BeforeItsNews only exists through ads. We ask all patriots who appreciate the evil we expose and want to
help us savage the NWO with more Truth to disable your ad-blocker on our site only so we can grow and expose more evil! Funding
gives us more weapons! Thank you patriots! Oh and If you disable the Ad-blocker - on your deathbed you will receive total
consciousness. So you got that going for you...which is nice!
Never accuse someone of issuing a Death Threat against you when you know you are lying. It’s just not good policy, especially against me because I will hold you fully accountable, and so will a Jury. Here’s some back story with my lawsuit and other unsavory facts about the scumbag attorneys at Wright, Finlay & Zak. Here is the first movie from 2014 when Luke Wozniak got nasty with me. Below are excerpts from my Motion to Remand to State Court because they don’t have the legal chops to Remove the case to Federal Court and are only trying to do so in order to keep my cameras away from the Action. Stay tuned for a video on this tomorrow!
LAW AND ARGUMENT
A. Removal is Completely Inappropriate as State Claims Predominate.
It is completely clear that this case is predominately about Defamation, False Light, Outrage, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Tortious Interference with Business Expectancy and Stateside Civil Conspiracy. The mere fact that the same elements that comprise a Stateside Civil Conspiracy may prove a Federal Conspiracy does not a removal make…..
B. Removal is Completely Inappropriate as the Case in No Ways Turns on an Application of
As noted in the above paragraph, the Federal Claim is essentially a tag-along. While it is of course important that the Defendants colluded to lie in an attempt to deny Plaintiff’s exercise of certain Inalienable Rights, similar Rights are at stake in the State Civil Conspiracy Claims and they are but one seventh, or 14% of Plaintiff’s case.
As such, nothing in the case truly turns on an Application of Federal Law, and even should the Court find that it does, the true test is whether Plaintiff could simply dismiss Cause 7 without materially altering his case, and the Answer is an obvious “yes.”
We will examine the real reason for the attempted and failed Removal in Section D, infra.
C. Removal is Completely Inappropriate as the Amount in Controversy is not Certain to
The Defendants’ position is tantamount to saying “Some soft-tissue vehicular lawsuits result in damages in excess of minimal Jurisdiction requirements, Plaintiff is alleging a soft-tissue vehicular injury and therefore Plaintiff’s case is certain to meet the threshold.”
While Plaintiff did indeed study rhetoric, logic and philosophy prior to law school, it doesn’t take a Rhodes Scholar to find the flaws in that syllogism. We will examine the real reason for the attempted and failed Removal in Section D, infra.
D. The Real Reason for the Attempted Removal is to Avoid Video Coverage.
Anyone looking at the tenor of this case can readily see that the Defendants hated the KingCast/Mortgage Movies video coverage of the Lucero lawsuit, in which Defendant Wozniak rudely barked at Plaintiff to “get out” as he reneged on an Agreement to allow video of Plaintiff Lucero’s Deposition.
Defendant Wozniak had to be reminded several times to “watch [his] tone” as one can hear Plaintiff’s camera tripod collapsing as Plaintiff is shoving various professional equipment into his equipment bag.
Moreover, Defendant Wozniak does not put his co-counsel in check when his co-counsel threatens to call security for no lawful reason, when Plaintiff is clearly a licensee or invitee and hardly a trespasser.
 In point of fact, that distinction arguably wasn’t the Defendants’ argument to make because they were only renting the Deposition space in the first place. Be that as it may, Plaintiff has reason to believe that Defendants engaged in Defamatory conduct during that event as well (i.e. that he was in some way threatening – you know, a dangerous black man of course, we all know the routine) and his pending Discovery Demands are reasonably calculated to produce proof of his assertions in this regard.
 Furthermore, and as proof of the Defendants’ real goals here they have neglected to ask Plaintiff to stipulate that the damages do not exceed $75,000.00. See Calnan v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106881 (WD WA 2014) “To prevent removal a plaintiff may stipulate to damages not exceeding the $75,000 jurisdictional limit. Oshana v. Coca-Cola Co., 472 F.3d 506, 511 (7th Cir. 2006); Del Real v. Healthsouth Corp., 171 F.Supp.2d 1041, 1043 (D. Ariz. 2001).” That’s because all they care about is trying to avoid being on camera. But unfortunately for them, such is not a legitimate purpose of Removal. Game over, insert coin in the State Court slot machine and try your luck there, on camera folks.
Before It’s News® is a community of individuals who report on what’s going on around them, from all around the world.
Anyone can join.
Anyone can contribute.
Anyone can become informed about their world.