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

http://statecasefiles.justia.com/doc...-ohio-6615.pdf

{¶33} Furthermore, “[i]n order to be the proper subject of a
third-party action, the alleged right of the defendant to recover,
or the duty allegedly breached by the third-party defendant, must
arise from the plaintiff’s successful prosecution of the main
action against defendant.”2 Thus, a third-party complaint cannot
be founded on an independent cause of action.3 In order to be a
proper subject of a third-party action, the alleged right of the
defendant to recover, or the duty allegedly breached by the thirdparty
defendant, must arise from the plaintiff’s successful
prosecution of the main action against the defendant.4 A thirdparty
claim must be derivative of the outcome of the main claim,
and the third-party must be “secondarily liable.”5

Looks to me like Holbrook's whole Third-party complaint will fail as a matter of law. How in the sam hell can we third-party co-defendants be liable for this:

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/...0-1382051.html

The city is accusing Holbrook, who is based in Las Vegas, of breach of contract, conversion, unjust enrichment, fraudulent inducement and negligent misrepresentation. It wants its $53,800 back, as well as punitive damages and attorney fees, according to the lawsuit issued April 24....Holbrook, whose “work product is not at all what was expected. It does not conform to the contract requirements

www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/sued-developer-files-counterclaim-against-city-1398120.html

If Holbrook wants to make a fool of himself further in the vein of the scammer from hell Tim Darnell he certainly can go from state to state filing frivolous, losing suits against his detractors, but we all know how those turn out. Darnell has a whopping $97,265.17 tax lien and a string of lost court cases to show for his brilliance:

Darnell v. Dobrott | Citizen Media Law Project

Soapboxmom

RENACCI v. MARTELL - Decided October 20, 1993.

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

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

[ 91 Ohio App.3d 221 ]

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

Hilarious! When the city wins that will not make the third parties liable for anything. So again much more evidence that case law will get Holbrook's nonsense and him thrown out on his ear. He will have to make a bull run against all of us in our own jurisdictions it looks like. Since he has yet to produce a false statement of fact, he will once again be filing frivolous harassment suits and I know plenty of judges in Texas that will sanction for that. I had a wonderful winning Summary Judgment hearing with one that offered to sign an Order for Sanctions on the spot when Darnell sued me. I would love to appear before Judge Ginsberg once again!!!

Soapboxmom

Quatloos! • View topic - Don Allen Holbrook LLC Sues Soapboxmom & Half of the Planet

Bingo!!!

{¶ 45} Civ.R. 14 is most commonly employed to join a third party who is liable
to the defendant on a theory of contribution or indemnification. The focus of the rule
is whether the third-party claim arose from the transaction or occurrence which is the
subject matter of the primary claim. State ex rel. Jacobs, supra. In commenting
upon Civ.R. 14(A), this court has stated:
{¶ 46} "In order to bring a third-party claim under Civ.R. 14(A), the claim must
be derivative of the outcome of the main claim. Renacci v. Martell (1993), 91 Ohio
App.3d 217, 220. A third-party claim is inappropriate where the right or duty set forth
in the third-party complaint alleged to have been violated does not emanate from the
plaintiff's claim but exists wholly independent of it. Id., citing Southeast Mortgage Co.
v. Mullins (C.A.5, 1975), 514 F.2d 747, 750. Thus, in order to be the proper subject
of a third-party action, the alleged right of the defendant to recover, or the duty
allegedly breached by the third-party defendant, must arise from the plaintiff's
successful prosecution of the main action against defendant. Id. at 221." Spalding
v. Coulson (2001), 147 Ohio App.3d 371, 379.
{¶ 47} "It is well settled that Fed.Civ.R. 14, whose language is quite similar,
does not require 'an identity of claims or even that the claims rest on the same
theory.' Rather, the focus of the rule is whether the third-party claim arose from the
transaction or occurrence which is the subject matter of the primary claim." Torok v.
Torok (Jan 22, 1987), Cuyahoga App. No. 51611, quoting American Fidelity and
Casualty Co., Inc. v. Greyhound Corp.(C.A.5, 1956), 232 F.2d 89, 92. Such a
position is consistent with a policy to avoid duplicative testimony and a multiplicity of
actions involving common issues of fact and law. Id., citing State ex rel. Jacobs,
supra.

The case law is quite abundant and clear. Next, we can cover in greater detail his attorney's lack of clarity on liability of publishers of third-parties posts and the standards for libel and defamation. What a circus show this is turning out to be.

