Kt Has Sued Individual For Libel

[jimmyg]

Just for information purposes, KT and his attorneys know their way around the bankruptsy courts very well and will not hesitate to try and personally destroy others in order to protect his business interests.

A person umbrella policy can be purchased for about $300 and offers legal defense against most personal lawsuits.

Jim

U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals
CATON v TRUDEAU




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS



FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT






No. 98-30205
Summary Calendar




In the Matter of: GREGORY JAMES CATON,

Debtor.


GREGORY JAMES CATON,

Appellant,


versus


KEVIN TRUDEAU,

Appellee.





Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
October 26, 1998


Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, STEWART and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

POLITZ, Chief Judge:

Gregory James Caton appeals the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's application of collateral estoppel to an Illinois state court default judgment in its determination that said judgment was nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). For the reasons assigned, we affirm.




BACKGROUND



In January 1996, Kevin Trudeau filed a libel suit against Caton in Illinois state court based on statements Caton made in a book and on an Internet website. Caton removed the action to federal court, but on Trudeau's motion, the action was remanded. Thereafter, Caton failed to respond to Trudeau's claims and the court entered a default and noticed an evidentiary hearing. On June 5, 1996, after a hearing, the court rendered a default judgment against Caton, awarding Trudeau $5 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages.

In November 1996, Caton filed for relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. Trudeau filed a complaint therein, seeking to have the Illinois default judgment declared nondischargeable under section 523(a)(6). Trudeau then moved for summary judgment, contending that the Illinois judgment for libel per se established a nondischargeable debt for willful and malicious injury under section 523(a)(6) and further contending that collateral estoppel applied to prevent relitigation of this issue. Caton responded that collateral estoppel did not apply and that the claims supporting the Illinois judgment should be litigated in the bankruptcy court. The bankruptcy court applied collateral estoppel, determined that the Illinois judgment was nondischargeable under section 523(a)(6), and granted Trudeau's summary judgment motion. The district court affirmed; Caton timely appealed.

 

[memikey]

You cannot benefit from insurance policy assistance against legal defence fees in connection with a libel which allegedly occurred prior to you taking out the insurance so purchasing such an insurance retrospectively after the date of the alleged libel would be of no use.It can be roughly likened to a pre-existing medical condition under a health insurance in that respect.

Furthermore if the insurers conclude that someone has bought a legal defence fees insurance against the background of having a premeditated express intention of then shortly afterwards committing an act that the the insured knows there is a strong probability will attract claims of libel will almost certainly find that their claim for the costs of legal assistance is denied under the policy conditions.

 

[macguy]

Just for information purposes, KT and his attorneys know their way around the bankruptsy courts very well and will not hesitate to try and personally destroy others in order to protect his business interests.

A person umbrella policy can be purchased for about $300 and offers legal defense against most personal lawsuits.

Jim

U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals
CATON v TRUDEAU




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS



FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT






No. 98-30205
Summary Calendar




In the Matter of: GREGORY JAMES CATON,

Debtor.


GREGORY JAMES CATON,

Appellant,


versus


KEVIN TRUDEAU,

Appellee.





Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
October 26, 1998


Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, STEWART and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

POLITZ, Chief Judge:

Gregory James Caton appeals the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's application of collateral estoppel to an Illinois state court default judgment in its determination that said judgment was nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). For the reasons assigned, we affirm.




BACKGROUND



In January 1996, Kevin Trudeau filed a libel suit against Caton in Illinois state court based on statements Caton made in a book and on an Internet website. Caton removed the action to federal court, but on Trudeau's motion, the action was remanded. Thereafter, Caton failed to respond to Trudeau's claims and the court entered a default and noticed an evidentiary hearing. On June 5, 1996, after a hearing, the court rendered a default judgment against Caton, awarding Trudeau $5 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages.

In November 1996, Caton filed for relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. Trudeau filed a complaint therein, seeking to have the Illinois default judgment declared nondischargeable under section 523(a)(6). Trudeau then moved for summary judgment, contending that the Illinois judgment for libel per se established a nondischargeable debt for willful and malicious injury under section 523(a)(6) and further contending that collateral estoppel applied to prevent relitigation of this issue. Caton responded that collateral estoppel did not apply and that the claims supporting the Illinois judgment should be litigated in the bankruptcy court. The bankruptcy court applied collateral estoppel, determined that the Illinois judgment was nondischargeable under section 523(a)(6), and granted Trudeau's summary judgment motion. The district court affirmed; Caton timely appealed.

