Answer of Defendants Morgan Smith & Smith & Raver LLP

Morgan Smith is one of the defendants in the malicious prosecution lawsuit I filed May 28th, 2009, in Minnesota State court. His firm, Smith & Raver LLP, is also named as a defendant (based on vicarious liability). Smith was the attorney for the original corporation that sued me for defamation in 2005 with a forged sales agreement.

On June 22nd, 2009, Morgan Smith served me with an Answer to my Complaint for malicious prosecution. His Answer stated, in part, that Defendants Morgan Smith and Smith & Raver LLP lack knowledge to admit or deny the following paragraphs of the Complaint:

¶ 10: "In early 2005, [the corporation] unlawfully procured two photos from Chris Gregerson's stock photography website and used them in a series of advertisements."
¶ 15: "Defendant Vladimir Kazaryan materially aided and abetted the malicious prosecution of Gregerson by providing a false notarization for the forged sales agreement, for which he lost his notarial license. Kazaryan also provided false sworn testimony."
¶ 20: That [the corporation] unlawfully procured two photos from Gregerson's website, as per a ruling by US District Court Judge Ann D. Montgomery (her ruling was exhibit A of the Complaint)
¶ 27: "[the corporation's owner] fabricated a sales agreement stating that Vilana Financial had purchased an unspecified number of photos from Michael Zubitskiy for $850. Exhibit D."
¶ 34: "Gregerson's web page was constitutionally-protected speech and a vital means of communication with members of the public who had relevant evidence."
¶ 39: "[the corporation's] lawsuit and TRO deceived the court by falsely claiming [the corporation] bought the Skyline photo from Zubitskiy and submitting a forged sales agreement."
Admit in part ¶ 37 concerning the defamation Complaint, but lack knowledge concerning the claim that Exhibit A thereto was "forged": "On October 24th, 2005, [the corporation], represented by Morgan Smith, filed a lawsuit for defamation against Gregerson in Minnesota State Court, 4th District, alleging Gregerson's web page was false and defamatory. Exhibit I. The Complaint included the forged Zubitskiy photo agreement as Exhibit A.."

Smith appears to be claiming to not know whether the corporation's sales agreement used in the defamation lawsuit against me was forged.

Smith makes an affirmative defense that "Plaintiff's claim fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted." He also offers affirmative pleadings of fact, including that he (and Smith & Raver) "...relied upon the information, comportment, background, and physical evidence presented by clients [the corporation] in forming probable cause...".

You can post a comment on this page After typing in your comment, click the "post comment" button below the form. Note: your comment may not show up until you click the 'refresh' button on your web browser.
name:
residence:
comment: