ATTN:
Mrs Andrea Hibbs and her husband Thomas Hibbs
1804 Woodlawn St, Deridder, LA 70634
Attn: Andrew Benditt and Funcom LLC
1101 Slater Rd #130, Durham, NC 27703
Jury Trial Requested.
Comes now;
Affidavit of Tort: sexual abuse and exploitation of the disabled and mental torture for sexual gratification by way of false 911 calls and police reports. Most recently on June 16th 2024.
Libel by way of unfounded claims of petitioner being a “danger, wanting to ■■■■ and kill a six year old.” And similar comments
Respondents:
Funcom LLC,
Andrew Benditt,
Mrs Andrea Hibbs and her husband Thomas Hibbs
Mrs Andrea Hibbs and Thomas Hibbs and or his aliases specifically regarding the husband of Mrs. Hibbs.
Petitioner Pro Se
Peter Korman
Peter Korman acknowledges to the best of his ability that the following is correct and factual and historically accurate.
II. Conclusions of Law and Analysis.
A. Whether the Court Has Subject Matter Jurisdiction.
Statement of facts
On or about May 4th in the year 2023, Respondent Andrea Hibbs And her husband knowingly began a series or campaign of actions in violation of the law in concert with Andrew Benditt as well as with the knowledge and consent of Funcom LLC to use local police officers to shock and terrify for sexual exploitation and gratification. These facts will become apparent as we will discuss the damage that has been done to the petitioner Peter Korman IV.
He has suffered from severe cardiovascular anguish after the most recent attempt to frighten and terrify him and his family by way of fake 911 call on June 16th 2024.
Also when we will look at the exhibits, we will see where the respondents have admitted their guilt and admitted that they were taking part in this activity as well as taking apart in the activity of libeling the respondent with bizarre claims of heinous actions such as wanting to ■■■■ and kill a six-year-old.
Let us for a moment now take a look at the law and various jurisdictional aspects. What is being requested of the respondents is at least $10 million dollars from Funcom LLC, at least $10 million from Mr and Mrs Hibbs and at least $10 million from Andrew Benditt
We will now conduct The Calder “venue test” to see if the amount requested meets the threshold for damages due to actual harm.
[,]" Bernshteyn v.
Feldman, 2006 WL 2516514, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2006),
“A party invoking the jurisdiction of the federal court has the burden of
proving that it appears to a ‘reasonable probability’ that the claim is in
excess of the statutory jurisdictional amount.” Tongkook Am., Inc. v.
Shipton Sportswear Co., 14 F.3d 781, 784 (2d Cir. 1994) (quoting Moore v.
Betit, 511 F .2d 1004, 1006 (2d Cir. 1975)). This burden is hardly onerous,
however, for we recognize “a rebuttable presumption that the face of the
complaint is a good faith representation of the actual amount in
controversy.” Wolde-Meskel v. Vocational Instruction Project Cmty.
Servs., Inc., 166 F.3d 59, 63 (2d Cir. 1999).
To overcome the face-of-the-complaint presumption, the party opposing
jurisdiction must show “to a legal certainty” that the amount recoverable
does not meet the jurisdictional threshold. Id. ( quoting St. Paul Mercury
lndem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288-289 (1938)). Our cases have
set a high bar for overcoming this presumption. “[T]he legal impossibility
of recovery must be so certain as virtually to negative the plaintiff’s good
faith in asserting the claim.” Chase Manhattan Bank, NA. v. Am. Nat. Bank
and Trust Co. of Chicago, 93 F.3d 1064, 1070-71 (2d Cir. 1996) (quoting
Tongkook, 14 F.3d at 785). “[E]ven where [the] allegations leave grave
doubt about the likelihood of a recovery of the requisite amount, dismissal
is not warranted.” Zacharia v. Harbor Island Spa, Inc., 684 F.2d 199, 202
(2d Cir. 1982); see also Tongkook, 14 F.3d at 785 (“Where the damages
sought are uncertain, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the plaintiff’s
pleadings.”).