Soapboxmom

Buzz, Woody, and Mr. PotatoeHead would like to know if future correspondence to Mr. Holbrook should be sent c/o Head Ringmaster or c/o Head Clown at Ringling Bros., seeing as though he's gaining experience at both. Maybe his attorney could apply for one or the other also. Mr. PotatoeHead has informed me he has pitched his tent on the courthouse steps in New Caney waiting to be served. He said his potatoegun is cocked, locked, and he's ready to rock!

Please address all correspondence to:

Pinocchio,
c/- Geppettos' Woodworks,
3rd village on the left,
Italy.

Carved by a woodcarver named Geppetto in a small Italian village, he was created as a wooden puppet, but dreamed of becoming a real boy. Pinocchio is often a term used to describe an individual who is prone to telling lies, fabricating stories and exaggerating or creating tall tales for various reasons.

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

Don Allen Holbrook was hired in 2007 to:
EAST MONTGOMERY COUNTY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT / Directors approve contracts / Contract OK'd for theme park consultant 11/29/2007 | Archives | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

The directors will retain Don Holbrook and the Vercitas Group for consulting services in connection with the for-profit theme park portion of the Earth Quest project.

Under the terms of the $25,000 contract, Holbrook will provide the district with outside consulting services connected with securing financing and investors, said Frank McCrady, EMCID president and CEO.

"We want to make sure he stays with the project and makes the presentations," said McCrady.
Holbrook has already been working with the project's promoters, founders and the district and was actively involved in the process that selected the site of the Earth Quest venture.

The Earthquest Institute had $600,000.00 paid in professional services and most of that was probably to the professional fundraisers that were from Holbrook's former company (Stellar) that had bailed with him and formed their own group (Sage). Holbrook's gang raised very little of the 1.4 million that the charity got in funding. 1.1 million of that was tax dollars thrown at that Titanic by the East Montgomery County Improvement District. Holbrook raked in $328,000.00 at a ludicrous $185 dollars an hour before the whole mess imploded with no charitable work accomplished.

So both the Earthquest Institute and the for-profit theme park are just visions on paper and I am told are very unlikely to be funded. Holbrook has two colossal failures. So, why spend a penny on that book??

Soapboxmom

After a long time searching for the 100 dollar donor to the EMCID complagin from Pahrump, I found out who the family is. Micheal Meacher is the Vice President of the Front Sight Resort. Another operation which went under because the owner of Front Sight was sued by the people who paid him 150,000 or more for a housing development for gun lovers (which is ok in my book) that never materialized. Dr. Ignatius Piazza, Founder and Director, never acquired the proper permits and whatever to get this project started.

Originally Posted by Soapboxmom

So, why spend a penny on that book??

Hmnn, I guess that phrase is not used in the US:

Spend a penny

Meaning

To use a public lavatory.

Origin

This refers to the (former) use of coin operated locks on public toilets. It was used mostly in the UK and mostly by women (men's urinals were free of charge).

Such locks were first introduced, at a public toilet outside the Royal Exchange, London, in the 1850s. The term itself is later though. The first recorded citation of it is in H. Lewis's Strange Story, 1945:

"'Us girls,' she said, 'are going to spend a penny!'"

'Spend a penny' has now gone out of use, partly because charges have changed and partly because it was always a coy euphemism, which now seems rather dated. The writing was on the wall for this phrase, so to speak, from 1977, when the Daily Telegraph printed an article headed "2p to spend a penny".

So, "spending a penny on that book" is probably not such a bad idea.

Originally Posted by fjjm303

After a long time searching for the 100 dollar donor to the EMCID complagin from Pahrump, I found out who the family is. Micheal Meacher is the Vice President of the Front Sight Resort. Another operation which went under because the owner of Front Sight was sued by the people who paid him 150,000 or more for a housing development for gun lovers (which is ok in my book) that never materialized. Dr. Ignatius Piazza, Founder and Director, never acquired the proper permits and whatever to get this project started.

That was a hundred bucks blown. The shooting range crap may not go in. It sounds like the new board members are going to clean house and vote as their constituents would like. So, if the public doesn't support it the board members who are actually concerned about representing their constituents won't either. That Front Sight is squirrelly to say the least!

Soapboxmom

Originally Posted by littleroundman

Hmnn, I guess that phrase is not used in the US:



So, "spending a penny on that book" is probably not such a bad idea.

Cheaper than a roll of toilet paper it is!!!!

http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/rule11sanc.pdf/$file/rule11sanc.pdf

For the most part, in the cases I studied, sanctions were imposed
early in the pretrial process in conjunction with a ruling on a
motion, often a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment (see
table 11, infra). The sanction reinforced a decision made under that
ruling and served as a notice aimed at deterring future filings of
similar cases......

