Chair, Administration Committee
Karen Kaleps, Administration Committee
Jan Vargo, Administration Committee
Roger Hensley, Administration Committee
Jim Ellis, Councilmember
Judy Blankenship, Councilrnernber
David Wilson, Councilmember
Tyler Starline, Councilmember
Ron Fisher, Mayor
. Guests Present:
City Staff Present: Gary Adams, Don Jones and Anthony Rodgers.
Guests Present: Ed Lyons, Bill Jump, Steve Carne, Chris Brown, Don
Holbrook and Tom McMasters.
Approval of Minutes
The following minutes were approved unanimously at the beginning of
this meeting:
o August 16, 2011

---

Page 5

8. Topics of Discussion:
0 Economic Development Discussion and Updates
0 Purchase or Acquisition of Real Estate Property
0 Recreational Facilities Planning
0 Liquor Permit Approval — Roosters — 5571 Merily Way
0 Ordinance Review Commission Recommendations
9. Recommendations / Actions:
Mr. Campbell convened the Administration Committee meeting at 5:05
PM. l\/Ir. Campbell stated that a reordering of the agenda items for the
meeting would be necessary to accommodate some of the meeting
participants’ schedules. The Administration Committee unanimously
agreed to the reordering of the agenda for this reason
Economic Development Discussion and Updates
Mayor Fisher introduced Steve Carne, Chris Brown and Don Holbrook.
He said he had been introduced to Chris Brown and Don Holbrook
through Steve Carne, a local resident and acquaintance. He said that they
are interested in assessing opportunities in Huber Heights for economic
development, particularly unique entertainment destination
developments. Steve C31‘1'16, Chris Brown and Don Holbrook gave
overviews of their backgrounds and Work experiences. Chris Brown and
Don Holbrook spoke at length about some of the entertainment
development projects that they have been involved in across the country.
Don Holbrook was a native of Vandalia, Ohio but now lives in Las
Vegas. Chris Brown lives in California. They believe that Huber
Heights is uniquely positioned to support such a development and offered
their services in developing a plan to assess what type of development
would best fit this community.
After discussion, the Administration Committee unanimously agreed that
Gary Adams would work with Chris Brown and Don Holbrook on
developing a proposal for their assistance with this type of economic
development project and will bring back the proposal to the
Administration Committee for review and discussion at a future meeting
of the committee.

---

Originally Posted by Soapboxmom

Don Holbrook had two old high school friends submit identical Affidavits.

Holbrook's Friends' Affidavits.pdf

http://www.realscam.com/f11/don-alle...html#post19630

Shelli Nestle's comments on here and the Facebook page were made at the end of April. She was reading and complaining long after Holbrook got the boot from Huber Heights, Ohio. All the comments she could have seen were about Pahrump and Texas. No one was discussing Ohio until the suit was filed. My first comment about Ohio was made on April 29th. And, notice 2 of the 3 things they list as defamatory threads or posts were not written by me. As yet, they have not identified a single false statement of fact by anyone. I assume Nestle, Reynold's and Seeberger have those false statements of fact enumerated and the substantiation needed to prove that up in court. What complete buffoons!

Soapboxmom

Perjury.

I wonder if that's his sister. Her facial features look exactly like him.

3^rd Steven M. Carne

Owner at Steven Carne Consulting Services
Dayton, Ohio Area Management Consulting

Current	Wildlife Conservation Foundation For Ohio , Ohio's Great Corridor Association , Steven Carne Consulting Services
Previous	City of Dayton , seedling Foundation, Stivers School for the Arts , Sinclair Community College
Education	BS, Architecture at The Ohio State University

436 connections
Connect Send InMail More options

Steven M. Carne | LinkedIn

Summary


Owner of Steven Carne Consulting Services in Dayton, Ohio utilizing his 35 years experience, offering professional services to a wide range of clients in the private, public and non-profit sectors.
Specialties

Economic development, site location analysis, due diligence, land use, planning, zoning, historic preservation, collaboration and fundraising

Experience

Ohio's Great Corridor Association

April 2010 – Present (2 years 5 months)
Ohio's Great Miami River Corridor promotes a quality of life that keeps Ohio's talent in Ohio. It is the focus of private investment, a job-generator, and tourist destination.


Owner

Steven Carne Consulting Services


April 2009 – Present (3 years 5 months)
Providing economic development, site location analysis, due diligence, land use, planning, zoning, historic preservation, collaboration and fundraising services.
Steven M. has 2 recommendations (2 partners) including:

• Nick K., Vice President, Key-Ads Outdoor
• 3^rd Alan S., Partner, Pickrel, Schaeffer & Ebeling

So, Carne is buddies with an attorney from the firm representing the city of Huber Heights and also buddies with Don Holbrook. The city opines in its filing, "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. " If Carne wants to do more economic development, he might want to be careful who he associates himself with publicly.

I would also bet Carne has read very little or almost nothing. If these Affiants had been reading they should be able to identify the "voluminous internet based web pages" with the "untrue, defamatory and negative" statements made on or before February 28th that they had downloaded. I only had a handful of posts related to Holbrook by then on this site, which is where I do the majority of my blogging and investigative reporting. Try 13 to be exact:
http://www.realscam.com/f11/don-alle...e-member-1240/

I had not had any contact with Frank Maurizio until much much later. We received identical Cease and Desist letters from Holbrook's attorney in May and that should be a big hint. I guess the time travel broomstick must have been in action again. I have no plans on turning that thing over in discovery either.

Is your broomstick a Nimbus 2000, Soapboxmom? If so, according to Sir Gasbag and Si Sueburger's claims of a million miles traveled, I would suggest you take it in for a tune-up!!!

