Motion to Dismiss of Beacham and Advocate Center

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

NEWNAN DIVISION

_________________________________ ) JOHN H. MURPHY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action File ) No. 3:15-CV-00092-TCB MILLARD C. FARMER, JR., ) ALFRED E. KING, JR., ) LARRY KING, P.C., ) DEBORAH L. BEACHAM, and ) MY Advocate Center, INC., ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________)

DEFENDANTS DEBORAH L. BEACHAM AND MY ADVOCATE CENTER, INC.S

MOTION TO DISMISS

COME NOW DEBORAH L. BEACHAM and MY ADVOCATE

CENTER, INC. , named as Defendants in the above-styled action and,

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), submit this motion to

dismiss the Complaint against these Defendants, respectfully showing the

Court as follows:

Case 3:15-cv-00092-TCB Document 24 Filed 07/17/15 Page 1 of 29

2

THE COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs 152-page Complaint primarily alleges a racketeering

scheme, led by Defendant Millard C. Farmer, Jr., the lawyer representing

Plaintiffs ex-wife Michelle Murphy in the Child Custody Litigation

concerning Plaintiff and Michelle Murphys two children (the Children).

[Dkt. 1, p. 1-4].

Allegations concerning the Enterprise: Plaintiff alleges that Farmer

is the mastermind of an enterprise that has committed a variety of

criminal acts in order to extort [Plaintiff and his current wife] into

abandoning his claims in the Child Custody litigation and paying

Defendant Farmers demand for attorneys fees. [Dkt. 1, p. 9]. There are

effectively only two other members of the enterprise: (1) Alfred L.

Larry King, Defendant Farmers co-counsel in the Child Custody

Litigation from 2012 until his withdrawal in September 2014; and (2)

Deborah L. Beacham (Beacham) and My Advocate Center, Inc.

(Advocate Center), who allegedly joined the enterprise at about the

time Mr. King withdrew from the case. [Dkt. 1, pp. 4-5; 66].


3

Most of the factual allegations and allegations of criminal conduct are

related to Defendant Farmers strategy, both in and out of the courtroom,

in the Child Custody Litigation. [Dkt. 1, pp. 8-65; 67-79; 81-115; 127-132;

133-150]. Defendant King is included in the litigation-related racketeering

allegations from 2012-2014. [Dkt. 11, pp. 2-8]. Defendant Beacham,

although a full-fledged defendant equal in liability to King, is named

only in a few racketeering allegations, beginning just a few months before

the complaint was filed. There are no allegations of racketeering conduct

that include both King and Beacham.

Factual Allegations involving Beacham/MAC:

There are only a handful of factual allegations against

Beacham/Advocate Center, covering a period of about eight months, from

September 2014 to March 2015:

(1) Beacham went to the Virgin Islands, and conducted a videotaped

interview of Murphys teenage children:

192. In late August or early September of 2014 Defendant

Beacham traveled to St. Thomas, USVI, with the intention and purpose of kidnapping the Children and then conducting a clandestine meeting and interview with


4

them (all without the knowledge or consent of their father and custodial parent, Mr. Murphy). [Dkt. 1, p. 66-67] 193. To conduct this clandestine interview, Defendant Beacham enticed the Children to sneak off Mr. Murphys

property and to get into the back seat of a waiting van. [Dkt. 1, p. 67] 194. Having illegally lured the Children off their parents

property, Defendant Beacham then engaged in a heavily-scripted videotaped interview with the Children. A review of the videotaped interview released confirms Defendant Beacham asked the children highly leading questions[Dkt. 1, p. 67]

(2) Beacham participated in two town hall meetings in September 2014

where the videotaped interview was shown:

