Natalee Holloway - Tacopina Filing

Attorney for Joran Van der Sloot, Joe Tacopina, shot back with both barrels today in a legal filing pursuant to a civil lawsuit filed against Van der Sloot in New York by the Twitty family.

In one incredible response section, apparently the original action alleged that a Jane Doe was prepared to testify in New York, though not in Aruba, that Joran Van Der Sloot drugged her and sexually assaulted her as she faded in and out of consciousness. She was also said to be able to identify two other girls who could claim the same thing.

Those allegations were offered in an affidavit from a previous Twitty attorney, C. Helen Lejuez. The Tacopina response claims to have identified the Jane Doe as one, Karen Martina, who filed an affidavit under her own name claiming she never told Lejuez such things, nor did she prefer to travel to New York to testify on Joran's behalf.

Apparently the Twitty suit also alleged that Aruba was an unsafe environment for any trial, citing in one example, other locations, including Egypt, which have had on going terrorist activity, the implication being that the Van Der Sloots, complicit with high ranking Aruban officials, were embarked on some murderous campaign to prevent the truth from coming out. Tacopina's response argues that there is no evidence to support such a claim and the cited law does not apply despite Beth Twitty claiming several incidents of intimidation and anonymous murder threats unsupported by documentation.

Additionally, apparently the law suit made some mention of Joran Van Der Sloot having traveled to NYC for a television interview, suggesting his motives were less than honorable in broadcasting himself in such a manner. Tacopina countered by citing the numerous appearances of Ms. Twitty on television stations where she is said to have repeatedly cast unfounded allegations against the defendant.

Update: I also wanted to mention that apparently the original suit cited five witnesses from Mountain Brook who did not want to travel to Aruba to testify, presumably out of fear for their lives. Tacapino's response offered serveral excerpts from investigative documents claiming that said key witnesses were already on record as to have seen nothing relating to the charges in the initial suit.

Update2: pdf available here

Comments

[nelson from NYC]

Finally things are making more sense.

[( Dax )]

bah ...

Nice try on the spin, Taco Joe but it don't cut the mustard. Until proven otherwise, your client was the last known person to have been with Natalee. That means, plain and simple, he is on the highest plateau of suspicion.

Prove otherwise and then state your case.

[windy city]

Can't wait for Discovery! Wonder if it will get that far?

[Festicles]

bah ...

Nice try on the spin, Taco Joe but it don't cut the mustard. Until proven otherwise, your client was the last known person to have been with Natalee. That means, plain and simple, he is on the highest plateau of suspicion.

Prove otherwise and then state your case.

Posted by: ( Dax ) | Tuesday, April 25, 2006 at 09:54 PM

I'm confused....is it guilty until proven innocent....or innocent until proven guilty?.....note to self: gotta go back and review my constitutional law....

[windy city]

I'm amazed it took this long for Mr. Tacapino to respond. I'm affraid I think this suit might be all bark and no bite though.

[windy city]

correction- Tacopino

[Jan]

I have read all 119 pages of this masterful piece - now folks this is a legal document - not that grade school pathetic piece of whatever that JQK tried to pass off as a Filing! This takes down each and every point of JQK and more than that with the worthless witnesses they intended to bring and the bogus rape victim and all their other pieces of crap, in addition to all of the MANY witnesses that Joe really would call and they are all in Aruba. As Joe said the other nite -"we didn't invite them to this party they invited us!"
I would say check mate - Joe T.

[Tara]

Jan - where did you read it??

[windy city]

Maybe Jan helped write it?

[ViVi]

Dan, I think you've missed most of the legal points while concentrating on the sensationalized Razzle Dazzle. No offense, that's the intent of the response. Joe has the burden of proving forum non conveniens. There are issues much more weighty than the "Jane Doe" and Beth's fear of Aruba. Joe makes some points, but much of the brief is drama and PR and does little to actually advance his argument of forum non conveniens. I think the suit will be heard in NY

[windy city]

It is not like this is very unexpected. Mr Tacopino has been laying groundwork for this for sometime. Now we wait and see what the Judge says. It will give bloggers more reason to argue for the next couple of weeks.

