Lawsuit

For those that might be interested:

The lawsuit brought by John Brodak against Randi Gifford and Tom McClain in Federal Court has been dismissed by the Federal Judge reviewing the case which was the same action last year in the Pennsylvania Court.

Most excellant news. Thanks for the info Keith.
Jon Ramsden
<@_@>

Nice.

For those of us who never paid any attention, what was the basis of the lawsuit?

What did Brodak sue for?

>
>For those of us who never paid any attention, what was the
>basis of the lawsuit?
>
>What did Brodak sue for?

It seems to have been decided there was no basis.
I would think that a search would turn up the details for anyone sufficiently curious to bother.

Pat MacKenzie

>>
>>For those of us who never paid any attention, what was
>the
>>basis of the lawsuit?
>>
>>What did Brodak sue for?
>
>It seems to have been decided there was no basis.
>I would think that a search would turn up the details for
>anyone sufficiently curious to bother.

If you knew the filing date of either suit, it could be looked up in the public record, which should be give the objective details of the filing. Does anyone know what the filing date might be?

Brett

>>>
>>>For those of us who never paid any attention, what
>was
>>the
>>>basis of the lawsuit?
>>>
>>>What did Brodak sue for?
>>
>>It seems to have been decided there was no basis.
>>I would think that a search would turn up the details for
>>anyone sufficiently curious to bother.
>
> If you knew the filing date of either suit, it could be
>looked up in the public record, which should be give the
>objective details of the filing. Does anyone know what the
>filing date might be?
>
> Brett

Talk about a loaded question! Still, now that there has been a judgment made, and it is a matter of public record, it would seem logical to post this information. Or at least a link to the site where it might be viewed.

Dan

Gotta disagree, if anyone is that interested let them search it out.
Time to let it go. I am pleased with the courts decision.

walter

>>>>
>>>>For those of us who never paid any attention,
>what
>>was
>>>the
>>>>basis of the lawsuit?
>>>>
>>>>What did Brodak sue for?
>>>
>>>It seems to have been decided there was no basis.
>>>I would think that a search would turn up the details
>for
>>>anyone sufficiently curious to bother.
>>
>> If you knew the filing date of either suit, it could
>be
>>looked up in the public record, which should be give the
>>objective details of the filing. Does anyone know what
>the
>>filing date might be?
>>
>> Brett
>
>Talk about a loaded question! Still, now that there has been a
>judgment made, and it is a matter of public record, it would
>seem logical to post this information. Or at least a link to
>the site where it might be viewed.
>
>Dan
>
>
>
>

I don't think you have to look very far.
I just checked and some details can be found very quickly.

Pat MacKenzie

I'm pleased to see sensibility has prevailed! Hopefully, costs were awarded. I assume there is such a thing. Here in Canada, with law suits the loser to pays the winners' costs. Prevents frivolous litigation, at least that's the idea.

A most ugly moment now hopefully buried in history and rumors.

Bruce

No way! There were lawsuits? Within the modeling community? Say it isn't so!

And now they have been tossed out of court? Again!?

Kewl...

Dan

>I'm pleased to see sensibility has prevailed! Hopefully,
>costs were awarded. I assume there is such a thing. Here in
>Canada, with law suits the loser to pays the winners' costs.
>Prevents frivolous litigation, at least that's the idea.
>
>A most ugly moment now hopefully buried in history and
>rumors.
>
>Bruce
I agree with our Canadian friend, maybe we can get back to having a good time with our hobby, and if you must insist, our "sport". Is this the end of it? Anyone know? [photo not recovered: sipcof.gif]

Here is the Presiding Judge's ruling and the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation:

Case 2:06-cv-00146-DSC-LPL Document 31 Filed 01/30/2007
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOHN BRODAK, CORAL BRODAK, )
and BRODAK MANUFACTURING )
AND DISTRIBUTING, INC. )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 06-146
) Judge David S. Cercone
GEORGE T. McCLAIN and ) Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan
RANDI GIFFORD )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This action was commenced on February 2, 2006, and was subsequently referred to United States Magistrate Judge Lisa Lenihan for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. Defendants thereafter filed their separate Motions to Dismiss .

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, filed on December 1, 2006, concluded that the Motions to Dismiss of Defendants George T. McClain and Randi Gifford should be granted and that Plaintiffs' case should be dismissed in its entirety owing to collateral estoppel as to in personam jurisdiction. 1
Objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed by Plaintiffs on December 28, 2006, as permitted by an extension of time requested by the Plaintiffs. After de novo review of the record, together with the Report and Recommendation and plaintiffs' Objections thereto, the following Order is entered:

AND NOW, this 30th day of January, 2007,
IT IS ORDERED that the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss be GRANTED and the action is dismissed for want of in personam jurisdiction over the defendants. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge Lenihan as augmented herein is adopted as the Opinion of the Court.

Plaintiffs' objections are without merit. It is axiomatic that any court cannot adjudicate a claim on its merits in the absence of in personam jurisdiction over the defendant(s). When a court lacks such jurisdiction that is as far as its power extends: a declaration that it lacks the constitutional authority to act. An appeal may be taken for such a declaration. And after appeal to the highest court has been exhausted or waived, the jurisdictional determination becomes fully litigated on its merits. When that occurs, the determination like all others becomes subject to collateral estoppel in appropriate circumstances.

Under plaintiffs' reasoning, an adjudication resulting in a determination of the lack of in personam jurisdiction could never become binding and entitled to full faith and credit because in all such cases a court cannot adjudicate the substantive claims advanced in the lawsuit. Of course, the fallacy of such reasoning is readily apparent. See Valdez v. Kreso, Inc., 144 F. Supp.2d 663, 667-68 (N.D. Tex.2001)(imposing sanctions on attorney who filed lawsuit in federal court asserting similar claims to lawsuit filed in state court which was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction under "long standing that principles of res judicata apply to jurisdictional determinations-both subject matter and personal.")(quoting Ins. Corp. of Ireland v. Campagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702 n. 9(1982)); Deckert v. Wachovia Student Financial Services, Inc., 963 F.2d816, 819(5th Cir.1992)(An order dismissing claims for lack of personal jurisdiction precludes re-litigation of the jurisdictional issues that were actually litigated and essential to the dismissal); Arasco, Inc. v. Glenara, Ltd., 912F.2d 784, 787 (5th Cir. 1990)(noting state court would be bound by federal court finding of lack of personal jurisdiction on constitutional grounds); Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee v. L'Union Atlantique S.A. d'Assurances, 791 F2d 274, 277 (3rd Cir. 1986)(recognizing that collateral estoppel may apply to prior determination of amenability to personal jurisdiction in a particulat forum).

But even assuming for the purposes of argument that a federal court should not blindly follow a state court's determination of a federal constitutional issue, the magistrate judge aptly and correctly explained that this court would be compelled to reach the same conclusion under the independent assessment of the defendants' contacts with the forum and their amenability to suit in this jurisdiction. The existence of such jurisdiction is a question of law when the underlying facts are not in dispute, see Davis v. Metro Productions, Inc., 885 F.2d 515, 522 (9th Cir. 1989), and all courts to have passed on the undisputed facts upon which the plaintiffs have sought to predicate personal jurisdiction have concluded that they are insufficient to satisfy traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Plaintiffs' apparent confusion between subject matter jurisdiction and the constitutional authority to act over the person is of no moment.

Adding countless additional claims under federal statutes neither precludes the application of collateral estoppel nor provides additional facts to satisfy the rudimentary principles of due process. See Valdez, 144 F. Supp.2d at 667 (Collateral estoppel precludes the re-litigation of the jurisdictional issue even if a new theory of recovery is added so long as the theories arise out of the same nucleus of operative facts.); see also Deckert, 963 F.2d at 817 n. 5); International Shoe v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (specific personal jurisdiction is dependent upon contacts with the forum sufficient to satisfy the requirements of due process); Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985)(same).

Accordingly, this action must be dismissed for want of personal jurisdiction.

David Stewart Cercone
United States District Judge

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOHN BRODAK, CORAL BRODAK, )
and BRODAK MANUFACTURING )
AND DISTRIBUTING, INC. )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 06-146
) Judge David S. Cercone
GEORGE T. McCLAIN and ) Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan
RANDI GIFFORD )
)
Defendants. )

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

I. RECOMMENDATION

It is respectfully recommended that the Motions to Dismiss of Defendants George T. McClain and Randi Gifford be granted and that Plaintiff's case be dismissed in its entirety owing to collateral estoppel as to in personam jurisdiction.

II. REPORT

Plaintiffs John Brodak; his spouse, Carol Brodak, (hereafter collectively "the Individual Plaintiffs"); and their corporation, Brodak Manufacturing and Distributing, Inc. (hereafter Case 2:06-cv-00146-DSC-LPL Document 25 Filed 12/01/2006 collectively "the Brodaks" or "Plaintiffs"), filed their twelve-count Complaint in the instant action seeking redress for injury alleged to arise from May 14, 2005 telephone calls between the Individual Plaintiffs and McClain, and the subsequent publication of the substance of those conversations.

This federal court action was preceded by Plaintiff's similar action filed against the same Defendants in the Court of Common Pleas of Greene County, Pennsylvania on September 13, 2005 (the "State Court Action"). In response to Preliminary Objections, the State Court considered the question of personal jurisdiction at that time and dismissed the case on December 20, 2005, concluding that personal jurisdiction was lacking.1

Because collateral estoppel thereby arises with respect to personal jurisdiction in this Court, it is recommended that the case be dismissed.

In view of the disposition of the case on this basis, although Defendants raise numerous objections that are well taken, it is unnecessary to further expend this Court's time to address the infirmities of the counts asserted.

A. Statement of Facts

1. As more fully set forth in the pleadings, the Individual Plaintiffs are residents of Green County, Pennsylvania, and owners of a Pennsylvania Corporation which manufactures and distributes "control line airplanes".

2 Defendant McClain is a resident of Arlington County, Virginia; Defendant Gifford is a resident of Clinton County, Iowa.

3. According to its by-laws, PAMPA is "recognized by the Academy of Model Aeronautics as the Special Interest Group representing Control Line Precision Aerobatics enthusiasts on a national and international basis." Id. at Exhibit A (PAMPA Bylaws), Article II.

4. Id. at ¶¶ 16-18; Exhibit A at Article V, VII. See also Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Filed on Behalf of Defendant George T. McClain ("McClain's MSMD") at 3 (discussing Brickhaus Resolution).

5. Id. at ¶ 19. McClain asserts that he made this call because he had received a certified copy of the by-law vote results from PAMPA Secretary/Treasurer, Shareen Fancher, and that he and Gifford were then discussing their belief that publication was required by the Brickhaus Resolution to have been made to the Executive Committee and its at-large membership simultaneously. See McClain's MSMD at 3.

John Brodak, McClain and Gifford are members of a non-profit club for control line airplane enthusiasts known as Precision Aerobatics Model Pilots Association (hereinafter "PAMPA").3 Commencing on or about January 1, 2004, John Brodak began an elected two-year term as President of PAMPA. In April, 2005, proposed by-law amendments drafted primarily by John Brodak were submitted for a general membership vote and defeated. PAMPA's by-laws (and/or a resolution enacted prior to the vote, the "Brickhaus Resolution") required that the votes be tabulated by PAMPA's parent organization, the Academy of Model Aeronautics (the "AMA"), and published in the "next issue" of "Stunt News", the club's "periodic newsletter".4

On May 14, 2005, McClain telephoned - from his Virginia residence - the Brodak residence in Pennsylvania and asked to speak with John Brodak, who was reportedly not at home. At Coral Brodak's invitation to leave a message, McClain stated: "Please tell him that if he does not publish the results of the By-laws vote within the hour, I will do so. If he wants to talk to me, he can call me back." 5

Approximately ten minutes later, Brodak - from his residence in Pennsylvania - telephoned McClain at his residence in Virginia. McClain reiterated his "threat" to publish the
________________________________________________________________________
According to its by-laws, PAMPA is "recognized by the Academy of Model Aeronautics as the Special Interest Group representing Control Line Precision Aerobatics enthusiasts on a national and international basis." Id. at Exhibit A (PAMPA Bylaws), Article II.
4. Id. at ¶¶ 16-18; Exhibit A at Article V, VII. See also Memorandum in Support of Motion to
Dismiss Filed on Behalf of Defendant George T. McClain ("McClain's MSMD") at 3 (discussing Brickhaus Resolution).
5. Id. at ¶ 19. McClain asserts that he made this call because he had received a certified copy of the by-law vote results from PAMPA Secretary/Treasurer, Shareen Fancher, and that he and Gifford were then discussing their belief that publication was required by the Brickhaus Resolution to have been made to the Executive Committee and its at-large membership simultaneously. See McClain's MSMD at 3.
_______________________________________________________________________
results of the membership's by-law vote on the "Stuka Stunt" website,6 and John Brodak "reminded" McClain that such publication (occurring prior to publication in Stunt News) would be in violation of the by-laws.