The test for sanctioning a legal argument as unfounded
or frivolous was whether it "has absolutely no chance of success
under the existing precedents, and where no reasonable argument
can be advanced to extend, modify or reverse the law as it
stands. "68.....

Courts are more likely to impose
sanctions when a party fails to confront adverse authority and
advances an argument that is
• rejected by an unbroken string of authority (as opposed to an
argument relating to a questionable or more complex area); or
• previously rejected by the court in the same or closely related
litigation.96....

• Adverse information supplied by an adversary constitutes
notice of the need for further investigation, and failure to investigate
is strong evidence of a violation of the rule.
• Reliance on a client's story is not sufficient if further
investigation is reasonable and feasible; however, if verification is
not feasible, an attorney may proceed if the client's story is plausible
and credible.
50.....

lawyer is well advised to do the following before filing a complaint,
answer, or other major pleading:
1. Interview the client or clients personally. A reasonable
factual inquiry demands a thorough personal interview
with the client, including the identification of key witnesses
and the review of pertinent documents.1l8Lawyers
interviewed for this study added some practical advice that
embellishes this guideline and makes it more concrete.
Several would elicit a written version of the client's claim.
One would even get an affidavit in an appropriate case.
Several lawyers indicated that they review the factual allegations
in the pleadings with the client prior to filing. Others
refer to "cross-examination" of clients in appropriate
contexts.1l9
2. Dissuade the client from filing a specious claim
and try to find other ways to address the problem.
120 As one lawyer I interviewed put it, rule 11
"involves the lawyer in the decision to sue, no longer
[simply] serving the wishes of the client." Rule 11 affords
the lawyer an independent reason to discourage specious,
dilatory claims or defenses.
3. Identify or anticipate responses of opposing parties.
l21 The lawyers surveyed identified several ways of anticipating the opponent's claims. One time-honored
method is to send a demand letter prior to filing suit. Another
is to "look at the interplay between the client and the
opposing party," as one lawyer expressed it. By reviewing
the correspondence and evidence of the relationship between
the parties, a lawyer can get a sense of the defenses
that might be raised. In one office, the lawyer's partner
took the role of lawyer for the opposing party and prepared
a memorandum in support of a motion to dismiss. Playing
the devil's advocate in less formal modes was commonplace
among the lawyers.
4. Review relevant documents.122 In many of the cases
involving high risks of sanctions, such as securities actions,
documents are available for review before filing. In
employment discrimination cases, such review can be a
problem because of delays in administrative proceedings
and the need for discovery to obtain records from employers.
Lawyers are held accountable for reading and analyzing
available documents.
S. Interview witnesses if they are available.123 Many
lawyers suggested obtaining affidavits from witnesses and
having an investigator do the interviews.
6. Examine tangible evidence if available.
7 . Consult with an expert in the area of law or the
area of factual dispute.124 Larger firms routinely require
consultation with a litigation specialist who is well
versed in the demands of rule 11. For lawyers who practice
infrequently in federal court, consultation with an experienced federal practitioner may be a practical necessity in a
matter of any complexity. For solo practitioners, consultation
with another lawyer may be an indispensable means of
obtaining an objective analysis of a close case.....

Another factor affecting the risk of sanctions is the degree to
which the substance of the claims tends to stigmatize the defendant,
stimulating a subjective desire for vindication and revenge.

I would bet Holbrook's attorney, Sue Seeberger, made virtually no effort to read all the newspaper articles, court docs and posts written etc. She filed her complaint based on Holbrook's word that there were false and defamatory statements even though she had been challenged publicly by me, Craig Malisow and others to produce these alleged false statements of fact her frivolous harassment filing was based on. She should have known full well that any false statements of fact would be retracted, edited or apologized for as appropriate from reading that pertinent evidence.

The fact Holbrook doesn't like what various parties has written does not meet the legal standards for libel and defamation. It is also painfully obvious that there was plenty of case law that suggests that even if she had found false statements, that filing against the third-party defendants would fail as a matter of law as it had nothing in essence to do with the case between Holbrook and Huber Heights. Holbrook and his attorney need to be held fully accountable for this unwarranted harassment and expense this frivolous case is generating.