[ViVi]

I have read all 119 pages of this masterful piece - now folks this is a legal document - not that grade school pathetic piece of whatever that JQK tried to pass off as a Filing! This takes down each and every point of JQK and more than that with the worthless witnesses they intended to bring and the bogus rape victim and all their other pieces of crap, in addition to all of the MANY witnesses that Joe really would call and they are all in Aruba. As Joe said the other nite -"we didn't invite them to this party they invited us!"
I would say check mate - Joe T.

Posted by: Jan | Tuesday, April 25, 2006 at 10:00 PM

Joe doesnt cite a single witness he would call from Aruba. He doesnt specify any evidence that's in Aruba. You may have read all 119 pages, but I dont think you understood the legal implications.

[windy city]

ViVi,

I hope you are right. Discovery might lead to some answers.

[windy city]

ViVi,

I hope you are right. Discovery might lead to some answers.

Posted by: windy city | Tuesday, April 25, 2006 at 10:06 PM

But I bet they would default before this would ever happen.

[ViVi]

But I bet they would default before this would ever happen.

Posted by: windy city | Tuesday, April 25, 2006 at 10:08 PM

I dont think they'll default. They could have defaulted in the first place and never filed the motion to dismiss. Who knows though. Nothing would surprise me. I dont have much hope the case will be solved.

[Dan]

Dan, I think you've missed most of the legal points while concentrating on the sensationalized Razzle Dazzle.

You're incorrect. I understand the issues - the items I mentioned are directly related to the legal issues.

key witnesses - irrevant

fear of Aruba - irrelevant - she traveled there sense making the claim - also see the terrorism remarks - Aruba is not Egypt, not even close.

inconvenience - Twtty has proved she can bea way from home for extended periods - VDS hasnt and his incomce would suffer, as regards the father. Their elgal defense fund was spent - ABC paid for the stay in NY, etc etc.

the foundation affidavit for the entire case from Jane Doe has more chance in resulting in Lejuez losing her license again, than it does of supporting a civil suit.

[jan]

well if you all want to go to scrux.com - you will be able to read and learn!

[ViVi]

Dan, I think you've missed most of the legal points while concentrating on the sensationalized Razzle Dazzle.

You're incorrect. I understand the issues - the items I mentioned are directly related to the legal issues.

key witnesses - irrevant

fear of Aruba - irrelevant - she traveled there sense making the claim - also see the terrorism remarks - Aruba is not Egypt, not even close.

inconvenience - Twtty has proved she can bea way from home for extended periods - VDS hasnt and his incomce would suffer, as regards the father. Their elgal defense fund was spent - ABC paid for the stay in NY, etc etc.

the foundation affidavit for the entire case from Jane Doe has more chance in resulting in Lejuez losing her license again, than it does of supporting a civil suit.

Posted by: Dan | Tuesday, April 25, 2006 at 10:15 PM

I didnt mean to insult you. I know you're a smart guy, no doubt. I see other more compelling issues in this matter. I think Joe is playing a PR game and directing the public's attention to certain of the more sensational issues.

I dont want to argue with you though just because we see things differently. Sorry if I offended you.

[Jan]

http://scrux.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?p=6828#6828 The real witnesess are in ARUBA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[greenwing]

Joe doesnt cite a single witness he would call from Aruba. He doesnt specify any evidence that's in Aruba. You may have read all 119 pages, but I dont think you understood the legal implications.

Posted by: ViVi | Tuesday, April 25, 2006 at 10:05 PM

Think you should go read the document carefully. Dozens are enumerated (21 by first and last names).

[windy city]

I dont think they'll default. They could have defaulted in the first place and never filed the motion to dismiss. Who knows though. Nothing would surprise me. I dont have much hope the case will be solved.

Posted by: ViVi | Tuesday, April 25, 2006 at 10:12 PM

But wouldn't they try motion to dismiss first? To kinda save face. And if the Judge won't dismiss, default? Wouldn't Joran and his Attorney not want to go through discovery?

I'm confused as usual!

[Boomerang]

Not sure if you guys have seen this... THIS IS UNBELIEVABLE!!! A MUST READ

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060425-011009-2762r

It seems that this is nothing but a sick joke to these kids. Apparently its okay to lie in Aruba. All I can say is WTF, they need to be held accountable.