1
IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO
CIVIL DIVISION
CITY OF HUBER HEIGHTS, OHIO
Plaintiff,
v.
DON ALLEN HOLBROOK, LLC
Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff
v.
Heather Dobrott, et al.,
Third-Party Defendants.
CASE NO. 2012-CV-02947
JUDGE MICHAEL TUCKER
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION OF
DEFENDANT/THIRD-PARTY
PLAINTIFF DON ALLEN
HOLBROOK, LLC TO THIRD-PARTY
DEFENDANT HEATHER DOBROTT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF
PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND
MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF
PROCESS
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Don Allen Holbrook, LLC (“Defendant” or “DAH,
LLC”) opposes Third-Party Defendant Heather Dobrott’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Personal Jurisdiction and Motion to Quash Service of Process (“Dobrott Motion to Dismiss”) to
dismiss the Second Amended Third-Party Complaint (“Third-Party Complaint”) filed against her
under the holding in Kauffman Racing Equip., LLC v. Roberts, 126 Ohio St.3d 81, 2010-Ohio-
255, ¶ 74, in which the Ohio Supreme Court refused “to allow a non-resident defendant to take
advantage of the conveniences that modern technology affords and simultaneously be shielded
from the consequences of [her] intentionally tortious conduct.” Id. Thus, DAH, LLC asks this
Court to deny the Dobrott Motion to Dismiss and to quash service of process and to conclude
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Tuesday, August 07, 2012 3:45:16 PM
CASE NUMBER: 2012 CV 02947 Docket ID: 17413322
GREGORY A BRUSH
CLERK OF COURTS MONTGOMERY COUNTY OHIO
2
that this Court has personal jurisdiction over Heather Dobrott (“Mrs. Dobrott”) under R.C.
2307.382(A)(3) and (6) and that she has been properly served with process under Civ.R.
4.3(A)(3) and (9) and to conclude that exercising personal jurisdiction over Mrs. Dobrott will not
violate the Due Process clause of the United States Constitution.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
DAH, LLC is an Arizona limited liability company registered to conduct business in the
State of Ohio and also conducts business around the United States of America and elsewhere as
an economic developer in the public and private sectors. Third-Party Complaint, ¶ 1. Mrs.
Dobrott resides in Garland, Texas. Affidavit of Heather Dobrott (“Dobrott Aff.”), ¶ 1. Mrs.
Dobrott concedes that she published statements on the Internet under the user name
“soapboxmom” regarding DAH, LLC to a Nevada based website at www.realscam.com.
Dobrott Aff., ¶ 6. Contrary to Mrs. Dobrott’s attestion in paragraph 6 of her Affidavit, there is
no Exhibit A attached to her Affidavit. Thus, there is no submitted to this Court that Mrs.
Dobrott has not made statements about Don Holbrook, Holbrook, or Don Allen Holbrook, LLC
before the City breached the Agreement. Should Exhibit A to Mrs. Dobrott’s Affidavit be
attached to her reply memorandum, DAH, LLC will respond in a timely manner to any evidence
therein.
Mrs. Dobrott regularly and frequently blogs, posts, re-posts, and posts links to
defamatory, derogatory, and false statements on a variety of websites and blogs, including but
not limited to defamatory, derogatory, and false statements about DAH, LLC, at least since
February 7, 2012, if not earlier, constituting cyber-stalking and cyber-harassment, including but
not limited to, http://pvtimes.com/news/theme-park-c...by-ohio-town/;
http://www.topix.com/wire/city/huber-heights-oh; http://www.topix.com/wire/city/ pahrump3
nv?q=u:pvtimes.com; http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairba...05/Earthquests
_don_holbrook_sued_huber_heights.php; Discussion about the New Caney Dino Park - Houston Dinosaur Park and
Kingwood Underground - the heart and soul of our Kingwood, Texas family, regularly and frequently posts
links on “www.realscam.com” and other websites to postings and blogs written by Third-Party
Defendant Frank Maurizio, Third-Party Defendant Craig Malisow, Third-Party Defendant
Cynthia Calvert, and others that include defamatory, derogatory, and false statements about
DAH, LLC, in order that such postings exploit search engine optimization on websites such as
Google and other search engine websites so that defamatory, derogatory, and false statements
about DAH, LLC, go “viral” and are listed at the beginning of any search for “Don Allen
Holbrook, LLC”, “Don Holbrook”, “Holbrook” or other variations on the name, on internet
search engines and which postings have been seen and downloaded from the internet by persons
residing in the State of Ohio. Third-Party Complaint, ¶ 2. Mrs. Dobrott concedes that she
published statements on her website concerning “Holbrook’s involvement with development
projects in Pahrump, Nevada and Montgomery County, Texas.” Dobrott Aff., ¶ 9.
Internet postings by “soapboxmom” on www.realscam.com and other websites have been
seen and downloaded by persons in Ohio, including but not limited to Shelli Nestle, Steven
Carne, and Roger Reynolds. See Affidavit of Shelli Nestle (“Nestle Aff.”), ¶¶ 1-2 attached
hereto as Exhibit A; Affidavit of Roger Reynolds (“Reynolds Aff.”), ¶¶ 1-2 attached hereto as
Exhibit B; Affidavit of Steven Carne (“Carne Aff.”), ¶¶ 1-2 and attached hereto as Exhibit C.
All of these negative threads and postings began well before February 28, 2012. Nestle Aff., ¶ 3;
Reynolds Aff., ¶ 3; and Carne Aff., ¶ 3.
DAH, LLC entered an Agreement with the City of Huber Heights, Ohio (“City”) to
perform an economic development business case analysis with the assistance of the City Staff
4
and collaboration of the current developer. Third-Party Complaint, ¶¶ 14-20 and Exhibit 1
attached thereto. The City Council adopted a Resolution on December 12, 2011, approving the
Agreement and payments to DAH, LLC. Third-Party Complaint, ¶¶ 14-16 and Exhibit 2
attached thereto. Under the Agreement, the City was to be invoiced a total of $66,000.00, of
which the City has only paid $53,800.00 leaving an outstanding balance of $12,200.00 owed,
thereby breaching the Agreement. Counterclaim, ¶ 39.
The Agreement stated that the recommended “scope of work . . . . would require the
assistance of the City Staff and collaboration of the current developer to provide information and
collaborate on conceptual development strategies.” See Exhibit 1 attached to the Third-Party
Complaint. Donnie Jones, Assistant City Manager, was directed by former City Manager Gary
Adams to work with DAH, LLC on various incentives and financing models, but failed to do so.