Soapboxmom

Let's give Don credit where credit is due, the frivolous lawsuits could be a desperate attempt to inflate the 50,000 jobs created number. Add a dozen more when they file in Texas against my partners in cyber-criminal activity, Buzz, Woody, and Mr. Potatoe Head. What, will Don and Sue obtain a court-order to permanently seal my son's toybox? I've tried to keep the closet locked, but that Woody is one smart cookie!

littleroundman, I've been informed Geppettos' Workshop now includes the 4th village on the left, due to expansion in acommodating the ever-expanding growth of said nose. Just think Don, more consruction jobs created in the expansion of Geppettos' workshop!!! Too bad they're in the wrong country.

I assume this case has Holbroook and his attorney all lathered up:
Ohio Supreme Court Finds Personal Jurisdiction Over Out-of-State Internet Poster

Ohio Supreme Court Finds Personal Jurisdiction Over Out-of-State Internet Poster

Tuesday, July 06, 2010

Litigation
Ohio Supreme Court Finds Personal Jurisdiction Over Out-of-State Internet Poster
Kauffman Racing Equipment, L.L.C. v. Roberts, 2010-Ohio-2551 (June 10, 2010)

In a recent 4-2 decision*, the Ohio Supreme Court held that an Ohio court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident who makes comments on the Internet concerning an Ohio resident with the intent to cause harm.
The Case
The plaintiff, Kauffman Racing Equipment, L.L.C. (Kauffman), an Ohio limited liability company, manufactures engine blocks and other high-performance automobile equipment. The defendant, Scott Roberts (Roberts) is a Virginia resident who had never physically entered Ohio. Roberts purchased a Pontiac engine block from Kauffman's website, and later requested a refund, claiming that the block was defective. Kauffman found that substantial alterations were made to the block and refused to refund Roberts. Roberts subsequently made numerous postings to websites related to the automobile racing industry. Roberts's postings asserted that the block was "junk" and indicated his explicit desire to extract revenge upon Kauffman through his posts.

After receiving inquiries about the comments from at least five Ohio residents, Kauffman sued Roberts in Knox County Common Pleas Court alleging defamation and intentional interference with contracts and business relationships. The trial court dismissed the action for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Fifth District Court of Appeals reversed and held that the trial court had personal jurisdiction over Roberts.
The Ohio Supreme Court accepted Roberts's appeal to determine "whether an Ohio court can properly assert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant when jurisdiction is predicated on that defendant's publication of allegedly defamatory statements on the Internet." The Court applied the two-pronged Ohio personal jurisdiction test, examining:

• whether the long-arm statute and applicable rule of civil procedure confer jurisdiction, and, if so;
• whether the exercise of jurisdiction would deprive the nonresident defendant of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Findings
The Court found that personal jurisdiction would be proper pursuant to R.C. § 2307.382(A)(3) and Civil Rule 4.3(A)(6), which allow jurisdiction and service of process over a nonresident who causes "tortious injury by an act or omission in this state." Roberts argued that he did not direct the allegedly tortious statements to Ohio or publish them in the state. But the Court analogized to a previous case in which it held that sending a letter to an Ohio resident was sufficient to confer jurisdiction in a defamation action. Fallang v. Hickey, 40 Ohio St. 3d 106 (1988). Kauffmann had established that at least five Ohio residents saw Roberts's statements, which was sufficient to demonstrate that the comments were “published” in Ohio.
The Court also found that even if Roberts had not published his statements within Ohio, R.C. § 2307.382(A)(6) and Civil Rule 4.3(A)(9) would subject him to personal jurisdiction. Those provisions allow jurisdiction over a person that causes "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." The Court found that Roberts's statements were made outside of Ohio with the purpose of injuring an Ohio resident and there was a reasonable expectation that the injury would occur in Ohio.
The Court further found that exercising personal jurisdiction over Roberts did not violate his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights because Roberts made his postings with the intent of injuring an Ohio resident. To reach this finding, the Court applied a three-part test:

• the defendant must purposefully avail himself of the privilege of acting in Ohio;
  
• the cause of action must arise from the defendant's activities in Ohio; and
• the acts or consequences of the defendant's acts must have a substantial enough connection with the forum state to make the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant reasonable. Southern Machine Co. v. Mohasco Indus., Inc., 401 F.2d 374, 381 (6th Cir. 1968).