196. The Conflictioneering Enterprise thereafter showed portions of the interview at so-called town hall meetings organized and conducted in Newnan, Georgia by Michelle Murphy [and] Defendant Beacham [Dkt. 1, p. 67-68] 222. On September 18, 2014, Defendants Farmer, Beacham, and My Advocate Center, , conducted their first town

hall meeting in Newnan, Georgia. This event, which was

publicized widely featured numerous false and misleading statements by Defendants Farmer and Beacham.[Dkt. 1, p. 74-75] 223. On September 23, 2014, Defendants Farmer, Beacham, and My Advocate Center, held their second town hall


5

meeting in Newnan, Georgia. Again, this meeting was replete with false accusations against Mr. Murphy, his wife, and others made by Defendants Farmer and Beacham.[Dkt. 1, p. 75]

(3) Beacham wrote about the child custody case and posted the link to the

video on Advocate Centers website in September 2014 and again in

March 2015:

197. Defendants Beacham and My Advocate Center also have used portions of the videotaped USVI interview to attempt to enhance the profile (and media

coverage) of themselves and the advocacy services they

provide to litigants in child custody cases.[Dkt. 1, p. 68] 238. Defendant Beacham, through her front organization My Advocate Center, attempted to give these spurious accusations greater credibility by publishing them on My Advocate Centers website, www.myadvocatecenter.com. On or about September 7, 2014, for example, Defendant Beacham posted a story on My Advocate Centers website

regarding the Child Custody Litigation in which she stated the Children were purchased in Georgia with the help of

certain court professionals. Defendant Beacham further stated that the Children were silenced by the custody

experts paid to ensure the case turns out a certain way. A

true and correct copy of the September 7, 2014 post is attached as Exhibit 24. [Dkt. 1, p. 79-80] 239. On or about September 17, 2014, Defendant Beacham posted another story on My Advocate Centers website

regarding the Child Custody Litigation, in which she


6

stated that the Children are being held against their will

and that Mr. Murphys wife is actively involved in this case, and it is apparent that her millions have influence over these court professionals. A true and correct copy of

the September 17, 2014 post is attached as Exhibit 25. [Dkt. 1, p. 80] 240. On or about March 13, 2015, Defendant Beacham posted another story regarding the Child Custody Litigation on the My Advocate Center website which made numerous false and defamatory statements regarding Mr. Murphy, his wife, his attorneys, Judge Baldwin, and other participants in the Child Custody Litigation. Among other things, Defendant Beacham stated: (a) This is how family

court professionals engaged in trafficking of children ensure that their victims are never recovered; (b) Is it

really acceptable to punish attorneys and parents for standing up to fraud and racketeering practices, fighting to save children?; (c) if kids are bought and sold, does it

matter what they are used for?; (d) this mess and related

damages could have been avoided if laws were upheld, ethics rules and judicial canons upheld, and if [J.M.s] and [T.M.s] needs had been put above the greed of child

custody experts and attorneys involved; (e) when you

force a parent to use only child custody experts who are known for abandoning abused children, falsifying experts, committing perjury, and participating in fraud, what do you expect; (f) the court was using extortion tactics to

force the mother to work with one of these two doctors;

and (g) It is such a big deal to them that they block the

truth from being known that they hired Atlanta law firm Kilpatrick Townsend Stockton to ensure that the trial court was not investigated for wrongdoing and that the higher courts did not get to learn that transcripts were


7

incomplete and that fraud had occurred. A true and

correct copy of the March 13, 2015 post is attached hereto as Exhibit 26. [Dkt. 1, p. 80-81]

(4) Beacham discussed the Child Custody Litigation on a radio show in

which she is featured regularly, on two broadcasts in March:

249. In January 2015 Defendant Beacham, through her front entity, Defendant My Advocate Center, began disseminating a radio show known as Pro Advocate

Radio. Defendants Beacham and My Advocate Center paid for distribution of Pro Advocate Radio over at least one traditional radio station (92.5 The Bear) and over at least one Internet radio station.[Dkt. 1, p. 84] 250. . [M]ost if not all of the episodes feature Defendant

Beacham as at least one of the guests on the show. [Dkt.

