Nelsen v SPLC
U.S. District Court
Western District of Missouri (Kansas City)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:18-cv-00895-RK
Nelsen v. SPLC Southern Poverty Law Center et al Assigned to: District Judge Roseann Ketchmark Demand: $4,755,000 Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Libel,Assault,Slander |
Date Filed: 11/13/2018 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 320 Assault Libel & Slander Jurisdiction: Diversity |
| Plaintiff | ||
| Craig Nelsen | represented by | Craig Nelsen 905 McGee Street Kansas City, MO 64106 202-427-6290 PRO SE |
V. |
||
| Defendant | ||
| Southern Poverty Law Center also known as SPLC |
represented by | Chad R Bowman Ballard Spahr LLP 1909 K Street, NW 12th Floor Washington, DC 20006-1157 202-508-1120 Fax: 202-661-2299 Email: bowmanchad@ballardspahr.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Christopher M Proczko Ballard Spahr LLP 80 S. 8th Street Suite 2000 Minneapolis, MN 55402 612-371-3545 Email: proczkoc@ballardspahr.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Jean A. Maneke Maneke Law Group, LC 2345 Grand Blvd. Suite 1600 Kansas City, MO 64112 (816) 753-9000 Fax: (816) 753-9009 Email: jmaneke@manekelaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED |
| Defendant | ||
| Richard Cohen TERMINATED: 07/31/2019 |
represented by | Chad R Bowman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Christopher M Proczko (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Jean A. Maneke (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED |
| Defendant | ||
| Morris Dees TERMINATED: 07/31/2019 |
represented by | Chad R Bowman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Christopher M Proczko (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Jean A. Maneke (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED |
| Defendant | ||
| Heidi Beirich TERMINATED: 07/31/2019 |
represented by | Chad R Bowman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Christopher M Proczko (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Jean A. Maneke (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED |
| Defendant | ||
| Bill Sellars |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 11/13/2018 | 1 | MOTION for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by Craig Nelson. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 11/27/2018 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Complaint, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Woods, Gloria) (Entered: 11/13/2018) |
| 11/13/2018 | 2 | FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT by Craig Nelson. (Woods, Gloria) (Entered: 11/13/2018) |
| 11/14/2018 | 3 | ORDER granting 1 motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Clerk's Office is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. Signed on 11/14/2018 by District Judge Roseann Ketchmark. (Stout, Courtney)
Copy mailed to pro se Plaintiff on 11/14/2018 (Moore, Terri). (Entered: 11/14/2018) |
| 11/14/2018 | 5 | COMPLAINT against Heidi Beirich, Richard Cohen, Morris Dees, Stephen Piggot, Southern Poverty Law Center Craig Nelson. Service due by 2/12/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Crocker, Susan) (Entered: 11/27/2018) |
| 11/15/2018 | 4 | NOTICE OF INCLUSION FOR MEDIATION AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (MAP). REVIEW NOTICE AND MAP GENERAL ORDER CAREFULLY FOR IMPORTANT CHANGES, DEADLINES AND REQUIREMENTS.Notice of MAP assignment to Program Director. (Attachments: # 1 MAP General Order)
Copy mailed to pro se Plaintiff on 11/15/2018.(Woods, Gloria) (Entered: 11/15/2018) |
| 11/27/2018 | 6 | AMENDED COMPLAINT against Heidi Beirich, Richard Cohen, Morris Dees, Stephen Piggot, Southern Poverty Law Center by Craig Nelson.(Crocker, Susan) (Entered: 11/27/2018) |
| 11/29/2018 | SUMMONS ISSUED as to All Defendants. USM 285, summons, order, and amended complaint delivered to USM for service. (Crocker, Susan) (Entered: 11/29/2018) | |
| 12/17/2018 | 7 | MOTION for extension of time to Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint filed by Jean A. Maneke on behalf of Southern Poverty Law Center. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 12/31/2018 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex A Mot Ext Time)(Attorney Jean A. Maneke added to party Southern Poverty Law Center(pty:dft))(Maneke, Jean) (Entered: 12/17/2018) |
| 12/17/2018 | 8 | CERTIFICATE of counsel Regarding F.R.C.P. Rule 7.1 by Jean A. Maneke on behalf of Southern Poverty Law Center (Maneke, Jean) (Entered: 12/17/2018) |
| 12/18/2018 | 9 | NOTICE of appearance by Jean A. Maneke on behalf of Heidi Beirich, Richard Cohen, Morris Dees (Attorney Jean A. Maneke added to party Heidi Beirich(pty:dft), Attorney Jean A. Maneke added to party Richard Cohen(pty:dft), Attorney Jean A. Maneke added to party Morris Dees(pty:dft))(Maneke, Jean) (Entered: 12/18/2018) |
| 12/19/2018 | 10 | Motion to allow Chad R. Bowman to appear pro hac vice (Pro Hac fee $100 receipt number AMOWDC-6087192) filed by Jean A. Maneke on behalf of Heidi Beirich, Richard Cohen, Morris Dees, Southern Poverty Law Center. (Maneke, Jean) (Entered: 12/19/2018) |
| 12/19/2018 | 11 | Motion to allow Christopher M. Proczko to appear pro hac vice (Pro Hac fee $100 receipt number AMOWDC-6087323) filed by Jean A. Maneke on behalf of Heidi Beirich, Richard Cohen, Morris Dees, Southern Poverty Law Center. (Maneke, Jean) (Entered: 12/19/2018) |
| 12/20/2018 | 12 | ORDER granting 7 Consent Motion of Defendants for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint. Defendants Southern Poverty Law Center, Richard Cohen, Morris Dees, and Heidi Beirich shall respond to the Complaint on or before January 26, 2019. The Court directs the Clerk of the Court to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff Craig Nelson via regular mail. Signed on 12/20/2018 by District Judge Roseann Ketchmark. (Phillips, Caleb) (Entered: 12/20/2018) |
| 12/20/2018 | 13 | RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by USM on behalf of Craig Nelsen. Southern Poverty Law Center served on 12/7/2018, answer due 12/28/2018. (Melvin, Greg) (Entered: 12/20/2018) |
| 12/20/2018 | 14 | Return of Service unexecuted by USM on behalf of Craig Nelsen as to Stephen Piggot. USM-285 form reads: "No longer employed by SPLC." (Melvin, Greg) (Entered: 12/20/2018) |
| 12/20/2018 | 15 | RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by USM on behalf of Craig Nelsen. Richard Cohen served on 12/7/2018, answer due 12/28/2018. (Melvin, Greg) (Entered: 12/20/2018) |
| 12/20/2018 | 16 | RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by USM on behalf of Craig Nelsen. Morris Dees served on 12/7/2018, answer due 12/28/2018. (Melvin, Greg) (Entered: 12/20/2018) |
| 12/20/2018 | 17 | RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by USM on behalf of Craig Nelsen. Heidi Beirich served on 12/7/2018, answer due 12/28/2018. (Melvin, Greg) (Entered: 12/20/2018) |
| 12/20/2018 | 18 | ORDER granting 10 & 11 motion to appear pro hac vice entered by Clerk of Court. Attorneys Chad R Bowman and Christopher M Proczko for Southern Poverty Law Center, Richard Cohen, Morris Dees, and Heidi Beirich, allowed to appear pro hac vice. This entry will serve as authorization for the pro hac participation by the attorney.