As to the first prong of the test, the Court explained: "Roberts intended the effects of his conduct to be felt in Ohio. His statements were communicated with the very purpose of having their consequences felt by [Kauffman] in Ohio." The Court also noted that the posts were read by Ohio residents and that Roberts knew that Kauffman's business reputation was centered in Ohio. Roberts's comments also met the second prong because Kauffman's cause of action arose from the allegedly defamatory statements, which were based on Roberts's contacts with Ohio. Roberts's actions satisfied the third prong because the state's "legitimate interest in protecting the business interests of its citizens" made the exercise of jurisdiction over Roberts reasonable. The Court thus affirmed the exercise of jurisdiction over Roberts.
The Impact
The effects of Kauffman are difficult to predict. In a dissent joined by Justice Lanzinger, Justice O'Donnell critiqued the majority for "extend[ing] the personal jurisdiction of Ohio courts to cover any individual in any state who purchases a product from an Ohio company and posts a criticism of it on the Internet with the intent to damage the seller." The case appears to be limited to situations where the statement is made with the intent to injure. Time will tell whether the decision provides a route to relief for Ohio companies subject to attack from defamatory Internet postings originating outside of Ohio.

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

None of those Holbrook sued could have had any intent or reasonable expectation of injuring anyone in Ohio by discussing matters of public concern related to their states of residence, which are Texas and Nevada. My comments are on the site I admin for, the Pahrump Valley Times and numerous sites devoted specifically to the area local to Earthquest such as the the:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Earth...n/240136904264

Discussion about the New Caney Dino Park - Houston Dinosaur Park

Roman Forest Online Message Board - Latest on Earthquest theme park

Kingwood Underground - the heart and soul of our Kingwood, Texas family

Fantasy Land - Page 1 - News - Houston - Houston Press

http://www.eastmansmith.com/document...own%20risk.pdf

The Court further ruled, even if the allegedly
tortious conduct did not take place within the territorial boundaries of Ohio, Mr. Roberts could still be sued in Ohio because
he had both the reasonable expectation and the actual intent that these statements would inflict injury within Ohio....

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Kauffman case is now the standard by which trial courts will determine whether
a nonresident can be sued in Ohio. Even though this appears to be a broad ruling, with a signifi cant reach outside Ohio,
future courts will likely require a nonresident defendant to have “minimum contacts” with Ohio before exercising jurisdiction.
If that criteria is followed, this ruling, while important, will not be a dramatic departure from Ohio jurisprudence, as
was argued by the dissent, but instead will be a logical progression of the law in a new internet era.

Judge James Kimbler's Blog: Ohio Court Can Assert Personal Jurisdiction over Nonresident Defendant in Internet Defamation Case

Roberts intended the effects of his conduct to be felt in Ohio. His statements were communicated with the very purpose of having their consequences felt by KRE in Ohio. The contention that his statements were not made with the purpose of injuring some person in Ohio is unavailing. The postings themselves indicate his purpose of injuring Kauffman. For example, on his October 18, 2006, posting, Roberts stated: “[w]hat I loose [sic] in dollars I will make up in entertainment at their expence [sic].” On October 19, 2006, he wrote: “[a]gain, this is not to get a resolution. I have a much bigger and dastardly plan than that and this is a good place to start.” Many of the postings name Kauffman directly and specifically mention Ohio.”

“Here, Roberts not only knew that Ohio resident KRE could be the victim, he intended it be the victim. The allegedly defamatory communications concerned KRE’s activities in Ohio. We are not dealing with the situation in which jurisdiction is premised on a single, isolated transaction. The posts detailed the transactions between Roberts and KRE. Moreover, the purchase of the engine block and subsequent transfers from Virginia to Ohio and back again served as the foundation from which this dispute arose. Roberts’s allegedly defamatory posts were predicated on his course of dealing with an Ohio resident corporation. At least five Ohio residents other than Kauffman read these postings. Lastly, although KRE does business nationwide, its business reputation is centered in Ohio, because Ohio is the location of its sole base of operations. Roberts knew, and in fact intended, that the brunt of the harm caused be felt by KRE in Ohio. Thus, the focal point of the damage was Ohio, and Roberts’s actions therefore fulfill the requirement of causing a consequence in Ohio.”

This precedent setting case bears little in common with Holbrook's goofy filing! Holbrook needs to show that postings were targeted to Ohio with the specific intent of injuring an Ohio business or resident whose reputation centers there. The arguments in favor of a bunch of newspapers writing about Earthquest accomplishing that should make for some hilarious losing BS by team Holbrook.

