There are 3 issues that could lead a reasonable person to conclude abuse of judicial process by plaintiff Julian Robertson's attorney Richard Marooney of King & Spalding. These are the questions that Mr. Marooney should be asked. How about...
1. Improper service
2. Filing a lawsuit with no basis in fact or in law and which, since the beginning, has been in the wrong venue.
3. Breaching the contract regarding the retraction of alleged defamatory article
This case has been systematic pseudo-legal intimidation and harassment by a rich old man, the plaintiff -- billionaire and failed Tiger hedge fund manager Julian Robertson.
(By the way, Mr. Marooney Ė where is your client today?)
This case is abuse of judicial process and further evidence that Julian Robertson uses the law to intimidate any criticism of his financial malfeasance.
This case is also a First Amendment issue since it involves a public figure, who is notoriously ill-tempered and litigation-happy.
Robertson has made himself a public figure by his frequent media appearances on business news channels and in newsprint.
Procedurally the judgment of the lower court is a chilling of constitutional rights, since the requirements for filing a frivolous lawsuit are so low. Meanwhile this case has been an emotional and financial hardship on me and my family defending myself and my company against unproven allegations. It should be noted that Robertson did not claim or attest to any losses of any sort Ė and never has to this day.
I am an independent journalist and publisher. I am the press and I am pro se. Robertson on the other hand is a billionaire and a public figure who has a history of filing meritless lawsuits.
I had a valid substantive defense, but because of faulty procedures, the lower court punished me with extreme sanctions and a summary judgment. My supposed non-compliance was nothing compared to Robertson's stone-walling regarding my discovery. His attorney Richard Marooney wouldn't even tell me if Robertson is actually in New York. Or not.
This is salient to proper venue which the lower court to this day has still not ruled on.
I did in fact comply with the courtís request, but it may be that the plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney are not computer literate and misled the court.
This is an egregious lawsuit on the face of it and should be dismissed. Robertson and his attorney have not produced a single shred of evidence supporting their allegations.
Then there are the lower court's procedural oversights or errors.
For whatever reason, during the discovery request, the lower court's decision resulted in extreme sanctions against me, even as my requests for discovery were ignored -- especially regarding venue.
I'm not a lawyer, but I understand it's important that I'm in the right jurisdiction. For whatever reason, the lower court has ignored or overlooked my request to dismiss my case or move the case to Montana, the defendants' residence.
The lower court to date has still not made a ruling on proper venue.
Then there's Mr. Marooney's missing client, Julian Robertson, who didnít even show up, in spite of court orders for both parties
Was it because he doesn't live here anymore? Is it because this was a nuisance lawsuit he filed just because he could? Or is it because he just doesnít care enough?
This is a frivolous and cynical lawsuit and that's why this is clearly abuse of the federal judiciary.
So who was in court? Mr. Marooney for the plaintiff. Uri for the respondent. But the court did not ask -- Mr. Marooney, where's you client?
The case should have been dismissed when Mr. Robertson didnít show up in court.
This case is a another frivolous action by Robertson disguised as legal extortion.
In fact, Mr. Robertsonís recent poor track record as a hedge fund manager may have prompted this frivolous lawsuit against me. He allegedly lost $17 billion in client funds in 2000. He then sued Business Week Magazine for $1 billion because it was a nice round number, he said.
There are 3 primary issues why this judgment of the lower court should be reversed and/ or vacated. These can be characterized as either oversights or egregious errors.
1. Incorrect venue
2. Extreme sanctions (default judgment) against the defendant due to incomplete discovery
3. Hearsay testimony by William Goodell allowed by magistrate court
As I said in my brief --
1. The district court abused its discretion by not responding to numerous motions by defendants regarding proper venue, even though defendants have no nexus in New York and plaintiff is not domiciled there, but indeed lives in New Zealand.
2. The district court abused its discretion by sanctioning defendants -- but not plaintiff -- for incomplete discovery issues and then issuing a default judgment against defendants.
3. The magistrate court abused its discretion by allowing hearsay testimony by a non-expert witness, Robertson's employee William Goodell, while plaintiff Julian Robertson, ignoring the court order to attend, was absent at the inquest hearing and not available for direct or cross-examination to verify the facts of the case.