1, p. 84] 251. On March 14 and 21, 2015, Defendants Beacham and My Advocate Center broadcast two Pro Advocate Radio shows over 92.5 The Bear that contained numerous defamatory statements regarding Mr. Murphy, his wife, Mr. Murphys attorneys, and numerous other participants

in the Child Custody Litigation. [Dkt. 1, p. 85] 252. Many of the defamatory statements broadcast by Defendants Beacham and My Advocate Center over Pro Advocate Radio falsely accused Mr. Murphy and others of participating in criminal acts. Among other defamatory statements, the March 14 Pro Advocate Radio show (a) asserted that it was pre-determined that the Children would go missing and be taken permanently from their


8

home; (b) asserted that facts are being misrepresented

to the higher courts, to the Court of Appeals and to the Georgia Supreme Court; (c) asserted that Mr. Murphy

had the Children set up to be taken; (d) asserted that the

two independent psychologists appointed by the state trial court to serve as custody evaluators were brought into

this case to help traffic these [Children] out of Georgia.; (f) asserted that the amount of fraud that has been covered

up is significant; and (g) asserted that there are

millions of dollars at stake in taxes that wont have to be

paid if those [Children] are living in the Virgin Islands. [Dkt. 1, p. 85-86]

Based on these factual allegations, Plaintiff alleges generally that Beacham/

Advocate Center were full participants in the enterprise engaged in

racketeering activity and conspiracy with Farmer and King under the

Georgia (Counts I and II) and federal (Counts III and IV) RICO statutes

[Dkt. 1, pp. 89, 121, 124, 141], and are liable to him for defamation [Dkt. 1,

pp. 143-147], tortious interference with contractual relations [Dkt. 1, pp.

147-149], and intentional infliction of emotional distress [Dkt. 1, pp. 149-

150].

Alleged Criminal Predicate Acts for Georgia and Federal RICO:

Plaintiff accuses Beacham of only one allegedly criminal transaction,

the videotaped interview of the Children in the Virgin Islands. From that


9

interview, Plaintiff creates two predicate acts under the Georgia RICO

statute: interference with custody as prohibited by O.C.G.A. 16-5-45 [Dkt.

1, pp. 112-114] and kidnapping for extortion under the law of the Virgin

Islands, 14 V.I.C. 1052 [Dkt. 1, pp. 115-117]. For his federal RICO claims,

Plaintiff alleges that interview constituted the two predicate acts of

kidnapping for extortion under 14 V.I.C. 1052 [Dkt. 1, 132-134], and

interstate travel in aid of racketeering enterprise under 18 U.S.C. 1952

[Dkt. 1, pp. 134-135].

State Law Claims Against Beacham/Advocate Center:

Plaintiff alleges specifically against Beacham/Advocate Center (1) in

Count V, that Beacham/Advocate Center defamed him in the town hall

meetings, website postings and other internet social media, and on the

radio broadcasts [Dkt. 1, pp. 144-147]; and (2) in Count VI, that

Beacham/Advocate Center tortiously interfered with his consulting

contract, without describing how any of Beachams alleged acts had this

effect [Dkt. 1, pp. 147-149]. He also alleges generally that all defendants are

liable to him for intentional infliction of emotional distress, noting


10

particularly Beachams interview with the children in the Virgin Islands

and her radio broadcasts. [Dkt. 1, pp. 147-149]. As will be shown supra,

Plaintiffs allegations fail to state any cause of action against

Beacham/Advocate Center, and should be dismissed.

PLEADING STANDARD

The Supreme Courts Twombley-Iqbal pleading standard requires that

a complaint plead sufficient factual allegations to state a claim to relief

that is plausible on its face. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombley, 550 U.S. 544,

5470 (2007) (complaint dismissed where plaintiff failed to allege specific

facts of agreement between defendants in antitrust case). A complaint

which tenders naked assertion[s] devoid of further factual

enhancement is not sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. Ashcroft v.

Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2007) (allegations that defendants were

architects of incarceration plan were insufficient to plead defendants

intent to discriminate).

Where the plaintiff alleges a civil RICO claim, the standards are quite

specific:


11

In order to survive a motion to dismiss in a civil RICO case, a plaintiff must show a pattern of racketeering activity by

alleging that the defendants committed two qualifying predicate acts. Republic of Panama v. BCCI Holdings, 119 F.3d 935, 94849 (11th Cir.1997). This requires that a plaintiff allege facts that support each statutory element of a violation of one of the state or federal laws described in 18 U.S.C. 1961(1).

Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1087 (11th Cir. 2004). Even viewed

in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, his 154-page complaint fails to state

any cause of action against Defendants Beacham and Advocate Center.

ARGUMENT AND CITATION OF AUTHORITY1

For the following reasons, Defendants Beacham and Advocate Center

respectfully request that the Court dismiss all claims against them.

A. Plaintiffs Georgia RICO claims (Counts I and II) are unsupportable. The Georgia RICO statute, O.C.G.A. 16-14-4, requires pleading and

proof of at least two criminal acts and, if the Complaint fails to allege such

acts, the RICO claim fails. Smith v. Chemtura Corp., 676 S.E.2d 756, 762 (Ga.

App. 2009). The Complaint alleges that Beacham/Advocate Center

1 Defendants Beacham and Advocate Center agree with the argument in the Motion to Dismiss submitted by the King Defendants, and respectfully incorporate by reference that motions argument and citation to authority. [Dkt. 11, pp. 10-24].


12

joined the enterprise at approximately the same time that Defendant

King withdrew from representing Michelle Murphy. None of the

allegations of earlier criminal activity involve Beacham/Advocate Center,

and the allegations racketeering activity attributed to her in the

allegations quoted supra are not sufficient to state a Georgia RICO cause of

action.

1. The Complaint Alleges Only One Transaction.

The Georgia RICO statute, O.C.G.A. 16-4-3(8), requires at least two

similar, but separate, criminal acts:

To establish liability for a RICO violation, one must establish a pattern of racketeering activity. A pattern is defined as two or more similar incidents of criminal conduct.

Perimeter Realty v. GAPI, Inc., 533 S.E.2d 136, 144 (Ga. App. 2000). Plaintiffs

Georgia RICO action against Beacham alleges, as Racketeering Act No. 7,

that Beacham violated O.C.G.A. 16-4-45, interference with custody, by

enticing the Children away from their custodial parent, Mr. Murphy,

detaining them while Ms. Beacham used the Children to manufacture false

evidence in the custody case. [Dkt. 1, pp. 112-114]. As Racketeering Act


13

No. 9, Plaintiff alleges that Beacham violated a Virgin Islands statute, 14

V.I.C. 1052, kidnapping for extortion, by enticing the Children away

from their custodial parent, Mr. Murphy, detaining them while Ms.

Beacham used the Children to manufacture false evidence in the custody

case identical language describing a single transaction. [Dkt. 1, pp. 115-

117]. A single transaction does not constitute a pattern of racketeering

activity. Id.

2. The Georgia Crime of Interference with Custody Cannot Constitute a Predicate Act.

Apart from the obvious issue of whether Beacham could be charged

with a Georgia crime based on activity in the Virgin Islands, the allegation

of Racketeering Act No. 7, that Beacham violated the Georgia interference

with custody statute, does not satisfy the predicate act requirement of the

Georgia RICO statute:

The Georgia Supreme Court has held that misdemeanors are not included in the definition of racketeering activity: O.C.G.A. 16143(9)(A) meticulously defines racketeering activity by reference to specific state and federal statutes. O.C.G.A. 16143(9)(B) provides that racketeering activity shall also include various crimes


14

punishable as federal or state crimes by imprisonment for more than one year.