Subsequently, McClain published a "transcript" of his telephone conversations with Coral and John Brodak via an e-mail posted on the Stuka Stunt website. McClain reported therein that PAMPA member Defendant Gifford, from her residence in Iowa, "listened in" to those conversations and, as a "practicing stenographer", took shorthand notes of the conversations.7

McClain also reported he held the mouthpiece of his residence telephone to his cellphone during those conversations to enable Gifford to hear. As a result of the publication of those telephone
conversations, Plaintiffs allege that John Brodak and the corporation "have become the target of numerous and lengthy e-mails on the Stuka Stunt website" making personal attacks on John Brodak.8 Plaintiffs further allege that their corporation has "suffered losses" and "become the target of a boycott of its products".9 They allege damages to the Individual Defendants such as violation of privacy, inconvenience, embarrassment, emotional distress and psychological
_______________________________________________________________________
6. Id. at ¶ 20. The Stuka Stunt website is apparently a forum (or "bulletin board" or "chat site") utilized by individuals involved in the principally-recreational activity of flying "control line" model airplanes.
7. Id. at ¶¶ 21, referring to the alleged "transcript", also more accurately identified as "McClain's description", as Exhibit B. See infra, note 10.
8. Id. at ¶ 27, citing copies of these e-mails as Exhibit C.
9. Id. at ¶ 28. The Court notes that neither these allegations nor those in the text at note 8 appear to be supported by the few posting exchanges attached as Exhibit C to the Complaint. Indeed, three of the four and one-half pages attached are comprised of citations to and quotations from various state wiretapping laws, clearly directed against Defendant McClain. No mention whatsoever of the Brodak's business appears in the attachments.
______________________________________________________________________

damage.10

Before this Court, Plaintiffs assert subject matter jurisdiction under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 2510, and "supplemental jurisdiction 28 U.S.C. § 1367 based on Pennsylvania's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act
(18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5701 et seq.)".11 Plaintiffs' creative twelve-count Complaint, filed on February 2, 2006, alleges violation of these Acts, as well as violation of the Racketeering Influence and Corruption Organizations Act ("RICO") of the Organized Crime Act Law of 1970, 18 U.S.C. §1984;12 defamation; slander; libel; conspiracy;13 invasion of privacy; intentional infliction of emotional distress; interference with contractual relationship;14 and false light.
______________________________________________________________________
10. Exhibit B to Plaintiff's Complaint - Defendant McClain's e-mail to the Stuka Stunt website bulletin board consists of a less than one-half page description of McClain's brief telephone call to the Brodak residence and the telephone call he received from John Brodak shortly thereafter (reported therein to have last 41 seconds). The Court notes that Plaintiffs' allegations to the contrary notwithstanding, the e-mail is not a "transcript".

McClain's posting first complains that Brodak had forbidden members of the Executive Committee from publishing voting results prior to the "next issue of Stunt News." It then reports that McClain telephoned the Brodaks and was remembered by Coral Brodak; and it repeats in quotation marks (the only use of direct quotation in the posting) the message left by McClain. It reports that when John Brodak returned the call, he indicated results would be released in the next issue and publication before hand would be in violation of the by-laws. It reports McClain's response to Brodak, contending that under the Brickhaus Resolution, results were to be certified by the AMA and published to the Executive Committee and the general membership simultaneously. It reports that when Brodak again refused to published, McClain said he would put them on "SSW" (presumably the Stuka Stunt Website). The posting also reports that Gifford listened in on both conversations as aforesaid. Finally, it accuses Brodak of using "profanity" describing McClain's lineage and states that Gifford "has a verbatim transcript of ".

Plaintiffs have not asserted that any portion of McClain's account is false.
______________________________________________________________________

Presently before this Court are Defendants' Motions to Dismiss for a litany of reasons, including the absence of personal jurisdiction and collateral estoppel with respect to that threshold issue.

B. Motion to Dismiss Standard

The Court considering a motion to dismiss "must accept as true the factual allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom." Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 65 (3d Cir. 1996).15 Moreover, a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim may be granted only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations. See, e.g., Doe v. Delie, 257 F.3d 309, 313 (3d Cir. 2001); Jakomas v. McFalls, 229 F.Supp.2d 412, 419 (W.D. Pa. 2002) ("Dismissal of claims is appropriate only if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim upon which relief may be granted.").

C. Analysis

1. Collateral Estoppel as to Personal Jurisdiction
As noted by the Defendants, federal district courts have personal jurisdiction over non- resident defendants to the extent authorized under the law of the forum state in which the district court sits - in this case, Pennsylvania. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e); Grand Entertainment Group, Ltd. v. Star Media Sales, Inc., 988 F.2d 476, 481 (3d Cir. 1993). In other words, this Court's personal jurisdiction over the Defendants is governed by the law of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The relevant doctrine clearly prohibits this Court from extending an exercise of specific personal jurisdiction beyond the Commonwealth's reach. In this case, the State Court has considered the precise issue of personal jurisdiction over Defendants under essentially identical factual circumstances16 and has concluded that, under Pennsylvania's long-arm rule, such jurisdiction does not obtain. Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, forecloses "the relitigation of an issue that has been put in issue and directly determined adversely to the party against whom the estoppel is asserted." Melikian v. Corradetti, 791 F.2d 274, 277 (3d Cir. 1986).

Although the doctrine of collateral estoppel is generally discussed as applying after a final judgment on the merits, it may also be applicable to orders finding a lack of personal jurisdiction. See, e.g., Compagnie DesBauxites de Guinee v. L'Union Atlantique S.A. d'Assurances, 723 F.2d 357, 361 (3d Cir. 1983);17 Karibjanian v. Chromalloy Pharmaceutical, Inc., 1991WL 125176 (E.D. Pa. 1991)
(concluding plaintiff was collaterally estopped from raising personal jurisdiction in federal court where Commonwealth court had previously decided issue in favor of defendants); id. at *2 (noting that, for collateral estoppel to apply, "'ll that is necessary is that the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted had the opportunity to present his arguments and evidence on the issue and that the court which entertained these presentations was authorized to resolve
the issue and to consider all of the matters put before it'") (quoting Calesnick v. Redevelopment Auth., No. 83-0498 (E.D. Pa. July 26, 1985) (Pollak, J.)).18

The Court disagrees with Plaintiffs' assertions - appearing toward the end of their 35-page Brief in Opposition to Defendant McClain's Motion to Dismiss ("Plaintiff's Brief in Opposition") - that collateral estoppel may not be applied to a case dismissed prior to adjudication on the merits of the substantive causes of action. See Plaintiff's Brief in Opposition at 29-31 (citing cases which did not address a question of personal jurisdiction or similar "threshold" issue and/or
were otherwise inapposite); id. (citing the non-preclusive effect of judgments based on "rules of procedure" or, e.g., non pros); id. at 31 (citing Restatement, Judgments § 49, comment a (1942) (simply illustrating its definition of a judgment on the merits)).