Third-Party Complaint, ¶¶ 22, 24, 25, 30, 31, 33.
In an email dated February 29, 2012 to DAH, LLC, Mr. Adams said that he had been
contacted by a reporter in a city near Houston, Texas, asking if the City had a contract with
DAH, LLC, which Mr. Adams confirmed, and then Mr. Adams told DAH, LLC in an email that
it was a “strange conversation”, but that he was not concerned about it because it did not pertain
to the City. Third-Party Complaint, ¶¶ 12, 26-28.
At a meeting on March 14, 2012 between DAH, LLC and members of the City Staff,
including Mayor Ron Fisher and Mark Campbell, a member of the City Council, Mr. Campbell
said, without any warning to DAH, LLC, that the City no longer wanted a relationship with
DAH, LLC, did not believe that the City had received any value for the monies paid, and
demanded a full refund of all monies paid under the Agreement. Third-Party Complaint, ¶ 34.
Mr. Carne attended an earlier meeting on March 14, 2012, as a member of the Executive
5
Board of the Montgomery County Agricultural Society and is also associated with DAH, LLC.
Carne Aff., ¶ 4. Mr. Carne spoke to Mayor Fisher on March 15, 2012, and Mayor Fisher told
Mr. Carne that Jim Borland, Acting City Manager (after Mr. Adams), gave Mr. Campbell copies
of internet research on DAH, LLC and that Mr. Campbell gave copies to Mayor Fisher. Carne
Aff., ¶ 6.
On March 30, 2012, before the City of Huber Heights filed its lawsuit against DAH,
LLC, the following comment was posted on www.realscam.com:
“Pardon me, but Mr. Holbrook brags of that [sic] 100 projects worth billions that
created 50,000 jobs, but has yet to name even one of these. I want a complete list
so I can verify that he was responsible for these lofty accomplishments he brags
of. His recent projects have been falling through. Earthquest is in bankruptcy
and the charitable institute part of that project is defunct after Don Holbrook
walked away with 33% of the almost 1 million raised. Other projects may well
not go forward as his credentials and accomplishments are being
investigated.”
Third-Party Complaint, ¶ 12 (emphasis added). On April 8, 2012, Mayor Fisher told Mr. Carne
that he wanted to drop the lawsuit against DAH, LLC and walk away. Carne Aff., ¶ 7. On April
10, 2012, Mr. Carne told Mr. Holbrook about his conversations with Mayor Fisher, including the
statements about internet research. Carne Aff., ¶ 8.
III. UNDER OHIO LAW, OHIO COURTS ARE OPEN TO ALL PERSONS.
As a preliminary matter, this Court must reject Mrs. Dobrott’s implicit argument running
throughout her Motion to Dismiss that because DAH, LLC is not an Ohio limited liability
company, it cannot seek redress for an injury it suffered in Ohio in an Ohio court. Mrs.
Dobrott’s argument is contrary to Ohio law. The Ohio Supreme Court has explained that the
“courts of this state are, and always will be, as open to a non-resident plaintiff as to citizens of
this state, provided they meet the necessary statutory requirements imposed by the General
Assembly.” Howard v. Allen, 30 Ohio St.2d 130, 137 (1972).
6
Article I, Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution, the “Open Courts” amendment, is entitled
“Redress in courts” and states in part:
“All courts shall be open, and every person, for an injury done him in his
lands, goods, person, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, and
shall have justice administered without denial or delay. . . .”
Emphasis added. Thus, under the Ohio Constitution, Ohio courts are open to “every person”, not
just residents of the state. R.C. 1.59(C) states that “‘[p]erson’ includes an individual,
corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, and association.” As the Ohio Supreme
Court explained above in Howard, a non-resident plaintiff may sue in Ohio courts provided it
meets the necessary statutory requirements, which in this case is R.C. 2307.382, the Ohio longarm
statute. Notably, R.C. 2307.382 does not include the word “resident” anywhere to restrict
who may bring a claim for affirmative relief against a non-resident defendant.
IV. UNDER OHIO LAW, THIS COURT HAS PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER
MRS. DOBROTT.
When a defendant asserts a lack of personal jurisdiction as a defense to a complaint, the
burden is on the plaintiff to establish that the trial court has personal jurisdiction over the
defendant. Enquip Technologies Group, Inc. v. Tycon Technoglass, S.r.l., Greene App. No.
2010-CA-23, 2010-Ohio-6100, at ¶ 10 (2nd Dist.), citing Jurko v. Jobs Europe Agency, 43 Ohio
App.3d 79, 85 (8th Dist. 1975). A plaintiff is required to make only a prima facie showing of
personal jurisdiction to withstand a motion to dismiss. Kauffman Racing Equip., LLC v.
Roberts, 126 Ohio St.3d 81, 2010-Ohio-255, at ¶ 27, citing Fallang v. Hickey, 40 Ohio St.3d
106, 107 (1988). Allegations in pleadings are accepted because under Ohio law, “an admission
in a pleading dispenses with proof and is equivalent to proof of the fact.” J. Miller Express, Inc.
v. Pentz, 107 Ohio App.3d 44, 48 (9th Dist. 1995), citing Rhoden v. Akron, 61 Ohio App.3d 725,
727 (9th Dist. 1988) (“. . . an admission made in pleadings dispenses with the need to prove the
7
truth of the matter admitted.”). Affidavits, depositions, interrogatories, or other oral testimony
may be used because matters relating to personal jurisdiction may not be apparent on the face of
the summons or complaint. Jurko at 85. In considering whether a plaintiff has made its prima
facie showing, a court must (1) view the allegations in the pleadings and any documentary
evidence in a light most favorable to the plaintiff; and (2) resolve all reasonable competing
inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Goldstein v. Christiansen, 70 Ohio St.3d 232, 236 (1994).
In order for an Ohio trial court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident
defendant, it uses a two-step analysis to determine: (1) whether R.C. 2307.382(A) and Civ.R.
4.3(A) confer personal jurisdiction; and, if so, (2) whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction
would deprive a non-resident defendant of the right to due process of law under the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution. Enquip Technologies Group at ¶ 10, citing
Kauffman Racing Equip. at ¶ 28. Ohio courts use this analysis because R.C. 2307.382 and
Civ.R. 4.3(A) do not confer personal jurisdiction to the limits of the Due Process clause.
Goldstein at 238 n.1. This two-step analysis applies to cases involving the use of the internet and
websites. Kauffman Racing Equip. at ¶ 25. Also, this Court may take limited judicial notice of