Byrne v. Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075, 1113 (11th Cir. 2001), quoting Clark v. Security

Life Insur. Co., 509 S.E.2d 602, 605 (Ga. 1998). The Georgia interference with

custody statute, clearly provides that first and second offenses of the

statute are misdemeanors offenses. O.C.G.A. 16-5-45(2). So, even if

Plaintiffs allegations were sufficient to establish that Beacham committed

the crime, it does not constitute racketeering activity for purposes of the

Georgia RICO statute.

3. The Allegations do not Establish the Crime of Kidnapping for Extortion.

Plaintiffs allegations of the enticement and detainment of the

Children for the videotaped interview are not sufficient to establish the

crime of kidnapping for extortion under 14 V.I.C. 1052, which provides:

Any person who seizes, confines, inveigles, entices, decoys, abducts, conceals, kidnaps or carries away any individual by any means whatsoever with intent to hold or detain, or who holds or detains, such individual for ransom, reward or to commit extortion or to exact from any person or entity any money or valuable thing, or any person who kidnaps or carries away any individual to commit robbery,


15

or any person who aids or abets any such act, is guilty of kidnapping for ransom and shall be imprisoned for life.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has strictly interpreted the statute,

requiring the application of four factors:

(1) the duration of the detention or asportation; (2) whether the detention or asportation occurred during the commission of a separate offense; (3) whether the detention or asportation which occurred is inherent in the separate offense; and (4) whether the asportation or detention created a significant danger to the victim independent of that posed by the separate offense.

Gov't of Virgin Islands v. Berry, 604 F.2d 221, 227 (3d Cir. 1979). The

allegations in the Complaint do not sufficiently plead a kidnapping for

extortion under the law of the Virgin Islands.

First, the Plaintiff doesnt even know when this event actually

occurred; the Complaint alleges that it happened in late August or early

September. [Dkt. 1, p. 66]. If the Plaintiff didnt even know the Children

had been in the van, it would be impossible for him to prove that they were

held for ransom. Second, there is only the conclusory allegation that

Beacham enticed and detained the Children so that she could conduct

the videotaped interview; there are no specific factual allegations that she


16

threatened or used force or violence, or that she kept the Children against

their will. There is no allegation about the length of time the Children

were in the van with Beacham; given that the Plaintiff did not even know

when the event occurred, he obviously didnt miss the children, and only

knew about the kidnapping when the videotaped interview surfaced.

Third, there is no allegation of Beacham committing a separate offense

under Virgin Islands law; only the ridiculous suggestion that she was

violating Georgia law while she was in the Virgin Islands. Finally, there is

no allegation that Beacham held the boys hostage while seeking ransom

from the Plaintiff.

It is indeed ironic that the Plaintiff alleges as RICO violations

frivolous complaints and motions in an ongoing child custody dispute.

The allegations that Beacham/Advocate Center violated the Georgia RICO

statute are beyond frivolous. They are supported by neither fact nor law,

and should be dismissed.

B. Plaintiffs Federal RICO claims (Counts III and IV) are unsupportable.


17

Plaintiffs case under the federal RICO statute is similarly flawed. As

noted by the Eleventh Circuit:

Essential to any successful RICO claim are the basic requirements of establishing a RICO enterprise and a pattern of racketeering activity. A RICO enterprise

exists where a group of persons associates, formally or

informally, with the purpose of conducting illegal activity. To successfully allege a pattern of racketeering

activity, plaintiffs must charge that (1) the defendants committed two or more predicate acts within a ten-year time span; (2) the predicate acts were related to one another; and (3) the predicate acts demonstrated criminal conduct of a continuing nature.

Jackson v, BellSouth Telecomm., Inc., 372 F.3d 1250, 1256 (2004) [citation

omitted] [emphasis in original]. Plaintiffs complaint fails to allege (1)

sufficient facts establishing an enterprise, (2) two predicate acts that will

satisfy the statute, or (3) the continuity of racketeering acts required by

RICO.

