George R. Simpson Litigation 


The court documents reproduced below are as obtained from PACER (Public
Access to Court Electronic Records) and the U.S. Party/Case Index.* 
They are in PDF format.
 
PACER is an electronic public access service that allows users to obtain case and
docket information from Federal Appellate, District and Bankruptcy courts, and
from the U.S. Party/Case Index.  With a PACER account, one can purchase access
to these documents at pacer.psc.uscourts.gov.     Having duly paid for the documents
below, it is open to me to reproduce them here for others.
 
Note:   Since George Simpson is a relatively common name, please note that this
site and the documents referenced herein relate to one George R. Simpson who:

1)  resides in Southampton, N.Y. with a post office box address in Hampton Bays, NY;

 
3)  claims to have been visited by aliens called ET Corn Gods; and

4)  is affiliated with the following websites:
 and not to any other George Simpson.
 
Simpson v. Zwinge (aka James Randi) et al,  part deux
 
Ahh, George of Corndogia is back with another frivolous and vexatious lawsuit.  This time, he brings an action
against James Randi, DJ Grothe, the James Randi Educational Foundation, claiming that he has fulfilled the
requirements for application for the Million Dollar Challenge but that he his application has not been
processed due to fraud, misrepresentation, breach of contract, misfeasance, malfeasance, etc.   It's an entirely
unfounded and ridiculous claim on its face, but here we go 'round the mulberry bush once more.  
 
Docket Report
 
 
 
 
 
 

Simpson v. Zwinge (aka James Randi) et al 

 **Caution:  the woo is strong with this one

Docket Report 

Updated February 1, 2008 

Complaint

Filed November 14, 2007

Simpson's complaint seeking $20 million in damages for claims of fraud,
misrepresentation, breach of contract, misfeasance, malfeasance, defamation,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of the First Amendment,
violation of the Fourth Amendment, and conspiracy arises out of Simpson's use of
an Internet forum on which Simpson told a tale  about being visited by aliens
called ET Corn Gods who advised him that it was his job to determine and share
with the world decoding rules to reveal a hidden language that has been
embedded into the English language by the aforementioned ET Corn Gods. 
Simpson claimed that he worked on cracking the code for 22 years. 
Not surprisingly, other users of the forum were skeptical of Simpson's claims, and
quickly demonstrated that Simpson's "code" was nonsensical in that any word
could, in fact, be translated into any other word a person chooses, by following the
rules Simpson outlined, thus establishing that Simpson's claims about the code
were untrue.
 The complaint makes for entertaining reading, but it is very poorly drafted, rife
with numerous legal, factual, jurisdictional and other substantive shortcomings,
and is destined to fail spectacularly. 

Summons 

Filed November 14, 2007 

Order of Instructions to Simpson 

Filed November 16, 2007 

Amended Complaint

Filed November 30, 2007

This First Amended Complaint purports to add 7 more forum users as "named"
defendants (although two of them are names that do not appear to be forum
users), and makes changes in the following paragraphs:   6, 15, 17, 32, 33, 34, 35,
38, 41, 42, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 96, 97, and 100.
 
In the Relief Requested section at the end, Simpson has added a request for an
order that the JREF be shut down, and a request for an order that the ET Corn
God thread be reinstated.   
 
Simpson has removed his previous request for damages of $10 million and his
previous request for punitive damages of $10 million.  Now, he seeks an
unspecified sum of money for compensatory and general damages in an amount
to be determined by the court (greater than $75k), and unspecified punitive
damages to be determined by the court.

Notice of Appearance 

Filed December 7, 2007 

JREF Motion to Dismiss

Filed December 10, 2007 

Court Order Setting Trial Date

Filed January 2, 2008 

Withdrawal of Complaint

Filed January 7, 2008

It appears that some things actually do get through to Simpson on occasion, as he
has withdrawn his complaint.  Obviously, his claims were frivolous, vexatious,
and utterly unsustainable, but that hasn't stopped him in the past from litigating
out of spite, anger, and attempted revenge for slights real and imagined.  In a
way, it's too bad that this has ended so soon,  as it would have been
particularly entertaining to see what the judge would have written in his
judgment dismissing the complaint had the JREF's motion been heard.

Oh, wait.   Perhaps, it is not quite over yet, after all.