website addresses and whether a website is interactive or for informational purposes only. See
Malone v. Berry, 174 Ohio App.3d 122, 2007-Ohio-6501, at ¶ 13 (10th Dist.). Thus, DAH, LLC
has the burden to make a prima facie showing to this Court that it has personal jurisdiction over
Mrs. Dobrott.
A. A plaintiff makes a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction by alleging
conduct to meet the requirements under R.C. 2307.382(A).
In order for an Ohio court to exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant,
a plaintiff must allege that an out-of-state defendant, directly or by an agent, engaged in specific
enumerated activities identified in R.C. 2307.382(A), including the following sections relevant to
8
DAH, LLC’s claims for civil conspiracy, tortious interference with contract and prospective
business relations, and defamation against Mrs. Dobrott:
(A) A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person who acts directly or
by an agent, as to a cause of action arising from the person’s:
(3) causing tortious injury by an act or omission in this state; . . . .
(6) causing tortious injury in this state to any person by an act outside
this state committed with the purpose of injuring persons, when he
might reasonably have expected that some person would be injured
thereby in this state; . . . .
Emphasis added. To assert a tortious injury under R.C. 2307.382(A)(3) and Civ.R. 4.3(A)(3), a
plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing that it suffered a tortious injury in the state of
Ohio by an act or an omission by the defendant. In Kauffman Racing Equip., the Ohio Supreme
Court concluded that the tort of defamation had been committed in Ohio by a non-resident
defendant who posted allegedly defamatory statements on the Internet when the plaintiff showed
evidence that Ohioans had seen these statements on the Internet, thus meeting the material
element of publication of the comments in Ohio. Id. at ¶¶ 41-42, citing Keeton v. Hustler
Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 777 (1984); Fallang v. Hickey, 40 Ohio St.3d 106, 107 (1988).
The Ohio Supreme Court in Kauffman Racing Equip. also concluded that “even if” the
defendant had not published his internet postings within the state of Ohio, the defendant was “not
shielded from the reach of Ohio’s long arm” statute. Kauffman Racing Equip. at ¶ 43. The
Court concluded that R.C. 2307.382(A)(6) and Civ.R. 4.3(A)(9) allow an Ohio court to exercise
personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant and provide for effective service of process
“if the cause of action arises from a tortious act committed outside Ohio with the purpose of
injuring persons, when the nonresident defendant might reasonably have expected that some
person would be injured thereby in Ohio.” Kauffman Racing Equip. at ¶ 43, citing Clark v.
9
Connor, 82 Ohio St.3d 309, 313 (1998).
In Kauffman Racing Equip., the Ohio Supreme Court found that although the defendant’s
publication of his tortious comments did not emanate from Ohio, that the plaintiff made a prima
facie showing that the tortious comments were published in Ohio, meaning that the tort was
committed in Ohio. Id., citing Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 777 (1984);
Fallang at 107. The Ohio Supreme Court reasoned: “Roberts posted his allegedly defamatory
statements on the Internet, ostensibly for the entire world to see.” Kauffman Racing Equip. at ¶
42. Because the plaintiff produced evidence that Ohioans saw the defendant’s postings, the Ohio
Supreme Court found that the defendant’s statements were published in Ohio, the alleged tort
was committed in Ohio and that R.C. 2307.382(A)(3) and Civ.R. 4.3(A)(3) were applicable. Id.
Alternatively, the Ohio Supreme Court concluded in Kauffman Racing Equip. that the
requirements under R.C. 2307.382(A)(6) and Civ.R. 4.3(A)(9) were met when defamatory
statements made outside Ohio had the purpose of injuring persons in Ohio, then there is a
reasonable expectation that the purposefully inflicted injury will occur in Ohio. Id. at ¶ 44.
B. If a Court finds personal jurisdiction under R.C. 2307.382(A), it must next
determine whether its exercise of personal jurisdiction will comport with an
out-of-state defendant’s Due Process rights.
Even if this Court concludes that DAH, LLC has made a prima facie showing under R.C.
2307.382(A) and Civ.R. 4.3(A), then Ohio law requires a court to consider whether exercising
personal jurisdiction will violate an out-of-state defendant’s rights to due process of law.
Goldstein at 235. The due process clause under the Fourteenth Amendment limits the power of
state courts to enter judgments against a nonresident. Kulko v. California Superior Court, 436
U.S. 84, 91 (1978). The Due Process clause permits a court to obtain either general or specific
jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant depending on the nature of the defendant’s contacts
10
with the forum state. Kauffman Racing Equip. at ¶ 46. DAH, LLC has not alleged that Mrs.
Dobrott’s contacts with Ohio have been of a “continuous and systematic nature” for this Court to
exercise general jurisdiction. DAH, LLC has alleged that its cause of action is related to or
arises out of Mrs. Dobrott’s contacts with Ohio for this Court to exercise specific jurisdiction.
Id. at ¶ 47, citing Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 (1984).
Specific jurisdiction is permitted if the defendant’s contacts with Ohio meet the factors
identified in the three-part test established in Southern Machine Co. v. Mohasco Indus., Inc., 401
F.2d 374, 381 (6th Cir. 1968). First, a defendant must purposefully avail herself of the privilege
of acting in the state or causing a consequence in the state. Second, the causes of action must
arise from the defendant’s activities. Third, the defendant’s actions or the consequences of
defendant’s action must have a substantial enough connection with the state to make a court’s
exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant reasonable. Southern Machine at 381.
When the first two factors are met under the Southern Machine analysis, an inference
arises that the third “reasonableness” factor is also present. Kauffman Racing Equip. at ¶ 71.
Among the factors relevant to the reasonableness inquiry are that a state has a significant interest
in redressing injuries that actually occur within the state and “that a high degree of unfairness is
required to erect a constitutional barrier against jurisdiction.” Kauffman Racing Equip. at ¶ 72
(citations omitted).