1. Plaintiff does not allege an enterprise.

Plaintiff generally avers that the enterprise consisted of all the

defendants Farmer, King, and Beacham/Advocate Center but makes no

allegations that King and Beacham/Advocate Center were part of the


18

enterprise at the same time. If there was an enterprise, King left it in 2014,

and Beacham/Advocate Center did not join until King left. Plaintiffs

tag-team theory of RICO enterprise is unprecedented and flies in the face

of the continuity requirement.

2. The Allegations do not Sufficiently Plead the Required Predicate Acts.

Since Beacham/Advocate Center did not join the enterprise until

late August or early September, any acts of the enterprise prior to that

time cannot be attributable to them. The Complaint alleges that

Beacham/Advocate Center committed Racketeering Act No. 3, kidnapping

for extortion under 14 V.I.C. 1052, and Racketeering Act No. 4, Interstate

Travel in Aid of Racketeering Enterprise under 18 U.S.C. 1052. These

allegations do not satisfy the federal RICOs predicate act requirement.

For one thing, there is still only one transaction Beachams

interview of the Children in the Virgin Islands Children - with two alleged

crimes attached, hardly a pattern. Further, Plaintiff does not allege

sufficient facts that demonstrate that Beacham committed either of the

alleged crimes. As discussed supra, Plaintiffs allegations about the


19

enticement and detainment of the Children are not sufficient to

establish kidnapping for extortion.

His allegations regarding the interstate travel prohibition [Dkt. 1, pp.

134-135] are no more satisfactory. He alleges that Beachams travel to the

Virgin Islands to interview the Children violated 18 U.S.C. 1952(a):

a) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses the mail or any facility in interstate or foreign commerce, with intent to

(3) otherwise promote, manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, or carrying on, of any unlawful activity,

and thereafter performs or attempts to perform (A) an act described in paragraph (3) shall be

fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

Subsection (b), unmentioned in the Complaint, actually defines unlawful

activity:

(b) As used in this section (i) unlawful activity means (1) any business enterprise involving gambling, liquor on which the Federal excise tax has not been paid, narcotics or controlled substances (as defined in section 102(6) of the Controlled Substances Act), or prostitution offenses in violation of the laws of the State in which they are committed or of the United States, (2) extortion, bribery, or arson in violation of the laws of the State in which committed or of the United States, or (3) any act which is


20

indictable under subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code, or under section 1956 or 1957 of this title and (ii) the term State includes a State of the United

States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.

Plaintiffs allegation that Beachams unlawful activity is the kidnapping

for extortion, does not satisfy 18 U.S.C. 1952(b). Kidnapping is not an

included unlawful activity and the alleged extortion using the

Children to manufacture false evidence in the Child Custody Litigation in

order to intimidate Mr. Murphy in the Child Custody Litigation, to obtain

extortionate payments to members of the Conflictioneering Enterprise or

both - does not satisfy the Supreme Courts analysis of the statutes

requirements:

The Travel Act makes it a crime to travel between states with the intent to commit specified crimes listed in the statute. 18 U.S.C. 1952. RICO and the Travel Act require that a predicate act involving extortion must involve conduct which is capable of being generically classified as extortionate. Scheidler v. Nat'l Org. for Women, Inc., 537 U.S. 393, 409, 123 S.Ct. 1057, 154 L.Ed.2d 991 (2003); see also United States v. Nardello, 393 U.S. 286, 296, 89 S.Ct. 534, 21 L.Ed.2d 487 (1969) (adopting the generic definition of extortion for Travel Act purposes). Extortion is generically defined as obtaining something of value from another with


21

his consent induced by the wrongful use of force, fear, or threats. Scheidler, 537 U.S. at 410, 123 S.Ct. 1057.