[ViVi]

But wouldn't they try motion to dismiss first? To kinda save face. And if the Judge won't dismiss, default? Wouldn't Joran and his Attorney not want to go through discovery?

I'm confused as usual!

Posted by: windy city | Tuesday, April 25, 2006 at 10:21 PM

When Joe first took the case, he said that his best advice would have been for them to default. There would have been little possibility of enforcing a judgment in Aruba or other foreign jurisdiction. Apparently, Joran made it very clear that default was not an option. Of course, he could have said that thinking the dismissal was a slam dunk--which it's not. Joe has said several times they will fight it if it's not dismissed, but that may just be Joe being Joe. Right now, Joran thinks he's got public perception on his side and I just dont think he will default. I think it was incredibly irrational and idiotic for him to come to the US to give an interview, especially when his attorney and dad counseled against it. I think Joran has some personality issues which obfuscate the obvious consequences for him. For those reasons, I believe he will not default, even if that's the best option.

[Dan]

I linked the pdf in post - via Scrux

[Dan]

And Im not offended at THAT Vivi ; )

But honestly read the pdf - I dont think they have a prayer - it never did make much sense. But, who knows.

[ViVi]

And Im not offended at THAT Vivi ; )

But honestly read the pdf - I dont think they have a prayer - it never did make much sense. But, who knows.

Posted by: Dan | Tuesday, April 25, 2006 at 10:29 PM

I read it cover to cover very carefully. I tend to focus on the more esoteric legal points, and most people who follow the case dont agree with my take, so you're certainly in good company.

[NW]

I'm little lost Vivi,
You first state:

Dan, I think you've missed most of the legal points while concentrating on the sensationalized Razzle Dazzle.

And then state:
I tend to focus on the more esoteric legal points,

If your a lawyer, you ought to work in aruba

Sorry about the side track.

[fried]

this is not a filing for JoeT to present his case. all this is, is a response to the Holloway-Twitty filing of last month. he had no need, nor desire to say anything other that a response to what was filed by the plaintiffs.

[meso]

I'm confused....is it guilty until proven innocent....or innocent until proven guilty?.....note to self: gotta go back and review my constitutional law....

Posted by: Festicles | Tuesday, April 25, 2006 at 09:56 PM

I'm no lawyer however, I beleive burden of proof is on the plaintiff. I also believe nothing will ever come of this suit as it was filed in New York and noone associated with the case resides in NY nor did anything to do with the case other than the serving of the summons happen in NY. Essentially at this point this is nothing more than an opportunity for Joe T. to sling mud at the Twitty/Holloway camp.

The real interesting stuff will come if Joe Tacopina decides to sue for Libal as he continues to threaten because then Joran would have to prove his innocence to an extent which he cannot possibly do. There is no way Joe will go through with any libel suits however, he's just trying to strongarm people into shutting up. If he did file suit we might actually see some justice served at the very least by Joran perjuring himself.

It will never happen though the VDS won't come near an American courtroom mark my words.

Cheers folks.

[meso]

^^^ should be libel for some reason I always manage to mistype that word LOL

[meso]

P.S. Dan you missed some of the razzle, Like Joe listing Michael Dompig as one of Jorans friends :)

[ViVi]

If your a lawyer, you ought to work in aruba

Sorry about the side track.

Posted by: NW | Tuesday, April 25, 2006 at 11:01 PM

Thanks for the career advice. I thought I had addressed that to Dan.

[david1017]

This case is on its way out of NY. I know my Civil Procedure and Conflicts law. Have the Am Jur awards to prove it! No way this case stays in the NY courts. It isnt even a close question people, from a legal standpoint. This has nothing to do with the alleged merits of the case. NY has no more to do with adjudicating this dispute than say California or Nevada. Perhaps Mr Kelly should have tried filing the case in Federal Court. NY State Court is not the appropriate forum for any civil case in this mess, at least to do with NH's disappearance. Mark it down. The case will get tossed next month shortly after its argued.

[ViVi]

Mark it down. The case will get tossed next month shortly after its argued.

Posted by: david1017 | Wednesday, April 26, 2006 at 12:05 AM

For the sake of a challenge, I'll betcha it stays.