JREF Opposition and Motion for Sanctions

Filed January 25, 2008

I do not actually see how the court can avoid granting Simpson's request for
voluntary dismissal in light of the mandatory nature and the binding case law
relating to Rule 41(a)(1), but it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Entered January 31, 2008

Interesting, indeed.  The court has, as expected, construed the document
Simpson filed as a "motion for voluntary dismissal" and has - correctly, in my
view - done what the Rules and established precedent required the court to do in
acceding to that request for voluntary dismissal.    Accordingly, the JREF motion
to dismiss and the JREF motion for sanctions are deemed moot, and the court has
ordered the case closed.  
 
However, the JREF motion for sanctions is dismissed without prejudice and the
court has specifically retained jurisdiction over, and will entertain, a motion for
costs against Simpson by the JREF defendants.  What a lovely invitation that is,
and one that I hope the JREF will take the court up on. 
 March 12, 2008 update:  it appears that the JREF did not bring a motion for
costs against Simpson despite the court's invitation, and the time for doing so has
passed.   My guess is that they chose not to do so for strategic reasons.   

Outcome
A resounding LOSS by Simpson.

Sapphire Bay Condominiums West v. Simpson

HISTORY:  This matter has a long and complicated past.  As noted below, five
related lawsuits were consolidated in 2007.  The documents that pre-date the
consolidation are not available on PACER, but I have posted the Docket Report
(aka Score Card) below, which summarizes the history of this convoluted matter
for those who are interested.

 Injunction Order Against Simpson

* This document was obtained from the VI Courts website rather than PACER

Injunction Upheld by Court of Appeal
* This document was obtained from the Third Circuit website rather than
PACER
Note:  Although this is a temporary injunction, there is reference in the
summary judgment materials to a permanent injunction having been granted,
appealed by Simpson and upheld by the Court of Appeal.   Unfortunately, the
exhibits to the Wood affidavit are not on PACER and I have not found these
documents elsewhere online.

Order Consolidating Five Related Lawsuits

Filed August 27, 2007 

There is, obviously, a long history to numerous related lawsuits, much of which
can be gleaned from reading the documents below.  The documents on Pacer
prior to the consolidation are no longer available on Pacer but many of them are
reproduced in other materials below.  Suffice it to say that the history of the
litigation between George Simpson -  and everybody in the Virgin Islands who
ever annoyed him - becomes clear enough by reading the post-consolidation
documents below and the docket report.

Score Card  

Docket Report

     October 7, 2008  

(2009 Note:  all of the pending motions were dismissed on October 6, 2008 and
the matter was reassigned to another judge.  As a result, I have added a separate
section for the motions among those below which have since be re-filed.  That
section begins as at January 2009)

Motion for Summary Judgment against Simpson:

 George Wood Affidavit in Support of Summary Judgment against Simpson

 Filed September 18, 2007 

 Kay Wood Affidavit in Support of Summary Judgment against Simpson

 Filed September 18, 2007  

 Wood Statement of Material Facts 

 Filed September 19, 2007 
      Simpson Opposition to Wood Motion for Summary Judgment
      Filed October 12, 2007 
 
         Wood Reply to Simpson Opposition 
            Filed October 24 , 2007

Simpson Motion to Strike Wood Reply 

 Filed November 6, 2007 

     Wood Opposition to Simpson Motion to Strike 
     Filed November 9, 2007 

                      Simpson Reply to Wood Opposition 
                         Filed December 3, 2007

                Filed November 8, 2007
         Filed November 20, 2007 
 
Filed January 10, 2008
               Wood Reply to Simpson Opposition
                Filed January 17, 2008
 
Order Dismissing ALL Pending Motions
October 6, 2008
 
October 7, 2008 

Motion for Contempt and Dismissal:

 Simpson Motion for Contempt and to Dismiss All "Charges" against Simpson

 Filed November 6, 2007 

              Wood et al Opposition to Simpson Motion for Contempt and Dismissal

     Filed November 20, 2007 

                Simpson Reply to Wood Opposition

                   Filed January 10, 2008

     Order Dismissing ALL Pending Motions

Court Dismissal of All Pending Motions

October 6, 2008

Updated Docket Report

October 7, 2008 

 

 

 Simpson Motion to Deem Motion for Contempt and Dismissal Conceded

 Filed November 27, 2007

Simpson brings this motion to deem his Motion for Contempt and Dismissal
Conceded by the other parties, purportedly on the basis that the other parties did
not respond to his motion.   
In light of the response filed by the other parties on November 20, 2007 and
linked above, this motion by Simpson will certainly fail.  

