Federici v Pignotti et al: Officially Terminated for All Defendants Including John Does

As I have previously noted, on March 4, 2011 the Honorable Gerald Bruce Lee of Eastern District Court of Virginia, aka the Rocket Docket, granted the Motions to Dismiss filed for all named defendants in Federici v Pignotti et al: Monica Pignotti, Jean Mercer, Charly Miller, Linda Rosa, Larry Sarner and Advocates for Children in Therapy.  The official order was issued on March 28 and 30 days later, the appeal period expired, thus concluding the case for all named defendants.

However, there was one more loose end to tie up: the John Does 1-10. These were the anonymous defendants Federici believed existed. Of course, since they were not named, they were not served and hence, could not file Motions to Dismiss. Thus, on May 11, 2011 the judge issued an order to Plaintiff Ronald Federici to “show cause as to why this civil action as to John Does 1-10 should not be dismissed” and was ordered to respond within 20 days.

20 days later, Domingo Rivera, on behalf of Ronald Federici filed a Motion to Dismiss for the John Does, without prejudice.  The Memorandum stated:

Despite multiple attempts, counsel has been unable to reach Plaintiff regarding the Court’s May 11, 2011 Order. Additionally, due to certain events not directly related to this litigation, counsel does not believe that he can ethically continue representing Plaintiff in any matter, including the instant case. Granting Federici’s Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice will allow Federici to seek alternate representation so that he may later continue to prosecute this matter against the remaining defendants.

Full document can be viewed here:

Memo MTD John Does

What does this mean and why was he unable to be reached? Since the memo gives no reason and events in question “not directly related” were not specified, your guess is as good as mine and anything further I could offer would be only speculation, so I won’t.

What is factually certain is that on June 1, 2011, the judge granted the Motion to Dismiss for the John Does and the case is now officially concluded and terminated for all concerned. The fact it was dismissed without prejudice with regard to the John Does means that he will have the opportunity to refile against the “remaining defendants” meaning the John Does if he should decide to seek “alternate representation” and do so.

My understanding of this is that since the case was dismissed for the named defendants on jurisdiction, any John Does identified would have to be Virginians or individuals who had ties to Virginia which the named defendants did not.

The Dismissal Order for the named defendants on the grounds of jurisdiction for all named defendants and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted for Pignotti and Mercer can be viewed here.

Case closed June 1, 2011.

PS: Although geographically very close (Eastern District VA is literally across the river from DC), this wouldn’t have helped me with the VA case, but here is some good news on the anti-SLAPP legislation front. Washington DC has just passed some quite extensive anti-SLAPP legislation.

The new D.C. statute falls on the more protective end of the spectrum of anti-SLAPP laws.  It permits a special motion to strike in lawsuits stemming from acts “in furtherance of the right of advocacy on issues of public interest,” which includes both petitioning the government and addressing issues of public interest in a public forum.  It also provides a special motion to quash to those whose personal identifying information is being sought via subpoena, should that information be sought in a matter arising from an act in furtherance of the right of advocacy on issues of public interest.

What we ultimately need to protect everyone in all states is legislation like this at the Federal level. This, however, is a big step forward.

Ronald Federici: Dox or GTFO (or alternatively, consider my offer)

The so-called History Making Lawsuit blog is now giving the number of the clerk’s office when they know darn good and well that it’s not open on weekends and thus no verification can be done through that number for two days. Given that so many repeated lies have been told about me with regard to court cases, it is not unreasonable for me to expect to see actual documents. Not snippets of documents. Entire documents including the names of all the parties being sued, the court seal, and the case number. If Ronald Federici really filed a lawsuit, this should be no problem to scan in and post to the blog. Since the blog contains numerous scanned-in documents, we know they have the equipment to do this.

So bottom line: There is no reason for me to believe these postings, given the long history of false statements made about me by anonymous individuals on the internet. By posting a phone number where someone cannot be reached for two days it appears to me as if they are trying to mess with me, once again and I will not allow that. Time and time again, these anonymous posters have dropped bombshells late on Friday when things cannot be checked out. They did this when they lied about the criminal charges that never materialized.

Of course it is possible that this case refers to an appeal he has been threatening to refile for months now against the parties that he lost against in small claims court in June 2010. Many things are possible, but unless I see evidence, the rational response, given the repeated lies, is to assume these are yet more lies, until and unless shown otherwise. I am open to evidence. I am not open to petulant little rants in all capital letters that insist it’s “REAL”. A broken caps lock is not evidence.

Hence, as the saying goes, Dox or GTFO (an internet acronym, not an all caps word, that stands for produce the documents or get the F___ out). If the document exists, it should be very easy to just post it. Not doing so shows that the most reasonable assumption I can make, which many close friends have opined, is that these folks are trying to mess with my mind and I do not allow anyone to do that. I refuse to spend my weekend worrying about something that might not be true, especially given the track record of lies that have been posted about me online. If that was their intention, they failed. There are only so many times crying wolf will work.

You want to talk to me about incessant whinging? If you’re going to sue me, then go ahead and sue me, but all this saber rattling is really getting old.

Just remember, Dr. Federici, that I have repeatedly made you the offer to specifically identify what specific statements that I made that you believe to be false and fall into the category of libel/defamation. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again now that my intention is to be truthful in my writings so if you have any evidence that contradicts any fact I have mentioned in any of my writings, please present it and if I deem it to be valid evidence, I will be more than happy to retract such a statement. You may respond right here on this blog, if you wish, or you may contact me privately either via e-mail or telephone. I am more than happy to hear you out and to and carefully consider what you have to say.

So far, in spite of my making this offer, in good faith, no response from Dr. Federici. What I am not willing to do is give up my legitimate rights to free speech. That is, my right to write about things that do not fall into the category of libel/defamation and to the very best of my knowledge, nothing I have written fits into that category.

However, I remain open, should Dr. Federici wish to reconsider my offer and save us both the time, energy and expense of a lawsuit. However, if Dr. Federici is demanding that I relinquish my right to criticize and express my opinion about his work in ways the United States Constitution guarantees me, that is a deal breaker for me and I am unwilling to give up such rights and will face you in a court of law, if it comes to that because I remain confident that I have done nothing wrong. Your call, Dr. Federici.