Western District of Missouri Local Rule 5.1 requires documents to be filed electronically. If pro hac vice counsel has not already done so, counsel is directed to immediately register for a WDMO e-filing account for NextGen CM/ECF. This will enable counsel to electronically file documents and receive electronic notification of filings. Register for a WDMO e-filing account at PACER. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Geiser, Angel) Modified on 12/20/2018 to show copy mailed to Craig Nelsen 905 McGee Street Kansas City, MO 64106 (Geiser, Angel). (Entered: 12/20/2018) |
| 01/04/2019 | 19 | PRO SE MOTION to join Sellers as defendant filed by Craig Nelsen. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 1/18/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Crocker, Susan) (Entered: 01/08/2019) |
| 01/08/2019 | 20 | AMENDED COMPLAINT against Heidi Beirich, Richard Cohen, Morris Dees, Stephen Piggot, Bill Sellars, Southern Poverty Law Center Craig Nelsen.(Crocker, Susan) (Entered: 01/08/2019) |
| 01/11/2019 | 21 | PRO SE MOTION to join filed by Craig Nelsen. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 1/25/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Crocker, Susan) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/11/2019: # 2 Exhibit Davis IFP, # 3 Exhibit Davis Financial Affidavit) (Crocker, Susan). (Entered: 01/11/2019) |
| 01/17/2019 | 22 | PRO SE MOTION to compel disclosure of address of defendant filed by Craig Nelsen. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 1/31/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Crocker, Susan) (Entered: 01/17/2019) |
| 01/24/2019 | 23 | SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 21 MOTION to join Sherman Davis as a Plaintiff filed by Chad R Bowman on behalf of Defendant Southern Poverty Law Center. Reply suggestions due by 2/7/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 21 ) (Bowman, Chad) (Entered: 01/24/2019) |
| 01/24/2019 | SUMMONS ISSUED as to Bill Sellars. (Woods, Gloria) (Entered: 01/24/2019) | |
| 01/28/2019 | 24 | MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Chad R Bowman on behalf of Southern Poverty Law Center. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 2/11/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Bowman, Chad) (Entered: 01/28/2019) |
| 01/28/2019 | 25 | SUGGESTIONS in support re 24 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Chad R Bowman on behalf of Defendant Southern Poverty Law Center. (Related document(s) 24 ) (Bowman, Chad) (Entered: 01/28/2019) |
| 01/28/2019 | 26 | MOTION to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction , and In the Alternative, MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Chad R Bowman on behalf of Heidi Beirich, Richard Cohen, Morris Dees. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 2/11/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Bowman, Chad) (Entered: 01/28/2019) |
| 01/28/2019 | 27 | SUGGESTIONS in support re 26 MOTION to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction , and In the Alternative MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Chad R Bowman on behalf of Defendants Heidi Beirich, Richard Cohen, Morris Dees. (Related document(s) 26 ) (Bowman, Chad) (Entered: 01/28/2019) |
| 01/28/2019 | 28 | AFFIDAVIT re 26 MOTION to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction , and In the Alternative MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Heidi Beirich. (Related document(s) 26 ) (Bowman, Chad) (Entered: 01/28/2019) |
| 01/28/2019 | 29 | AFFIDAVIT re 26 MOTION to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction , and In the Alternative MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Morris Dees. (Related document(s) 26 ) (Bowman, Chad) (Entered: 01/28/2019) |
| 01/28/2019 | 30 | AFFIDAVIT re 26 MOTION to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction , and In the Alternative MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Richard Cohen. (Related document(s) 26 ) (Bowman, Chad) (Entered: 01/28/2019) |
| 01/28/2019 | 31 | PRO SE REPLY SUGGESTIONS to motion re 21 MOTION to join on behalf of Plaintiff Craig Nelsen. (Related document(s) 21 ) (Crocker, Susan) (Entered: 01/28/2019) |
| 01/30/2019 | 32 | SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 22 MOTION to compel filed by Chad R Bowman on behalf of Defendant Southern Poverty Law Center. Reply suggestions due by 2/13/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 22 ) (Bowman, Chad) (Entered: 01/30/2019) |
| 02/04/2019 | 33 | PRO SE SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 24 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM on behalf of Plaintiff Craig Nelsen. Reply suggestions due by 2/19/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 24 ) (Crocker, Susan) (Entered: 02/04/2019) |
| 02/08/2019 | 34 | PRO SE SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 26 MOTION to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction , and In the Alternative MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM on behalf of Plaintiff Craig Nelsen. Reply suggestions due by 2/22/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 26 ) (Crocker, Susan) (Entered: 02/11/2019) |
| 02/19/2019 | 35 | REPLY SUGGESTIONS to motion re 24 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Chad R Bowman on behalf of Defendant Southern Poverty Law Center. (Related document(s) 24 ) (Bowman, Chad) (Entered: 02/19/2019) |
| 02/21/2019 | 36 | REPLY SUGGESTIONS to motion re 26 MOTION to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction , and In the Alternative MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Chad R Bowman on behalf of Defendants Heidi Beirich, Richard Cohen, Morris Dees. (Related document(s) 26 ) (Bowman, Chad) (Entered: 02/21/2019) |
| 02/28/2019 | 37 | Sur-Reply by Craig Nelsen re 26 MOTION to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction , and In the Alternative MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (Crocker, Susan) (Entered: 03/04/2019) |
| 03/22/2019 | 38 | PRO SE MOTION to Dismiss Morris Dees on condition filed by Craig Nelsen. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 4/5/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Kern, Kendra) (Entered: 03/25/2019) |
| 03/25/2019 | 39 | ***Remark A copy of current docket sheet mailed to Craig Nelsen 905 McGee Street Kansas City, MO 64106 (Kern, Kendra) (Entered: 03/25/2019) |
| 03/27/2019 | 40 | PRO SE MOTION for preliminary injunction filed by Craig Nelsen. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 4/10/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Crocker, Susan) (Entered: 03/28/2019) |
| 03/27/2019 | 41 | PRO SE MOTION to strike text re 34 Suggestions in Opposition to Motion, filed by Craig Nelsen. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 4/10/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 34 ) (Crocker, Susan) (Entered: 03/28/2019) |
| 04/02/2019 | 42 | SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 38 MOTION to dismiss party filed by Chad R Bowman on behalf of Defendant Morris Dees. Reply suggestions due by 4/16/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 38 ) (Bowman, Chad) (Entered: 04/02/2019) |
| 04/10/2019 | 43 | SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 40 MOTION for preliminary injunction filed by Chad R Bowman on behalf of Defendants Heidi Beirich, Richard Cohen, Morris Dees, Southern Poverty Law Center. Reply suggestions due by 4/24/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 40 ) (Bowman, Chad) (Entered: 04/10/2019) |
| 04/22/2019 | 44 | PRO SE REPLY SUGGESTIONS to motion re 40 MOTION for preliminary injunction by Plaintiff Craig Nelsen. (Related document(s) 40 ) (Crocker, Susan) (Entered: 04/23/2019) |
| 07/31/2019 | 45 | ORDER:
(1) Nelsens motion to join Bill Sellars as a defendant (Doc. 19 ) is DENIED; (2) Nelsens motion to join Sherman Davis as a plaintiff (Docs. 21 , 23 , 31 ) is DENIED; (3) Nelsen's motion to compel disclosure of address of defendant (Docs. 22 , 32 ) is GRANTED; a. SPLC is directed to provide Nelsen with Piggot's last known mailing address within five business days of this Order and file a related certificate of service. b. Nelsen has twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order in which to effect service of process on Piggot and file proof of the service with the Court. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of the Complaint as against Piggot without further notice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). c. An order setting new deadlines for the Rule 26(f) conference and for the submission of a proposed scheduling order will follow. (4) SPLC's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (Docs. 24 , 33 , 35 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:a. Count VI is dismissed based on Plaintiffs concession; Counts II-V are dismissed to the extent they are based on statements implying that Nelsen is a neo-Nazi, antiimmigrant, and a racist; and Counts I-III remain to the extent they are based on statements implying that Nelsen is opening a whites-only Club. (5) The motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and in the alternative, motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim filed by Cohen, Dees, and Beirich (Docs. 26 , 34 , 36 ) is GRANTED. (6) Nelsen's motion to dismiss Morris Dees on condition (Docs. 38 , 42 ) is DENIED; (7) Nelsen's motion for preliminary injunction (Docs. 40 , 43 , 44 ) is DENIED; and (8) Nelsen's motion to strike (Doc. 41 ) is GRANTED. The Court directs the Clerk of the Court to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff Craig Nelson via regular mail. Signed on July 31, 2019 by District Judge Roseann Ketchmark. (Wheeler, LaTandra) (Entered: 07/31/2019) |