            Order Dismissing ALL Pending Motions

October 6, 2008
October 7, 2008
 

Simpson Renewed Motion to Deem Motion for Contempt and Dismissal Conceded

Filed December 28, 2007

Wood et al Opposition to Simpson Renewed Motion

Filed December 28, 2007

 

                           Simpson Reply to Wood et al Opposition

                           Filed January 11, 2008

 

Order Dismissing ALL Pending Motions

Court Dismissal of All Pending Motions

October 6, 2008

Updated Docket Report

     October 7, 2008 

  

Simpson Renewed Motion to Deem Motion for Contempt and Dismissal Conceded  

Filed April 22, 2008

 

Filed April 28, 2008

 

Order Dismissing ALL Pending Motions
October 6, 2008
October 7, 2008 

 

Wood Motion for Sanctions against Simpson:

Filed November 26, 2007
Pursuant to Federal Rule 11, Wood seeks sanctions requiring Simpson to pay all
of Wood's attorney fees, costs and expenses related to Simpson's complaint
against him, on the basis that, among other things, Simpson's claim is frivolous,
baseless, without evidentiary foundation, and brought for improper purposes,
and that Simpson has conducted this litigation in bad faith.
 
Filed December 13, 2007

                           Wood Reply to Simpson Opposition

                           Filed January 10, 2008

         

Order Dismissing ALL Pending Motions
October 6, 2008
October 7, 2008 

  

            Simpson Motion to Strike Wood's Reply 
            Filed January 18, 2008
            There appears to be a glitch with the electronic filing of this document as
            only the first page of the document is showing up and it doesn't have the 
            usual docketing line at the top.  However, the docket report, which I updated
            today as well, describes the document as follows:
 "MOTION to Strike Defendant's Entire Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition
to George Wood's Motion for F.R.CIV.P.Rule 11 Sanctions against Plaintiff,
George R. Simpson by Defendant Simpson, George R. Individually and
D/B/A North American Alliance for Honest Cor."  and indicates that it was
filed on January 18 and entered on to the system January 24, 2008.
I will check PACER to see if the complete filing is added later, but the context
can be gleaned from Wood's Response, which was entered on the system
today, and although the latter document appears to be complete, it too is
missing the docketing line at the top of the front page. 
                         Wood Opposition to Simpson Motion to Strike
                            Filed January 24, 2008
                                    

Capdeville and Feuerstein Motion to Dismiss

 Exhibit 8
Filed December 10, 2007 

 

Capdeville and Feuerstein Memorandum of Law 

Filed December 10, 2007

 

 

Related Motion by Simpson: 

Simpson Motion to Strike Capdeville et al Motion to Dismiss 

Filed December 28, 2007

 

Capdeville et al Opposition to Simpson Motion to Strike

Filed January 3, 2008

            

Simpson Reply to Capdeville et al Opposition

Filed January 11, 2008

 


Related Motion by Simpson 

Simpson Motion for Sanctions

Filed February 19, 2008 


Order Dismissing ALL Pending Motions

Court Dismissal of All Pending Motions

October 6, 2008

 

Updated Docket Report

     October 7, 2008 

 

 

Capdeville and Feuerstein Notice Re:  No Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

Filed February 26, 2008


Simpson Opposition to Capdeville and Feuerstein Notice

Filed March 19, 2008


 

 

Putative Motions for Sanctions

Notice of Non-Filing

Filed February 4, 2008


Apparently, Simpson mailed two motions for sanctions to the law firm acting for

the condominium corporation parties, but he never filed them with the court. 

Accordingly, the opposing parties have filed a notice of Simpson's non-filing with

the court, as they are unable to file oppositions to the motions in light of

Simpson's failure to file the motions.

 

Update:  Three motions for sanctions were filed with the court on February

19 and entered into the electronic database on February 25, 2008.   As near as I

can tell (in  light of the convoluted manner in which Simpson names documents

and the scatterbrained approach he has to pleadings in general, which makes

must of what he writes incoherent), one relates to the Capdeville et al Motion to

Dismiss, above, so I added it there, and the other two are set out below.

