Tortious Interference of Contract

[Tax Counsel]

-is he saying that I can contact the new potential Defendant directly?

No. Indeed, he didn't mention any "new potential defendant" at all. All he's saying is that while he won't compel the the defendant to disclose anything to you (and it sounds like at least some discovery is suspended until some future court order) the parties — you and the defendant corporation's lawyers — are still free to exchange information informally if you wish. Before contacting the defendant corporation's employees about anything connected to the litigation, you need to first clear it with the corporation's counsel.

TaxCounsel, I believe I meet all of those requirements for Tortious interference.

From what you stated here, I'd be very surprised if you had the evidence needed to prove that given the incidents you described. The prospects you are relying on were speculative and in any event I doubt you have evidence indicating that those people intended to interfere with those vague future opportunities. Pro se plaintiffs tend to be overly optimistic about their cases, in part because they often don't really understand the law and what they have to prove. That's the sense I'm getting here.

 

[Ken Del Signore]

thanks, that information informs my next move.

The corporation is refusing to allow my communication to the employee, so I am going to inform the their counsel that I am initiating a State Board of Nursing Complaint against the Nokia employee based on her previous affidavit that I am alleging was falsified.

The corporation has motioned (attached) for an extension from Feb 10th to March 18th for their deadline to respond.

My thinking is the response should be that there are no new charges against the corporation, only against the employees, and I do not yet know if it will be necessary to file and amended complaint. Thanks
Ken

 

[Zigner]

I will give you this: You got "HIPAA" right (many use "HIPPA"). I guess that's a plus in your column.

 

[Ken Del Signore]

Hello Gentlemen,
procedural question, there has been a motion, my response, and their reply submitted this week. Can I amend my response to reply to the claims in their response to my reply?
Or should I not reply?
Their reply does not address the key point of their motion which is to extend a Feb 10th deadline to respond to my complaint to Mar 18th.
thanks!

 

[Zigner]

You REALLY need an attorney.

 

[Ken Del Signore]

the case alleges wire fraud being committed by the telecom industry that causes USF fees on US phone bills to be inflated by approx 50cents per month, on all 250 million cell phones in the US. Half the money goes into the FEC campaign finance system and can be tracked through individual donations and PAC donations. If you see an attorney's web site that says they are not afraid of anything, tell them I said it's not true.

 

[Ken Del Signore]

Hello Gents,
I have filed the attached amended complaint. Thanks very much for the earlier input. The ruling on MTD limited my FCA and SOX claims to after Aug 2018, and said to include a "statement of claim".

I decided to only name one individual by name. I think this person is innocent and that her affidavit to the DOL AJL was falsified. But based on the affidavit, I am claiming standing. This person is an RN and could face proffessional sanctions based on the material in her affadavit.

I am alleging that the former lead Council falsified a record of a phone call in the RNs affidavit, but then lost her job over the matter before the affidavit was submitted, and then person that replaced her, found the falsified affidavit and intentionally submitted the falsified information, I'm guessing to make the matter decidable by the ALJ on the record of the phone call.

Judge Alonso had given me until March 5th to file my ammended complaint, and he has set the date March 19th as the deadline for their reply.

Now that I have sunmited the amended complaint, is there a motion I can file to request the response date be moved up?
thanks x10
Ken