Cintas Corp. v. Unite Here, 601 F. Supp. 2d 571, 578 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) aff'd, 355

Fed. Appx. 508 (2d Cir. 2009).

Moreover, Beacham/Advocate Centers alleged racketeering activity

does not satisfy the continuity requirement of the federal RICO statute.

The one transaction which constitutes the alleged predicate acts took

place in late August or early September 2014. In essence, Plaintiff alleges

that Beacham committed one racketeering act in her nine-month

membership in the enterprise. The Eleventh Circuit has clearly held that

such allegations do not meet the standard of pleading for a federal RICO

complaint. See Jackson, 372 F.3d 1250, 1267-1268 (11th Cir. 2004).

The federal RICO counts against Beacham and Advocate Center have

no merit, and should be dismissed.

C. The State Claims of Defamation, Tortious Interference with Existing Contractual Relations, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress against Beacham and Advocate Center Should be Dismissed.


22

The Plaintiffs target in this lawsuit is the litigation strategy of

Defendant Farmer, and the Complaints RICO allegations are its main

thrust. The Complaints tag-team enterprise theory which forms the

basis of the RICO allegations is also the basis for federal question subject

matter jurisdiction in this case. Once the RICO allegations are dismissed,

Plaintiff is left with diversity jurisdiction of three state claims against

Beacham/Advocate Center, which also fail to state a claim for which relief

can be granted.

1. Beachams discussion of the Child Custody Litigation was not defamatory.

Beachams organization is called My Advocate Center, Inc. The

radio program on which Beacham regularly appears is called Pro

Advocate Radio. The Complaint alleges that Beacham and Advocate

Center hold themselves out as purported advocates who provide, among

other services, litigation assistance in child custody disputes, even though

Ms. Beacham is not a licensed Georgia attorney. [Dkt. No. 1, p. 66].

Plaintiffs defamation claim alleges that Beacham published numerous

defamatory statements regarding him, his wife, and others associated


23

with the Child Custody Litigation in the town hall meetings, on the

Advocate Center website, and in the radio broadcasts. Count V is not

specific about these alleged statements, other than making the allegation

that Plaintiff was described by Beacham as stealing the Children. [Dkt. 1,

p. 146].

The Georgia Court of Appeals in Jailett v. Georgia Television Company,

520 S.E.2d 721 (Ga. App. 1999) did a thorough analysis of defamation in the

in non-print media:

Defamation via a radio or television broadcast (or a defamacast, as it has become generally known) includes elements of both libel and slander. To be actionable, a communication must be both false and malicious and the burden of proving a statements falsity is on the plaintiff.

520 S.E.2d at 723. Plaintiffs own allegations that Beacham is an advocate

and that she accused him of stealing the Children suggest that

Beacham is stating an opinion which cannot be proven false:

The requirement that, to be actionable, a statement of opinion must imply an assertion of objective facts about the plaintiff unquestionably excludes from defamation liability not only statements of rhetorical hyperbole . . . but also statements clearly recognizable as pure opinion


24

because their factual premises are revealed. . . . Both types of assertions have an identical impact on readers -- neither reasonably appearing factual -- and hence are protected equally

Id. See also Barna Log Homes of Georgia, Inc. v. Wischmann, 310 Ga.App. 844

(2011) (statement on website of customer that distributor was grossly

overcharging and did poor work was non-actionable opinion). The

town hall meetings, the website, the radio broadcasts, and social media

outlets are all targeted at audiences who are interested in the particular

point of view of a Michelle Murphy and others who believe that the legal

system does not always work. If the Plaintiffs claim were actionable, Rush

Limbaugh, Jon Stewart, George Will, and all commentators on Court TV

would be defending defamation actions on virtually a daily basis.

Defendants Beacham and Advocate Center respectfully request that

the defamation claims against them be dismissed.