Scherer v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of US., 347 F.3d 394,397 (2d Cir. 2003)
(alterations in original) (parallel citation omitted).
Because Plaintiff has alleged on the face of the Complaint an amount in
controversy in excess of $75,000, Respondents Hibbs, Funcom LLC and Andrew Benditt must show “to a legal certainty” Plaintiff
is unable to “meet the jurisdictional threshold.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).
Actual harm and monetary harm are distinct in defamation actions. Certain types
of defamation, including “imputation of a crime,” are actionable per se, meaning that
special damages are presumed. Lent, 470 A.2d at 1168. “Special damages are those of a
pecuniary nature, and historically they have included loss of customers or business, loss
of contracts, or loss of employment[,]” but also include the loss of any “‘benefit which
has a more or less indirect financial value[.]’” Id. at 1167-68 (quoting Restatement
(Second) of Torts§ 575 comment b, at 198 (1977)). Plaintiff was not required to link the harm he suffered “to a monetary claim for relief.”
“However, even in a case (such as libel) that is actionable per se and special
damages are presumed, the plaintiff must still show some actual harm to recover general,
compensatory damages.” Kneebinding, Inc. v. Howell, 2018 VT 101, ,i 83,208 Vt. 578,
616,201 A.3d 326, 355. In a defamation case, actual harm "is not limited to out-of-
pocket loss. Indeed, the more customary types of actual harm inflicted by defamatory
falsehood include impairment of reputation and standing in the community, personal
humiliation, mental anguish and physical health deterioration and suffering." Ryan v. Herald Ass 'n, Inc., 566 A.2d
1316, 1321 (Vt. 1989) (quoting Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323,350 (1974)).
“Evidence of embarrassment or temporary damage to reputation is sufficient to show
actual harm.” Kneebinding, Inc., 2018 VT 101, ,i 83, 208 Vt. at 616, 201 A.3d at 355.
plaintiff is required to plead
“only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell At/. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 547 (2007). This Complaint sets forth specific defamatory
statements made to Plaintiffs associates, which plausibly supports an allegation that he
suffered embarrassment, impairment of his reputation, and loss of standing in his
community. Plaintiff has thus plausibly pied actual harm.
The amount of compensatory damages for defamation is ultimately “within the
discretion of the fact finder and the award must stand unless grossly excessive.”
Kneebinding, Inc., 2018 VT 101, ,i 84,208 Vt. at 616,201 A.3d at 355 (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). “[ A ]11 awards must be supported by competent
evidence concerning the injury, although there need be no evidence which assigns an
actual dollar value to the injury.” Ryan, 566 A.2d at 1321 (quoting Gertz, 418 U.S. at
350). Respondents have not demonstrated “to a legal certainty” that Plaintiff could not be
awarded in excess of$75,000 in compensatory damages 1 Scherer, 347 F.3d
at 397 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Asserting a negative defense is
not enough in and of itself to “deprive a federal court of jurisdiction.” Zacharia v. Harbor
Island Spa, Inc., 684 F.2d 199, 202 (2d Cir. 1982). "Were the law otherwise, the orderly
progress of litigation would be disrupted, and doubt and ambiguity would surround the
jurisdictional base of most diversity litigation from complaint to final judgment. Issues
1 Plaintiff has satisfied the amount-in-controversy requirement with his claim for
compensatory damages , ee Colavito v. New York Organ Donor Network, Inc., 438 F.3d 214,221
(2d Cir. 2006) (“Different state claims brought by a single plaintiff may be aggregated for
purposes of satisfying the amount-in-controversy requirement.”) ( citations omitted).
2
A negative defense “controverts the plaintiffs prima facie case[.]” Probatter Sports, LLC v.
Sports Tutor, Inc., 2015 WL 4390055, at *3 (D. Conn. July 15, 2015) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted); see also In re Rawson Food Serv., Inc., 846 F.2d 1343, 1349 (11th Cir.
