Ryan Katzenbach’s lawsuit

[msmart112]

I looked over the complaint last night…and I noticed this...

In 1985, Ronald DeFeo Jr., was incarcerated and without any money. By the time he and Geraldine supposedly met, Ronnie DeFeo’s grandfather, Michael S. Brigante was dead. (M.S. Brigante, Sr. died of natural causes, March 1985, and DeFeo has claimed a date much later in the year as to when he and Geraldine allegedly met for the first time, so this begs the question of why Brigante, which Geraldine Gates claimed gave her money (to both Plaintiff and author Ric Osuna) did so if she hadn’t factually met his grandson for another 3-5 months?)

...first of all...how does Ryan Katzenbach know that Ronnie was without any money in 1985?



Anyway...while Michael Brigante Sr. did indeed pass away in March of 1985...when did Ronnie claim a date “much later” in that year as to when he and Geraldine met for the first time?

And where is this "3-5 months later" claim coming from?

From the following court case...

RONALD JOSEPH DEFEO, Plaintiff, v. GERALDINE A. DEFEO, Defendant
RJI No. 55-93-00010
Index No. 930023
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, ULSTER COUNTY
September 24, 1993, Decided

...comes this line...

"Plaintiff states that he first met the defendant, Geraldine A. DeFeo, in January of 1985 while he was incarcerated at the Auburn Correctional Facility."

...so here we have Ronnie DeFeo...on record...stating that he first met Geraldine in January of 1985.

But now...Ryan Katzenbach is telling the court that Ronnie claimed a date much later than March?

[Victoria Principles]

I looked over the complaint last night…and I noticed this...

In 1985, Ronald DeFeo Jr., was incarcerated and without any money. By the time he and Geraldine supposedly met, Ronnie DeFeo’s grandfather, Michael S. Brigante was dead. (M.S. Brigante, Sr. died of natural causes, March 1985, and DeFeo has claimed a date much later in the year as to when he and Geraldine allegedly met for the first time, so this begs the question of why Brigante, which Geraldine Gates claimed gave her money (to both Plaintiff and author Ric Osuna) did so if she hadn’t factually met his grandson for another 3-5 months?)

...first of all...how does Ryan Katzenbach know that Ronnie was without any money in 1985?



Anyway...while Michael Brigante Sr. did indeed pass away in March of 1985...when did Ronnie claim a date “much later” in that year as to when he and Geraldine met for the first time?

And where is this "3-5 months later" claim coming from?

From the following court case...

RONALD JOSEPH DEFEO, Plaintiff, v. GERALDINE A. DEFEO, Defendant
RJI No. 55-93-00010
Index No. 930023
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, ULSTER COUNTY
September 24, 1993, Decided

...comes this line...

"Plaintiff states that he first met the defendant, Geraldine A. DeFeo, in January of 1985 while he was incarcerated at the Auburn Correctional Facility."

...so here we have Ronnie DeFeo...on record...stating that he first met Geraldine in January of 1985.

But now...Ryan Katzenbach is telling the court that Ronnie claimed a date much later than March?

If Ronnie first met Geraldine in 1985, then how could they have been married more than a decade before? An arranged blind date marriage?

[msmart112]

From Item 27...

Plaintiff agrees that the Gates account of an erased-marriage is fantastic and that tales of mob involvement are rather sensational.

...so the plaintiff...Ryan Katzenbach...agrees that Geraldine's account of an erased marriage is fantastic...and that her tales of mob involvement are sensational.

There are accounts and documents that both argue that Geraldine is real, pre-1974, and argue that she is a fraud.

...other than the accounts that come from Geraldine...what other accounts argue that Geraldine is "pre-1974" real?

And other than silly affidavits that were later recanted...what other documents argue that Geraldine is "pre-1974" real?

And why weren't any of these documents included in Part I of Shattered Hopes?

Whether she knew DeFeo before the murders, or post 1985 is debatable, and frankly, a matter of opinion for the viewer to decide.

...so Ryan Katzenbach admits that he agrees that Geraldine's account of an erased marriage is fantastic...and that tales of mob involvement are rather sensational...and he states that whether she knew Ronnie before the murders is debatable and a matter of opinion for the viewer to decide.

Yet in his film...he only depicts a situation involving Geraldine as having been married to Ronnie prior to the murders.

How were viewers supposed to be able to decide anything when they were only given one side of the story (that Ryan Katzenbach now calls debatable)?

And if Geraldine knowing Ronnie before the murders is debatable...then why did Ryan Katzenbach state in his film...

Dawn’s angst for this whole family situation kind of boils-out in this creative fashion. And she knew Geraldine was a musician, she knew that she was good with lyrics, and was good with writing music.

...that Dawn knew Geraldine?

[sherbetbizarre]

Yet in his film...he only depicts a situation involving Geraldine as having been married to Ronnie prior to the murders.