| 07/31/2019 | 46 | RULE 16 NOTICE. Rule 26 conference due by 8/30/2019. Proposed scheduling order due by 9/13/2019. Signed on July 31, 2019 by District Judge Roseann Ketchmark. (Wheeler, LaTandra) (Entered: 07/31/2019) |
| 08/06/2019 | 47 | RESPONSE to order re 45 Order on Motion to Dismiss Party,,,,,,,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,,,,,,,, Order on Motion to Strike,,,,,,,, Order on Motion to Join,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Order on Motion to Compel,,,,,,,, Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim,,,,,,,, Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Certificate of Service filed by Christopher M Proczko on behalf of Defendant Southern Poverty Law Center. (Related document(s) 45 ) (Proczko, Christopher) (Entered: 08/06/2019) |
| 08/14/2019 | 48 | ANSWER to 6 Amended Complaint on behalf of Southern Poverty Law Center.(Bowman, Chad) (Entered: 08/14/2019) |
| 08/20/2019 | 49 | PRO SE MOTION for relief filed by Craig Nelsen. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 9/3/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Crocker, Susan) (Entered: 08/20/2019) |
| 08/20/2019 | 50 | PRO SE- NOTICE OF FILING- MOTION to intervene filed by Sherman Davis. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 9/3/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Crocker, Susan) Modified on 8/21/2019 to correct filing event; terminate motion and correct filer of document; NEF regenerated (Ellis, Lindsey). (Entered: 08/20/2019) |
| 08/20/2019 | 51 | RETURN OF WAIVER OF SERVICE filed by Craig Nelsen. Waiver sent to Stephen Piggot on 8/5/2019, answer due 10/4/2019. (Crocker, Susan) (Entered: 08/20/2019) |
| 08/30/2019 | 52 | MOTION to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction filed by Chad R Bowman on behalf of Stephen Piggot. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 9/13/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attorney Chad R Bowman added to party Stephen Piggot(pty:dft))(Bowman, Chad) (Entered: 08/30/2019) |
| 08/30/2019 | 53 | SUGGESTIONS in support re 52 MOTION to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction filed by Chad R Bowman on behalf of Defendant Stephen Piggot. (Related document(s) 52 ) (Bowman, Chad) (Entered: 08/30/2019) |
| 08/30/2019 | 54 | AFFIDAVIT re 52 MOTION to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction , 53 Suggestions in Support of Motion by Stephen Piggot. (Related document(s) 52 , 53 ) (Bowman, Chad) (Entered: 08/30/2019) |
| 09/03/2019 | 55 | SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 49 MOTION for order filed by Chad R Bowman on behalf of Defendant Southern Poverty Law Center. Reply suggestions due by 9/17/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 49 ) (Bowman, Chad) (Entered: 09/03/2019) |
| 09/03/2019 | 56 | NOTICE of filing Suggestions in Opposition to Non-Party Sherman Davis's Motion to Intervene by Southern Poverty Law Center re 50 MOTION to intervene (Bowman, Chad) (Entered: 09/03/2019) |
| 09/04/2019 | 57 | NOTICE of filing of Amended Certificate of Service by Southern Poverty Law Center re 56 Notice of filing (Bowman, Chad) (Entered: 09/04/2019) |
| 09/11/2019 | 58 | Joint PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER by Southern Poverty Law Center. (Maneke, Jean) (Entered: 09/11/2019) |
| 09/12/2019 | 59 | CERTIFICATE of counsel re 58 Proposed Scheduling Order Service on Plaintiff by Jean A. Maneke on behalf of Southern Poverty Law Center (Maneke, Jean) (Entered: 09/12/2019) |
| 09/13/2019 | 60 | PRO SE MOTION for extension of time to file response/reply as to 52 MOTION to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction filed by Craig Nelsen. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 9/27/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 52 ) (Crocker, Susan) (Entered: 09/16/2019) |
| 09/13/2019 | 61 | PRO SE REPLY SUGGESTIONS to motion re 49 MOTION for order on behalf of Plaintiff Craig Nelsen. (Related document(s) 49 ) (Crocker, Susan) (Entered: 09/16/2019) |
| 09/13/2019 | 62 | NOTICE OF FILING reply suggestions in opposition re 50 MOTION to intervene by Craig Nelsen. (Crocker, Susan) Modified on 9/17/2019 to correct document and docket entry (Crocker, Susan). (Main Document 62 replaced on 9/17/2019) (Crocker, Susan). (Entered: 09/16/2019) |
| 09/17/2019 | 63 | PRO SE MOTION to withdraw document 60 MOTION for extension of time to file response/reply as to 52 MOTION to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction filed by Craig Nelsen. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 10/1/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 60 ) (Crocker, Susan) (Entered: 09/17/2019) |
| 09/19/2019 | 64 | ORDER. Plaintiff Craig Nelson's motion 63 to withdraw his motion for extension of time 60 to respond to Defendant Stephen Piggotts motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is GRANTED. The Court directs the Clerk's office to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff Craig Nelson. Signed on 9/19/2019 by District Judge Roseann Ketchmark. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Phillips, Caleb) Mailed to Craig Nelsen, 905 McGee Street, Kansas City, MO 64106 on 9/20/2019 (Crocker, Susan). (Entered: 09/19/2019) |
| 09/20/2019 | 65 | SCHEDULING ORDER:Discovery due by 3/9/2020, Dispositive Motions due by 4/8/2020. Status Conference set for 2/6/2020 10:30 AM; Initial Pretrial Conference set for 7/31/2020 11:30 AM; Final Pretrial Conference set for 9/3/2020 10:30 AM; and Jury Trial set for 9/8/2020 08:30 AM in Courtroom 8E, Kansas City (RK) before District Judge Roseann Ketchmark. Signed on September 20, 2019 by District Judge Roseann Ketchmark. (Wheeler, LaTandra) (Entered: 09/20/2019) |
| 09/26/2019 | 66 | PRO SE MOTION for 30-day stay and concomitant extension of deadlines filed byCraig Nelsen. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 10/10/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Crocker, Susan) (Entered: 09/26/2019) |
| 12/03/2019 | 67 | ORDER denying 49 Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the Court's July 31, 2019 Order 45 . Signed on 12/3/2019 by District Judge Roseann Ketchmark. (Martin, Elizabeth) (Entered: 12/03/2019) |
| 12/03/2019 | 68 | ORDER:
(1) Non-party Sherman Davis' motion to intervene is HELD IN ABEYANCE pending Davis' supplementation of the motion. (Doc. 50 .) Within thirty days of the date of this Order, Davis is to supplement his motion to intervene with an accompanying pleading that sets out the claim for which intervention is sought. Failure to do so may result in the denial of the motion. (2)Plaintiff's motion for a thirty-day stay and extension of all deadlines to allow him to retain counsel is GRANTED. (Doc. 65 .) Within thirty days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff is to notify the Court whether he will proceed with counsel or pro se. After which, Plaintiff will have seven days to respond to Defendant Stephen Piggott's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. (3) Defendant Stephen Piggott's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is HELD IN ABEYANCE pending the issue of whether Plaintiff will proceed with counsel. (Doc. 52 .) (4) All other deadlines in this case are STAYED until further Order. At a later date, the Court will seek the parties' input for an amended scheduling order. The Court directs the Clerk of the Court to mail a copy of this Order, by regular mail, to Plaintiff Craig Nelsen at the address on file and to Non-party Sherman Davis at the address provided below. Signed on 12/3/2019 by District Judge Roseann Ketchmark. (Martin, Elizabeth) (Entered: 12/03/2019) |
| 12/30/2019 | 70 | PRO SE MOTION for leave to correct deficiency filed by Craig Nelsen. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 1/13/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Crocker, Susan) (Entered: 01/02/2020) |
| 12/30/2019 | 71 | PRO SE MOTION to intervene filed by Sherman Davis. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 1/13/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Crocker, Susan) (Entered: 01/02/2020) |