1988) (“A defense which points out a defect in the plaintiffs prima facie case is not an
affirmative defense.”); Ear v. Empire Collection Auths., Inc., 2012 WL 3249514, at *2 (N.D.
Cal. Aug. 7, 2012) (holding “negative defenses … assert defects in the plaintiffs case” and that
“Rule l 2(b )( 6) sets forth the paradigmatic example of a negative defense: ‘failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted’”).
going to a federal court’s power to decide would be hopelessly confused with the merits
themselves." Id.
B. Whether the Court Has Personal Jurisdiction Over Respondents including Funcom LLC
“On a Rule the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the court has jurisdiction over the defendant.”
Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Robertson-Ceco Corp., 84 F.3d 560, 566 (2d Cir. 1996). “Until an
evidentiary hearing is held … the plaintiff need make only a prima facie showing that
jurisdiction exists[.]” Hoffritzfor Cutlery, Inc. v. Amajac, Ltd., 763 F.2d 55, 57 (2d Cir.
1985). “In evaluating whether the requisite showing has been made, [the court]
construe[ s] the pleadings and any supporting materials in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff1].” Licci ex rel. Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL, 732 F.3d 161, 167 (2d
Cir. 2013).
“The allegations in the complaint must be taken as true to the extent they are
uncontroverted by the defendant’s affidavits.” MacDermid, Inc. v. Deiter, 702 F.3d 725,
727 (2d Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). “If the parties present conflicting affidavits, all
factual disputes are resolved in the plaintiff’s favor, and the plaintiff’s prima facie
showing is sufficient notwithstanding the contrary presentation by the moving party.” In
re Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, 714 F.3d 659,673 (2d Cir. 2013) (internal
quotation marks omitted)
“In the absence of a federal statute specifically directing otherwise, and subject to
limitations imposed by the United States Constitution, [the court] look[s] to the law of the
forum state to determine whether a federal district court has personal jurisdiction[.]”
Brown v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 814 F.3d 619,624 (2d Cir. 2016) (citing Fed. R. Civ.
In Indiana,a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident
defendant “to the full extent permitted by the … Due Process Clause” of the Fourteenth
Amendment. State v. At/. Richfield Co., 2016 , iJ 10,201 Ind. Trial R. 4.4. 342, 349, 142 A.3d
215,220 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also In re Roman Catholic Diocese of
Albany, N.Y., Inc., 745 F.3d 30, 38 (2d Cir. 2014) The Indiana long arm statute …
reflects a clear policy to assert jurisdiction over individual defendants to the full extent
permitted by the Due Process Clause.") (internal quotation marks omitted). As a result,
“the first part of [the] inquiry-the interpretation of the Indiana law governing service
of process-merges with the second part of the jurisdictional test: whether the court’s
exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant satisfies the requirements of due
process.” Metro. Life Ins. Co., 84 F.3d at 567. This “analysis consist[s] of two
components: the ‘minimum contacts’ test and the ‘reasonableness’ inquiry.” Bank
Brussels Lambert v. Fiddler Gonzalez & Rodriguez, 305 F.3d 120, 127 (2d Cir. 2002).
Whether Respondents Have Sufficient Minimum Contacts with
Indiana
“To determine whether a defendant has the necessary ‘minimum contacts,’ a
distinction is made between ‘specific’ and ‘general’ personal jurisdiction.” In re Terrorist
Attacks, 714 F.3d at 673. Specific jurisdiction “exists when a forum exercises personal
jurisdiction over a defendant in a suit arising out of or related to the defendant’s contacts
with the forum[.]” Id. at 673-74 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). In
contrast, general jurisdiction “is based on the defendant’s general law enforcement contacts with
the forum and permits a court to exercise its power in a case where the subject matter of
the suit is unrelated to those contacts.” Id. at 674 (alteration and internal quotation marks
omitted). “A court deciding whether it has jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant
under the Due Process Clause must evaluate the ‘quality and nature’ … of the
defendant’s contacts with the forum state under a totality of the circumstances test[.]”