 

Simpson Motion for Sanctions

Filed February 19, 2008 

 

Feuerstein and Smith Opposition to Simpson Motion

Filed February 26, 2008

 

Simpson Reply to Feuerstein and Smith Opposition

Filed March 19, 2008

 

 

Order Dismissing ALL Pending Motions

Court Dismissal of All Pending Motions

October 6, 2008

 

Updated Docket Report

October 7, 2008 

 

Simpson Motion for Sanctions

Filed February 19, 2008


Capdeville et al Opposition to Simpson Motion

Filed February 26, 2008


Simpson Reply to Cadeveille et al Opposition

Filed March 19, 2008


 

Order Dismissing ALL Pending Motions

Court Dismissal of All Pending Motions

October 6, 2008

 

Updated Docket Report

October 7, 2008 


 

Wood et al  Notice Re: Dismissal of Simpson's NY Complaint against Sokolow

Wood et al Notice to the Court of Sokolow Dismissal

Filed March 14, 2008

 


Order Regarding ALL Pending Motions

Court Dismissal of All Pending Motions

October 6, 2008

 

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

PROCEEDINGS AFTER ALL PENDING MOTIONS WERE DISMISSED. 

NEW SECTION STARTS HERE.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

Order to File 

January 12, 2009

 

Pre-Argument Memorandum (of Feuerstein et al)

January 20, 2009

 

Simpson Response to Order to File

January 23, 2009

 

Order to Appear on February 9, 2009

January 26, 2009


Simpson Additional Motion to Dismiss

February 14, 2009

 

Feuerstein et al Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

March4, 2009


Simpson Motion to Withdraw his above Motion (and make another Motion)

March 23, 2009


                        Opposition to Motion to Withdraw

                                     March 26, 2009


                                                  Order Dismissing 163 & Denying Relief sought in 170

                                                  April 16, 2009


 

 

Simpson Motion re: "Disingenuous Statements" 

February 17, 2009


Feuerstein et al Opposition to Simpson Motion (re "Disingenuous Statements")

March 2, 2009


Simpson Reply to Feuerstein et al Opposition

March 23, 2009


Simpson "Additional Renewed Motion"  (repeat from years ago)

March 23, 2009


Simpson Motion to Dismiss (re Rule 41(b) another repeat from years ago)

March 23, 2009

 

 Simpson Motion for Sanctions (another repeat from years ago)

June 3, 2009

 

     Opposition to Motion for Sanctions

     June 9, 2009

          

Updated Docket Report

July 2, 2009




XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


 

    Simpson v. Sokolow

 

Score Card

Docket Report

Updated February 6, 2008 

 

 

Complaint

Filed June 13, 2007 

 

 

Motion to Dismiss:

 Sokolow Motion to Dismiss

 Filed July 30, 2007 

 

              Simpson Opposition to Sokolow Motion to Dismiss

              Filed August 13, 2007

 

                          Sokolow Reply to Simpson Opposition

                          Filed August 15, 2007

 

Sokolow Motion to Supplement Motion to Dismiss

Exhibit 1

Filed December 17, 2007

 

 

Related Motion by Simpson

 

Simpson Motion to Strike Sokolow Motion to Supplement

Filed December 27, 2007

 

Additional Document on Simpson Motion to Strike

Exhibit 1 to Simpson Motion to Strike

                   Filed December 28, 2007 

 

             Putative Simpson Motion for Sanctions?

             At this point, I am not certain what this about, as the document has not

             been docketed on PACER yet, but from the letter attached to the Sokolow

             Response below, it appears that Simpson may have sent something to the

             law firm, purporting to be a motion for sanctions in connection with the

             Sokolow motion to supplement the record, but that it was not filed with

             the court.  More on this as the facts become known.   

 

                        Sokolow Letter

                        Filed January 18, 2008

 

                        Sokolow Attached Response (with Exhibit) to Motion for Sanctions 

                        To be filed once Simpson's motion has been filed?



Schedule Order

Filed November 7, 2007

 

  

 

Motion for Leave to Amend:

Simpson Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint

Filed August 21, 2007


Sokolow Opposition to Motion for Leave to Amend

Filed August 28, 2007

 

Simpson Reply to Sokolow Opposition (Part 1)

Simpson Reply to Sokolow Opposition (Part 2)

Filed  September 12, 2007


 

Simpson Motion for Sanctions:

 Simpson Motion for Sanctions

 Filed October 12, 2007 

 

 Sokolow Opposition to Simpson Motion for Sanctions

 Filed October 18, 2007 

 

 Sokolow Memo of Law in Opposition to Simpson Motion for Sanctions 

 Filed October 18, 2007 

 

