In our supplemental findings of fact we have collated other instances of Galella's perjury in his testimony concerning Galella v onassis Fenton, Joyce Smith, other assistants, the chase in Central Park, plaintiff's log and the waiter at Capri.
But here is what the majority's modification of the critical distance provisions of the injunction has done: Bivens, supra, F. This has been construed by our Court to require that "the party enjoined must be able to ascertain from the four corners of the order precisely what acts are forbidden.
As to how he learned that defendant was at El Morocco on January 9,Galella testified that the El Morocco doorman had called him. Any further restriction on Galella's taking and selling pictures of defendant for news coverage is, however, improper and unwarranted by the evidence. On January 25,over nine 9 months late, plaintiff filed a jury demand.
Onassis or her children, or conduct which would "reasonably be foreseen" to harass, alarm or frighten them. Andrews formerly head master there also testified to an occasion when he found plaintiff wandering about the school corridor.
He stretched it to the breaking point. After leaving the store, defendant and her party went to the theatre.
I met her in person for the first time, two years later, on Dec. Qualitatively and quantitatively the total proof adduced on behalf of defendant fully meets the burden of credible testimony by a preponderance of the proof.
I know he wants to catch me looking terrified. He came so close. Plaintiff continued at enormous length to toss around without restraint his baseless "facts. On January 19,Alexander Julien, Esq. The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
The Circuit Court cited two cases which substantively teach that a judge need not recuse himself on the basis of what he learns while performing his judicial duties; only those things emanating from an extra-judicial source can form a basis for recusal. Delaware Valley Marine Supply Co.
The ruling on the affidavits of the children may well be error but in the light of the overwhelming other proof the ruling was surely harmless. Julien stated that he would confer with his client, and if Galella decided to proceed, the appropriate and procedurally proper application would be made.
Onassis were taken on January 9, The initial deposition was taken a month prior to trial; a second session on questions raised and previously unanswered in the first session was held six days before trial.
Again, this destruction of potential evidence gives rise to the most negative sort of inference. The action was removed under 28 U. Since we foresee minimal precedential impact for this decision, and because we are properly concerned that the sparse judicial resources of this Court should not be expended unnecessarily—particularly where the question is not of unusual importance—reconsideration of the question en banc would be wholly unwarranted.
Not only were the facts of that case very different from those here, but more important, the Supreme Court expressly stated that it was not passing upon the question of immunity from liability by virtue of their official position.
This contempt motion but not the underlying October 8, order was ultimately withdrawn at trial.
The United States' presence in the case created a real threat of two trials—one federal and one state—on the same operative facts if the Onassis-Galella claims were remanded.
See Noonan, supra, F. The injunction enjoined Galella from keeping Onassis or her children under surveillance, from following them, from coming within yards of Onassis’s home or the children’s schools, within 75 yards of the children, or within 50 yards of Onassis, from using the name or picture of Onassis or her.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK,July 5, ,The opinion of the court was delivered by: COOPER,Ronald E.
GALELLA, Plaintiff, v. Jacqueline ONASSIS et al., Defendants, United States of America, Intervenor  Cooper, District Judge.
JACQUELINE KENNEDY ONASSIS and Ron Galella are back in court in New York, Mrs. Onassis asking the court to protect her from further harassment, and Mr.
Galella crying "freedom of the press.". Galella v. Onassis, F. Supp. (S.D.N.Y. ) case opinion from the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. Galella's claim against Mrs. Onassis, originally in federal court as an action joined with that against the Secret Service agents, was not automatically stripped of federal pendent jurisdiction by the dismissal of the claim against the agents.
Friedman testified that Galella told him that he, Galella, had told Mr. Onassis that he would stop if he were given a job with Olympic Airlines.
() Galella admitted he had asked Mr. Onassis for a job with Olympic Airlines, but denied offering to stop in exchange for the job.Galella v onassis