BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS AND FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY DEFENDANTS JIM ATHENS AND KELLY ATHENS
The matter before the court can be summarized quite simply: the plaintiff Charles Mady (Mady) is awaiting sentencing by the Court after pleading guilty to multiple charges of embezzling and defrauding investor's funds. Mady is suing one of his victims, Jim Athens (Athens), Athens' wife, a friend of Athens', and Athens' attorney on obviously fabricated charges that the defendants conspired to have Mady arrested and imprisoned. It is a matter of fact that it was not the defendants' actions that caused Mady to be imprisoned; his imprisonment was the product of the plaintiff's crimes. While awaiting sentencing Mady is filing irrelevant and frivolous complaints that waste both the Court's and the defendants' time and resources. Mady is taking legal action against the defendants based upon Athens cooperating with the federal government. Athens cooperation was limited to serving as a witness in the federal criminal investigation of Mady. Taking legal action against Athens in this situation is clearly not allowed, for if it were the courts would be flooded with complaints brought by criminal defendants against witnesses who testified against them or only supplied information to law enforcement. The fundamental nature of the complaint is an abuse of the legal process and should not be condoned by the court. Mady's complaint illustrates its irresponsible nature through the frivolous charges against the defendants: (1) slander based on (a) statements made to the U.S. Attorney and the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and (b) statements made in Athens' civil lawsuit, both are clearly privileged communications; (2) malpractice against the Athens' Attorney; (3) false imprisonment based on Athens' cooperating with the authorities in Mady's criminal investigation, and Mady's subsequent imprisonment; (4) liability as a result of violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), (5) conspiracy, and (6) blackmail claims based upon the allegation that Athens; his friend, Thomas Photsios (Photsios); his wife, Kelly Athens; the Athens' attorney, David Plunkett (Plunkett), and the attorney's law firm, Williams Williams Rattner & Plunkett (WWRP), were engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity directed against Mady. All of these claims should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)( 6), just as the Court recently dismissed almost identical claims against Photsios in its August 1,2006, Order. Furthermore, Mady is unable to establish any set of facts that would prevent the Court from entering summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the claims asserted them.
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Voulgaris, Leigh Ann (2012)Classical historian David M. Halperin believes that it is useless to ascribe current ideas and terms about human sexuality to past time periods inhabited by people who held no such notions themselves. While Halperin argues ...