| 01/10/2020 | 72 | SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 71 MOTION to intervene, 70 MOTION for order, 69 MOTION for order filed by Chad R Bowman on behalf of Defendant Southern Poverty Law Center. Reply suggestions due by 1/24/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 71 , 70 , 69 ) (Bowman, Chad) (Entered: 01/10/2020) |
| 01/10/2020 | 73 | PRO SE MOTION for to correct filing event re 71 MOTION to intervene filed by Craig Nelsen. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 1/24/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 71 ) (Crocker, Susan) (Entered: 01/14/2020) |
| 01/24/2020 | 74 | PRO SE REPLY SUGGESTIONS to motion re 71 MOTION to intervene, 70 MOTION for order, 69 MOTION for order on behalf of Plaintiff Craig Nelsen. (Related document(s) 71 , 70 , 69 ) (Kern, Kendra) (Entered: 01/28/2020) |
| 02/04/2020 | 75 | ORDER finding as moot 73 Plaintiff's motion to correct to correct filing event per the modification made to docket entry 71 . Signed on 2/4/20 by District Judge Roseann Ketchmark. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Martin, Elizabeth) Mailed to Craig Nelsen, 905 McGee Street, Kansas City, MO 64106 on 2/4/2020 (Crocker, Susan). (Entered: 02/04/2020) |
| 02/04/2020 | 76 | Order Dismissing Defendant Stephen Piggot:
Construing Plaintiffs filing 74 , in part, as a notice of voluntary dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of Defendant Stephen Piggot, the Court ORDERS as follows: (1) This case is DISMISSED without prejudice as to Defendant Stephen Piggot; and (2) Defendant Stephen Piggot's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is DENIED as moot. 52 Signed on 2/4/20 by District Judge Roseann Ketchmark. (Martin, Elizabeth) Mailed to Craig Nelsen, 905 McGee Street, Kansas City, MO 64106 on 2/4/2020 (Crocker, Susan). (Entered: 02/04/2020) |
| 02/04/2020 | 77 | ORDER granting 69 Plaintiff's motion for additional time to find counsel in that, within 14 days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff is to notify the Court whether he will proceed with counsel or pro se. As to the Court's scheduling order 65 , the deadlines are STAYED and court proceeding dates are CANCELLED until further Order. Signed on 2/4/20 by District Judge Roseann Ketchmark. (Martin, Elizabeth) Mailed to Craig Nelsen, 905 McGee Street, Kansas City, MO 64106 on 2/4/2020 (Crocker, Susan). (Entered: 02/04/2020) |
| 02/06/2020 | 78 | ORDER denying 70 Plaintiff's motion to correct amended complaint. Signed on 2/6/20 by District Judge Roseann Ketchmark. (Martin, Elizabeth) (Entered: 02/06/2020) |
| 02/18/2020 | 79 | NOTICE of need to proceed pro se by Craig Nelsen (Houston, Kiambu) (Entered: 02/18/2020) |
| 03/05/2020 | 80 | ORDER denying 71 non-party Sherman Davis' motion to intervene. Signed on 3/5/2020 by District Judge Roseann Ketchmark. (Martin, Elizabeth) Mailed to Craig Nelsen, 905 McGee Street, Kansas City, MO 64106 and Sherman Davis, 313 H St NW Apt #1, Washington, DC 20001-2658 on 3/6/2020 (Crocker, Susan). (Entered: 03/05/2020) |
| 03/05/2020 | 81 | ORDER directing the parties to jointly submit a proposed scheduling order. Proposed scheduling order due by 3/19/2020. Signed on 3/5/2020 by District Judge Roseann Ketchmark. (Martin, Elizabeth) Mailed to Craig Nelsen, 905 McGee Street, Kansas city, MO 64106 on 3/6/2020 (Crocker, Susan). (Entered: 03/05/2020) |
| 03/16/2020 | 82 | Amended PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER by Southern Poverty Law Center. (Bowman, Chad) Modified on 3/16/2020 to correct which party filed document; NEF regenerated (Ellis, Lindsey). (Entered: 03/16/2020) |
| 03/19/2020 | 83 | AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 9/14/2020. Dispositive Motions due by 10/14/2020. Status Conference set for 8/19/2020 10:30 AM; Initial Conference set for 2/18/2021 10:30 AM; Final Pretrial Conference set for 3/12/2021 01:30 PM; and Jury Selection set for 3/15/2021 08:30 AM in Courtroom 8E, Kansas City (RK) before District Judge Roseann Ketchmark. Signed on March 19, 2020 by District Judge Roseann Ketchmark. (Wheeler, LaTandra) (Entered: 03/19/2020) |
| 05/14/2020 | 84 | PRO SE MOTION to appoint counsel filed by Craig Nelsen. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 5/28/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Melvin, Greg) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/14/2020: # 1 Exhibit) (Melvin, Greg). Modified on 5/14/2020: Exhibits added. NEF regenerated. (Melvin, Greg) (Entered: 05/14/2020) |
| 05/14/2020 | 85 | PRO SE NOTICE of filing Notice of Intent to Subpoena filed by Craig Nelsen. (Melvin, Greg) (Entered: 05/14/2020) |
| 05/21/2020 | 86 | REVISED FIRST REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS 05/21/2020 |
| DEFENDANT RESPONDS 06/22/2020 | ||
| DEFENDANT SUBMITS DOCUMENTS 06/24/2020 SPLC tax returns (pp 1 - 160); tax return from Pioneer Fund (pp 161 - 192); emails regarding RJBC (pp 193 - 292); emails regarding Centros Migrantes (pp 293 - 327); Sellers letter (p 328); links to "open letter" and craigslist ad (proves they knew RJBC was open to all races) (p 329) | ||
| PLAINTIFF RESPONDS | ||
| Defendant Responds 2020/08/20 | ||
| 05/26/2020 | 87 | FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 05/26/2020 |
| Defendant's Response to Above 06/25/2020 | ||
| 05/28/2020 | 88 | FIRST REQUEST FOR SECOND SET OF DOCUMENTS 05/28/2020 |
| Defendant's Response | ||
| Plaintiff's Response 07/24/2020 | ||
| 06/01/2020 | 89 | FIRST REQUEST FOR FIRST SET OF ADMISSIONS 06/02/2020 |
| Defendant's Response | ||
| 06/01/2020 | 90 | PRO SE MOTION for waiver of PACER fees filed by Craig Nelsen. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 6/15/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Crocker, Susan) (Entered: 06/02/2020) |
| 06/03/2020 | 91 | ORDER denying without prejudice 84 PRO SE MOTION to appoint counsel. Signed on June 3, 2020 by District Judge Roseann Ketchmark. (Wheeler, LaTandra) Modified on 6/3/2020 to reflect a copy has been mailed to:Craig Nelsen 905 McGee Street Kansas City, MO 64106 (Ellis, Lindsey). (Entered: 06/03/2020) |
| 06/05/2020 | 92 | ORDER denying Plaintiff's 90 motion for waiver of PACER fees. The Court directs the Clerk's office to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at his last known address, specified herein. Signed on 6/5/2020 by District Judge Roseann Ketchmark. (Phillips, Caleb) Modified on 6/8/2020 to note a copy of the order mailed to the plaintiff at the following address: Craig Nelsen 905 McGee Street Kansas City, MO 64106 (Woods, Gloria). (Entered: 06/05/2020) |
| 06/26/2020 | 93 | Motion to allow Lauren Russell to appear pro hac vice (Pro Hac fee $100 receipt number AMOWDC-6920525) filed by Jean A. Maneke on behalf of Southern Poverty Law Center. (Maneke, Jean) (Entered: 06/26/2020) |
| SPLC internal emails | ||
| 2020-06-23 | Defendant's First Documents Request | |
| Plaintiff's Response July 23, 2020 | ||
| 2020-06-23 | Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories | |
| Plaintiff's Response July 23, 2020 | ||
| Defendant's Response August 6, 2020 | ||
| 2020-07-23 | Plaintiff's First Request for Third Set of Documents | |
| 2020-07-26 | Defendant's Notice of Deposition: Craig Nelsen | |
| 2020-07-26 | Hi Chad, I have attached two responses. I am having trouble uploading video files as I have no WiFi service and will have to go to a public library to do that. So, some of the video responses will not be available until tomorrow. Sorry for the delay. Also attaching a third request for documents. Regarding the deposition request below, I have to remind you that I am pursuing justice /en forma pauperis/. Though I have tried, I have been unable to raise the funds to be able to conduct depositions of my own. So, if there is deposition-taking, you will have an enormous and unfair advantage, since only your side will be able to do it. Any depositions will be between the plaintiff and the defendants' attorneys, which means all possible impact on the case from any depositions will be to my disadvantage. Therefore, the request is denied. But, there is a possible work-around. Since I am also acting /pro se/, I could see holding simultaneous depositions, where I was deposed by you at the same time I deposed the Defendant and its former employees, Stephen Piggott, Richard Cohen, Heidi Beirich, and Morris Dees--all masked, of course, since we'd all be in the same room. If we do it that way, the possible impact on the case could be positive for your side or my side, or negative for your side or my side, which is far more aligned with the goals of jurisprudence. Afterwards, we could all meet in the alley out back, and I will take Heidi up on her challenge (if she agrees to leave her mask on). Best, Craig |
|
