Should Rupert Murdoch be removed as News Corporation CEO?
Andy Martin questions Rupert Murdoch’s corporate sanity. “Hannity’s America” furor plays out in an Illinois court as Rupert Murdoch dodges process servers in New York City and demands that his family members be exposed to delivery of legal papers. “Is Rupert Murdoch bonkers, or what?” asks Andy Martin. Hearing set Tuesday, April 28th at 9:00 A.M.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS
No. 2009 MR 000111
Hearing Date: 4/28/09
Assigned to: 2005
ROBERT GIBBS, et al.
CROSS-MOTION TO STRIKE MOTION TO QUASH BY RUPERT
MURDOCH OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO SET A BRIEFING
SCHEDULE AND HEARING ON PROPER NOTICE WITH PRIOR
DISCLOSURES AS TO MURDOCH’S HOME, ETC.
Plaintiff hereby files this expedited response to a Motion to Quash filed by Rupert Murdoch on April 24th.
1. Because the motion to quash was not filed with proper notice, it should be stricken.
2. Plaintiff believes the Court should set a briefing schedule on the motion to quash, since Plaintiff has now submitted his affidavit of service and defendants Murdoch and Shine need to traverse that affidavit with their own sworn testimony.
3. Plaintiff moves the Court to order Murdoch and Shine to disclose their home addresses at which they wish to be re-served, and to identify the members of their households so that a process serves can stand by the buildings and serve a proper family member in propria persona.
4. So there is no doubt in the mind of this Court, contrary to defendant Murdoch’s position Plaintiff does not believe it is proper to stalk a person’s home to serve legal papers in a commercial dispute. Further, Plaintiff seriously doubts that Rupert Murdoch has personally authorized a stalking of his residence to serve papers on a family member in this lawsuit. The motion to quash appears to be the product of overzealous Chicago attorneys who are making work and building a bill but failing to exercise the common sense that should be a hallmark of every attorney’s advice to a client.
Once Murdoch and Shine have to formally disclose their home addresses, and swear under oath they were not served at their business addresses—when the sworn evidence is to the contrary—they may well have second thoughts about their attorneys’ dubious strategy.
The Court is aware that while Plaintiff and the New York Times have argued over issues in this lawsuit, the Times has not chosen to argue over service of process that is made in accordance with New York law on a security-guarded commercial structure.
If Murdoch is really authorizing and directing his current strategy in this Court, he should be removed as CEO by the board of News Corporation for violating News Corporation’s corporate government policy (see attached).
Dated: April 27, 2009
NATIONAL LITIGATION CENTER
P. O. Box 1851
New York, NY 10150-1851
Toll-free tel. (866) 706-2639
Toll-free fax (866) 707-2639
E-mail: AndyMart20@aol.com (text only)
Additional courtesy copy requested to:
REGIONAL LITIGATION SUPPORT
30 E. Huron Street, Suite 4406
Chicago, IL 60611-4723
SERVICE OF NOTICES IS RESPECTFULLY
REQUESTED BY FAX OR E-MAIL
Additional e-mail address available
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify I have served Wade Thompson, Esq., by fax to (312) 840-8713; Givonna Long, Esq., by fax to 9312) 419-6928, Richard Nogal, Esq., by fax to (630) 655-9808 on April 27, 2009.