COUNTY OF POKO
Plaintiff,
-against-
MERCADO and L.A.R.D.,
Defendants
Index No. 86753/09
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED TO APPEAR in the Supreme Court of the County of Essex, at the Office of the Clerk of said Court at the Pok-O-Queen, in the City of Willsboro, County of Essex, State of New York, within the time provided by law, and to file an Answer to the annexed Complaint with the Clerk; upon your failure to answer, Judgment will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the Complaint, together with the costs of this action.
DATED: New York, New York
April 18, 2008
FLESHER & STANLEY, LLC
Attorneys for Plaintiff
New York, New York 11205
By: ___________________________
ELIZABETH FLESHER, ESQ.
1. Plaintiff is an individual and is now, and at all times mentioned in this complaint was, a member of the Pok-O Family. Plaintiff has participated in the Patch Sprint annually from 2002 to the present. Plaintiff has during all this time enjoyed a good reputation, both generally as an upstanding member of the community and as a Patch Sprint participant.
2. Defendant Roberto Mercado is an individual and is now, and at all time mentioned in this complaint was, a member of the Pok-O Family.
3. Defendant LARD is now, and was at all times mentioned in this complaint, a not-for-profit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal place of business in the State of New York, in Essex County.
4. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on that information and belief alleges, that at all times mentioned in this complaint, defendant Mercado was the agent and representative of the codefendant L.A.R.D. and in doing the things alleged in this complaint was acting within the course and scope of such agency and employment.
5. On or about April 10, 2008, defendants published an article entitled "Discrimination at the Patch Sprint" (hereinafter "article"). A copy of the article has been annexed hereto as Exhibit A and can be accessed on the internet at http://www.geocities.com/nyclard/. The article stated that plaintiff was not a legitimate Clydesdale, that plaintiff wanted to kill birds, that plaintiff was a communist, that plaintiff harbored animus toward defendant, that plaintiff had not previously run the Patch Sprint as a Clydesdale, that plaintiff was not a hometown hero, that plaintiff was a sadist, and that plaintiff would mar the Clydesdale category by his participation. See Exhibit A.
6. The article referred to plaintiff by name throughout and included photographs of plaintiff. See Exhibit A. The article was undoubtedly meant to reference plaintiff, and was so understood by those who read the article.
7. The aforementioned statements that plaintiff was not a legitimate Clydesdale, that plaintiff wanted to kill birds, that plaintiff was a communist, that plaintiff harbored animus toward defendant, that plaintiff had not previously run the Patch Sprint as a Clydesdale, that plaintiff was not a hometown hero, that plaintiff was a sadist, and that plaintiff would mar the Clydesdale category by his participation are entirely false as they pertain to plaintiff and the article is clearly libelous on its face. The libelous statements clearly expose plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule, and obloquy.
8. Plaintiff is an upstanding community member and unquestionably a hometown hero, hailing from Tarrytown, New York. Furthermore, Tarrytown, NY is unquestionably closer to Willsboro, NY than Staten Island, NY, which is essentially part of New Jersey. Plaintiff is unsure of exactly who defendant is, so it would be impossible for him to harbor animus toward defendant.
9. Plaintiff’s love of birds, specifically of eagles and peach faced lovebirds, is well known. Because of his deeply held love of avian creatures, the malice behind defendants’ allegations that plaintiff enjoys killing birds is truly shocking to the conscience.
10. Further, it is incomprehensible how defendants could allege that plaintiff was not legitimately a Clydesdale athlete and that his presence in the division would somehow mar the reputation of Clydesdales everywhere. If defendants had taken a moment to check the definition of Clydesdale, they would have noticed that plaintiff, himself, is the very definition of Clydesdale. Not only does plaintiff meet the weight qualification to participate in the division, but the definition of Clydesdale references plaintiff by name. See Exhibit B: www.patchsprint.com/Divisions.html. Plaintiff is THE quintessential Clydesdale (see photograph of plaintiff annexed hereto as Exhibit C, below) and he hopes to one day be the first Clydesdale to take home the Janny.
11. Finally, plaintiff is a lover of democracy. The emergent academic discipline of sustainability is distinguished from environmental movements in that it implicitly supports capitalist growth and searches for ways to make this growth sustainable considering a concurrent need for environmental protection, social equity, and democratic justice.
12. The article was seen and read on or about Monday, April 14, 2008 by countless members of the Pok-O-Family.
13. As a proximate result of the above-described publication, plaintiff has suffered loss of his reputation, shame, mortification, and injury to his feelings, all to his damage in the total amount of $46,000,000.46. The shame embodied in Exhibit C is full testament to this.
14. The above-described publication was not privileged because it was published by defendants with malice, hatred, and ill will toward plaintiff and the desire to injure him, in that defendants had expressed a desire to “put Stanley in his place.” Because defendants’ malice in publishing, plaintiff seeks punitive damages in the form of one of the following: (a): a Burger King Quadruple Stacker ™; (b): a Wendy’s Baconator ™; or (c) two (2) McDonald’s Double Quarter Pounders with Cheese ™. Said damages must be delivered in perfect condition to plaintiff on the summit of Pok-O-Moonshine Mountain, in Essex County, New York at exactly 12:30 PM on May 24, 2008. Plantiff has no obligation to provide a Sherpa for the procurement and transfer of said damages to the summit of the mountain.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against each defendant for:
1. Compensatory damages according to proof;
2. Punitive damages;
3. Interest as allowed by law;
4. Costs of suit;
5. Such other and further relief as this court may deem just and proper.
Dated: New York, New York
April 18, 2008
FLESHER & STANLEY, LLC
Attorneys for Plaintiff
New York, New York 11205
By: _________________________
ELIZABETH FLESHER, ESQ.