To the contrary, the State Court's disposition of the jurisdictional issue should be binding upon this Court. For "hile a decision that a court lacks personal jurisdiction over a party will not bar the litigation of the merits of a claim against such party in a court of competent jurisdiction, the Court's determination that it lacks personal jurisdiction over efendant bars the relitigation of the jurisdictional issue in ." Kitces v. Wood, 917 F.Supp. 338, 341 (D.N.J. 1996) (concluding, as a matter of first impression, that collateral estoppel foreclosed prosecution in federal district court of action dismissed by state court for lack of personal jurisdiction).19 Cf. Baldwin v. Iowa State Traveling Men's Assoc., 283 U.S. 522 (1931) (explaining that, in contrast to res judicata, a judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction is considered to have been "necessarily decided" for collateral estoppel purposes); Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326 (1979) (explaining that collateral estoppel applies once an issue is actually and necessarily determined by a court of competent jurisdiction).
_______________________________________________________________________
19. See also id. at 342-43 (further explaining that, in keep with principles of comity and the Full Faith and Credit Act, the State Court's determination that it lacked personal jurisdiction must be given the same preclusive effect in the Federal District Court that it would have in a subsequent State Court action); id. (noting that federal courts to address this issue are in agreement). Cf. 18 Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4430 (2d ed. 1987) (noting that "a ruling against personal jurisdiction is also binding by way of issue preclusion so long as the same legal standards apply to basically unchanged facts").

While the Kitces Court notes that the Third Circuit had not had occasion to expressly address this issue, the Circuit's subsequent discussion in Saudi v. Acomarit Maritimes Services, S.A., 114 Fed. Appx. 449 (3d Cir. 2004), is informative. In Saudi, the Circuit distinguishes res judicata from collateral estoppel and suggests that, where the state court has issued a valid judgment as to personal jurisdiction , the latter would apply. See id. (declining to rule on the question because the District Court did not specifically address it, counsel's argument focused on claim preclusion, and plaintiff could not prevail on the merits). See also id. (quoting Matosantos Commercial Corp.v. Applebees Int'l, Inc., 245 F.3d 1203, 1209 (10th Cir. 2001), which held that "lthough the dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction in the Puerto Rico district court does not have res judicata effect, it does have collateral estoppel effect, preventing relitigation of issues decided in thePuerto Rico district court").
_______________________________________________________________________
2. Absence of Specific Personal Jurisdiction

Although this Report concludes that collateral estoppel applies, the Court further notes that, in the absence of a prior determination by the State Court, it would independently conclude that it lacks specific personal jurisdiction. McClain's telephone call to Pennsylvania, during which he left a message for Brodak, is far too attentuated a basis for personal jurisdiction. And Brodak's telephone call to Virginia, during which McClain is alleged to have - in Virginia - provided audio access to Gifford, advances that basis but little further. Similarly, Gifford's listing to telephone calls - made by others from Virginia to Pennsylvania and then, more substantively, from Pennsylvania to Virginia - at her residence in Iowa is, without more, an insufficient basis for subjection to personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania.20

III. CONCLUSION

In closing, this Court feels compelled to caution Plaintiffs with respect to frivolous or vexatious conduct.21 It further notes that parties once subject to inappropriate litigation become even more entitled to protection from further prosecution. And it reminds Plaintiffs of the existence and purpose of Rule 11.22
______________________________________________________________________
20. (...continued)

In addition, as Defendants note, the Pennsylvania Courts have previously concluded that telephone contacts alone are insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over a non-resident
defendant. See, e.g., Ball v. Ehlig, 70 Pa. D&C 4th 160 (Montgomery County 2005) (concluding lack of personal jurisdiction over Texas residents alleged to have recorded telephone conversations with Pennsylvania residents in violation of Pennsylvania wiretapping laws); id. (holding occasional telephone and e-mail contact insufficient). Cf. Burns v. Lavender Hill Herb Farm, Inc., 271 F.Supp.647, 648 (E.D. Pa. 2003) (concluding phone calls, faxes and mailing into
Commonwealth insufficient).

Finally, and relatedly, in civil wiretapping cases, the Pennsylvania Courts have consistently considered the conflicts of law problems implicated if the state in which the alleged illegal
conduct occurred (i.e., where the illegal interception took place or unlawful recording was made) has more permissive laws. Cf., e.g., Larrison v. Larrison, 750 A.2d 895, 898 (Pa. Super. 2000)
("While this Commonwealth has an interest in protecting its citizens from having telephone conversations recorded without proper consent, we, as the courts of this Commonwealth, have no power to control the activities that occur within a sister state.").

21. Cf. Complaint at Exhibit C (printouts of Stuka Stunt website postings), posting of PAMPA member DMoon ("It is pretty petty and sad if you really think about it. We all got into flying CL planes because it was fun. We joined PAMPA to be part of a group that loves and supports CLPAA."); McClain's Brief in Reply to Plaintiff's Brief in Opposition at 1-2 (characterizing case as "a tempest in a teapot").

22. Cf. McClain's Brief in Reply at 5 (expressing concern that Plaintiffs might again file an action in yet another court of law).
_______________________________________________________________________

For the reasons set forth above, it is recommended that the case be dismissed in its entirety owing to collateral estoppel as to in personam jurisdiction.

In accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), and Rule 72.1.4(B) of the Local Rules for Magistrates, the parties are allowed ten (10) days from the date of service to file objections to this report and recommendation. Any party opposing the
objections shall have ten (10) days from the date of service of objections to respond thereto. Failure to file timely objections may constitute a waiver of any appellate rights.

/s/ Lisa Pupo Lenihan
LISA PUPO LENIHAN
United States Magistrate Judge

...If I were still carrying my badge, and tasked to report on what Tom has shared with us here, I'd add an "Executive Summary" (not what we called it in my line of work, but you get the idea...)

The initial charges against the defendants included items that were not in the "jurisdiction" of the court which first heard them. That means that court had no authority to hear:

==Federal criminal charges,

==Pennsylvania criminal charges on actions which occurred outside Pennsylvania,

==Numerous vague state(Commonwealth, in the case of PA) and Federal tort allegations (i.e., claims of "harm' suffered which were not defined as criminal in the local, state or federal laws.)

And, as the court which first heard the Plaintiffs' suit had no jurisdiction over actions alleged as harmful in Virginia and Iowa, that court could not proceed with the suit.

