Source: MSNBC Dan Abrams "The Program about Justice!"
Date: May 17, 2006


Dan Abrams reports that the hearing has ended a little while ago. As Joe Tacopina left the courtroom he said that this is not a situation that we are afraid to defend this case .We are not afraid of the facts. Aruba is the place where this case should be tried. If they were ready to serve us with papers to try it in Aruba today we'd be happy to accept on behalf of our clients. Dan questions how anyone can justify having a lawsuit from people who live in Alabama and Mississippi, when the alleged crimes were committed in Aruba, having this case heard in a New York Court? Susan Filan says to Dan that the Defendants are attacking jurisdiction but in fact she believes that there is no forum more convenient than New York. She throws out that Alabama? Aruba? Mississippi?? It is not more convenient anywhere else, and the Court gives deference to the Plaintiffs choice of convenience. They have a personal service for the defendants and there is no reason for this not to go forward in New York. Susan feels the Plaintiffs will survive this Motion to Dismiss.

Lauren Lake argues the other side by starting out that she does not see it!! She makes it clear that from a human perspective all Dan's guests should be rooting for Beth, and that people want Natalee to be found. But there is no jurisdiction. There is no way in the world for an Aruban witnesses to easily come to New York. Susan responds with a "why not" and goes on to say how Beth was subjected to death threats in Aruba. If she returns to Aruba she will be chopped up and fed to the fish. She called for a boycott of Aruba and Aruba suffered a huge economic loss due to this so she has many reasons to not want to return to Aruba. Lauren says she can go back and file her lawsuit.

Susan then spoke about all the witnesses that are also afraid to return to Aruba and have said that they will not testify if this is in Aruba. And that they will not tell the truth if it is in Aruba. Dan does not feel that is a good argument at all. Just because witnesses prefer to testify in one place over another New York over Aruba he does not feel that is a good argument. Susan says, but they did not say they would not go, but that they are just too afraid to go back to Aruba. Dan's comment to this was that he saw Bo Dietl escorting Beth into the court and if she has him she will be ok. Lauren agreed by saying that Bo showed how he can handle his business when he served the complaint. But went on to say again that this is not a convenient forum as this act did not even occur in New York and people do not live there.

Dan again puts up the 5 factors which were stated yesterday by Joe. These factors can all be argued for and against. Only 2 are needed to dismiss.

1. That the parties are non residents
2. That the cause of action arose in a different or foreign country
 3.That it should be BURDEN ON THE COURTS OF NEW YORK.
4. That there will be hardship to the defendants
5. That there is an alternative forum available

 

Susan said you can argue for and against those, the Court has to balance it out, if the rule of law is that you give deference to the Plaintiffs' choice, it isn't unduly burdensome on the New York Court and wanted to know where Lauren would take the case?

Lauren adamantly says it belongs in Aruba where the act allegedly happened. Beth has gone back to Aruba a million times, why not go back for the lawsuit she wants to bring? Lauren is concerned what kind of precedent would be set if they start hearing suits from every family that was supposedly harmed in another country!!

Susan does not think they should be made to go back to Aruba if they do not want to. And Lauren counters that "want" is not a legal term. Susan says that they give deference to the Plaintiffs choice supporting that want might be a factor. Lauren strongly feels there has to be jurisdiction. And also speaks about minimum contact!!

Dan wants to know if it is dismissed whether it will be filed somewhere else. Susan says absolutely since the plaintiff’s lawyer said that it has been thoroughly investigated and they have all the proof they need. This is not a frivolous case and they have the meat and potatoes in the case. Dan says they both have the best investigators and both feel they have the truth on their side. Dan concludes, and says that this is nothing against the Holloways but feels this case is not going to be tried in New York.