2. Plaintiffs Allegations of Tortious Interference with Existing Contractual Relations Do Not State an Actionable Claim.

Plaintiffs general allegations in Count VI that do not state a claim:

The elements of tortious interference with contractual relations, business relations, or potential business relations


25

are: (1) improper action or wrongful conduct by the defendant without privilege; (2) the defendant acted purposely and with malice with the intent to injure; (3) the defendant induced a breach of contractual obligations or caused a party or third parties to discontinue or fail to enter into an anticipated business relationship with the plaintiff; and (4) the defendant's tortious conduct proximately caused damage to the plaintiff.

Dalton Diversified, Inc. v. AmSouth Bank, 605 S.E.2d 892 (Ga. App. 2004).

Plaintiff does not attempt to connect the dots between Beachams alleged

improper actions and any inducement to his employer to discontinue their

relationship. Plaintiff does not allege that Beacham contacted his employer

directly, only that she made statements in a public forum. He does not

allege that he has suffered any actual loss of employment or contractual

relationships, only that his performance of his consulting contract [has

become] more difficult and more expensive. [Dkt. No. 1, p. 148]. His

complaint fails to state a cause of action for tortious interference with

contractual relations, and should be dismissed.

3. Plaintiffs Claim Against Beacham/Advocate Center for Intentional Infliction of Emotion Distress Fails to State a Claim.


26

In order to properly allege a claim for intentional infliction of

emotional distress, Plaintiff must plead (1) intentional or reckless conduct;

(2) that was extreme and outrageous and (3) caused severe emotional

distress. Frank v. Fleet Fin., Inc. of Ga., 518 S.E.2d 717, 720 (Ga. App. 1999).

Plaintiffs claim against Beacham/Advocate Center does not state a claim.

Plaintiffs allegations of outrageous conduct on the part of Beacham

and Advocate Center are the interview of the children in the Virgin Islands

and the alleged defamacasts over the radio station in Atlanta. These

actions were not outrageous. Plaintiff never alleges that Beacham held the

Children against their will or that the Children were coerced into giving

the interview. Further, as noted supra, the alleged defamacasts were

statements of Beachams opinion in a public forum. Finally, Beachams

general allegation that Beachams conduct caused severe emotional

distress is nothing more than a naked assertion devoid of further

factual enhancement, which does not meet the pleading standards of

Rule 8. Defendants Beacham and Advocate Center therefore respectfully

request that the Court dismiss this claim as well.


27

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs effort to create a racketeering enterprise on the litigation

strategy of counsel for his ex-wife, and his targeting of Beacham and

Advocate Center as co-conspirators, should be rejected by this Court.

Defendants Beacham and Advocate Center are neither racketeers nor

kidnappers, and Beachams expression of opinion about ongoing litigation

in a public forum is neither defamation nor outrageous conduct.

Defendants Beacham and My Advocate Center, Inc. respectfully request

that the Court dismiss all claims against them.


28

This 17th day of July, 2015.

Respectfully submitted, /S Mary Helen Moses Mary Helen Moses, Ga. Bar No. 437900

Mary Helen Moses, Esq., LLC ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS DEBORAH L. BEACHAM and MY ADVOCATE CENTER, INC. P. O. Box 20673 St. Simons Island, Georgia 31522 (912) 634-8550 FAX (912) 348-0107 [email protected]

CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL

I certify that this pleading meets all requirements of the Local Rules

of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,

regarding margins, line spacing and that a 14 point, Book Antiqua Font

was used.


/s/Mary Helen Moses Mary Helen Moses, Ga. Bar 437900


29

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been

filed with the U.S. District Courts CM/ECF System and that pursuant

thereto, a copy of this pleading has been served upon the following

persons by electronic mail:

Wilmer Parker [email protected] Millard Farmer [email protected]

Johannes S. Kingma [email protected] John C. Rogers [email protected]


/s/ Mary Helen Moses Mary Helen Moses, Ga. Bar 437900


Motion to Dismiss of Beacham and Advocate Center

Documents