TaubmanSucks.com
WillowBendSucks.com
WillowBendMallSucks.com
ShopsAtWillowBendSucks.com
TheShopsAtWillowBendSucks.com
GiffordKrassGrohSprinkleSucks.com

[ Home Page | Condensed Version | The Movie | The Book | News | Blogs | Feedback / Mail List ]


Act 42: I Reply to Taubman's Allegation

Maybe I shouldn't let it bother me, but I've been really disturbed by Ms. Greenberg's repeated allegation that I violated one of Judge Zatkoff's orders, which is simply untrue. Perhaps I'm afraid that he'll believe her, on the mistaken assumption that she wouldn't level such a serious charge if there were no substance to it. And so, to preclude the possibility that the judge might believe Ms. Greenberg "by default," I decided to file a short brief in response to that baffling allegation.


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

THE TAUBMAN COMPANY LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP,
 
Plaintiff, 
 
 Civil Action No. 01-72987
v.
 Honorable Lawrence P. Zatkoff
WEBFEATS and HENRY MISHKOFF, Magistrate Judge Komives
 
Defendants. 


REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF OPPOSING
(REVISED) MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE

In two of its filings, Plaintiff has leveled a serious and potentially damaging allegation against Defendants. The allegation is blatantly false.

In "Plaintiff's Brief in Reply to Defendants' Response to Show Cause" (November 6, 2001) and again in "Plaintiff's Brief Opposing (Revised) Motion for Change of Venue" (November 29, 2001), Plaintiff accused Defendants of willfully ignoring the Court's instructions. For example, in the latter filing, Plaintiff states:

    "Defendants have filed multiple briefs in response to the Court's Order to Show Cause, exceeding the Court ordered limit of ten pages."

This allegation is totally without basis in fact. The docket shows that Defendants submitted a "RESPONSE... to order to show cause" on November 11, 2001 (docket item number 19). This response, including attached brief, was seven pages long. Other than this response, no other document has been filed by Defendants in reply to the Court's Order to Show Cause, a clear fact which can be easily verified by even a cursory inspection of the docket.

Plaintiff's false allegation surfaced most recently in a brief opposing a venue change, even though the topic of Defendants' response to the Court's Order to Show Cause was totally irrelevant to the subject of its brief. Plaintiff seems to be hoping that its false allegation may gain some credence by repetition, and is thus intent on repeating it in as many documents as possible, whether or not it has even the slightest bearing on the issue at hand.

Defendants, acting pro se, acknowledge that they have encountered difficulties in attempting to adhere to complex procedures with which they are unfamiliar. However, at no time have Defendants failed to comply with any orders or instructions from the Court, neither intentionally nor even accidentally. For Plaintiff to state otherwise can only be seen as a desperate attempt by Plaintiff to prejudice the Court against Defendants.

Defendants assume that the Court has already recognized the spuriousness of Plaintiff's allegation. However, given the importance that Defendants attach to the Court's confidence that Defendants are complying with the letter and spirit of each and every order and other dictate of the Court, Defendants felt compelled to ensure that Plaintiff's malicious allegation did not remain unchallenged.

Respectfully submitted,

Henry Mishkoff
WebFeats
2661 Midway Road, #224-225
Carrollton, TX 75006
972.931.5421

Defendants (pro se)

Dated: December 4, 2001


Next: Personal Jurisdiction, Revisited

[ Home Page | Condensed Version | The Movie | The Book | News | Blogs | Feedback / Mail List ]

©2001 Hank Mishkoff
All rights reserved.