Exactly - he already set her up as the "real deal" about 30mins into Part 1.

Yet last night he complains...

I have never been anything but candid and honest in this research. Geraldine's veracity is discussed openly in Part III of our film, but these individuals named have every intent of usurping our film before everything we have discovered can be revealed.

Geraldine's veracity will obviously not be in doubt by the end of Part III, otherwise it renders most of Part I as useless!

Does he think his followers are that stupid?

So anyway, Peter has been served...

So I was served today at work. The sherrif was laughing his balls off. So did I after just one page . Rybaby...you dont even have a lawyer and contradicted yourself 6 times in the first 3 pages alone.

...and Ryan thinks that by talking about it, we make ourselves "complicit" -

The AmityvilleFAQ is going, at the present moment, out of their way to demonstrate their complicity with Peter Pisani, so more Plaintiffs and allegations are on their way in short order with some new Defendants. Keep talking, I am screen capturing

...yet FAQ is mentioned numerous times in the original complaint, so why wouldn't we discuss it?!


So... what IS this all about, really? I mean, Peter should be nothing more than an annoying buzzing in Shattered Hopes ears, swotted away which each new release... yet by making this lawsuit, Ryan is ADMITTING that PETER HAS SOMETHING OF VALUE TO SAY!

I want to reach out to our fans and emphasize that we've had to deal with this garbage, but we are on track to deliver Part II in the immediate future

"Sorry it's been delayed for several months now, but I really needed to write a 74 page suit to shut Gerri's son up"

There are a lot of voices who seem committed to tearing our project down, and their voices outweigh ours at times because, frankly, our supporters have lives and don't spend 24/7 on Amazon and IMDB posting :) flower :) reviews in an attempt to tear us down. This is their mission. And it's being dealt with, as you can see.

Lol - he's really annoyed about those Amazon reviews! But hey, they were honest, and me and Dan wrote them under our own names - so where's the conspiracy?

And how can we "tear down" a $200,000 production with exposure on CBS and Maxim (which Ryan boasts could expose him to up to 6million readers) ? If sales were not as expected, then the problem lies with the product itself, and lack of advertising/proper distribution.

BTW, how do six "bad" Amazon reviews outweigh the nine 5-star ones?

http://www.amazon.com/Shattered-Hopes-A ... ered+hopes

...that's not going to stand up in court!

And IMDB has just 2 reviews - one good, one bad. Real waste of our 24/7 online trashing of his film then.

So here he is saying he has every right to sue anyone he wishes... but then lies about the statistics!

"...and their voices outweigh ours at times because, frankly, our supporters have lives and don't spend 24/7 on Amazon and IMDB posting :) flower :) reviews in an attempt to tear us down."

Total good reviews 10
Total bad reviews 7

And, how will they deal with the facts and documents presented in Part II, which is forthcoming VERY SOON, which have nothing to do with Geraldine?

That's funny because in the Complaint, Ryan claims "she is featured throughout all three installments of the Plaintiff's film"!

So there's another contradiction for Peter.

And the whole idea that Peter is hurting sales is pathetic, and shows there is no faith in the "Plaintiff's film" which should be doing the talking for them.

DAMN STRAIGHT, WE ARE GOING TO COURT, and I am taking Peter's complicit pals with me. You want to debate me, fine. We will do it in front of Judge Wright in Los Angeles. And BTW, FAQ, get ready to give up a lot of info in formal Discovery. Such as IP addresses and identities, because the subpoenas and interrogatories are going to start flying. Followed by depositions. Debate? Abso-friggin-lutely.

[astonio]

Ok. This morning, this guy is a RIOT!!! I'm genuinely laughing from his responses. Wow man, never would have taken Ryan as a funny guy.

[Dan the Damned]

So anyway, Peter has been served...

So I was served today at work. The sherrif was laughing his balls off. So did I after just one page . Rybaby...you dont even have a lawyer and contradicted yourself 6 times in the first 3 pages alone.

...and Ryan thinks that by talking about it, we make ourselves "complicit" -

The AmityvilleFAQ is going, at the present moment, out of their way to demonstrate their complicity with Peter Pisani, so more Plaintiffs and allegations are on their way in short order with some new Defendants. Keep talking, I am screen capturing

...yet FAQ is mentioned numerous times in the original complaint, so why wouldn't we discuss it?!


So... what IS this all about, really? I mean, Peter should be nothing more than an annoying buzzing in Shattered Hopes ears, swotted away which each new release... yet by making this lawsuit, Ryan is ADMITTING that PETER HAS SOMETHING OF VALUE TO SAY!

It's simply about Ryan wanting to shut Peter up. He admits he did the same to Tracey when he sued her a few years ago:

"The only "adventure" with Tracey was court which caused her to back down and leave us alone, which is all I wanted from the beginning."