Appeal of that first court's ruling went to a court which also did not have jurisdiction to rule, or overrule, because for one thing, the three States in which things at the basis of Plaintiffs' suit occured had, each, their own laws governing which courts may deal with what laws, and these differed. Federal courts may not overrule State laws, except provisionally (which may be settled in the US Supreme Court, if one party chooses to go that far), and essentially only when violation of the US Constitution is involved.

That is what all that""estoppel" talk has to do with. The courts stop their hearings on this suit because they have no legal authority to hear it further.

I seem to read, in the Latin-garbled legalisms of the official court documents, that Plaintiffs did not present clear evidence or proof of claimed criminal or civil "injury" suffered. ..at any level of court which considered the matters.

The other "estoppel' comments block the Plaintiffs from finding other laws - civil or criminal - based on the same actions by the Respondents/Defendants, to charge, or sue, them again.

---------------back to my personal comments -------

I've met Tom, Randi and John. I like them as people. I have a high regard for what John B. has done to help support CLPA fliers, and for the efforts of Tom as SN editor/publisher for many years, and Randi - like our dear departed Mary Gebhart - in supporting the rest of us in the seldom appreciated, but necessary, areas of our activities.

Personal opinion? I had some problems with what John B tried to achieve for PAMPA while he served as President, and did not conceal my concerns. Tom's intention that our PAMPA organization be as "transparent" (open - no hidden decisions or debates) as possible went down well with me.

And does this time too. Let the healing begin, please, Lord?

Lou;

>
>And does this time too. Let the healing begin, please, Lord?
>
>

Considering this is the second time this has gone to court, I think its gone way past that.

I did note the following from the ruling:

------------------------------------------------------------------
III. CONCLUSION

In closing, this Court feels compelled to caution Plaintiffs with respect to frivolous or vexatious conduct.21 It further notes that parties once subject to inappropriate litigation become even more entitled to protection from further prosecution. And it reminds Plaintiffs of the existence and purpose of Rule 11.22
-----------------------------------------------------------------

"Frivolous or vexatious conduct" on the part of the plaintiffs. Very stern. Very accurate.

V/r

Bob

Thank goodness some of you guys saw fit to crap up SSW server space with stuff available on another server anyway.

>Thank goodness some of you guys saw fit to crap up SSW server
>space with stuff available on another server anyway.

To Bill Mohrbacher of Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania:

Thank you for your contribution to use up SSW server space.

>Thank goodness some of you guys saw fit to crap up SSW server
>space with stuff available on another server anyway.

Oh, so you think those of us who have only heard about this issue through SSW don't have a right to know? It is not up to you to decide what is, or is not, of interest to users of this board.

Get real.

IMHO, this kind of legal action within our activity/hobby/sport is a concern to modelers everywhere. Not just in the US either - it saddens me to say that recent statistics show that Australia now has a higher per-capita rate of this kind of civil lawsuit than the US, so something of this nature could just as easily happen here.

I'm glad this is apparently over, and that Tom & Randi are hopefully free of a very stressful period of their lives. I hope the modeling community is big enough to peacefully move on - while deploring the motivation behind this action, I for one will happily continue to purchase Brodak products.

Tom,

Thank you for posting this ruling here. I'm on a mountain somewhere in Tennessee with almost no connection to the outside world.

I have not even read in its entirety what Judge Cercone wrote. I'll do that and then I'll have more to say.

Thank you all for the kind words.

Hugs,
Randi

Randi, you are most welcome. I couldn't find your other address to email and you and did this instead.

Randi, you are truly a stalwart and dear friend and you and Russ are welcome in our home anytime. I would like to thank my wife, Sheryl, too. She was my rock and her faith and trust in me kept us going. I would like to thank all our friends of the legal defense fund, especially Keith and Barbara Trostle, who so graciously took on the task of administering the fund. Everyone's support and generosity is quite a testament to your faith, trust, and friendship. There is no way I can ever repay you for what you have done during this 16 months and two lawsuits by Mr. and Mrs. Brodak and Brodak Mfg. against Randi and I.

Prayerfully and hopefully this is at an end.

Tom and Randi had agreed to let matters drop, but they were not. Tom and Randi are now in a position to go onto the legal offensive, however, knowing Tom, and to a lesser degree Randi, I think they will take the higher road and refrain from such.

"TOY" (intentional use of the word "TOY") airplanes aren't worth a gigantic legal hassel!

Jim Pollock

Timeline for the two lawsuits filed by Mr. and Mrs. John Brodak and Brodak Mfg. Inc. against Randi Gifford and Tom McClain:

1. July 13, 2005, Mr. Brodak leaves Muncie, IN for Carmichaels, PA and leaves Ted Fancher to chair PAMPA General Membership meeting that evening. Gives reason as his wife's father is very ill.

2. July 14, 2005, John Brodak signs verification document with his law firm to commence lawsuit against Randi Gifford and Tom McClain

3. September 13, 2005, First lawsuit (State) is filed in Greene County, PA by John Brodak and Brodak Mfg. Inc. against Randi Gifford and Tom McClain

4. Decemember 20, 2005, First lawsuit (State) is dismissed by Judge William Nalitz for lack of personal jurisdiction.

5. February 2, 2006, Mr. and Mrs. Brodak and Brodak Mfg. Inc. filed second (same) lawsuit (Federal) in Pittsburgh, PA against Randi Gifford and Tom McClain

6. December 1, 2006, Magistrate Judge Lisa Lupo Lenihan Recommends to Judge David S. Cercone that the Federal lawsuit against Randi Gifford and Tom McClain be dismissed for Collateral Estoppel and Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

7. January 30, 2007, Presiding Federal Judge David S. Cercone affirms Magistrate Judge Lenihan's recommendation and dismisses the lawsuit against Randi Gifford and Tom McClain for Collateral Estoppel and Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and warns Mr. and Mrs. Brodak and Brodak Mfg. Inc. that the Federal Court will protect Randi Gifford and Tom McClain from further lawsuits against them in Pennsylvania.

All above actions are verfied by documents filed with Randi Gifford and Tom McClain and the State and Federal Courts.

Bill Mohrbacher indicated that information about this lawsuit is a waste of space, essentially taking the position that in his opinion, nobody would be interested or care about this lawsuit.

Contrary to that opinion, there are people who have followed this matter very closely since it started in September 2005. The first lawsuit was dismissed in the Pennsylvania State Court on December 20, 2005 for lack of personal jurisdiction. The second lawsuit was filed in Federal Couirt on February 2, 2006. The interest people have in this matter is their concern for the welfare of Randi Gifford and Tom McClain. Furthermore, some individuals have been interested because of potential harm to themselves and other PAMPA members depending on the outcome of the just dismissed Federal lawsuit.