Best Van Lines, Inc. v. Walker, 490 F.3d 239, 242 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting Burger King
Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462,475 (1985))
"[A] State may authorize its courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-
state defendant if the defendant has 'certain minimum contacts with [the State] such that
the maintenance of the suit does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice."’ Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915,
923 (2011) (second alteration in original) (quoting Int’/ Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S.
310,316 (1945)). “For the purpose of establishing specific personal jurisdiction, the
necessary fair warning requirement is satisfied if the defendant has purposefully directed
his [ or her] activities at residents of the forum, and the litigation results from alleged
injuries that arise out of or relate to those activities.” In re Terrorist Attacks, 714 F.3d at
674 (internal quotation marks omitted).
In order for the court to exercise specific jurisdiction, “the suit must arise out of or
relate to the defendant’s contacts with the forum.” Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Super. Ct.
of Cal., San Francisco Cnty., 137 S. Ct. 1773, 1780 (2017) (emphasis, internal quotation
marks, and alterations omitted). There must be ‘“some act by which the defendant
purposefully avail[ ed] itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum
State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.”’ Goodyear, 564 U.S. at 924
(quoting Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958) (alteration in original)). The
“‘minimum contacts’ analysis looks to the defendant’s contacts with the forum State
itself, not the defendant’s contacts with persons who reside there.” Walden v. Fiore, 571
U.S. 277,285 (2014). The “foreseeability of causing injury in another State,” Burger
King, 471 U.S. at 474 (emphasis omitted), will not alone suffice, and “the plaintiff cannot
be the only link between the defendant and the forum.” Walden, 571 U.S. at 285.
“The ‘effects test’ theory of personal jurisdiction is typically invoked where the
conduct that forms the basis for the controversy occurs entirely out-of-forum, and the
only relevant jurisdictional contacts with the forum are therefore in-forum effects harmful
to the plaintiff.” Charles Schwab Corp. v. Bank of Am. Corp., 883 F.3d 68, 87 (2d Cir.
2018) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In Calder v. Jones, the Supreme
Court held that there was specific jurisdiction in California over non-resident defendants
who published an allegedly libelous article about a California resident. 465 U.S. 783, 789
(1984 ). As the Supreme Court observed:
The crux of Calder was that the reputation-based “effects” of the alleged
libel connected the defendants to California, not just to the plaintiff. The
strength of that connection was largely a function of the nature of the libel
tort. However scandalous a newspaper article might be, it can lead to a loss
of reputation only if communicated to ( and read and understood by) third
persons. Accordingly, the reputational injury caused by the defendants’
story would not have occurred but for the fact that the defendants wrote an
article for publication in California that was read by a large number of
California citizens. Indeed, because publication to third persons is a
necessary element of libel, the defendants’ intentional tort actually occurred
in California. In this way, the “effects” caused by the defendants’ article-
i.e., the injury to the plaintiffs reputation in the estimation of the California
public-connected the defendants’ conduct to California, not just to a
plaintiff who lived there. That connection, combined with the various facts
that gave the article a California focus, sufficed to authorize the California
court’s exercise of jurisdiction.
Walden, 571 U.S. at 287-88 ( citations omitted). “Exercise of jurisdiction in such
circumstances 'may be constitutionally permissible if the defendant expressly aimed its
conduct at the forum.”’ Charles Schwab Corp., 883 F.3d at 87 (quoting Calder, 465 U.S.
at 789).
As several police officers were called and given false statements about supposed emergencies involving everything from grotesque rapes to child killing The court can infer that these actions were expressly aimed at the state of Indiana. See statements of Lebanon Police Department.
