Defendant Rocky Scarfone Addresses Court
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GWINNETT COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA
Civil Action File
No. 05-A 00627-3
THOMAS PAPANIA,
PLAINTIFF
BRIEF IN SUPPORT of MOTION
for EVIDENTIARY HEARING
JOE BAFFA A/K/A ROCKY SCARFONE
DEFENDANT
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING
1
The Defendant has alleged in every way and means and filing available that this action is more than a simple contract disagreement; that evidence points to the MOTIVE and PLAN of the Plaintiff to utilize this complaint to continue a history of defrauding the public.
2
Evidence that a person has a particular motive can be relevant to an ultimate fact in both civil and criminal cases. When motive is relevant, evidence tending to show its existence is usually admissible. One method of proving the existence of a motive is to offer evidence that the person alleged to have committed an act in question has committed one or more other crimes, wrongs, or acts. Such evidence may be admissible for the purpose of showing motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. The court may admit said evidence when it tends to show a relevant motive other than through an inference of character; something that prompts a person to act in a certain way or that determines volition, and equates the term with inducement and incentive.
“Intent spells purpose to use a particular means to obtain a desired end, whereas motive supplies the reason that nudges the will and prods the mind to indulge the criminal intent.” Id. (citing Jones v. State, 68 So. 690, 694 (Ala. Crim. App. 1915).
3
Through Defendants initial answers, affidavits, amended answers and counter complaint, he has shown that reasonable evidence of material fact exists alleging:
Plaintiff has been selling tapes, videos and performing speaking engagements that are based on a fraudulent “TESTIMONY”, in which said testimony encompasses the Plaintiffs entire past life;.
That Defendant Filed a Federal Copyright Infringemen and FRAUD Case against plaintiff;
that the Defendant won settlements of claims against CBN and FOF in said Copyright Infringement and Fraud complaint against the Plaintiff before the settlement;
that Defendant had won the rights to the name TOMPAPANIA.COM and NET before the settlement;
that Defendant closed down the Plaintiff’s tompapania.org website for copyright violation before the settlement,
that Defendant successfully argued after three years and won the right to go to trial with a possible summary judgment against the Plaintiff’ and was in complete control when he agreed to settle;
that Plaintiff was aware that websites he accused the defendant of contributing to or posting to or owning were owned and created by individuals who had opposed the alleged fraud for years before Defendant was even aware of Plaintiff;
that Plaintiff experienced a vast reduction of speaking engagements, donations, video and tape sales from the expose website publications;
that Plaintiff informed the public that he was going to close down said websites because they were untrue
that Plaintiff was well within his statutes of limitations to file defamation suites against any of the website owners;
that Plaintiff, instead of filing against his old detractors, he filed suit against the Defendant for violation of an agreement using said websites as cause;
that Plaintiff then published news letters stating he had an attorney file multiple law suites against all the website owners in State and Federal Court;
all suggesting and alleging that the Plaintiff filed this action in order to continue to receive donations, garner speaking engagements and sell video and audio tapes of an alleged fraudulent testimony that covers Plaintiffs entire life to present;
And that Plaintiff actively denied discovery of documents, contacts, witnesses, emails and facts with only a few domain names and the name of one witness offered years after the requests were made in order to prolong the action;
4
It is therefore more than reasonable that Plaintiff was moved to act by a particular motive with an explicit plan to accomplish his specific purpose; and knowledge of the motive leads the Defendant to infer that the act was done with the intent of reaching the goal implied by the motive: fraud.
5
Thus evidence that the Plaintiff acted in accordance with his particular plan may permit the Defendant to infer back to the motive that produced the plan and forward to the intent with which the subsequent act was carried out. By the introduction of evidence which provides a motive, the defendant is able to establish the plaintiff was more likely to have committed the act. It is crucial for the court to analyze the applicability of the theory to the facts at hand, determine the strength of the motive evidence, and then to weigh its probative value against its potential prejudice.
6
If this Honorable Court were to view the Defendants filings, the Court would discover attempt after attempt for discovery regarding all matters not privileged which were relevant to the subject matters involved in this pending action, whether it related to the claim and defense of the Defendant seeking , including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, emails, witnesses, or other tangible things and the specific identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter was simply denied.
7
It is not grounds for objection that the information sought would be inadmissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; It is thus that the Defendant requests a hearing to discover just what he can introduce at trial. The Defendant has acquired documents, emails, tapes and video that he believes he has the right to utilize in his defense and counter claims. Many of these, such as emails and tapes, were asked for and available to the Plaintiff, yet Plaintiff never sent them.
Wherefore:
The defendant, with all respect, requests a hearing to introduce said evidence and discover what he can and cannot introduce at trial.
Respectfully Submitted
This ____ Day of _______________ 2009
Joe Baffa Pro-Se
|
Visitors:  |
|