| 2020-08-27 | Mr. Nelsen, Regarding your deposition, I believe you misunderstood the point of my inquiry. I was attempting in good faith and in the spirit of courtesy that has animated all of our interactions in this case to coordinate with you about the date and safety measures for your deposition, which must occur in the next few weeks given the Court’s September 14 discovery cutoff. A party may not simply refuse to be deposed. Attached for service please find a notice for your deposition. We remain willing to discuss reasonable accommodations, but pursuant to the deposition notice you have an obligation to attend the examination at the date and time identified. I understand your concern about not being able to afford a court reporter to take your own depositions. With all due respect, however, you chose to bring this lawsuit and are responsible for prosecuting it. SPLC has no obligation to fund or otherwise assist you in pursuing your claim, and SPLC declines to do so. For the record, SPLC also declines what I assume is a joking invitation for a meeting in an alley. We look forward to seeing you on August 17. |
|
| 2020-07-27 | Mr. Bowman, Sorry, but I have to disagree with you. In the chain of events that has brought us to where we are today, there was only one entirely voluntary decision made--the decision by your client to attack without cause me and my effort to help relieve human suffering. This lawsuit is not a product of my discretionary choices, but of theirs. Attached for service, please find a notice for your clients' depositions. As for meeting afterward in the alley out back, that wasn't an invitation from me. I was responding to Heidi's challenge, which I also assumed was a joke. Also, I am trying to get e-filing privileges at the Court, but it is taking a little time, and you can't do both e-filing and paper-filing at the same time. It's one or the other. As soon as that clears, I'll be posting the needed certificates of service. Yours, Craig |
|
| 07/29/2020 | 106 | NOTICE of change of address by Craig Nelsen. (Crocker, Susan) (Entered: 07/29/2020) |
| 07/29/2020 | 107 | PRO SE MOTION to be granted CM/ECF privileges filed by Craig Nelsen. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 8/12/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Crocker, Susan) (Entered: 07/29/2020) |
| 07/29/2020 | 108 | CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Craig Nelsen on behalf of Plaintiff Craig Nelsen.(Crocker, Susan) (Entered: 07/29/2020) |
| 07/29/2020 | 109 | CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Craig Nelsen on behalf of Plaintiff Craig Nelsen.(Crocker, Susan) (Entered: 07/29/2020) |
| 07/29/2020 | 110 | CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Craig Nelsen on behalf of Plaintiff Craig Nelsen.(Crocker, Susan) (Entered: 07/29/2020) |
| 07/29/2020 | 111 | CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Craig Nelsen on behalf of Plaintiff Craig Nelsen.(Crocker, Susan) (Entered: 07/29/2020) |
| 07/29/2020 | 112 | CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Craig Nelsen on behalf of Plaintiff Craig Nelsen.(Crocker, Susan) (Entered: 07/29/2020) |
| 07/29/2020 | 113 | CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Craig Nelsen on behalf of Plaintiff Craig Nelsen.(Crocker, Susan) (Entered: 07/29/2020) |
| 07/30/2020 | 114 | MAIL RETURNED as undeliverable. Mail sent to Craig Nelsen. (Related document(s) 104 ) (Crocker, Susan) (Entered: 07/30/2020) |
| 07/31/2020 | 115 | ORDER denying 107 motion for CM/ECF privileges. Plaintiff must complete a non-attorney e-file registration through an online PACER account. The Court will then review his admission request and provide him with further instructions via email. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to: | Craig Nelsen 515 Shady Avenue St. Joseph, MO 64505 Signed on 7/31/20 by District Judge Roseann Ketchmark. (Dollar, Jordan) (Entered: 07/31/2020)
| 2020-08-03 | Mr. Nelsen, We object to your attached deposition notice on multiple grounds. First, it purports to set the depositions of four witnesses for the same date (and all at the same time) that we have noticed your deposition. That alone makes it ineffective. I also want to emphasize that I reached out to you in good faith about the scheduling for, and logistics of, your deposition. To the extent that your response is simply to attempt to notice your own competing depositions at the same time, we will be constrained in the future to stop consulting with you about scheduling matters. Second, you purport to notice the four depositions at the offices of SPLC’s court reporter, despite SPLC’s refusal of your request that it fund your discovery efforts. Have you separately engaged the reporter? Third, and perhaps most importantly, none of the four witnesses identified in your notice is a party to the case who is subject to a deposition by notice. The notice is therefore ineffective. If you want to depose either Mr. Piggott or Ms. Beirich, and if you are prepared to engage a court reporter in the jurisdiction where they live in order to do so, I would check with each of them whether they would agree to accept service of a valid subpoena. If so, I would then discuss with you the timing and logistics for any deposition. However, the documents produced by SPLC in this case make clear that neither Messers. Cohen or Dees, both former SPLC employees in leadership positions, had anything to do with the preparation of the challenged report. We would therefore oppose any effort to take their depositions. Please let me know how you wish to proceed regarding your requests. In any event, your purported notice does make clear that you are available in Washington, D.C. on August 17. We note that you have recently filed a notice of change of address with the Court. If a deposition within the Western District of Missouri is more convenient for you, please let us know promptly so that we can make arrangements for your deposition there instead of in Washington, D.C., where we understood you to spend most of your time. Regards, |
|
| 2020-08-04 | Good morning, Mr. Bowman, >
> First, it purports to set the depositions of four witnesses for the same date (and all at the same time) that we have noticed your deposition. That alone makes it ineffective.
There is nothing in the rules that says depositions can't be held simultaneously, Chad. In fact, if the purpose of a deposition is to give everyone involved the most accurate picture possible of the strengths and weaknesses of the case, then there is a pretty good argument that one simultaneous deposition would be more fruitful than several conducted separately, anyway. This is especially true in the present case in which otherwise some depositions won't be taken at all. >
> I also want to emphasize that I reached out to you in good faith about the scheduling for, and logistics of, your deposition. To the extent that your response is simply to attempt to notice your own competing depositions at the same time, we will be constrained in the future to stop consulting with you about scheduling matters.
My response was also in good faith. That you may not have recognized it as such might be due to a misunderstanding of my notice. I was certainly not attempting to notice my own "competing depositions". I was noticing joint depositions with yours. >
> Second, you purport to notice the four depositions at the offices of SPLC's court reporter, despite SPLC's refusal of your request that it fund your discovery efforts. Have you separately engaged the reporter?
According to Local Rule 30.1(c), "A party may record a deposition bynon-stenographicmeans, including audioor audiovisualmeans,without leave of Courtandwithout agreementof theparties." I'll be recording the depositions. Also, I see, just now, in re-reading this rule, that I was required to note in the notice of deposition that I would be recording the deposition non-stenographically, providing details. So, I will resubmit the notice to reflect such. >
> Third, and perhaps most importantly, none of the four witnesses identified in your notice is a party to the case who is subject to a deposition by notice. The notice is therefore ineffective. If you want to depose either Mr. Piggott or Ms. Beirich, and if you are prepared to engage a court reporter in the jurisdiction where they live in order to do so, I would check with each of them whether they would agree to accept service of a valid subpoena. If so, I would then discuss with you the timing and logistics for any deposition. However, the documents produced by SPLC in this case make clear that neither Messers. Cohen or Dees, both former SPLC employees in leadership positions, had anything to do with the preparation of the challenged report. We would therefore oppose any effort to take their depositions.
In an earlier email you said a party may not decline to be deposed, so how is it possible all four of those I noticed may decline to be deposed if they choose? I understand the only party left as a defendant in this case is the SPLC--a "non-profit" corporate entity. But I can't depose their AIPAC-looking fortress in Montgomery. I have to depose the persons within the "charity" who bear responsibility for destroying my dream, ruining me financially, and denying, so far, nearly two thousand suffering humans the chance Sherman Davis and I wanted to offer them to regain their lives.
All four of those noticed were directly responsible in various ways for the defamation that did such damage. I intend to show the jury that the SPLC has been a giant public fraud since July 6, 1971, about which Mr Dees' testimony will be relevant. I'll show how they cynically exploited black pain to enrich themselves and milked white good will to fund a long-running campaign to destroy political opponents--a campaign motivated not by opposition to their opponents' political positions, but by racial hatred of their opponents themselves, about which Mr Cohen's testimony will be relevant. I'll show how leadership engendered the climate of hatred that suffuses the SPLC, and how that hatred explains why they would attack an effort to help men in distress. I believe it will be clear to a jury that, coming out of that climate of hatred, or, as so many of the SPLC's own employees put it, that toxic environment, when Mr Piggott wrote that "I wasn't convincing anyone" the RJBC would be open to men in distress of any race, it wasn't a careless figure of speech, but a deliberate and malicious lie meant to cause as much damage as possible--like every other word in the article. Morris Dees is responsible for the damage every bit as certainly as Richard Cohen is responsible as certainly as Heidi Beirich is responsible as certainly as Stephen Piggott is responsible. Mr Dees, Mr Cohen, and Ms Beirich were dismissed from the suit on the strength of affidavits they executed and submitted to the Court, but it doesn't appear affidavit integrity is a quality the SPLC requires of its upper management. Already, the internal emails show that, contrary to her sworn affidavit, Ms Beirich did undertake activities to report and write the defamatory article. So there's that. Her emails also attest to the same toxic climate of hate--the desire to destroy--in which I'm claiming your client has drenched itself from its poisoned founding to today. "Go get him", she ordered Stephan Piggott. Moreover, the SPLCs toxic climate is institutionalized, as evidenced by Ms Beirich's description of the challenge I issued in a desperate attempt to save my dream: "Just FYI. This is ridiculous, but it doesn't seem to be a libel threat of any kind". Does any reputable editor confident in the integrity of her publication need to reassure her underlings on the absence of libel threats? > Please let me know how you wish to proceed regarding your requests.
>
> In any event, your purported notice does make clear that you are available in Washington, D.C. on August 17. We note that you have recently filed a notice of change of address with the Court. If a deposition within the Western District of Missouri is more convenient for you, please let us know promptly so that we can make arrangements for your deposition there instead of in Washington, D.C., where we understood you to spend most of your time.
I appreciate the thoughtfulness--St Joseph has a certain bedraggled charm you might enjoy--but I don't feel it appropriate that, among five deponents, I should be the only one accommodated.Craig |
|
| 2020-08-06 | Re: Craig Nelsen v. Southern Poverty Law Center, No. 4:18-cv-895-RK (W.D. Mo.) | |
| 2020-08-07 | 116 | NOTICE to take deposition of Beirich, Cohen, Dees, Piggott on behalf of Plaintiff Craig Nelsen.(Nelsen, Craig) (Entered: 08/07/2020) |
| 2020-08-10 | Mr. Nelsen, You have re-issued improper deposition notices for out-of-town third party witnesses for the same time as your noticed deposition. See attached. For all the reasons we have previously objected, we do so again. In addition, you have not yet responded to last week's correspondence regarding the deficiencies in your written discovery production. Please promptly advise whether you will be correcting the discovery response deficiencies and producing the requested materials by Wednesday. Please also promptly advise whether you will be appearing on Monday for your deposition—and your deposition alone. If not, we intend to seek guidance from the Court next week. Regards, Chad |
|
| 2020-08-11 | I believe we will have to seek guidance from the Court on the depositions, Mr. Bowman, because I am not prepared to accede willingly to such a blatantly unfair condition. On the websites of the various bar associations, I see lots of testimonials lauding the goal of ensuring equal access to our system of justice for rich and poor alike. But, a system that allows the rich to hire professionals to interrogate opponents too poor to do the same is a system that betrays the people and exposes those noble sentiments on the bar associations' websites as posturing. For most of human history, violence was the law. Whoever had the biggest club, and used it the most ruthlessly, made the rules. Violence was rewarded, and the strong dominated the weak. Women and children were most vulnerable. When humans began to make laws to protect the weak from violence, to begin to bring the strong and the weak into an equal alignment before the law, civilization was born. Culture could then take root, and with culture came things like progress, education, the arts, and so on. If you can depose me, but I can't depose them, then we live in a society in which the rich own the law. Whoever has the largest bank account makes the rules. And if you look around, it looks like the rich make the rules. In this condition, corruption is rewarded. The greediest and most cutthroat dominate. We regress. It certainly feels to me like our civilization is dying. I will adhere to whatever the Court rules, of course, but my solution of simultaneous depositions is still the fairest, most just, and most progressive proposal. It's not like your side will be at a disadvantage. It would be seven seasoned attorneys against one layman. I will write up my arguments as I can get access to outlets. To minimize the appearance of contentiousness, we could seek guidance jointly. Craig |
|
| 2020-08-11 | Good morning, Chad, I'm responding to your response of August 6, 2020 (re "Craig Nelsen v. Southern Poverty Law Center, No. 4:18-cv-895-RK (W.D. Mo.)") claiming I "have improperly objected to general questions about [my] background, First RFP No. 13 and First Interrogatories Nos. 5 and 6", and you go on to argue /These objections lack merit. As a defamation plaintiff, you have
put your reputation at issue, and therefore general evidence related
to your background and existing reputation is clearly discoverable.
Cockram v. Genesco, Inc., 680 F.3d 1046, 1053 (8th Cir. 2012)
("Under Missouri law, 'proof of actual reputational harm is an
absolute prerequisite in a defamation action.'")./ But your citation actually supports my side. In /Cockram v Genesco, /the appellate court, reversing the district court, writes /Although we do not assume damages, one certainly can suffer severe reputational harm if accused of a racist act. See Rush v. Perryman, 579 F.3d 908, 912(8th Cir. 2009) (noting that a government employee's constitutionally protected liberty interests can be implicated when an employer accuses an employee of an act involving racism, an accusation that can be "so damaging as to make it difficult or impossible for the employee to escape the stigma of [that] charge[]" (quoting Winegar v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 20 F.3d 895, 899 (8th Cir. 1994)))./ In /Cockram v Genescoa young white single mother worked as a cashier for a large clothing retailer. Management had instructed cashiers to ask for their customers' phone numbers during checkout. If it was too busy, or the customer was reluctant, the cashiers were authorized to enter a dummy phone number, a popular one being 816 555 5555. One day, while checking out a black customer, the cashier entered that phone number and, unbeknownst to her, another employee had pre-programmed that number to display a racially offensive name and address, which was printed on the receipt. Neither the cashier nor her customer noticed at the time, but someone noticed later. The next day, the customer returned with members of his family and, according to the court documents, a near riot ensued. The retailer, instead of investigating the matter and responding appropriately, blamed their innocent employee, announcing publicly how "shocked and sickened" they were as a corporation, and assuring everyone the corporation had "values" the employee, whose name had already appeared in the paper, didn't share. The resulting flood of public hate against the young woman so terrified her she moved from her apartment, gave her baby to her parents for safekeeping, and went into hiding. There is no indication that the "proof of actual reputational harm" in the Court's decision finding for the plaintiff in /Cockram v Genesco /had anything to do with the plaintiff's general reputation. The Court expresses no concern over whether the plaintiff''s reputation for punctuality, say, or being fun at parties took a hit when the venal invertebrates who run Genesco shifted blame onto their innocent employee. It was the damage done to her reputation as a racist/non-racist that was the Court's concern. /[M]ost states permit defendants to present, in mitigation of damages, evidence of the plaintiff's reputation before the alleged defamation. Indeed, it is hard to take seriously an objection to First Interrogatories No. 6, which asks for additional about the factual allegations in your own complaint, as "unrelated to matters at issue in this action."