![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ron_newman posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
davis_squareMy awesome lawyer Dan Booth has just informed me that Jonathan Monsarrat's lawyer has filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice. This means that the case is OVER, against all defendants, named and unnamed, Doe and Buck alike. "With Prejudice" means that it can never be filed again, against any of us, for any statement in any of the exhibits that were attached to the complaint.
Johnny Monsarrat and his lawyer tried several times to reach a settlement agreement with Dan and me, but for various reasons we ended up rejecting each proposal. In the end, he has simply given up, without any mutual agreement, public or private.
Here's the official text of the notice:
NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
Pursuant to the provisions of Mass. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(i), the Plaintiff, Jonathan Graves Monsarrat, in the above-captioned matter, hereby files and gives notice of dismissal, with prejudice and without costs to either party, as to Deb Filcman, Ron Newman, the Doe Defendant identified as Doe Defendant "srakkt" in paragraph 51 of the Amended Complaint, whose real name is Richard James Scheffler of Somerville, Massachusetts, and John and Jane Does 1-99, as defendants in the Amended Complaint.
ETA: If Johnny had not voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit today, Dan Booth was ready to file this motion to dismiss and this supporting memorandum on Monday. (The supporting memo is the more interesting document.) It would be a shame for Dan to go to all that trouble and not be able to share his work, so I'm linking it here with his permission, for your legal edification.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-06-07 07:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-06-07 08:11 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2013-06-07 07:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-06-07 07:56 pm (UTC)I am doing the Happy Butt Dance RIGHT HERE in my chair at work.
Mazel tov!
no subject
Date: 2013-06-08 01:39 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-06-07 07:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-06-07 08:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-06-07 08:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-06-07 08:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-06-07 08:06 pm (UTC)YEAHHHHH!!!
no subject
Date: 2013-06-07 08:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-06-07 08:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-06-07 08:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-06-07 08:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-06-07 08:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-06-07 08:49 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2013-06-07 08:21 pm (UTC)I updated FriendsofDavisSquareLJ.com with this information, since you've made it public here.
no subject
Date: 2013-06-07 08:23 pm (UTC)ETA: If you can edit your statement slightly to make clear that the plaintiff (Monsarrat) filed the dismissal, I'd appreciate that.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2013-06-07 08:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-06-07 08:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-06-07 08:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-06-07 08:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-06-07 08:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-06-07 08:54 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2013-06-07 08:51 pm (UTC)1. jonmon sues multiple people with a stated purpose of hurting them monetarily for causing him imagined harm.
2. They are forced to hire separate multiple lawyers.
3. jonmon threatens more people with being added to the lawsuit, and brags in two press releases that he's intending to harm all these people.
4. jonmon dismisses the lawsuit.
Thus, the upshot is that he has put out the money for one lawyer, and the people he wanted to hurt have put out money for multiple lawyers.
I'd say jonmon has won, because he has succeeded in his purpose of hurting multiple people monetarily.
Yes, I know that Ron doesn't have to pay for council, but Deb (or her employers) and srakkt did. And since a fund was created, those who donated to the fund are out that money too.
IANAL, but can a dismissed suit be countersued for damages? I hope so.
no subject
Date: 2013-06-07 09:10 pm (UTC)1) That Ron not be held accountable for something he did not do.
2) That members of the community be allowed honest and free expression.
I feel no need to reclaim my donation and honestly, I have zero desire to engage in any sort of interaction or discourse with the guy. He's out of my life and he can damn well stay out.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2013-06-07 09:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-06-07 09:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-06-07 09:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-06-07 09:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-06-07 09:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-06-07 10:49 pm (UTC)