 Simpson Reply to Sokolow Opposition

 Filed October 31, 2007

 

 

Sokolow Motion for Sanctions:

Sokolow Motion for Sanctions

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2

Exhibit3

Exhibit 4

Exhibit 12 (Re:  Dr. Edmund Slakter)

Filed January 3, 2008 

 

Related Motion by Simpson: 

Simpson Motion to Strike Sokolow Motion for Sanctions

Filed January 11, 2008

 

           Sokolow Opposition to Simpson Motion to Strike

           Filed February 1, 2008  


Related Motion by Simpson:

Simpson Motion to Strike Sokolow Opposition

Filed February 11, 2008

 

Sokolow Opposition to Simpson Motion to Strike

Filed February 25, 2008

 

 

 

Another Simpson Motion for Sanctions

Simpson Motion for Sanctions

Filed February 11, 2008 

 

Note:  From its content, this does not appear to be the same Simpson motion for

sanctions referred to above as the "Putative Simpson Motion for Sanctions" with

respect to the documents filed by Sokolow et al on January 18, 2008.   Rather, it

appears to be a separate motion for sanctions brought because of Sokolow's

January 3, 2008 motion for sanctions against Simpson.


 

Simpson's Complaint is Dismissed

Memorandum and Order of the Court

Issued March 10, 2008

Entered March 12, 2008 


Judgment

Issued March 10, 2008

Entered March 12, 2008

 

In short, Sokolow's motion to dismiss Simpson's complaint has been granted by

the court.  Simpson's motion to amend his complaint has been denied as futile,

and the court has ordered the case closed.

 

The motions for sanctions (two by Simpson and one by Sokolow) were denied.

 

The remaining pending motions (all but one by Simpson) were dismissed because

they were  rendered moot by Sokolow's success on his motion to dismiss

Simpson's complaint.

 

Outcome

Simpson chalks up yet another LOSS in his running tally of litigation failures.

 

 

 

 


  Simpson v. Southampton


History:

Simpson filed his initial lawsuit on December 22, 2006, then amended his

complaint and served the amended complaint on March 1, 2007.


First Amended Complaint - Part 1

First Amended Complaint - Part 2

Filed March 1, 2007

 

 

Southampton Motion to Dismiss:

Motion to Dismiss

Filed March 16, 2007

 

Southampton Memo of Law on Motion to Dismiss

Filed March 16, 2007

 

Simpson Opposition to Southampton Motion to Dismiss

Filed April 2, 2007 

 

Southampton Reply to Simpson Opposition

Filed April 5, 2007 

 

Order Dismissing Simpson's Complaint, save one claim

June 15, 2007

 

By this order, the court dismissed all of Simpson's claims except

his equal protection claim.  Simpson's FOIL claims and due

process claim were dismissed with prejudice.   His first 

amendment, conspiracy, antitrust, and defamation claims were

dismissed without prejudice for 30 days for Simpson to re-plead

those causes of actions to correct the deficiencies, if possible.

 

Southampton Answer to Complaint

Filed June 25, 2007 


Simpson Second Amended Complaint

Filed July 16, 2007

 

This is Simpson's purported second amended complaint that repeats all of his

claims  that were dismissed by the court in the order above, while doing nothing

to correct the deficiencies cited by the judge.   Prediction:  The claims are going to

be dismissed with prejudice when the next motion to dismiss is heard by the

court and all that will be left is Simpson's equal protection claim. 

 

Southampton Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint: 

Southampton Memo of Law on Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint

Filed September 4, 2007 

 

Simpson Opposition to Southampton Motion to Dismiss

Filed October 1, 2007 


Southampton Reply Memo of Law to Simpson Opposition

Filed October 8, 2007 

 

 

Complaint Withdrawn

Withdrawal of Complaint

Filed January 18, 2008

 

Simpson has thrown in the towel on yet another one of his pieces of frivolous and

vexatious litigation by withdrawing his complaints.   It was blatantly apparent

that he did not stand a chance of winning and it is a shame that innocent people -

in this case, taxpayers - have to incur legal costs to respond to George's nonsense.

 

Southampton Letter

Filed January 18, 2008 

 

Court Order

Filed January  22, 2008

 

Docket Entry

Entered February 11, 2008

 

Order Dismissing Complaint

Entered February 12, 2008

 

Judgment

Entered February 12, 2008 

 

Docket Report

Updated February 19, 2008 

 

Outcome

Another LOSS by Simpson.