/ My further objection to No. 6 was that it was "overly broad and vague" because it asks me to "[i]dentify all...organizations...with which you have otherwise been associated". In the 7^th Grade, I was a member of an organization called 4-H. For my project, I made a "trouble light". In high school, I played in a rock band called Witchbone. I made 30 dollars per gig. Clearly, neither of these organizations belong in this lawsuit. /These inquiries about your background also bear directly on your status as a public figure for purposes of this case, another issue in defamation cases and proper subject of discovery. See, e.g., McQuoid v. Springfield Newspapers, 502 F. Supp. 1050, 1058 (W.D. Mo. 1980) (evidence of plaintiff's access to media and role in controversies relevant to public figure status) / "Access to media" plays a secondary role in determining public figure status. The main determinant is whether someone "thrusts himself to the forefront", which would look only at my actions in Lexington Missouri in 2018 to determine my public figure status. Concerning the tax documents, you write: /This is not "information which is unrelated to matters at issue in this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." The operative Complaint in this action seeks $4,755,000 in actual damages, and in your communications and document production you have claimed damages far in excess of that amount. SPLC is entitled to evaluate your income prior to publication of the challenged report / for which you cite: /Sowers v. Gatehouse Media Mo. Holdings, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34208, *1 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 23, 2009) (tax returns relevant to plaintiff's claim of lost earnings)/ But Sowers v GateHouse Media/was an employment discrimination case, which, unlike a defamation case, has a precisely articulated tax return component. /EEOC v. Chemsico, 203 F.R.D. 432, 434 (E.D.Mo. 2001/) (in an employment discrimination action, tax returns are discoverable and ordered to be produced for the three years preceding plaintiff's termination and one year thereafter). The potential earnings lost when your client torpedoed RJBC's innovative and desperately needed "life treatment" program, with its huge pool of potential clients, and its one hundred percent success rate, weren't calculated from my earnings /prior/to opening the club, nor is there an argument they should be. It should also be noted that a 501(c)(3) organization like the SPLC is much more susceptible to a request to make financial documents public than a private citizen is. In my request for documents from Defendant, I specifically requested an itemized list of payments made. You only turned over the 990, which the SPLC has to do by law anyway for anyone who walks in off the street and requests it. I did not receive an itemized list. Your response also takes issue with my responses to your RFP Nos. 5-6, 8-9: To the extent not produced in response to the foregoing requests, any and all documents relating to 5) any commitments by clients to use the Club's services, 6) to licensing of the Club, including but not limited to licensing for its operation as a drug treatment program, 8) to leases, remodeling contracts, and construction supplies for operation of the Club at 1419 Main Street, Lexington, Missouri, and 9) all Communications that you had with potential sponsors, investors, business partners, employees and clients for the Club. As for No. 5, commitments by future clients, there were only the two I've already mentioned, one of whom is dead. As for No. 6, as I stated in my July 23 reply to your first request for documents, many of the requests "are appropriate to Requests that might be made to an established, operating, and ongoing business. The attack by Defendant that generated this lawsuit occurred before the RJBC had had a chance to reach that stage and prevented Plaintiff from ever reaching that stage." We had only just gotten the lights on and were beginning to clean when your client attacked. No licenses had been applied for. As for No. 8, the same response applies as to No. 6. As for No. 9, all Communications with potential sponsors, investors, business partners, employees and clients for the Club. I've transcribed my text messages with "C" and "S" and have uploaded them in their entirety to III(s) & III(t) . In transcribing these texts, I noticed something that raises questions about the timing of events. I remember the city serving us the stop work order on the day the SPLC article came out, but by the text messages it appears it came the day before because I know for certain that "C" was standing there when we were served and it doesn't look like he came to the store on the 24th. I'm going to see whether I can find the actual stop work order next time I have access to my files. But even if it was the 23rd, it was still in response to the SPLC article. The city official who served me was Joe Ault, the same official who called Stephen Piggott in response to the scare message from Mr Piggott "Hi, this is Stephen Piggott. I track hate groups. Is it true Craig Nelsen is opening a ..." I do apologize, however, for not having all the documents up yet. The main problem has been the videos. As I've mentioned, my wifi was turned off for lack of payment. My electricity was turned off a week ago, as well. I tried using the local library to upload the videos, but they've imposed a 30-minute limit to use the library for "safety". I know the SPLC isn't directly responsible for all my difficulties. I'm writing this to assure you any delay in complying with any discovery request or in responding to you is unintentional. I know you offered the .ftp link, and thank you, but it isn't that. I'm doing everything through my phone, and that's where the problem is. The IP isn't static enough, or there is a data threshold, or something, but it won't upload through an .ftp client. I may end up having to email you the videos in small enough chunks my email client will accept them. Once again, I apologize for the delay. | |
| 2020-08-11 | Mr. Nelsen, In light of your email below, and your other email from this morning regarding your position with regard to disputes over your discovery production, this will confirm that your deposition, which SPLC previously noticed for this coming Monday, August 17, will be rescheduled to a time and date to be determined. Presumably, that will be after we seek direction from the Court about your demand that there be "simultaneous depositions" of yourself and various third-party witnesses. Regards, Chad |
|
| 2020-08-12 | Chad, if the simultaneity thing is an issue (though I think it would make gripping television), it could work just as well to depose everyone singly, but staggered, i.e., 9:00 am, you depose me, 11:00 am, I depose Dees, 1:30 pm, I depose Cohen, 3:30 pm, I depose Beirich, 5:30 pm, I depose Piggott. | |
| 2020-08-17 | 117 | DESIGNATION of Expert Witness and Notice of Discovery Service by Southern Poverty Law Center filed by Chad R Bowman on behalf of Defendant Southern Poverty Law Center.(Bowman, Chad) (Entered: 08/17/2020) |
| 2020-08-17 | Defendants' Summary of Discovery Disputes | |
| 2020-08-18 | Plaintiff's Response to Summary of Disputes | |
| 08/18/2020 | 118 | updated NOTICE OF HEARING - (hearing to be held via telephone) This is the official notice for this hearing. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. Status Conference set for 8/19/2020 10:30 AM via teleconference before District Judge Roseann Ketchmark. (Wheeler, LaTandra) (Entered: 08/18/2020) |
| 08/19/2020 | 119 | CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Southern Poverty Law Center filed by Lauren Russell on behalf of Defendant Southern Poverty Law Center.(Russell, Lauren) (Entered: 08/19/2020) |
| 08/20/2020 | 120 | Minute Entry. Proceedings held before District Judge Roseann Ketchmark: STATUS CONFERENCE held on 8/19/2020 Counsel appearing for Plaintiff(s): pro se. Counsel appearing for Defendant(s): Chad R Bowman, Lauren Russell, and Jean A. Maneke. Time in court: 10:34 am to 11:37 am. Rulings on discovery issues set forth on the record. To order a transcript of this hearing please contact Jean Crawford, 816-512-5642, jean_crawford@mow.uscourts.gov. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Martin, Elizabeth) Modified on 8/20/2020 to correct conference date (Martin, Elizabeth). (Entered: 08/20/2020) |
| 08/24/2020 | 121 | CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Southern Poverty Law Center filed by Lauren Russell on behalf of Defendant Southern Poverty Law Center.(Russell, Lauren) (Entered: 08/24/2020) |