Soapboxmom

Overview of Personal Jurisdiction -- U.S. Perspective

Zippo Manufacturing Company v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc.⁽⁴⁴⁾ has provided the analytical framework most commonly used by lower courts. The plaintiff, which manufactured Zippo lighters, sued the California defendant, an internet news service, in the western district of Pennsylvania for violations of trademark laws. The court's critical insight was:
... the likelihood that personal jurisdiction can be constitutionally exercised is directly proportionate to the nature and quality of commercial activity that an entity conducts over the Internet. This sliding scale is consistent with well developed personal jurisdiction principles. At one end of the spectrum are situations where a defendant clearly does business over the Internet. If the defendant enters into contracts with residents of a foreign jurisdiction that involve the knowing and repeated transmission of computer files over the Internet, personal jurisdiction is proper. At the opposite end are situations where a defendant has simply posted information on an Internet Web site which is accessible to users in foreign jurisdictions. A passive Web site that does little more than make information available to those who are interested is not grounds for the exercise of personal jurisdiction. The middle ground is occupied by interactive Web sites where a use can exchange information with the host computer. In these cases, the exercise of jurisdiction is determined by examining the level of interactivity and commercial nature of the exchange of information that occurs on the Web site.⁽⁴⁵⁾
The failure of a passive web site to alone sustain jurisdiction been previously noted in a case Zippo cites, Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. King, ⁽⁴⁶⁾ in which the court acknowledged that placing a site on the internet permits access throughout the world but denied that the defendant's act was directed toward New York. The common sense justification for the decision is two-fold: first, a party who wishes to post anything on a web site cannot control or limit where the site is accessed; it is not possible to choose "local" as opposed to "worldwide" distribution. Second, the poster itself does not determine who sees the site; "pull" technology requires an active rather than passive viewer....

One example of Zippo's application is sufficient here: Millenium Enterprises, Inc. v. Millennium Music Lp.⁽⁴⁸⁾ This, too, was a trademark case; in agreement with other courts, the issue was framed as whether the defendant's efforts had been "purposefully directed toward forum residents."

The legal issues here are fascinating. All this will be debated very publicly and Don Allen Holbrook will be the subject of discussions about this vicious attack on the media and taxpayeres for years to come. Good luck with that, Hobrook!!!!

Soapboxmom

Holbrook better get started on that next book. With a change in context and title it would more than likely make the New York Times best-seller list. I could go all day with titles, but here are just a few. " The Art Of The STEAL Today.....Lapping Up Governmental Gravy Until The Bowl's Sqeaky Clean ", or how about "Milk That Governmental Cash Cow Until The Teets Are UDDERly Red......Or Falling Off (How I Turned $25,OOO Into Over $1,000,OOO)". SBM, this is starting to give creedence to what a poster on the KW Underground posted right after Don's online meltdown. He posted, and I quote, "Dude, we're just getting started!"

http://www.realscam.com/f11/trey-whi...html#post24657

Originally Posted by pantherdadX2

Holbrook better get started on that next book. With a change in context and title it would more than likely make the New York Times best-seller list. I could go all day with titles, but here are just a few. " The Art Of The STEAL Today.....Lapping Up Governmental Gravy Until The Bowl's Sqeaky Clean ", or how about "Milk That Governmental Cash Cow Until The Teets Are UDDERly Red......Or Falling Off (How I Turned $25,OOO Into Over $1,000,OOO)". SBM, this is starting to give creedence to what a poster on the KW Underground posted right after Don's online meltdown. He posted, and I quote, "Dude, we're just getting started!"

Now, that Earthquest will receive no further funding, Holbrook's gravy train here in Texas is over!!! Yippee!

He could also write a lovely book entitled Don't Mess With Texas and Get Kicked in the Solar Plexus! pantherdadx2, the Texas taxpayers and media rule!!!!

Soapboxmom

PEOPLE POWER STRIKES AGAIN:



http://www.ourtribune.com/article.php?id=13812

2. Third-Party Defendant Heather Dobrott (“Dobrott”), upon information and belief,
is a resident of Garland, Texas, which is located about 25 miles northeast of Dallas and about
250 miles northwest of Houston, is also known by the user name “soapboxmom”, is the
administrator of a website with the address www.realscam.com, 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 Don Allen Holbrook, 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/pahrumpnv?
q=u:pvtimes.com;
http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairba..._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 Don
Allen Holbrook, 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 Don Allen Holbrook, LLC, go “viral” and are listed at the beginning of any
4
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....