I think that guy may be in prison now. He may be even worse then Trudeau and was in the same business of fake cures. I remember his name from when I was doing research on Trudeau.

 

[JAM]

One of the oldest lawyer tricks in the book.

File a lawsuit with the Court, and though the lawsuit papers inform the Court that the opposing party has been served with notice via postal delivery, somehow the papers never reach the intended recipient.

When the trial comes to fruition, the Court rules in favor of the party who did show up, and the no-show, who never did receive the papers, has to untangle a judgment attached to his name.

JAM

 

[Craig Fales]

One of the oldest lawyer tricks in the book.

File a lawsuit with the Court, and though the lawsuit papers inform the Court that the opposing party has been served with notice via postal delivery, somehow the papers never reach the intended recipient.

When the trial comes to fruition, the Court rules in favor of the party who did show up, and the no-show, who never did receive the papers, has to untangle a judgment attached to his name.

JAM

It would seem easy to prove you knew nothing about it or it should be required that the letter have some kind of confirmation that you recieved it...

 

[JAM]

It would seem easy to prove you knew nothing about it or it should be required that the letter have some kind of confirmation that you recieved it...

You would think so, but all too often, there are many cases on the books where unsuspecting parties were being sued, and they only find out about it after the fact, when there is a judgment on their name. It is a legal nightmare, and believe me, it happens all the time!

Lawyers can give pool players the 7, 8, and 9 when it comes to hustling!

JAM

 

[jimmyg]

You cannot benefit from insurance policy assistance against legal defence fees in connection with a libel which allegedly occurred prior to you taking out the insurance so purchasing such an insurance retrospectively after the date of the alleged libel would be of no use.It can be roughly likened to a pre-existing medical condition under a health insurance in that respect.

Furthermore if the insurers conclude that someone has bought a legal defence fees insurance against the background of having a premeditated express intention of then shortly afterwards committing an act that the the insured knows there is a strong probability will attract claims of libel will almost certainly find that their claim for the costs of legal assistance is denied under the policy conditions.

Hi memikey, if no action has been iniatiated against you and your actions are not intentional and/or with prior knowledge or blatent intent you are pretty much ok. Also, the plaintiff must prove several elements in a libel case, including, I believe "damages."

It's fairly difficult for a plaintiff to prevail in a libel case in general.

My point was that KT has done this in the past, so it's not beyond him. And the personal umbrella policy is cheap enough to deserve consideration.

Also, I believe certain courts, including Federal, require personal service. Service by mail isn't recognized and accepted by all courts.

Jimj

 

[macguy]

Hi memikey, if no action has been iniatiated against you and your actions are not intentional and/or with prior knowledge or blatent intent you are pretty much ok. Also, the plaintiff must prove several elements in a libel case, including, I believe "damages."

It's fairly difficult for a plaintiff to prevail in a libel case in general.

My point was that KT has done this in the past, so it's not beyond him. And the personal umbrella policy is cheap enough to deserve consideration.

Also, I believe certain courts, including Federal, require personal service. Service by mail isn't recognized and accepted by all courts.

Jimj

I am not sure a policy would protect you from wrongful or willful acts. It seems it would be more for something like being sued because someone slipped in front of your house or something, not if you shot them. Even most auto policies are void if you say wrecked someone's car as you were making your getaway from a robbery.

 

[jimmyg]

I am not sure a policy would protect you from wrongful or willful acts. It seems it would be more for something like being sued because someone slipped in front of your house or something, not if you shot them. Even most auto policies are void if you say wrecked someone's car as you were making your getaway from a robbery.

Not to argue the point Mac, but an Umbrella Policy protects you by going beyond the liability limits of both your Homeowners and Automobile policies and also pays for your defense, and covers you against losses from personal lawsuits. They are sold in $!M increments and require minimium liability coverage in the $300K (depending on your carrier) area of your auto and homeowners insurance. Well worth the money.

And there are usually exclusions in all policies for willful and intentional acts.

Jim