- 19 -
deal maker who cares little for the damage created and people’s
lives destroyed when his deals fall apart.”25
Petitioner’s law firm, Finn Dixon & Herling LLP, reviewed
the basis of petitioner’s claims for libel, slander, and
intentional infliction of emotional distress. In a memorandum to
petitioner dated November 12, 1997, the firm stated that neither
Mr. Boyle nor Ormet had a valid truth defense to petitioner’s
claim for defamation.
IV. Lawsuit Pleadings
Despite dozens of pages of pleadings, there was no reference
in any of these cases to any personal injuries suffered by
petitioner. Although petitioners amended their complaints
several times and the parties filed counterclaims and derivative
claims, none of these documents contained any claims for personal
injuries. The Court notes the parties stipulated: “Petitioner
did not file any lawsuits against Oralco, Ormet Corporation
and/or Boyle concerning any personal injuries that he incurred as
a result of any actions undertaken and/or statements made or
published by Oralco, Ormet Corporation and/or Boyle concerning
petitioner.” This stipulation is consistent with the credible
25 Petitioners attached to their opening brief page two of
“Ormet News”, an internal company newsletter, seeking to use
statements contained therein as evidence. However, joint
stipulated Exhibit 169-J, as stipulated by the parties and filed
with the Court, did not include page two of “Ormet News”, and
petitioners did not separately offer page two into evidence.
Thus, the Court will disregard page two. Petitioners are not
allowed to add documents into evidence by attaching them to their
brief.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011