| 08/27/2020 | 122 | SECOND AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 10/14/2020. Dispositive Motions due by 11/14/2020. The only changes to the scheduling order made are the deadlines for completion of discovery and dispositive motions. All other dates from the first scheduling order remain unchanged. Signed on August 27, 2020 by District Judge Roseann Ketchmark. (Wheeler, LaTandra) Modified on 8/27/2020 to note that a copy of the Order mailed on today's date to Craig Nelsen at 515 Shady Avenue St. Joseph, MO 64505 (Woods, Gloria). (Entered: 08/27/2020) |
| 08/31/2020 | 123 | Amended NOTICE to take deposition of Craig Nelsen filed by Lauren Russell on behalf of Defendant Southern Poverty Law Center.(Russell, Lauren) (Entered: 08/31/2020) |
| 09/03/2020 | 124 | DESIGNATION EXPERT WITNESS UNQUALIFIED by Craig Nelsen. (Nelsen, Craig) (Entered: 09/03/2020) |
| 09/30/2020 | 125 | Supplemental MOTION for leave to proceed in forma pauperis concerning transcript fee waiver filed by Craig Nelsen. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 10/14/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Nelsen, Craig) (Entered: 09/30/2020) |
| 10/11/2020 | 126 | MOTION in limine filed by Craig Nelsen. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 10/26/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Nelsen, Craig) (Entered: 10/11/2020) |
| 10/22/2020 | 127 | ORDER denying 125 Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send to Plaintiff a copy of this order by regular mail. Signed on 10/22/2020 by District Judge Roseann Ketchmark. (Casey, Susan) Mailed to Craig Nelsen, 1027 E 9th St, Ste 205, Kansas City, MO 64106 on 10/22/2020 (Crocker, Susan). (Entered: 10/22/2020) |
| 10/26/2020 | 128 | SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 126 MOTION in limine filed by Chad R Bowman on behalf of Defendant Southern Poverty Law Center. Reply suggestions due by 11/9/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Decl. of L. Russell, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B)(Related document(s) 126 ) (Bowman, Chad) (Entered: 10/26/2020) |
| 11/02/2020 | 129 | MOTION to compel Production filed by Craig Nelsen. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 11/16/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Nelsen, Craig) (Entered: 11/02/2020) |
| 11/13/2020 | 130 | MOTION for summary judgment filed by Chad R Bowman on behalf of Southern Poverty Law Center. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 12/4/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Bowman, Chad) (Entered: 11/13/2020) |
| 11/13/2020 | 131 | SUGGESTIONS in support re 130 MOTION for summary judgment filed by Chad R Bowman on behalf of Defendant Southern Poverty Law Center. (Related document(s) 130 ) (Bowman, Chad) (Entered: 11/13/2020) |
| 11/13/2020 | 132 | AFFIDAVIT re 130 MOTION for summary judgment , 131 Suggestions in Support of Motion by Southern Poverty Law Center. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B-1, # 2 Exhibit B-2, # 3 Exhibit B-3, # 4 Exhibit B-4, # 5 Exhibit B-5, # 6 Exhibit B-6, # 7 Exhibit B-7, # 8 Exhibit B-8, # 9 Exhibit B-9, # 10 Exhibit B-10, # 11 Exhibit B-11, # 12 Exhibit B-12, # 13 Exhibit B-13, # 14 Exhibit B-14, # 15 Exhibit B-15, # 16 Exhibit B-16, # 17 Exhibit B-17, # 18 Exhibit B-18, # 19 Exhibit B-19, # 20 Exhibit B-20, # 21 Exhibit B-21, # 22 Exhibit B-22, # 23 Exhibit B-23, # 24 Exhibit B-24, # 25 Exhibit B-25)(Related document(s) 130 , 131 ) (Bowman, Chad) (Entered: 11/13/2020) |
| 11/13/2020 | 133 | AFFIDAVIT re 130 MOTION for summary judgment , 131 Suggestions in Support of Motion by Southern Poverty Law Center. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit P-1, # 2 Exhibit P-2, # 3 Exhibit P-3, # 4 Exhibit P-4, # 5 Exhibit P-5, # 6 Exhibit P-6, # 7 Exhibit P-7)(Related document(s) 130 , 131 ) (Bowman, Chad) (Entered: 11/13/2020) |
| 11/13/2020 | 134 | SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 129 MOTION to compel Production filed by Chad R Bowman on behalf of Defendant Southern Poverty Law Center. Reply suggestions due by 11/27/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 129 ) (Bowman, Chad) (Entered: 11/13/2020) |
| 11/16/2020 | 135 | ORDER denying without prejudice 126 motion in limine; denying without prejudice 129 motion to compel. Signed on 11/16/2020 by District Judge Roseann Ketchmark. (Skelton, Sara). Mailed to Craig Nelsen, 1027 E 9th St, Ste 205, Kansas City, MO 64106 on 11/16/2020 (Crocker, Susan). (Entered: 11/16/2020) btw, I didn't put "Ste" for my "Apt" |
| 12/11/2020 | 138 | SUGGESTIONS in opposition to motion for summary judgment re 130 MOTION for summary judgment on behalf of Plaintiff Craig Nelsen. Reply suggestions due by 12/28/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 130 ) (Nelsen, Craig) (Entered: 12/11/2020) |
| 01/04/2021 | 139 | REPLY SUGGESTIONS to motion re 130 MOTION for summary judgment filed by Chad R Bowman on behalf of Defendant Southern Poverty Law Center. (Related document(s) 130 ) (Bowman, Chad) (Entered: 01/04/2021) |
| 01/12/2021 | 140 | MOTION for leave to file Sur-Reply filed by Craig Nelsen. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 1/26/2021 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Sur-Reply)(Nelsen, Craig) (Entered: 01/12/2021) |
| 01/19/2021 | 141 | ORDER granting 130 motion for summary judgment; finding as moot 140 motion for leave to file sur-reply. Signed on 1/19/2021 by District Judge Roseann Ketchmark. (Skelton, Sara) (Entered: 01/19/2021) |
| 01/19/2021 | 142 | CLERK'S JUDGMENT (Wheeler, LaTandra) (Entered: 01/19/2021) |
| 02/19/2021 | 143 | NOTICE of filing Appeal by Craig Nelsen (Nelsen, Craig) (Entered: 02/19/2021) |
| 02/19/2021 | 144 | MOTION for leave to Appeal in forma pauperis filed by Craig Nelsen. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 3/5/2021 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Financial Status)(Nelsen, Craig) (Entered: 02/19/2021) |
| 02/22/2021 | NOTICE OF DOCKET MODIFICATION. A modification has been made to the document filed on 2/19/2021 as Document No. 143, Notice of Appeal. The document has been deleted as the form that was filed was blank. Additionally, the incorrect event was used when filing the document. Counsel will refile the completed document using the correct event - Notice of Appeal. This is a text entry only - no document is attached. (Crocker, Susan) (Entered: 02/22/2021) | |
| 02/22/2021 | NOTICE OF DOCKET MODIFICATION. A modification has been made to the document filed on 2/19/2021 as Document No. 144, Application for Leave to File Action Without Payment of Fees. The document has been deleted as the document that was filed was blank. Counsel will refile the complete document. This is a text entry only - no document is attached. (Crocker, Susan) (Entered: 02/22/2021) | |
| 02/24/2021 | 145 | NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 141 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Order on Motion for Leave to File by Craig Nelsen. (Nelsen, Craig) (Entered: 02/24/2021) |
| 02/24/2021 | 146 | MOTION for leave to proceed in forma pauperis Appeal filed by Craig Nelsen. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 3/10/2021 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Nelsen, Craig) (Entered: 02/24/2021) |
| 02/24/2021 | 147 | MOTION for leave to proceed in forma pauperis Appeal filed by Craig Nelsen. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 3/10/2021 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Financial Status)(Nelsen, Craig) (Entered: 02/24/2021) |
| 02/24/2021 | 148 | ORDER denying Plaintiff's motions for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (Docs. 144 , 146 , 147 ). Signed on 2/24/2021 by District Judge Roseann Ketchmark. (Skelton, Sara) Modified on 2/24/2021 to reflect a copy of order and docket modification 143 and 144 mailed to: Craig Nelsen 1027 E 9th St Ste 205 Kansas City, MO 64106. (Kern, Kendra) (Entered: 02/24/2021) |
| 02/24/2021 | 149 | TRANSMISSION of Notice of Appeal Supplement to US Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit via electronic mail. Related document 145 Notice of Appeal. (Terry, Jason) (Entered: 02/24/2021) |
| 02/25/2021 | 150 | USCA Case Number from 8th Circuit Court of Appeals is 21-1440 for 145 Notice of Appeal filed by Craig Nelsen. (Terry, Jason) (Entered: 02/25/2021) |
| 03/03/2021 | 151 | TRANSCRIPT REQUEST NO TRANSCIPT WILL BE ORDERED by Craig Nelsen. (Nelsen, Craig) (Entered: 03/03/2021) |
| 03/03/2021 | 152 | MOTION for extension of time Appeal filed by Craig Nelsen. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 3/17/2021 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Nelsen, Craig) (Entered: 03/03/2021) |
| 03/04/2021 | 153 | ORDER granting 152 motion for extension of time. Signed on 3/4/2021 by District Judge Roseann Ketchmark. (Skelton, Sara) Modified on 3/4/2021 to reflect a copy has been mailed to Craig Nelsen 1027 E 9th St Ste 205 Kansas City, MO 64106 (Ellis, Lindsey). (Entered: 03/04/2021) |
| 3/31/2021 | Appellate brief | |
| 4/21/2021 | 804240105 | Addendum (Statement of Facts) |
| 5/21/2021 | 804262161 | Order affirming District Court ruling (cover) |