There were 12 counts in the just dismissed Federal lawsuit against Randi and Tom.

Count 11 referenced "Interference with Contractual Relationships" and asked the Federal Court to award Brodak and Brodak Manufacturing Inc. "damages in an amount in excess of $250,000.00, compensatory and punitive damages as well as attorneys' fees, cost and other such relief".

Count 12 referenced "False Light" and asked the court to award Brodak and Brodak Manufacturing Inc. additional "damages in an amount in excess of $250,000.00, compensatory and punitive damages as well as attorneys' fees, cost and other such relief".

In April 2006, the lawyers for John Brodak filed a "Brief in Opposition" to Defendants’ Gifford and McClain "Motion to Dismiss". In that Brief, the argument was made that the plaintiffs (John and Coral Brodak, and Brodak Manufacturing, Inc.) must be allowed discovery to determine if others were involved with an alleged conspiracy to do damage to the plaintiffs. This means that further lawsuits might be initiated.

Being sued for over half a million dollars is not something to take lightly. There are valid and legitimate reasons for a number of people to be more than casually interested in the outcome of this Federal lawsuit. Thankfully, the Presiding Judge and Magistrate Judge recognized the vexatious, inappropriate, and frivolous nature of the Plaintiffs’ allegations in this most recently dismissed lawsuit.

Thanks, Keith.

Someone finally gave a simple answer to my question.

Let's hope this is over and done with.

It is indeed unfortunate (or perhaps not) that only a small percentage of the modeling community knew about this one before today --- with an even smaller percentage having been aware of the particulars.

Mike Keville

I for one would like to thank John Brodak for exposeing to its members what goes on inside of Pampa. Oh yea i would like to thank him for the Brodak Flyin too.

>I for one would like to thank John Brodak for exposeing to
>its members what goes on inside of Pampa. Oh yea i would like
>to thank him for the Brodak Flyin too.

Please explain what has been exposed. The lawsuit had nothing to do with what goes on "inside Pampa". It did not take long for someone to try to raise some aspect of the polarization that started several years ago and which should be left behind us.

The "Brodak Flyin" by all accounts is a neat thing. Why tarnish it by even mentioning it alongside this sordid lawsuit?

Agreed: the annual Fly-In is a marvelous and much-appreciated "happening", serving only to promote Controline in all its forms.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject-at-hand, and I'm amazed that you even considered confusing one with the other.

Mike Keville

>I for one would like to thank John Brodak for exposeing to
>its members what goes on inside of Pampa.

Me too! But perhaps our conclusions about what was exposed would be different.

Brett

>I for one would like to thank John Brodak for exposeing to
>its members what goes on inside of Pampa. Oh yea i would like
>to thank him for the Brodak Flyin too.
Not exactly sure what you mean, there brad, but it doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to conjer up some images that might appear in a "kool-aid drinkers" head. I'm fairly happy to see what went on "inside PAMPA", alot of people trying to be reasonable and accomodating to a group of people who were ####-bent on being unreasonable and unaccomodating. More than enough good-hearted people to carry on in this activity called Precision Stunt. That's the way I see it. John from Va.

>I for one would like to thank John Brodak for exposeing (sic)
>to its members what goes on inside of Pampa.

Is this some kind of dark humor?

The informational function of this thread has probably been fulfilled. It doesn't have to remain open to feed unhealthy needs.

Edited to add:
An inadvertent double-posting was corrected by our host. See #38.

(snip)
>Now I find that the forum has not only accepted my reply to
>Brad, but TWICE! (Probably also as a PM to him off forum...)
>
>Brad, my apologies! I had no intention to double-post
>ON-forum, (snip)

Lou, for the sake of clarity, I deleted on of your inadvertant duplicate posts.

Thanks, Leonard.

It may have ben the time of night, or stray loads on the 'net, or the length of my post, but it seemed that the 'post' action locked up.

Again, Thanks for the cleanup.

>>I for one would like to thank John Brodak for exposeing
>(sic)
>>to its members what goes on inside of Pampa.
>
>Is this some kind of dark humor?
>
>The informational function of this thread has probably been
>fulfilled. It doesn't have to remain open to feed unhealthy
>needs.

It's very apparent that it is "feeding unhealthy needs" thus it remains open.

?????

Brad,

That offends me, personally. As long as I've been a member of PAMPA, I've seen - almost always - open, friendly, cooperative efforts to make our side of the model aircraft flying hobby/"sport" - (SPORT - when it involves serious competitions) better, fairer, more uniform and honest across the USA - and indirectly, the whole world.

There were a few bizarre incidents, from hotheads who had little ability to use either logic or reason, that were "shielded" from the general PAMPA membership. ...and we were better for that...

OPEN!

VISIBLE!

Ready for discussion among those who don't know, or didn't care, or felt strongly one way or the other...

THAT is the PAMPA I've known since the organization was founded, and I happen to be an accidental founding member. The (- don't take this personally: I'm not aiming at you - believe me on that, at least! -) unfounded claims that PAMPA was a "Good Old Boys Club" to prevent new blood from rising to eminence seemed, and still - sadly - seems to be 'sour grapes' from those who cannot match the people they want to destroy, in several areas:

---The efforts to extend the 'joys of Stunt' to ever more people...

---The work as contest helpers, organizers, developers, judges, leveling the "playing field" so that more can join in what we enjoy...

---the selfless time given to the mundane paperwork side of keeping things working. ...Time that world class competitors would better use honing their skills for the FAI World competitions...

---the efforts (including the Skill Classes idea) to bring more, and ever more, people into our event, thereby ensuring - or trying to ensure - a future for when all the old f**ts have gone to their eternal rewards. (What have you done to bring about this future - other than to complain that highly qualified judges don't score you as high as the Werwages, Fanchers, Walkers, Bucks, Whitelys, Trostles, Hoffmans, Wolgasts, Sabons, etc. - to BUILD our event for the future.)

Has it ever occurred to you that you might not be flying as well as those mentioned, who have put hours, days, weeks, years, into being the highly skilled, consistently successful stunt fliers that they are.

Or, if I recall much of what you've added to the discussion, that it must be prejudice, bias, segregation, oppression, slavery, that allows them to remain the Massa's keeping the field-hands 'in their places?' ...That it must be a conspiracy among those who don't want to surrender their thrones to upstarts.

Those bigots - the same ones who introduced the Skill Class idea - want to keep it all to themselves? I think we can peaceably disagree on that. At least, I can. My regrets if it twangs your darkest strings...