 

 

 

Simpson v. Golden

 

Simpson's complaint was dismissed by the court in 2005.   Another complete

failure by Simpson.

 

On November 20, 2007, Simpson was ordered to pay Ms. Golden $15,000 in

costs 

 

Costs Order Against Simpson

Entered November 20, 2007

 

Simpson Motion for Reconsideration

Filed as an Exhibit in District Court proceedings on December 28, 2007

 

Outcome

Another LOSS by Simpson

 

 

 

Suffolk County v. Simpson et al.


Complaint

Complaint 

Filed April 20, 2007 

 

Motion for Default Judgment: 

Suffolk Motion for Default Judgment

Filed May 25, 2007 

 

Suffolk gives notice of motion for default judgment for failure of Simpson to

respond to the complaint.  


Simpson Request to Set Aside Default

Filed June 7, 2007 

 

Simpson claims that his documents were filed late because he inadvertently

mailed them late and then they were lost in the mail.  He also accuses the

process servers of perjuring themselves.  He also claims that the current

complaint is "res judicata" but it is obvious that he simply does not know

what the term means, or he would not so blatantly erroneously invoke it.


Suffolk Memo of Law in Opposition to Request 

Filed June 21, 2007 


Simpson Memo of Law in Reply

Filed June 29, 2007 

 

Simpson accuses lawyers of lying and calls a settlement offer

"blackmail".   The offer to settle is an interesting read at pages 8

and 9 of the pdf.


Simpson also claims that the Suffolk Opposition was filed 4 days

late.  It was not.  Simpson just doesn't understand the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure.   The Suffolk Opposition was not due

until June 21, 2007, and it was, therefore, filed on time. 


          Order Dismissing Motion for Default (with leave to renew)

          March 31, 2008

 


Motion to Dismiss

Simpson Motion to Dismiss

Filed May 31, 2007

 

Simpson brings a motion to dismiss for lack of effective service, but it is

premature since the time for service had not yet elapsed.   Another Simpson gaffe

that is bound for  abject failure.


Suffolk Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

Filed June 7, 2007 


Suffolk Memo of Law in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

Filed June 7, 2007 


Simpson Reply to Suffolk Opposition

Filed June 13, 2007

 

Nothing new, just a rinse and repeat of Simpson's previously filed

documents., demonstrating that the man is not only obtuse but

deliberately so, and unwilling to educate himself. 


Simpson Memo of Law in Reply to Suffolk Opposition

Filed June 13, 2007 

 

Amusing, but only as further evidence that Simpson does not know

anything about the law, despite his grandiose claims to the contrary. 

 

          Order Dismissing Simpson's Motion

          March 31, 2008

 

 

Answers and Counterclaims

Simpson Answer and Counterclaim

April 16, 2008

 

          Suffolk Answer to Simpson Counterclaim

          May 1, 2008

 

Charlotte Simpson Answer to Complaint

April 29, 2008


Notice of Appearance by Counsel for Simpson Companies

April 29, 2008


Simpson Companies Answer and Counterclaim

April 30, 2008


          Suffolk Answer to Simpson Companies Counterclaim

          May 20, 2008


 

Simpson Motion for Joinder

 

Simpson Motion for Joinder

June 20, 2008


Suffolk Opposition to Motion

 July 3, 2008


Simpson Reply to Suffolk Opposition

July 17, 2008


Motion rendered moot by settlement

August 26, 2008



Report on Conferences re Rule 26(f)


Report by Simpson Companies Counsel

August 19, 2008

 

Settlement Agreement

 

Settlement Agreement

August 26, 2008

 

Wrap up

In the end, Simpson and his wife and their two companies are required to pay

$12,000 to the plaintiff, Suffolk County; to provide the names of all of the persons

or companies to whom the  Simpsons sold the copyrighted material without a

license; and to destroy all of the copyrighted  material in their possession, under

the oversight of the plaintiff, Suffolk.

 

Complete Docket

August 27, 2008

 

Outcome

Another LOSS by Simpson.


 

 

 

Simpson v. Cook Pony Farm Real Estate et al

 

Summary Judgment Granted against Simpson in Favour of Defendants

Filed March 21, 2003

  * This document was obtained from the NY Courts website rather than PACER

 

Outcome

Yet another LOSS by Simpson.