1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAGE - 1 -
Opposition to amended Motion to dismiss
TonyBlony492,RBN19309
Filing username: TonyBlony492
Counsel for: Plaintiff
SUPERIOR COURT OF RIDGEWAY
COUNTY OF RIDGEWAY
COUNTY OF RIDGEWAY
thr33six8, Case No. RSC-CV-8427
Plaintiff,
vs. Opposition to amended Motion
AlbertWellesley,et.al., to dismiss
Defendant.
Position on the Motion
The Plaintiff opposes the Motion to Dismiss fully.
Response to Grounds and Facts
In regards to section I: The Defendant’s main argument here is that in the new
and amended Complaint, the Plaintiff has still not proven the chain of proximity
causation has stayed intact. We completely disagree with this part of the Motion to
Dismiss and our reason will be explained in the Argument part.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAGE - 2 -
Opposition to amended Motion to dismiss
In regards to Section II: The paragraphs 4 & 5 are completely meaningless, as it
is not the way the Supreme Court decision was cited in. As the Defendant writes himself
in his motion to Dismiss -
...the Act’s effective date — is not even a fact within Defendant’s superior
or exclusive knowledge. It is a matter of public legislative record...
the fact even the Defendant has wrote that the effective date of the State Bar
Integrity Act is a matter of public legislative record directly contradicts his previous
sentence, which claims that the effective date of the Act is ‘‘not even a fact within
Defendant’s superior or exclusive knowledge’’. You can not claim for something to not be
a part of your exclusive and superior knowledge and then claim it is a piece of public
knowledge. That is a logical discrepancy.
In regards to Section III: The entire one paragraph of argument that the
Defendant is using is completely pointless. The fact that the Amended Complaint itself
does not attempt to discredit or question the legitimacy and truthfullnes of the arrest
report does not make fraud and abuse of process go away. As explained more in detail
in the Arguments section, the Definition of Fraud or the definition of Abuse of process
does NOT require for an arrest report to be falsified, fabricated or tampered with.
Argument
Argument to section I of Defendant’s Motion to dismiss:
The fact that the interim suspension imposed by the State Bar Ethical Committee
is what the Defendant claims to be the main and only reason of the loss and legal
injuries that the Plaintiff’s clients have suffered is not true. The Defendant’s bad-faith
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAGE - 3 -
Opposition to amended Motion to dismiss
report has acted as the direct trigger and the direct catalysator that has caused the
interim suspension and the mentioned legal injuries for the clients of the Plaintiff. The
fact that this loss(es) would occur is a foreseeable consequence of submitting a bad
faith report, which is exactly what the Defendant made and therefore he is liable for
damages under 7 R. Stat. § 121.402 and 7 R. Stat. § 121.203.
Argument to section II of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss:
The SCOTUS (Supreme Court Of The United States) decision in the SEC v.
Capital Gains Research Bureau, 375 U.S. 180, 193 (1963) is helpful to prove the
Plaintiff’s claims. Even though that the Defendant is an individual and not an investor,
being sued in his official capacity, etc., the SCOTUS has imposed a great definition of
fraud (Fraud, indeed, in the sense of a court of equity properly includes all acts,
omissions and concealments which involve a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust, or
confidence, justly reposed, and are injurious to another, or by which an undue and
unconscientious advantage is taken of another.)
Due to the misrepresentation of facts, which was made with an intent to get an
unfair advantage in the way of getting the State Bar to impose an interim suspension on
the Plaintiff’s law license does not only meet the definition of Fraud described in SEC v.
Capital Gains Research Bureau, 375 U.S. 180 (1963), but also meets the definition
under 7 R. Stat. § 121.202 (Any individual who intentionally deceives another party to
secure unfair or unlawful gain, or deprive a victim of a legal right commits fraud and is
liable for compensatory damages; injunctive relief, and punitive damages of up to
$5,000.00.)
Argument to section III of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAGE - 4 -
Opposition to amended Motion to dismiss
Even though that the Amended Complaint itself does not mention anything about
the arrest report being false, that is not the legal issue here. In the Amended Complaint,
it is about the fact that the Defendant has intentionally misrepresented the Arrest Report
as being done after the State bar Integrity Act, even though it was made BEFORE the
Act went into effect.
Conclusion
For the following reasons, the Plaintiff asks the Court to: DENY Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss in full.