[anniekwa]

David - perhaps he filed it in NY for the purpose of having it thrown out because it was just a means for "discovery" and for getting movement in this case. I doubt that they really wanted to "win" a case, but just wanted to see another shot in the arm in the investigation and hoped to learn more through the civil suit by getting Joran here and having to testify under "oath". I think most people agree it isn't likely to hold up to be tried in NY.

[wreck]

I am certainly no lawyer, but it makes sense to me that since Joran came to the "media center" of New York with the sole reason to further his OWN publicity in this case -- he inserted himself to the jurisdiction of New York. I guess we will see.

[david1017]

I dont know the motive for the filing of the case in NY. I think perhaps it was multi-fold: to get movement in an otherwise stalled investigation; to force the issue; to keep media involvement; and on the off-chance that they did survive the motion to dismiss--to force discovery(depositions,interrogatory answers, requests to produce). I think the HT was desperate to do something, even at the risk of failure. And the case is going to get tossed. If by chance the NY trial judge doesnt grant the motion, this thing is headed up the ladder on an interlocutory appeal before any substantive discovery takes place, and the appeals court will correct the error. As a matter of fact, I expect JQK to appeal the dismissal when it comes next month as well. Why not?
The HT camp will become even more desperate to keep this in the public eye when the recent arrests fade away and nothing else surfaces in the investigation in Aruba.

[david1017]

wreck, he perhaps "inserted" himself into the jurisdiction of NY for any acts he committed while there, but not for anything he has done or has alleged to have done in his entire life anywhere in the world. The more I think about it, the more Im convinced that JQK made a mistake not making this a federal case from the get-go. In my opinion, he would have had a better chance at keeping the case in the US courts if he had filed the case in the federal court system under a diversity of citzenship jurisdictional basis with a violation of civil rights cause of action. That would make a whole hell of alot more sense to me than filing it in NY where none of the parties or witnesses live. Pure and simple, it was filed in NY cause Joran was in NY for a couple days for media interviews. I repeat no way NY courts keep this case.

[wreck]

I have seen arguments by law experts on both sides (admittedly more saying it will probably be thrown out) -- but none of them are arguing jurisdiction because of where the civil action took place -- they are arguing it as a "court of convenience." Joran has already demonstrated that going to New York is not a "problem" for him. Their are many other arguments as well -- like I said -- I'm no lawyer, but Joran going to NY for the express purpose of a publicty campaign on TV IS a factor.

[chloe]

I find it interesting in Whatley's affidavit that JVS was helping McVeigh to win $100.00. Wasn't it he that claimed he tried to help Natalee win some money back, NOT McVeigh? Also interesting that they told him it was their last night in Aruba. Often hear, in tourist places everywhere, that date rape drugs/encounters are planned for a last night of a trip. The next day they are confused, have to hurry and catch flights, pack, check out, etc., know they are not in their own locality w/regard to reporting it, if they have yet remembered it or realized exactly what happened and may not have the time to do so even if they do, etc.

I also find it very interesting that he lost $250.00! A 17-year-old with $250.00 to lose in one night or at one table? Takes me back to all the talk that he had lines of credit w/the casinos but of course the casinos denied that.

[wreck]

I also find it very interesting that he lost $250.00! A 17-year-old with $250.00 to lose in one night or at one table? Takes me back to all the talk that he had lines of credit w/the casinos but of course the casinos denied that.

Posted by: chloe | Wednesday, April 26, 2006 at 12:43 AM

Anita in her interview this weekend claimed that Joran was "invited" to play in the blackjack tournament. Why is the casino "inviting" a minor (the legal gambling age is 18) to play in one of their tournaments????

[sensible1]

Anita in her interview this weekend claimed that Joran was "invited" to play in the blackjack tournament. Why is the casino "inviting" a minor (the legal gambling age is 18) to play in one of their tournaments????

Posted by: wreck | Wednesday, April 26, 2006 at 12:52 AM

The poker tournament, wreck - the poker tournament.

[CateKelly]

I hope that Wyndham manager has polished his resume because his comments to reporters about Beth will most assuredly get him fired. What a waste. The comments are hearsay to the Court. Joe failed to supply an affidavit from the manager himself. The reporters should be ashamed for their failure to protect the manager as their source.