Two years ago, it looked to me, and as it turned out to 2/3 of those voting, that the changes proposed by the PAMPA President -without relinquishing the chair - were counterproductive. (Roberts' Rules of Order deny the "chair" the privilege of making motions and of taking part in debate of motions, The "chair" is only a referee that things go according to orderly procedures, not a participant in different viewpoints on motions being debated. For the member elected chair or President to make a motion and take part in debate, FIRST, that member must surrender the "chair" to another qualified member.)

John B did not do that. He made a motion, accepted it as 'chair' and wanted it concealed from the membership until it was sent for "up-or-down-vote" with a very short response time allowed. A time so short that 75% of PAMPA members would NOT have received their ballots in time to take part!(Only doubling PAMPA dues - for the express postage - would have made sure that the "ballot" would reach everyone in time. A deliberate tactic?)

He also, without the EC involved, changed his proposal several times, keeping complete control over what was to go to the voting members, someday, until it appeared in Stunt News. (Odd, one of the proposals was to go strictly by Roberts' Rules of Order - which totally bans such actions!)

The intent of his proposals, in all their variations, was -apparently - to change PAMPA from a representative democracy to a business owner and his subordinate board of people responsible to carry out what he decided/dictated - with no regard for the members/shareholders. That does not work for publicly traded corporations in commercial business. I wonder why our President-at-the-time thought it would work for a voluntary membership, hobby/sport activity organization...

OK, I know you think this is all "Good-Ol-Boy BS," but, can I ask you how you would have reacted if Ted Fancher had demanded the expulsion of one each John Brodak? JB did encourage a motion that Ted be stripped of Office and expelled from PAMPA, and by taking part in that "deliberation", approved it, against the most basic of Roberts' Rules of Orderly Procedure.

I still commend John and Buzz for their contributions to our common interest, but I don't think these of his actions as President can be considered contributions. Personal opinion, see Article I, US Constitution. Everything I offer above reflects the deep concerns I felt when the Brodakians and the PAMPAns were at opposite corners of the boxing ring. Do we still need to keep trying to knock each other unconscious? Surely, that can't be good for CLPA... (Perhaps that is an argument the 'management' at Brodak's can see: going that way may reduce the market share from the CL products line...)

Isn't there a saying. It's not over until the fat lady sings. It sounds to me that the Federal Judge sang loud and clear..
Time to get on with building. Flying season is around the corner.

As a "retread" just gathering info before jumping back into the "hobby" again after 35 years absence, I have a comment on the suit and the posted comments. They were "choking on a gnat" and now we are "beating a dead horse". Forgive, but maybe not forget. Tight lines.

GUY

>As a "retread" just gathering info before jumping
>back into the "hobby" again after 35 years absence,
>I have a comment on the suit and the posted comments. They
>were "choking on a gnat" and now we are
>"beating a dead horse". Forgive, but maybe not
>forget. Tight lines.
>
>GUY

Sucking down a combined $60K - $70K in legal costs and the threat of $500K in damages over model airplanes and the organizations that support them and the tieing up our federal court system when it could be doing something useful is one of the foulest and most odious events in this hobby I have ever witnessed. It completely and permanantly negates all previous good done by the plaintiff, and shows an aspect of character that is reprehensible. I can think of nothing that is more damaging to rebirth of CL than us suing each other over public disagreement.

When a federal judge warns about "frivolous or vexatious conduct", there is a very stern warning being given. One hopes that warning will be taken to heart.

My bet is we haven't heard the last of this yet. I hope that I am wrong.

V/r

Bob

Bob,

I sincerely hope you are wrong about not seeing the end to this as well.

Jim Pollock

LORDY, George Washingto was absolutely correct:

"Bfore we start a government, we should first hang all the lawyers ... "

At any oprganized function I always depart as soon as the dessert is served. <--- I said that. Not George Washington.

I am rather proud that, on two occasions, I have contributed my check to the "defense fund". I doubt that my contributions have made any difference in regard to the outcome of this case, but I hope that I have eased the financial burden. If this sort of thing ever happens again, I will be one of the first to offer another check.

Floyd in OR

Floyd,



There is still the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. As I understand it, there are thirty days in which to file an appeal.

Randi

Folks, if you want to crow at the dismissal. Well go ahead. But as Randi points out, it's open to appeal. Stir the pot at your own risk. JB was savaged by lots of people now saying who-me. Way out of line in my opinion. The lawsuit is another issue, but linked. Many of us differ in perspective on these events. Talking about this in public adds fuel to a fire that may be ready to burn out. Besides I thought there was general agreement to not talk about the lawsuit on any of these forums.

If the lawsuit is open to appeal, why hasn't this thread been shut down? The lawsuit is till a live issue, an ongoing legal procedure.

No, Dennis,

The Federal Lawsuit in Pittsburgh, PA is over by the decree on January 30, 2007 by the Honorable Judge David S. Cercone.

The is only one group that can bring it back and that is John and Coral Brodak and Brodak Mfg. Inc.

Do you have some knowledge that that is what they are going to do?

If so, you need to remind your friends of what Judge Cercone and Judge Lenihan warned Mr. and Mrs. Brodak and Brodak Mfg. Inc., that being they would step in and sanction them under Federal Rule 11.

>If the lawsuit is open to appeal, why hasn't this thread been
>shut down? The lawsuit is till a live issue, an ongoing legal
>procedure.
If Mr. Brodak had won, you and the others who support him would have been all over the web-sites crowing about the victory. First, you would have put info on SSW, and if Leonard shut it down you would have gone over to UHP and called Leonard "Nazi" and such. This is your usual pattern. Sad, isn't it?

Keep talking. It's on you. As we say in Philly.

This kind of rhetoric is what started the whole process to begin with. As I see it, Tom and Randi simply reported the outcome with relief and joy that they could get on with their lives. keep stirring the pot everyone, but to what end. Come on Leonard. This is enough.
Jon Ramsden
<@_@>

Dennis,

There was never any agreement to not talk about the lawsuits once they were dismissed. Randi and I were under instructions by our attorneys not to discuss the suits in public while they were active and in the court. Now that they have been dismissed, rather strenuously, we are under no restriction and actually are encouraged to get the truth out.

Some have asked me to ask for healing, I have nothing to ask for healing for. Mr. and Mrs. Brodak could end all of this now and bring the healing many want by publically stating that they are done and will never do this type of thing again. That is their responsibility. They started and continued the lawsuits, Randi and I did not.

So, if you care not to read what the learned justices said about this travesty created by Mr. and Mrs. Brodak, don't access this thread.

John Brodak tried to bankrupt 2 families. I know that a judgement that size against me would take my house and everything that I have worked for, and that probably goes for most of us.
Who would try to bankrupt 2 families over something so petty?
Who would support such an action?
I don't know why some are wanting to end the discussion. Personally, I want to know the type of people I am flying with and the type of things they support. If you are OK with something so dishonorable, I don't think I want to be sharing a circle with you.