This case falls squarely within the “effects test” theory of Calder As this Complaint states,
harmful effects of their activities at the State of Indiana" and “knew the emotional, health related
reputational, employment and privacy-related tortious injuries they were intentionally
causing to Mr. Korman would be felt by him in the State of Indiana”
Respondents alleged activities were not “random, fortuitous, or attenuated
contacts[,]” or “the unilateral activity of a plaintiff,]” but “intentional conduct by the
defendant that creates the necessary contacts with the forum.” Walden, 571 U.S. at 286
(internal quotations and citations omitted). In sum, Indiana is the focal point both of the [tortious acts]
and of the harm suffered." Calder, 465 U.S. at 789; see also Tamburo v. Dworkin, 601
F.3d 693, 707 (7th Cir. 2010) ("Tortious acts aimed at a target in the forum state and
undertaken for the express purpose of causing injury there are sufficient to satisfy
Calder’s express-aiming requirement."). Mr. Korman’s health based and psychological and finally reputational based ‘effects’ of the false 911 calls and libel connected respondents to Indiana (Walden, 571 U.S. at 287.)
Construing the facts alleged in this Complaint in the light most favorable to
Plaintiff, he has established that Respondents has sufficient “minimum contacts” with
Indiana for specific jurisdiction.
Whether Exercising Personal Jurisdiction Over respondents is reasonable
The reasonableness inquiry centers on whether exercising jurisdiction comports
with “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Int’/ Shoe Co, 326 U.S. at
316 (internal quotation marks omitted). When examining reasonableness, the court
considers:
( 1) the burden that the exercise of jurisdiction will impose on the Respondent;
(2) the interests of the forum state in adjudicating the case; (3) the
plaintiffs interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief; ( 4) the
interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution
of the controversy; and (5) the shared interest of the states in furthering
substantive social policies.
Metro. Life Ins., 84 F .3d at 568. “While the exercise of jurisdiction is favored where the
plaintiff has made a threshold showing of minimum contacts at the first stage of the
inquiry, it may be defeated where the defendant presents 'a compelling case that the
presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable.”’ Id.
(quoting Burger King, 471 U.S. at 477).
Cabot Hosiery Mills, Inc. v. 7mesh
Indus. Inc., 2016 WL 9526678, at *4-*5 (D. Vt. June 8, 2016) (alteration adopted)
(internal quotations and citations omitted). Considering the totality of the circumstances,
this is not “a compelling case[,]” Metro. Life Ins., 84 F .3d at 568 ( quoting Burger King,
471 U.S. at 477), where exercising jurisdiction over respondents would be unreasonable.
Because Plaintiff has made “a prima facie showing that jurisdiction exists,”
Hoffeitzfor Cutlery, Inc., 763 F.2d at 57, This petition for redress of physical and mental harm is valid and must be addressed.
CONCLUSION will further base itself on the following
IN Code § 35-44.1-2-3
.‘Calling 911 to Harass.’ This law designates the misuse of the 911 system for non-emergency purposes as a misdemeanor.
The defendants knowingly used or permitted someone else to use the 911 system for reasons other than reporting emergencies or obtaining emergency aid.
The defendant’s action lacked good faith.
The defendant intended to annoy or harass another party through the misuse of the 911 system.
IN Code § 35-44.1-2-3 often referred to as the ‘False Report of an Emergency’ statute, addresses another facet of swatting. Under this law, it is illegal to falsely report an emergency to any state, county, city, town, or district emergency service. This includes police departments, fire departments, or any public or private emergency medical services.
The defendant reported or caused a report to be made to an emergency service that an emergency existed.
The defendant knew that the report was false when they made it.
The defendant made the report with the intent to annoy or harass, or with reckless disregard for the possibility of causing fear, evacuation, or the unnecessary dispatch of emergency vehicles.
IN Code § 35-44.1-2-3
The defendant falsely reported a felony or misdemeanor to a peace officer, prosecutor, grand jury, or a state or local employee assigned to accept crime reports.
The defendant knew the report was false when they made it.
2022 Indiana Code
Title 35. Criminal Law and Procedure
Article 44.1. Offenses Against General Public Administration
Chapter 2. Interference With General Government Operations
35-44.1-2-6. Impersonation of a Public Servant
Universal Citation: IN Code § 35-44.1-2-6 (2022)
Previous
Next
Sec. 6. (a) A person who, with intent to:
(1) deceive; or
(2) induce compliance with the person’s instructions, orders, or requests;
falsely represents that the person is a public servant, commits impersonation of a public servant, a Class A misdemeanor, except as provided in subsection (b).