And, why didn't Joe mention the video he claims shows Natalee and GVC in the casino after CnC and is now missing? And why didn't he supply the FBI interview from the MB witness Joe says saw Natalee back at the hotel after CnC's? And the 3 AM key card data? And why didn't Joe supply the FBI witness statement from the MB'er Joe claims Natalee talked to about Hitler's mother and vacationing in Germany? That's all relevant to the lawsuit. Instead, Joe files reporter affidavits that are hearsay, tourism stats, useless documents in Dutch and an affidavit from someone he claims is Jane Doe but the court has no way of knowing if she is indeed Jane Doe.

If anything, Joe's response might influence the Judge to KEEP the case.

[ViVi]

If by chance the NY trial judge doesnt grant the motion, this thing is headed up the ladder on an interlocutory appeal before any substantive discovery takes place, and the appeals court will correct the error.

Posted by: david1017 | Wednesday, April 26, 2006 at 12:20 AM

There's no interlocutory appeal on forum non conveniens.

[wreck]

The poker tournament, wreck - the poker tournament.
Posted by: sensible1 | Wednesday, April 26, 2006 at 12:58 AM

Okay, the "poker" tournament -- what the hell difference does that make?

[RstJ]

meso nailed the most critical part of the filing: Michael Dompig is listed as one of Joran's friends. Wonder if Beth will go after that one? Probably not. Certainly helps to explain how Charles Croes got Joran's home address from "some kids on the beach."

The other extremely curious part was Whatley's bizarro toothbrush story. Anybody have any idea who Holly Brown is supposed to be and why she'd be helping "clean up" Natalee's room, complete with disposing of Whatley's toothbrush in a garbage can in some kind of "adjoining" hotel room?

Anybody who still seriously believes the MB kids are playing a straight bat needs to go read Whatley's 302 form.

RstJ

[Honey]

There are issues much more weighty than the "Jane Doe" and Beth's fear of Aruba. Joe makes some points, but much of the brief is drama and PR and does little to actually advance his argument of forum non conveniens. I think the suit will be heard in NY

Posted by: ViVi | Tuesday, April 25, 2006 at 10:03 PM

I didnt mean to insult you. I know you're a smart guy, no doubt. I see other more compelling issues in this matter. I think Joe is playing a PR game and directing the public's attention to certain of the more sensational issues.

Posted by: ViVi | Tuesday, April 25, 2006 at 10:20 PM

Could you give an example of those issues and the "Razzle Dazzle" and drama you keep mentioning and show any issue in JQK's response that Joe failed to answer?

You may feel there are "more compelling issues" but the only issue needing to be addresses is JQK's previous filing. What did you want him to address?

[truthbetold]

oh GIVE ME A BREAK - beth is way off the deep end AS USUAL AND ALWAYS THE DRAMA QUEEN....Yeah, the people in aruba will kill her if she goes there - get over yourself - they put up with beth's garbage with more than patience as she slandered the hell out of that island after they fed, housed and donated to her......I think all she wants is more limelight and more MONEY now that the donation (i.e. SHOPPING) fund has run dry - Joran is less than honorable for going on tv? well what in hell does that make beth the queen on fox news???and oh yes let's not forget the supposed other "victims" of joran all of whom said they felt HARASSED by beth twitty and her then lawyer to say they were assaulted when they were NOT - I wonder how much donation money went to that endeavor? Beth has been and always will be seeking attention and she is as much a liar if not more than joran or those other boys are

[Honey]

David - perhaps he filed it in NY for the purpose of having it thrown out because it was just a means for "discovery" and for getting movement in this case. I doubt that they really wanted to "win" a case, but just wanted to see another shot in the arm in the investigation and hoped to learn more

--> Are you implying that JQK knowingly and deliberately abused the civil judicial system of New York?

through the civil suit by getting Joran here and having to testify under "oath".

--> What makes anyone think that Joran's answers will be any different in NY than they are in an Aruban interrogation room?

Posted by: anniekwa | Wednesday, April 26, 2006 at 12:12 AM

[carol]

I would like to hear Joran's story after he is sworn in to tell the truth in court. He will get caught in his lies because he cant seem to keep his story straight. I dont think Deepak or Satish will lie for him. Especially, since he has tried to put the blame on them. Somebody knows something in Aruba!