V. THIS COURT SHOULD CONCLUDE THAT DAH, LLC HAS MADE A PRIMA
FACIE SHOWING THAT THIS COURT HAS PERSONAL JURISDICTION
OVER MRS. DOBROTT.
Under Ohio law, nonresident defendants cannot use the Internet as a shield to protect
them from the consequences of otherwise intentionally tortious conduct. Acting in concert with
others to tortiously interfere with another’s contracts or business relations and publishing
11
statements intended to injure another’s business reputation, exposing another to public ridicule,
shame and/or disgrace for the purpose of adversely affecting another in its trade, business, or
profession are intentional torts whether such acts are committed with older technology, such as
writing letters, or such acts are committed with new technology such as the Internet. This Court
must view all allegations in the pleadings and the documentary evidence in a light most
favorable to DAH, LLC and must resolve all competing inferences in its favor. Kauffman
Racing Equip. at ¶ 27. This Court should conclude that DAH, LLC has made a prima facie
showing in its Third-Party Complaint that this Court should exercise personal jurisdiction over
Mrs. Dobrott and deny the Dobrott Motion to Dismiss.
A. DAH, LLC has met its burden to make a prima facie showing of personal
jurisdiction under R.C. 2307.382(A).
DAH, LLC has made a prima facie showing under R.C. 2307.382(A)(3) that Mrs.
Dobrott has caused tortious injury to it by an act in Ohio and/or under R.C. 2307.382(A)(6) that
Mrs. Dobrott caused tortious injury in Ohio to DAH, LLC by an act outside of Ohio committed
with the purpose of injuring DAH, LLC, when Mrs. Dobrott might reasonably have expected that
DAH, LLC would be injured thereby in Ohio. By alleging that Mrs. Dobrott posted comments
and links to others’ comments on other websites on her own website, www.realscam.com, about
alleged public drunkenness, alleged criminal activity, and/or alleged unethical conduct by DAH,
LLC concerning other economic development projects in Pahrump, Nevada and Montgomery
County, Texas, DAH, LLC has made a prima facie showing that Mrs. Dobrott has published
statements that are defamatory per se and/or per quod and has published those statements
“ostensibly for the entire world to see.” Kauffman Racing Equip. at ¶ 42. DAH, LLC, has
presented 3 Affidavits that Ohioans have seen and downloaded voluminous false and derogatory
comments from various websites, including Mrs. Dobrott’s website, which began well before
12
February 28, 2012. Thus, under the holding in Kauffman Racing Equip., Mrs. Dobrott’s
comments and links posted on the Internet were published in Ohio. Id.
Moreover, this Court should resolve any reasonable competing inferences in its favor by
concluding that it is reasonable that the “internet research” given to Mr. Campbell and to Mayor
Fisher were printed pages from Third-Party Defendants, including Mrs. Dobrott’s defamatory
statements about DAH, LLC’s involvement with development projects in Nevada and Texas.
Furthermore, DAH, LLC has alleged, and Mrs. Dobrott has not denied, that Mrs. Dobrott worked
in concert with other Third-Party Defendants by posting links to each others’ websites and
comments, that the Third-Party Defendants were engaged in a civil conspiracy, and as a
proximate result of the civil conspiracy to defame DAH, LLC, tortiously interfered with the
Agreement with the City by procuring its breach.
Under R.C. 2307.382(A)(3), DAH, LLC has made a prima facie showing that it was
injured in Ohio based on the statement that Mayor Fisher made to Mr. Carne on March 15, 2012,
the day after the City breached the Agreement, that “internet research” had been given to Mr.
Campbell and to him. Carne Aff., ¶ 6. Alternatively, under R.C. 2307.382(A)(6), DAH, LLC
has made a prima facie showing that it was injured by an act outside Ohio committed with the
purpose of injuring DAH, LLC, when Mrs. Dobrott might reasonably have expected that DAH,
LLC would be injured thereby in Ohio. This Court should conclude that DAH, LLC has met its
burden to make a prima facie showing under R.C. 2307.382(A)(3) and (6) that this Court has
personal jurisdiction over Mrs. Dobrott.
B. DAH, LLC has met its burden to make a prima facie showing that exercising
personal jurisdiction over Mrs. Dobrott will not violate her due process
rights.
DAH, LLC has asserted that this Court has specific jurisdiction over Mrs. Dobrott by
13
alleging that its causes of action arise out of or are related to her contacts with Ohio. Under the
three-part test from Southern Machine Co., DAH, LLC has shown first, that Mrs. Dobrott
purposefully availed herself of the privilege of acting in Ohio or causing a consequence in Ohio
by regularly and frequently posting defamatory comments on her website and posting links to
others’ websites with defamatory comments about the professional reputation and conduct of
DAH, LLC. Second, DAH, LLC has shown that the causes of action arise from Mrs. Dobrott’s
activities on the Internet which have been seen in Ohio. Third, Mrs. Dobrott’s acts or the
consequences caused by her acts have a substantial enough connection with Ohio to make the
exercise of personal jurisdiction reasonable. Southern Machine Co. v. Mohasco Industries, Inc.,
401 F.2d 374, 381 (6th Cir. 1968). If the first two factors of this test are satisfied, then a
reasonable inference arises that the third factor is also present. Kauffman Racing Equip. at ¶ 71
(citations omitted).
DAH, LLC has met its burden to show that Mrs. Dobrott has purposefully availed herself
of the privilege of acting in Ohio or causing consequences in Ohio by maintaining an interactive
website and by posting comments on the Internet intended to harm the business reputation of and
to adversely affect DAH, LLC in its trade, its business, or profession. Mrs. Dobrott’s actions, by
posting and re-posting her own and others’ defamatory comments about DAH, LLC, specifically
exploit search engine optimization logarithms on search engine websites so that the negative
comments appear at the beginning of search results for “Don Allen Holbrook, LLC”, “Don Allen
Holbrook”, “Don Holbrook”, or “Holbrook”, constituting cyber-bullying, cyber-stalking, and
cyber-harassment, for the whole world to see on the Internet.
In Kauffman Racing Equip., the Ohio Supreme Court followed the analysis in Calder v.
Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) and rejected the analysis in Reynolds v. Internatl. Amateur Athletic
14
Fedn., 23 F.3d 1110 (6th Cir. 1994), neither of which involved Internet communications of
defamatory material. Kauffman Racing Equip. at ¶ 61. Notably, the Court in Kauffman Racing
Equip. rephrased the conclusion in Calder to the following question relevant to the facts before
it: “should a company injured in Ohio need to go to Virginia to seek redress from a person who,
though remaining in Virginia, knowingly caused injury in Ohio?” Id. at ¶ 56. Then, examining
cases involving defamatory material on the Internet, the Court looked at Cadle Co. v.
Schlictmann, 123 Fed. Appx. 675 (6th Cir. 2005) (no personal jurisdiction because alleged
defamatory statements on defendant’s passive website were not related to plaintiff’s activities in
Ohio) and Oasis Corp. v. Judd, 132 F. Supp. 2d 612 (S.D. Ohio 2001) (no personal jurisdiction
because no evidence that defendants’ communications were received by anyone in Ohio other
than plaintiff). Id. at ¶¶ 63-63.
Given the voluminous nature of these comments by Mrs. Dobrott in concert with others
on her interactive website and on other interactive websites which have been seen by others in
Ohio, her contacts are not “random”, “fortuitous”, or “attenuated”, but instead show that she has
created a substantial connection with Ohio rising to purposeful availment, by which she should
have reasonably anticipated being haled into court in Ohio, where DAH, LLC was also acting
under an Agreement with the City of Huber Heights as an economic developer. This Court
should resolve competing inferences in favor of DAH, LLC and conclude that Mrs. Dobrott
knew about the Agreement with the City at least by February 7, 2012 or by February 29, 2012,
when Mr. Adams reported receiving a telephone call from a reporter.
The Court in Kauffman Racing Equip. concluded that the “effects analysis” in Calder
requires conduct “‘calculated to cause injury’ in a ‘focal point’ where the ‘brunt’ of the injury is
experienced.” Kauffman Racing Equip. at ¶ 66 (citation omitted). The content of Mrs. Dobrott’s
15
voluminous postings and re-postings of others’ links shows that she intended to harm the
professional reputation of DAH, LLC and which proximately resulted in harm to DAH, LLC in
Ohio as seen in her statements: “His recent projects have been falling through. . . . Other
projects may well not go forward as his credentials and accomplishments are being investigated.”
This Court should conclude that DAH, LLC has made a prima facie showing that Mrs. Dobrott
purposefully availed herself of Ohio law.
Second, Mrs. Dobrott’s contacts with Ohio are related to the operative facts alleged in the
Third-Party Complaint so that the causes of action have a substantial connection with Mrs.
Dobrott’s activities in Ohio. Id. at ¶ 70. By maintaining an interactive website and by re-posting
others’ comments to exploit search engine optimization logarithms, so that any time the names
“Don Allen Holbrook, LLC”, “Don Allen Holbrook”, “Don Holbrook” or “Holbrook” were
searched on Internet search websites, Mrs. Dobrott thus maintained contacts with Ohio.
Finally, this Court should infer because the first two factors are present, the third factor is
also met. Specifically, while there are a number of factors to consider under the reasonable
inquiry centering on a plaintiff’s residency in the forum, they are not the only factors to consider.
Id. at ¶ 72. Singular among the reasons that the claims against Mrs. Dobrott should be tried in
Ohio is the fact that the City has sued DAH, LLC here. Notably, a state has a significant interest
in redressing injuries that occur within the state. Id. Moreover, the Court in Kauffman Racing
Equip. noted that a high degree of unfairness is required to erect a constitutional barrier against
jurisdiction. For these reasons, this Court should conclude that DAH, LLC has met the three
factors under the Southern Machine analysis and that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over
Mrs. Dobrott will not deprive her of her due process rights.
VI. CONCLUSION
16
In sum, this Court should view the evidence in a light most favorable to DAH, LLC,
should conclude that DAH, LLC has made a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction over
Mrs. Dobrott under the long-arm statute, that the exercise of personal jurisdiction will not
deprive her of her rights of due process, and deny Mrs. Dobrott’s Motion to Dismiss and to
quash service of process.
Respectfully Submitted,
s/Sue Seeberger
Sue Seeberger (0059730)
5975 Kentshire Drive, Suite D
Dayton, Ohio 45440-4264
Voice: (937) 291-8646
Fax: (937) 291-8650
sueseeberger@biegeltye.com
Attorney for Defendant Don Allen
Holbrook, LLC
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a copy of the foregoing was served by the Court’s e-filing system or by ordinary
mail on this 7th day of August, 2012, upon the following:
L. Michael Bly (mbly@pselaw.com)
Joshua M. Kin (jkin@pselaw.com)
Pickerel, Schaeffer & Ebeling Co.
2700 Kettering Tower
Dayton, Ohio 45423
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Robert P. Bartlett, Jr. (rbartlett@ficlaw.com)
Andrew J. Reitz (areitz@ficlaw.com)
Faruki Ireland & Cox PLL
500 Courthouse Plaza, SW
10 North Ludlow Street
Dayton, Ohio 45402
Attorneys for Third-Party Defendants Stephens
Media, LLC dba Pahrump Valley Times; and The
Houston Press, The Houston Press dba Village
Voice Media Holdings, LLC dba Houston Press,
LP dba Backpage.com, LLC and Craig Malisow
Adam R. Webber
Falke & Dunphy, LLC
30 Wyoming Street
Dayton, Ohio 45409
Attorney for Heather Dobrott and Cynthia Calvert,
The Tribune, aka, Ourtribune.com
Frank Maurizio
581 China Street
Pahrump, Nevada 89048-0782
s/Sue Seeberger
17