12. Upon information and belief, shortly after Malisow placed his telephone call on or
about February 29, 2012, to Mr. Adams, persons either employed by the City or elected officials
of the City, are believed to have conducted “internet research” on Don Allen Holbrook, LLC
and, as a proximate result of the concerted action among Third-Party Defendants in posting and
re-posting defamatory, derogatory, and false statements about Don Holbrook, causing them to
“go viral” because of search engine optimization logarithms, persons either employed by the City
or elected officials of the City found defamatory, derogatory, and false statements on the
internet, including but not limited to defamatory statements (per se or per quod), by Dobrott,
Maurizio, Malisow, Calvert, and possibly other unknown persons on the various websites
9
identified above, calling Don Allen Holbrook, LLC, a “scammer”, “scam artist”, “a work at
home scam promotor”, “The Music Man” (making reference to Meredith Willson’s character
“Harold Hill”, a confidence man, in the Broadway show, “The Music Man”), “selling bottles of
magic water”, posting photos on websites allegedly showing “drunken dancing” on a table,
“drunken antics”, “drunken soirees”, stating that Mr. Holbrook “misrepresented the [Houston
Earthquest] project to folks in Pahrump [Nevada]”, stating that “expenses are downright
criminal”, referring to “Holbrook and his flunkies”, stating “I am going to label this guy
[Holbrook] nothing more than a self promoting and quite arrogant scammer”, and, upon
information and belief, taking credit for ruining the business and reputation of Don Allen
Holbrook, LLC on 03-30-2012 on www.realscam.com: “Pardon me, but Mr. Holbrook brags of
that 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.” Emphasis added....

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....

33. At a meeting on March 14, 2012 between Don Allen Holbrook, 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 Don Allen Holbrook, LLC, that the
City no longer wanted a relationship with Don Allen Holbrook, 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....

COUNT ONE AGAINST ALL THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS:
CIVIL CONSPIRACY

COUNT TWO AGAINST ALL THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS:
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT
AND PROSPECTIVE BUSINESS RELATIONS

COUNT THREE AGAINST ALL THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS:
DEFAMATION (PER SE OR PER QUOD).......

A. On Count One for Civil Conspiracy, Third-Party Plaintiff Don Allen Holbrook,
LLC asks this Court to grant judgment in its favor and against all Third-Party Defendants,
compensatory damages in favor of Third-Party Plaintiff Don Allen Holbrook, LLC in an amount
in excess of $25,000.00 to be shown at trial, punitive damages in an amount in excess of
$50,000.00 to be shown at trial, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, its attorney’s fees and
all costs of this action and the Complaint filed against it;
B. On Count Two for Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations with the City,
with Pahrump Nevada, and tortious interference with prospective business relations against all
Third-Party Defendants, Third-Party Plaintiff Don Allen Holbrook, LLC asks this Court to grant
judgment in its favor and against these Third-Party Defendants, compensatory damages in an
amount in excess of $25,000.00 to be shown at trial, punitive damages in an amount in excess of
$50,000.00 to be shown at trial, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, its attorney’s fees and
all costs of this action and the Complaint filed against it;
C. On Count Three of the Third-Party Complaint for Defamation per se and/or per
quod, Third-Party Plaintiff Don Allen Holbrook, LLC asks this Court to grant judgment in its
favor and against all Third-Party Defendants, compensatory damages in an amount in excess of
$25,000.00 to be shown at trial or if such statements are determined to be defamatory per quod,
special damages in an amount in excess of $66,000.00 for any losses relating to the City, special
damages in an amount in excess of $80,000.00 for any losses relating to a pending contract with
Pahrump, Nevada, special damages in an amount in excess of $25,000.00 relating to any other
losses that may be shown at trial relating to existing, pending and/or future losses of business
with existing and/or prospective clients, compensatory damages to repair its reputation on the
20
internet in the approximate amount of $25,000.00 for the first year and approximately $8,000.00
per year thereafter, to be shown at trial, punitive damages in an amount in excess of $50,000.00
to be shown at trial, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, its attorney’s fees and all costs of
this action and the Complaint filed against it; and
D. For such other legal and/or equitable relief this Court deems just and proper.
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

It is time to be very clear on why I believe that Holbrook and his counsel are going to go down in flames.

Of those websites listed that I am posting on, the only one I posted on before March 14th when the city told Holbrook his report was not acceptable and they wanted their money back was www.realscam.com. So, in relation to the alleged tortious intereference with the contract with the city, which is what the original case and this one must center on, there is page one of this thread. That is not going to cut it!

Craig would have called on February 29th for information for his article. Full of questions and nothing more.

Frank Maurizio wrote his Music Man series of blogs starting May of 2012. Craig Malisow's article about Earthquest hit the paper on April 11th, 2012 which is long after Huber Heights sent him packing!!!