(b) The offense described in subsection (a) is a Level 6 felony if the person falsely represents that the person is:
(1) a law enforcement officer; or
(2) an agent or employee of the department of state revenue, and collects any property from another person.
As added by P.L.126-2012, SEC.54. Amended by P.L.158-2013, SEC.505; P.L.31-2016, SEC.1.
460 Ind. Admin. Code 6-3-2
Authority: IC 12-9-2-3; IC 12-11-1.1-9; IC 12-11-2.1-12
Affected: IC 12-11-1.1; IC 12-11-2.1
Sec. 2.
“Abuse” means the following:
(1) Intentional or willful infliction of physical injury.
(2) Unnecessary physical or chemical restraints or isolation.
(3) Punishment with resulting physical harm or pain.
(4) Sexual molestation, ■■■■, sexual misconduct, sexual coercion, and sexual exploitation.
(5) Verbal or demonstrative harm caused by oral or written language, or gestures with disparaging or derogatory implications.
(6) Psychological, mental, or emotional harm caused by unreasonable confinement, intimidation, humiliation, harassment, threats of punishment, or deprivation.
460 IAC 6-3-2
Division of Disability and Rehabilitative Services; 460 IAC 6-3-2; filed Nov 4, 2002, 12:04 p.m.: 26 IR 749; readopted filed Sep 26, 2008, 11:11 a.m.: 20081015-IR-460080618RFA; Readopted filed 8/11/2014, 11:20 a.m.: 20140910-IR-460140241RFA
Readopted filed 11/9/2020, 3:08 p.m.: 20201209-IR-460200501RFA
2022 Indiana Code
Title 36. Local Government
Article 8. Public Safety
Chapter 16.7. Statewide 911 Services
36-8-16.7-46. Knowing or Intentional Placement of 911 Calls for Prohibited Purposes
Universal Citation: IN Code § 36-8-16.7-46 (2022)
Sec. 46. A person who knowingly or intentionally places a 911 call:
(1) for a purpose other than obtaining public safety assistance or emergency services; or
(2) to avoid communications service charges or fees;
commits a Class A misdemeanor.
Based on the above; all conditions have been met to show acts of extreme cruelty and malice as well as the sexual gratification by way of exploitation and frightening of the disabled And at risk individuals. This was also done under the color of law by way of impersonating police officers.
A supposed “Detective Burns.” from Beauregard Parish, Louisiana. A person claiming to be this man dispatched Brad Bailey to Mr Korman’s family home On May 4th 2023. Officer Bailey was confused and even thought he might be walking into an ambush.
All other officers were dispatched in regards to the completely false complains of ■■■■, the supposed plan to head to Deridder Louisiana to supposedly ■■■■ Mrs Andrea Hibbs, as well as the bizarre reports of Mr Korman wanting to ■■■■ and kill a 6-year-old, are completely unfounded. We will also see that Mr. Benditt sent pornographic images to Petitioner, and was knowingly working with other respondents to terrify and cause ill health to Petitioner. The company was in full knowledge of this and was partaking in it. The exhibits will also show the Confessions by Mr. Benditt, Funcom LLC, Mrs. Andrea Hibbs. Mr Hibbs, who goes by Thomas Hibbs or aliases Or “Michael Vance.”
Reports from officers Tim Edmonds And detectives, Bryan Spencer
Detective Lieutenant and Justin Fuston, Detective will prove this to be factually accurate and part of the historical record.
CONCLUSION
Based on the effects of the Calder test as well as other factual and jurisdictional examinations and proof of fake 911 calls and police reports. Petitioner requests that each Respondent pay at least 10 million United states dollars in damages.
#17654824277
she repeatedly said, “I’m saving you.”