Mrs. Dobrott’s actions, by
posting and re-posting her own and others’ defamatory comments about DAH, LLC, specifically
exploit search engine optimization logarithms on search engine websites so that the negative
comments appear at the beginning of search results for “Don Allen Holbrook, LLC”, “Don Allen
Holbrook”, “Don Holbrook”, or “Holbrook”, constituting cyber-bullying, cyber-stalking, and
cyber-harassment, for the whole world to see on the Internet.

Holbrook is way out of line with these criminal allegations. Journalists and bloggers researching and blogging about Earthquest, its principles and related issues could not possibly be construed as cyber-bullying, cyber-stalking, and cyber-harassment.

Anti-SLAPP Law in Texas | Citizen Media Law Project

Anti-SLAPP Law in Texas

Note: This page covers information specific to Texas. For general information concerning Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs), see the overview section of this guide. The Texas Citizens Participation Act, H.B. No. 2973, allows you to counter a SLAPP suit against you based on your statements in exercise of your right of free speech, petition, or association. The statute provides for a special motion to dismiss, and allows (with some exceptions) for a stay of discovery proceedings while your motion is being considered. If your motion to dismiss is successful, the court will award you attorneys' fees, court costs, and possibly punitive damages against the party that filed the lawsuit.
The statute allows for dismissal of suits based on any type of communication, in any medium, that is: related to a "matter of public concern"; or pertaining to or in connection with any governmental proceeding or issue being considered by any governmental branch; or between individuals “who join together to collectively express, promote, pursue, or defend common interests."
Because the Texas Citizens Participation Act became effective as of June 17, 2011, there is currently no legal authority interpreting the act. If you know about any relevant cases, please contact us.
Activities Protected By The Texas Anti-SLAPP Statute

To challenge a lawsuit under the Citizens Participation Act, you must show that it is based on your act or acts of "communication" (defined as the "making or submitting" of any "statement or document in any form or medium") in connection with your rights of association, petition, or free speech. The statute broadly defines these rights:

• (a) "Right of association" refers to people collectively "express[ing], promot[ing], pursu[ing], or defend[ing] common interests."
• (b) "Right of free speech" refers to communications related to "a matter of public concern."
• (c) "Right to petition" refers to a wide range of activities relating to governmental proceedings or issues being considered by governmental bodies.