Others, as I said, feel differently about the matter and the matters surrounding the suit. Now that the information is out. What else is there to do. We can decide to let the situation pass into history or go at it again.

Serge, well, some of us on the other side of this matter were also sickened. Believe on average we read and think as well as most. Not to fan the fires. Hope this dies down and dies out. Best to the families involved.

>Hope this dies down and dies out.

Dennis,

When it dies down and dies out will I get these last eighteen months of my life back? Will someone return the almost thirty thousand dollars this has cost us?

I, too, hope healing comes soon. But it's not going to happen overnight.

Randi

>>Will someone return the almost thirty thousand dollars this has cost us?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Could happen.

M.K.

>>>Will someone return the almost thirty thousand
>dollars this has cost us?
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Could happen.
>
>M.K.

Yep. For the first time in this whole putrid affair, we might actually see some justice.

Good luck to Randi and Tom.

V/r

Bob

>Folks, if you want to crow at the dismissal. Well go ahead.
>But as Randi points out, it's open to appeal. Stir the pot at
>your own risk. JB was savaged by lots of people now saying
>who-me. Way out of line in my opinion. The lawsuit is another
>issue, but linked. Many of us differ in perspective on these
>events. Talking about this in public adds fuel to a fire that
>may be ready to burn out. Besides I thought there was general
>agreement to not talk about the lawsuit on any of these
>forums.


Dennis;

Simple presentation of the facts does not constitute crowing, nor do the sincere thanks and well wishes from and to the defendants. This thread has provided an open forum for the presentation of the facts - all of which are part of the public record. The only insults posted here are from those who supported the lawsuit, which is in keeping with their past behavior.

I, for one, will be glad to have the stench of this flagrant abuse of our legal system out of my nostrils. In achieving that closure, my thanks go to those who posted facts (not opinions or insults) and for Leonard having the intestinal fortitude to carry this thread - especially in light of the litigious predeliction demonstrated by some members of the CL community.

V/r

Bob

I myself am glad to hear that the courts have made a decision. I just wish I was better equiped to help Randi and Tom. As far as John and Buzz I hope they let it drop. As far as the very few individuals that post on here and the other site is the reason I do not get on this site much any more. I have been remanded for something I sstated on my favorite site, but, removed before it got too far. I thank the administrator for that.
DOC Holliday

>JB was savaged by lots of people now saying who-me.

I am absolutely sick and disgusted by this type of statement. I read virtually ALL of the posts throughout the sad conflict from which these law suits grew, and I am quite aware of what was said, and by whom. This statement is absolutely false.

Characteristically, a significant number of Mr. Brodak's supporters were and remain unable to tell the difference between addressing principles or issues and launching personal attacks. In the ill-conceived attempt to re-write the PAMPA by laws (I could have conceived and written these better, and no, I have no desire to do so), the typical response to a criticism of something that was done or proposed was that certain people were out to "get" Mr. Brodak. These people were then made victims of the type of character assassination of which they had been wrongfully accused. Throughout, it remained clear where this misbehavior started and predominated. Check the archives.

The mean spiritedness of responses that support this kind of suit just amaze and sadden me. Ruination is an improper response to even much more damning things than those alledged. If you do not like posting of information useful and essential the welfare of some very good people, then DON'T READ IT! It's perfectly well labeled; there is absolutely no excuse for you to subject yourself to it, unless you just want to inflict more pain.

Keith, the check is in the mail.

EDITED from 250 miles down the road from my computer, to clarify and correct faulty grammar from a hasty departure for a family emergency.

SK

>
>EDITED from 250 miles down the road from my computer, to
>clarify and correct faulty grammar from a hasty departure for
>a family emergency.
>
>SK

Serge,

Thank you for taking the time to put a little clarity into things.

I hope your family emergency is a minor one and that all your loved ones are well.

Randi

What 'crowing'?

All I saw was a concise post of the decision, plus some further posts translating it into plain English for those of us who don't read legalese, plus some statements of thanks and support.

Seems to me you're reading more into it than was actually there. I wonder why?

To Randi and Tom,

Thanks to both of you for your patience and willingness to take the high road during this distasteful episode. I can only imagine what self control it must have taken to avoid blistering the Internet with a play by play account of the two years of frivolous and vexatious use of our legal system to which the two of you have been subjected. Thank goodness the system does, in fact, work and that you have been served well by the professionals you retained to represent your interests.

If only "both" sides of the debate which triggered these actions had understood and accepted that, in our republic, it is not only allowed but encouraged for individuals to espouse their desires in a civil way; to be aware that issues can have more than one side and that both sides have a right to advocate their position strongly; to agree to ballot those effected by the issue to determine their preference; to conduct that ballot honestly and fairly; and, ultimately, to abide by the collective decision of the voters.

What is most important, is the necessity in such a republic -- for those whose position on an issue is found wanting -- to accept the outcome of that ballot with respect and deference; if not necessarily agreement. Disagreement on issues does not constitute either a criminal or civil offense. The attempted use of the court system to -- in my opinion -- attempt to exact "revenge" for a loss at the ballot box is un-American in the extreme and, as it should have, in this case resulted in a resounding defeat and an admonition from the courts to refrain from further attempts to do so under threat of civil recourse.

It is unfortunate that, to date, the courts haven't seen fit to find on financial liability for the expenses you incurred in battling this vexatious action ... an expense which was rumored to be the underlying intent of the action in the first place. The decision's strongly worded reference to Rule 11 would seem to imply a willingness to positively entertain such a course of action. To do so must be tempting.

If, in fact, efforts are underway to rectify this shortcoming, rest assured you have my ardent best wishes for success. (and, if needed, my support in whatever form is necessary)

Ted

Thanks Ted,

Your family's faith in Randi and I has been much appreciated as well as the rest of our PAMPA friends.

As I said to Dennis Moritz, we remained quiet during the times when both lawsuits were in court, that being from September 13, 2005 until the first dismissal on December 20, 2005 and from February 2, 2005 until the second dismissal on January 30, 2007.

This was because of the excellent counsel by our two wonderful attorneys, Anthony Patterson for Randi and James Gordon for me, both in Pittsburgh, PA. These men know, understand, and love the law. We are blessed to have them. Our posts here at SSW have been approved by them.

We both pray and hope that this lunacy is at an end. Only Mr. and Mrs. Brodak know that and they have until February 28, 2007 to make up their minds whether or not to file an appeal with the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, PA.

Interesting is it not that Philadelphia means "City of Brotherly Love."