Joop Bollen has cried defamation! in response to the state’s effort to get him to cough up the legal fees he owes them for the messes he made in corrupting the EB-5 visa investment program. Like numerous online cranks who try to shut down debate by wielding legal terms they don’t understand, Bollen is learning that if you’re going to shout defamation, you have to get specific.
As Seth Tupper reports, the state has responded to Bollen’s defamation charge with a motion for more definite statement. The document dissects Bollen’s defamation argument paragraph by paragraph to show that it’s too vague for the state to effectively argue:
Defendant’s Counterclaim alleges without any simplicity, conciseness, or directness, that the State has: 1) somehow damaged other unnamed projects (Count I, Paragraph 6); 2) somehow damaged relationships or the expectancy of relationships with some unnamed parties (Count II, Paragraphs 8-11); 3) through unnamed State actors and agencies, took part in tortious conduct against the Defendant (Count III, Paragraphs 13 and 15); 4) engaged in libel and slander (Count V, Paragraph 20) and that such libel and slander imputed general disqualification to the Defendant in one of four separate and disjunctive ways (Count V, Paragraph 21); and 5) through an unnamed State agency, improperly managed the Regional Center (Count VI, Paragraph 23) [State of South Dakota, Motion for More Definite Statement, State of South Dakota v. SDRC Inc., 32CIV15-000270, 2015.12.04].
Bollen’s well-paid Aberdeen lawyer, Jeff Sveen, ought to be able to brew up a better defamation argument than a pleading based on a bunch of somehows and unnameds. The only specific harm Bollen has cited so far is the loss of $1.5 million in fees that he could have collected from EB-5 investors in Dakota Natural Meats, and that loss results from the state’s cancellation of his EB-5 contract, not from defamation. If Bollen and Sveen expect a response to defamation charges, they are going to have to specify who said mean things about Bollen, what mean things they said, and exactly what harm saying those mean things did.
And don’t forget, Joop and Jeff: if you’re going to prove defamation, you have to point to false statements. If the state was telling the truth, you’ve got no case.
I wonder if Jeff Sveen regrets whacking the state with a libel/slander suit. He’s going to have to prove his claims beyond a shadow of a doubt. As you say, Cory, it’s now critical that Team Bollen/Sveen cough up all the facts and to name names. It’s too late to retract calling the state a pack of liars.
Of course, Sveen probably has at least as much to lose. As they say on the Red Green Show, “we’re all in it together.” Or maybe another bearded guy has the more appropriate quote: “He who represents himself has a fool for a client.”
nice catch 96-“he who…fool….”
sveen: “oh for my drinking buddy judge from home….”:)
I wonder how many future unnamed plaintiffs South Dakota no longer will have because of all of Joop’s unnamed projects and damaged expectant relationships which were unrealized. It reads sort of like junior high kid’s imaginary dating life.
While Joop Bollen was an employee of NSU, did he get paid by the state a salary plus fees from the EB-5 applicants at anytime prior to 2009?
Were these fees from the EB-5 legitimately part of his compensation?
Did the Regents knowingly permit all the fees to be solely for the purpose of Joop Bollens pay package?
I have wondered how the regents have gotten away with how they handled this business deal with a state funded school, when will they have to answer for these misguided deals they approved of?
Not certain the Regents knew about it till later. Then this singular flip of no bid privatizing of the EB-5 turned up seemingly to make it legit? Not sure who’s bright idea that was…
Rounds said he did it to remain competitive.
Wont Be Surprised If Sveen Beats The State. Hes Cornered
A question is ‘what should have the regents known’; ‘what was the scope of the regents duties of care, and their fiduciary duties’? If one is not part of the solution then it appears the regents were likely part of the problem.
I bet you these regent people knew nothing about Mr. Bollen’s activities.
I would look to that fellow who was the executive and ask him for some records.
Jane, excellent questions. I’m not sure we’ve ever nailed that double-dip down, but the potential was certainly there. I need to review my notes! The Regents did know that SDRC Inc existed in January 2009, when Bollen informed them that he’d been unsuccessfully freelance lawyering the lawsuit that the Darley company brought against the Regents’ EB-5 branch in summer 2008. Review that fun here:
http://madvilletimes.com/2014/09/joop-bollen-secretly-played-lawyer-for-state-exposed-sd-to-legal-liability/
It is a good sign to see Seth Tupper’s report getting attention, but where was the media when this was started? Ms. Ross resigned because the media found itself without the guts needed to continue the reporting. Of course a lawyer deeply involved in the swindle threatened them and they folded the tent to let the reporter twist in the wind. Politicians and other corrupted people know cowardice and that is why they make the unbelievable assertions that they corrupted the system to stay competitive, how is that? How could Rounds have made such a statement that went unchallenged. How could Pressler have made the comment at the tee vee debate on Benda’s possible murder and have the moderators look like they did not hear a thing so as not to challenge the claim? The media has blood on its hands for being complacent in not reporting the goings on that are happening on their watch. They are the 4th estate and yet they act like their importance means nothing. Here is what happens when they coddle the crooks for either ratings or to just be in the circle of power. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/its-too-late-to-turn-off-trump-20151209
If Joop Bollen feels defamed, he did it to himself by doing the things he has done. By the way, looking at this EB-5 and all that has transpired, it’s amazing how they are getting away with any of this.
Jackley … Jackley … Jackley.
So Jackley at the Capitol yesterday on Pie Day and I almost went up to him to talk to him. Told my son to hold me back.
It would have been great to be a fly on the wall when Daugaard and Jackley discussed suing Bollen. These suits and countersuits could really backfire on both sides.
The state and Bollen both risk going into some pretty dark areas of all the details of this scandal.
It will probably come down to who will settle or dismiss their case first.
how many free pies did you get, Mr. reitzel?
As long as there are lawsuits being tossed around, when will the state get around to taking Joop and the boys to task for state owed taxes from the Korean contractor. Here is what the book says about that tax license requirement.
Contractor Excise License
Any person entering into a contract for construction services must have a South Dakota contractors’ excise tax license. Construction services include the construction, building, installation, and remodeling of real property.
Duration: Continuous until cancelled
Cost: None
Then there is the requirement for unemployment insurance, how did that work? http://dlr.sd.gov/ui/uitaxemployerregistration.aspx
Q: Tax evasion?
A: DING! DING! DING! DING!
Q: Isn’t that a felony in South Dakota?
A: Only if you’re not a member of the Protected Class and a sap like Marty Jackley is acting as Attorney General.
Bridgegate racks up $8 million in legal fees
Bradford Richardson – 12/12/15 06:30 PM EST thehill
A law firm billed the state $8 million since it was hired to defend Gov. Chris Christie.
it is happening here. daugaard is BUYING protection from he and rounds’ scandals. just like Christie. we pay daugaard to socialize, seminarize, and rub shoulders with Christie.
Jerry, were those excise taxes not paid?
owen, i still wonder what cory and marty were talking about on the pheasant hunt photo shoot! great picture on the blog.