Although dependent on your subject matter, the right of free speech is the section of the statute that will most likely apply to statements made online. The statute defines a "matter of public concern" as as issue related to health or safety; environmental, economic, or community well-being; the government; a public figure or official; or a good, product or service in the marketplace. If a lawsuit against you involves online statements on any of these topics, the statute may provide you relief.......

If you succeed in fending off a SLAPP lawsuit in Texas, you may be able to bring a claim of malicious prosecution against the original plaintiff. While Texas does not have a special form of process for a "SLAPPback" claim, the elements of a malicious prosecution claim are similar. You should consult an attorney to see whether such a claim may be viable in your case.

The only statement Seeberger seems to be able to find is the following made on March 30, 2012:

Pardon me, but Mr. Holbrook brags of that [sic] 100 projects worth billions that
created 50,000 jobs, but has yet to name even one of these. I want a complete list
so I can verify that he was responsible for these lofty accomplishments he brags
of. His recent projects have been falling through. Earthquest is in bankruptcy
and the charitable institute part of that project is defunct after Don Holbrook
walked away with 33% of the almost 1 million raised. Other projects may well
not go forward as his credentials and accomplishments are being
investigated.

That is completely factual. Texas and Pahrump and a dozen or so other places where Don Holbrook tried to sell his destination theme park nonsense had been looking into him. That is why Holbrook sanitized his website of all those references and declared he wouldn't name the projects. I went to Archive.org, Holbrook's books and his fiery post on Amazon and I researched every claim. I called many of these clients as well and some had no idea who Holbrook was, others said he had only a very minor role in the project (i.e. it was underway before he stepped in and or was completed without him) others acknowledged Holbrook's involvement. This thread clearly documents all that. I guess Holbrook and his attorney didn't bother to read this thread and check the dates. THey also have failed to produce a single false or defamatory statement by any party anywhere.

SLAPPs--Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation: Coming to a Controversy Near You

Sharon Beder

---

Citation: Sharon Beder, 'SLAPPs--Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation: Coming to a Controversy Near You', Current Affairs Bulletin, vol.72, no. 3, Oct/Nov 1995, pp.22-29. This is a final version submitted for publication.
Minor editorial changes may have subsequently been made.
Sharon Beder's Other Publications

---

1. 
   
   1. The Helensburgh SLAPP Case
   2. Harassment , Intimidation and Diversion
   3. Can Government SLAPP? - The Ballina Case
   4. Other Forms of Legal Harassment
   5. Who are the Targets?
   6. Conclusions for Australia
   
   

---

In 1991 business people attending the Third Annual Pollution Law Conference in Sydney and Melbourne were presented with a paper entitled "Legal Rights of Industry Against Conservationists"[1] which advised them about legal action that could be taken against environmental activists. Conference attendees were told about developments in the US which were relevant to Australia, including the widespread use of lawsuits to intimidate or "chill-out" environmentalists.

Every year thousands of people are sued in the USA for speaking out against governments and corporations. Multi-million dollar law suits are being filed against individual citizens and groups for circulating petitions, writing to public officials, speaking at, or even just attending, public meetings, organising boycotts and engaging in peaceful demonstrations.[2] These law suits have been labelled "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation" or SLAPPs by University of Denver academics Penelope Canan and George Pring, who have been studying such suits for more than a decade with the help of funding from the US National Science Foundation.


Canan and Pring define a SLAPP as being a civil court action which alleges that injury has been caused by the efforts of individuals or nongovernment organisations to influence government action on an issue of public interest or concern.[3] They began their research after they noticed an increasing number of environmentalists were being named as defendants in large civil damage cases.[4] They found that "SLAPPs are filed by one side of a public, political dispute to punish or prevent opposing points of view."[5]


Of course people using SLAPPs in this way cannot directly sue people for exercising their democratic right to participate in the political process so they have to find technical legal grounds on which to bring their cases. Such grounds usually include defamation, conspiracy, nuisance, invasion of privacy or interference with business/economic expectancy.[6] At the Pollution Law Conference in 1991, business people were told "The lessons for Australia contained in SLAPP suits is that the US cases are based on causes of action available in Australia" and that US experience concerning SLAPP suits is "indicative of possible future developments in Australia."[7]


Indeed several Australians have faced or are currently facing such law suits at the moment. For example, Jim and Jenny Donohoe and Tim Tapsell have been SLAPPed for supporting a Local Environment Plan that proposed rezoning rural land near Helensburgh as environmentally protected land. The developers wanted the land to be rezoned for residential development and one of the larger landholders sued them for conspiring with each other "to damage or destroy the financial and commercial interests of the Plaintiffs with the sole or predominant purpose of injuring the commercial interests of the Plaintiffs."[8]

http://www.uow.edu.au/~sharonb/SLAPPS.html

That ditz of an attorney, Sue Seeberger really ought to be mindful of what she files.

Mrs. Dobrott regularly and frequently blogs, posts, re-posts, and posts links to
defamatory, derogatory, and false statements on a variety of websites and blogs, including but
not limited to defamatory, derogatory, and false statements about DAH, LLC, at least since
February 7, 2012, if not earlier, constituting cyber-stalking and cyber-harassment, including but
not limited to, http://pvtimes.com/news/theme-park-c...by-ohio-town/;
http://www.topix.com/wire/city/huber-heights-oh; http://www.topix.com/wire/city/ pahrump3
nv?q=u:pvtimes.com; http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairba...05/Earthquests
_don_holbrook_sued_huber_heights.php; Discussion about the New Caney Dino Park - Houston Dinosaur Park and
Kingwood Underground - the heart and soul of our Kingwood, Texas family, regularly and frequently posts
links on “www.realscam.com”

I commented on Newspaper article questions theme park player’s resumé | Pahrump Valley Times in May 2012. So, that is long after her February 28th and February 29th dates she goes on about in her filings and long after the city kicked Holbrook to the curb on March 14th.

The Houston Press articles all came out on or after April 11, 2012. They could have no bearing on the city's decision to give Holbrook the boot.

The topix.com, Rockford Forum - Topix, has comments by me from May and June. Those same posts fall under many different city names as topix.com reposts things under numerous pages. I also commented on there in July. Kettering Forum - Topix

The earliest post on the Dino Park forum is now from May, 2012. Discussion about the New Caney Dino Park - Houston Dinosaur Park The earlier ones cannot be accessed.

The post earliest post I made on the Kingwood thread Seeberger linked is dated April 26, Kingwood Underground - the heart and soul of our Kingwood, Texas family

Sue Seeberger has not enumerated a single false statement of fact and this latest dishonest filing lists almost exclusively postings that were made long after Huber heights had concluded that Holbrook's work was not up to snuff and he was shown the door.

Really smart to draw lots of attention to the fact one's "actions are under scrutiny across the nation" as the city of Huber Heights rightly pointed out!

Soapboxmom

There are the pds for the 2 most recent filings that have been show in their entirety and commented on above:

Holbrook's Memo in Opposition to Maurizio's Motion to Dismiss.pdf

Holbrooks's Memo in Opposition to Dobrott's Motion to Dismiss.pdf

http://kingwoodunderground.com/topic.jsp?w=&s=0&n=40&topicId=11722526

Don A Holbrook

--- 92 days ago May 8th 2012- quote Dear Readers of this blog, as stated, this is a serious legal issue. Please note that I am brining litigation against Ms. Soapboxmom (Heather Dobrott et al) she received a letter from my attorney which very carefully stated she has until May 11th to substantiate with valid facts and evidence of her Libel comments. Ms. Dobrott is digging herself a very deep legal hole and her malicious attacks on my business and my professional reputation are purposeful and with willful intent to harm my livelihood. She has made very poor decisions in business and ignorance of the law will not excuse her nor any of you who choose to continue in this libel from the liabilities that are piling on yourselves. By spreading libel and then encouraging others unwittingly to participate on this page is just bringing other previously innocent people into her web of fictional conspiracy. I would encourage anyone on this web page to take note in the recent $13M Texas award of damages to those folks using and promoting anonymous libel about innocent people. At the appropriate time we will know every computer ID that has made comments on any site that aids in this process and those that make such comments must be prepared to deal with the litigation that is coming this month. If you continue to comment on me, my business, and further ruin my professional reputation and/or harm my livelihood and/or personal affairs for libel, slander, defamation or other malicious intent you do so at your own risk. For some the damages has been done and avoiding litigation is impossible in my opinion, but for those of you bright enough to discontinue your libel comments you may still avoid litigation. Be smart and do not be baited into legal liabilities by a person such as Heather Dobrott. She obviously has too much time on her hands and her mind goes to conspiracy theories as her own form of sick entertainment. That is her own affair until it harms others with such malicious intent that it wrecks their business for spreading virally false information and doing so for her own self-gratification reasons.

Don A Holbrook --- 92 days ago - quote You know I spoke with my father this morning... he is a retired Minister. He asked me if I was praying about this matter. I told him about SoapBoxMom and her slogan regarding making Jesus vomit. He wasn't too impressed or thrilled about such a vulgar use of the Lord's name or portrayal associated with the type of comments, malicious attacks on an innocent person, his family and his business. His comment and question back to me was interesting. "I wonder how many of these people consider themselves to be christians? and if so, when did Jesus ever condone the types of comments and malicious malevolent abusive tactics being used here. Do they really think that Jesus would condone this type of activity?" Of course I said, Dad, I have no idea if they consider themselves Christians or whether they are Sunday bible totters but wicked people during the other six days. I would guess by their tone, comments and malicious intentions they are not Christlike and therefore not truly Christian in their heart of hearts. You pray for them Dad, I don't have the stomach to do so. They have hurt my family, tried to ruin my reputation and interfered with my clients and my business and created massive economic harm to my own legal and ethical enterprise. They have accused me of activities and conduct that is baseless and not true. He said, "Only God can judge them son. But he will do so someday maybe not on your timeline, but he will." He did say, he would pray about the situation. He is a much better and bigger person than myself. I can't bring myself to pray for my declared enemies. Sorry I hope you all get what our legal system deems you are rightfully entitled to be found guilty of... and I hope you all must face the same and exponentially more emotional and economic pain that you are causing for me and my family. You are not ethical and moral people in my book.

Of course, as I already stated, my first comment on that thread which was linked by Holbrook's attorney, Sue Seeberger, was on April 26, 2012. That lying sack of dirt is trying to sue me in Ohio for interfering in his contract there by using posts made long after they had sacked him on March 14, 2012. These could not be seen in Ohio in February without me having loaned out my time travel broomstick! I never loan out that top secret scam busting weapon!!!

Soapboxmom

ez123wealth --- 1 hours ago - quote - hide comments Ms Heather, from our conference on your case today may I enlighten you. You are being sued because your slander of Don and others caused to not just loss of wages, but caused the city in Ohio to sue Don. And just another update, Don's Lawyer is suing you personally next. And Prof Henry and little man from your site have some coming their way also. Next is NC turn.

The idiot is loose on Kingwood Underground again. Holbrook's attorney, Sue Seeberger, is in the terribly uncomfortable position of having a client who is hopelessly confused about the law and is apparently not averse to pushing her into making totally frivolous, groundless and dishonest filings. Don Allen Holbrook's problems with Ohio are between them and concern their displeasure with the work he did. The other parties he sued as third-party defendants have nothing to do with his allegedly substandard work! If holbrrok thought this was the way to clear his name and save his reputation, I think he is going to be most unhappy with the result!

Soapboxmom

I'm not certain that deliberately slurring the professionalism of the members and staff of the Huber City Council would be how a sensible person would handle what's happened.

As I read the complaint/s, it seems Mr Holbrook and Ms Seeberger are alleging Huber Councils' decision was and is based on what its' members read on the 'net.

Setting aside the inconsistencies WRT the timing of such comments for a moment, it will be interesting to find out whether the plaintiffs' contention is the Huberites were incapable of coming to the conclusion they did solely based on their own observations and experiences.

What was that thing I read ??

Oh, yes, that's it:

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?