Rule 10. Form of Pleadings (a) Caption; Names of Parties. Every pleading shall contain a caption setting forth the name of the court, the title of the action, the file number, and a designation as in Rule 7(a). In the complaint the title of the action shall include the names of all the parties, but in other pleadings it is sufficient to state the name of the first party on each side with an appropriate indication of other parties. (b) Paragraphs; Separate Statements. All averments of claim or defense shall be made in numbered paragraphs, the contents of each of which shall be limited as far as practicable to a statement of a single set of circumstances; and a paragraph may be referred to by number in all succeeding pleadings. Each claim founded upon a separate transaction or occurrence and each defense other than denials shall be stated in a separate count or defense whenever a separation facilitates the clear presentation of the matters set forth. ######################################### (For cause showing relief, references and exhibits are included as if a part thereof. ######################################### (c) Adoption by Reference; Exhibits. Statements in a pleading may be adopted by reference in a different part of the same pleading or in another pleading or in any motion. A copy of any written instrument which is an exhibit to a pleading is a part thereof for all purposes. Motion to Dismiss Counter-Claim The defendant moves that the Court proceed as follows: 1) To dismiss the counter-complaint as it is being presented for an improper purpose, such as to harass and to cause unnecessary delay and needless increase in the cost of litigation in that the assertion of prior knowledge of false statements requires an assumption the Defendants are not able to make and the introduction of said counter-claim on the basis of potential libel requires the statements contained therein not to be true and in so presenting said counter-claim before this court serves only to delay the actual proceeding. A further investigation of the claims made in the cited press release will show each and every claim to be supported to evidence of truth. The issue before this Court in the case of Plaintiff v. Defendants is whether the preponderance of the evidence shows Defendants are responsible for violations of the Civil Rights Law which if found true, precludes all references to teh counter-claim. 2) To dismiss the counter-complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in that a press release issued from Arizona, to a nationwide free, and therefore low priority distribution only through linkbacks, that was not picked up by any publication, was not published in any print or recognized media source, does not fall under the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. 3) To dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the person in that the person (Plaintiff, Defendant of the Counter-Claim) is a resident of Arizona and the distribution of such press release was from the state of Washington over the Internet, which is Free Speech and a protected Constitutional Right. 4) To dismiss the complaint because of insufficiency of process in that the counter-claim served on the Plaintiff was delivered some 30 days after it was purported to have been sent and was in fact, returned to the Defendants on July 5, 2004 by the United States Postal Service, to arrive in time for Defendants to have properly addressed it and sent it to the proper address as ordered by the court. Defendants' counter-claim was mailed on June 30, 2004; arrived in the mail processing center at 85206-07 Mesa, AZ on July 5, 2004; according to Fernando Jaramillo, Manager of Mail Distribution, was assumptively handled by a Postal Mail Carrier and returned as unable to be forwarded, no forwarding order on file to the Defendants. The address it was sent to is the physical location of the Plaintiff, which is not the Plaintiff's 'home', Plaintiff does not have a 'home', and not the address ordered by the Court in the Summons for this action, nor the address of record filed with the Clerk of this court. Defendants did not attempt to complete service of process after receiving return of the mailed documents, until after a Roseboro Order was issued by this Court and after Plaintiff requested a copy of all documents filed with the court by the Defendants to be sent to him from the Clerk. Defendants then overnighted their response to a different filing before this court to the Plaintiff and included the documents they had held on to without attempt to serve, after knowing the address was rejected by the local post office. Defendants sent those documents and the other filing response documents to the same address previously rejected by the post office through Federal Express. That 'Fedex' package was delivered on June 30, 2004 without error as the address is the physical location of the Plaintiff. Defendants' failure to inform the Court of the insufficiency of process upon receipt of the returned envelope from the Uniter States Postal Service, and Defendants' failure to attempt submission through the addressed ordered by this Court in the Summonses and Defendants' failure to attempt submission through the address of record for the Plaintiff on file with the Clerk, and Defendants' finally submitting the documents, long after the time to respond had expired for this counter-claim, amounts to knowingly withholding service of process and violating an order of this Court. 5) To dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 6) Should the Court so desire, Plaintiff is prepared to offer volumes of written evidence into this case in response to the counter-claim, but Plaintiff is under a current Roseboro Order not to enter evidence or material into this case that does not directly relate to this case, and so hereby reserves that ability, if required, to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, and with a preponderance of the evidence, that all claims made in said press release, which sole purpose was to continue the attempt to receive due process, are true. Plaintiff finds the inclusion of such material (which may exceed 2 to 3 thousand pages of evidence, including unsolicited correspondence from the United States Senate Ethics Committee Chief Counsel, correspondence from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, The United States Attorney for South Carolina, The United States Justice Department, The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, The Federal Communications Commission, and documents relating to a violation of The Privacy Act of 1974, The Freedom of Information Act and others) to be an attempt by the Defendants to cloud the focus of the case Plaintiff has before this court and to cause undue delay and expense upon the Plaintiff through a frivilous and harrassing counter-claim that was not served to the Plaintiff until long after the window of opportunity had closed for the Plaintiff to respond to it. Defendants' ANSWER rests upon the mere denial of the Plaintiff's pleading, whereas Plaintiff's complaint is supported by a preponderance of the evidence, which sets forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Plaintiff further moves that if summary judgement is not rendered in his favor for all of the relief prayed for, that the Court grant plaintiff partial summary judgement and ascertain what material facts are actually and in good faith controverted, and thereupon make an order specifying the facts that appear without substantial controversy and directing such further proceedings in the action as are just. Plaintiff Lee Kent Hempfling, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 9 c (1) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure moves that the Court enter summary judgement for plaintiff on the ground that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the plaintiff is entitled to judgement as a matter of law. show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. In reference to Claim 1: SEC. 2000e. [Section 701] The term ``employer'' means a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such a person, The term ``person'' includes one or more individuals, governments, governmental agencies, political subdivisions, labor unions, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, mutual companies, joint­stock companies, trusts, unincorporated organizations, trustees, trustees in cases under title 11 [bankruptcy], or receivers. Alter ego one that acts or exerts power (C)1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. All rights reserved there is such a unity of interest between the corporation and another person or entity that they have no separate existence inequitable result will follow if the corporation alone is held liable identical equitable ownership or control in all entities of the "Group Ownership" use by both entities of the same office or business location and the employment of the same employees or attorneys or both. In reference to Claim 2:\ \abuse of the privilege of corporate status.inequitable result the facts warrant this Court to disregard the separate legal existence of the defendants and treat them and their sole shareholder as the same entity. 1) there is such a unity of interest between the corporation and another person or entity that they have no separate existence; and 2) an inequitable result will follow if the corporation alone is held liable for the contract or tort.