Cynthia Calvert and the Tribune had the following articles published before the March 14 blow-up:

EarthQuest land in bankruptcy - Tuesday, January 10, 2012 - Copyright 2007 Ourtribune.com (no mention of Holbrook)

EMCID may lose millions unless dino-project built - Tuesday, January 24, 2012 - Copyright 2007 Ourtribune.com (no mention of Holbrook)

Court gives EarthQuest developer time to raise money, save project - Tuesday, February 07, 2012 - Copyright 2007 Ourtribune.com

A Disneyland for gun lovers - Monday, February 20, 2012 - Copyright 2007 Ourtribune.com

Where's the money? - Tuesday, February 21, 2012 - Copyright 2007 Ourtribune.com (no mention of Holbrook)

Second dino-park in Jasper sunk by savvy officials - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - Copyright 2007 Ourtribune.com (no mention of Holbrook)

EarthQuest fees mount - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - Copyright 2007 Ourtribune.com

Crowd interested in recent EarthQuest revelations receive little formal update - Friday, March 09, 2012 - Copyright 2007 Ourtribune.com (no mention of Holbrook)

So, the Ohioans would have been able to access those articles and the first page of this thread. Virtually all the numerous alleged defamatory comments Holbrook's attorney mentions were published long after the city sent him packing. And, as they are all truthful, factual and/or expressions of opinion, they are therefor not defamatory or false as he and his attorney claim.

Holbrook's problems in Ohio are his own doing entirely! There is no conspiracy, no tortious interference in Ohio and no defamation. His problem in Pahrump is again his own doing and that issue has no place in this case that is based on his dealings with Huber Heights Ohio.

If Holbrook thought he had problems with posts about him going viral before, boy is he in for a surprise! He isn't likely to get this past some brilliant Motions to Dismiss. I am sure all the defendants will be looking to recover the attorney fees on this frivolous harassment filing. This should be turned around on Holbrook and Seeberger and I hope Motions for Sanctions will be filed.

Holbrook has made wild accusations of libel and defamation when the postings are in fact truth, facts and opinion as far as I can see. Seeberger apparently didn't bother to check out what Holbrook told her. So, I think she has been negligent and reckless in this filing and possibly downright deceitful. She had an obligation when signing this filing against all of us to do so in good faith knowing the facts were established or likely to be established with discovery. This groundless, harassment fishing expedition is inexcusable!

As Holbrook stiffed Peabody Nixon to the tune of 1.29 million, I would be worried about working on a losing case for free if I was Seeberger! And, with all the bloggers and newspapers targeted, this is sure to get a deluge of publicity!

Soapboxmom

Originally Posted by Holbrook lawsuit

33. At a meeting on March 14, 2012 between Don Allen Holbrook, 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 Don Allen Holbrook, LLC, that the
City no longer wanted a relationship with Don Allen Holbrook, 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....

How downright insulting to Mr Fisher, Mr Campbell and staff is that little gem ???

Are Mr Holbrook and/or his attorney seriously suggesting the aforementioned gentlemen are incapable of coming to the conclusion they did based solely on their own experience/s ??

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...

Maybe it's just me, but I cannot see the part where ANYONE says: "because of what Soapboxmom said" or "because of what some internet blogger stated/implied"

Certainly looks like a major expedition, to me.

Originally Posted by littleroundman

How downright insulting to Mr Fisher, Mr Campbell and staff is that little gem ???

Are Mr Holbrook and/or his attorney seriously suggesting the aforementioned gentlemen are incapable of coming to the conclusion they did based solely on their own experience/s ??



Maybe it's just me, but I cannot see the part where ANYONE says: "because of what Soapboxmom said" or "because of what some internet blogger stated/implied"

Certainly looks like a major expedition, to me.

One has to wonder at this point if Holbrook's attorney Sue Seeberger is possibly incompetent, not particularly bright, dishonest and/or being bullied by her client into making foolish allegations and filings. Holbrook's contract dispute is between him and the city and has nothing to do with any outside parties!

Soapboxmom

Don Allen Holbrook has been jumping up and down about his new book all over the internet since Sunday and he is the only one commenting on it and reviewing it. It landed with a huge thud!!!

Newest Reviews

see all reviews

• 
  
  • Rated 5 stars
  
  

“My latest book on how small to medium companies can find capitalization in this frozen credit market in the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis.”
Don Allen Holbrook wrote this review 2 days ago. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No

No one that is in the economic devlopment community that knows what is going on seems to want to get their good name tangled up with his adventures. What a surprise!!!

Soapboxmom