(quoted from this post)

And if you remember, the majority of that lawsuit was thrown out of court (as this one will be) with the remainder (2 instances of possible libel) quietly going away when Ric/Ryan failed to pursue the matter (most likely knowing they wouldn't prevail, anyway). Ryan didn't shut Tracey up -- her failing relationship with Ronnie is what probably caused her to lose interest in the whole matter.

I want to reach out to our fans and emphasize that we've had to deal with this garbage, but we are on track to deliver Part II in the immediate future

"Sorry it's been delayed for several months now, but I really needed to write a 74 page suit to shut Gerri's son up"

LMAO! Yeah, how funny is that? You know he spent a f*ck of a lot of time putting that together, looking up various legal citations and whatnot. If only he spent a fraction of that time investigating Geraldine's story...

[msmart112]

From Item 17...

The defendant was born to Gates, out of wedlock, on 14 December 1975.

...if Geraldine wasn’t married to Joseph Pisani when Peter was born...then why did Geraldine state (in 1990) that she married Joseph Pisani in April of 1974?

And if Geraldine wasn’t married to Joseph Pisani when Peter was born...then why did Geraldine sign her name as Geraldine Pisani on this 1975 document...just days before Peter was born...

Gates, in all her candor, told Plaintiff repeatedly that after DeFeo had been incarcerated, she basically went “crazy” in enjoying her newfound freedom.

...but according to TNTDD...the book that Shattered Hopes is based on...after Ronnie was incarcerated...Geraldine spent all of her time visiting him...

Everyone was gone: Butch, Allison, all of them. My hopes and dreams died on November 13, 1974. So I couldn’t bear life if I wasn’t high on something. And I would spend most of my free time near Butch, crying from the start of the visit to the end. Butch couldn’t stand seeing me like that, so in 1977 he filed for divorce.

...so did she go "crazy" in enjoying her newfound freedom...or did she spend most of her free time near Ronnie?

[Dan the Damned]

...so did she go "crazy" in enjoying her newfound freedom...or did she spend most of her free time near Ronnie?

Whichever. Whatever works. Depends on what they need at the time to make their story work.

[msmart112]

More from Item 17...

She has historically stated that her relationship, whether it be just that or a formal marriage, was on the rocks with DeFeo well before the murders, and she was contemplating leaving him when the murders occurred. The crime, and her subsequent concealment by her Genovese family, took care of any need for a formal divorce.

...since Ryan has spoken to Geraldine on a regular basis for roughly ten years...shouldn’t he know by now whether or not Ronnie and Geraldine were legally married in the seventies?

And if there was no formal divorce...then why were there so many references to a divorce in TNTDD...

Butch couldn’t stand seeing me like that, so in 1977 he filed for divorce.

Over the next two years, following the divorce, Geraldine picked up the shattered pieces of her life. After she sobered up, she restarted her singing career. When she was not singing, she was either attending law school or trying to be a better mother.

Although Geraldine had divorced Butch, she remained close to Michael Brigante Sr., who had called in every contact he knew to ensure that she and her children were hidden from the mess of Amityville and the media circus that followed. Because of his friendship with Carlo Gambino and his connection to the Colombos, not to mention Geraldine’s ties to the Genovese family, Butch and Geraldine’s marriage license and divorce papers miraculously disappeared.

Here we have Ryan saying that it’s important for the court to consider that Peter has no personal recollection of events that took place before he was born...

Given the timeframe, the DeFendant was born well after the fact and he has no personal recollection of the events that took place before his birth, which is something important to consider in this decision.

...but if jump ahead to Item 27...

What is known and documented, however, is that Geraldine Gates, regardless of one believes, did have a documented relationship with DeFeo post-1985 that spanned for twenty years.If she is lying about being with DeFeo before the murders, it’s irrelevant asserts plaintiff. The point here is that when her stories are compared to those who factually knew the DeFeos, their accounts match perfectly. Whether she knew them firsthand, or she learned all this information from Ronnie DeFeo during prison visitations or through letters doesn’t matter. She is a viable witness to the story one way or the other.

...we have Ryan saying that even if Geraldine has no personal recollection of events pre-1985...she is still a viable witness to the story.

So it would be OK for Geraldine to have no personal recollections…but it’s not OK if Peter doesn’t have any personal recollections?

[sherbetbizarre]

Defendant says his mother is a liar.

Defendant says therefore Plaintiff's documentary is fraudulent.

Plaintiff sues Defendant, saying it doesn't matter if she's a liar.

[msmart112]

From Item 24...

A website, http://www.amityvillefaq.com, which is administered by Daniel Joseph Nolte of Fullerton, California has doggedly followed and harassed Plaintiff Katzenbach for seven or eight years.

...so a website has doggedly followed and harassed Ryan for seven or eight years?

However, the largest segment of their website is, as can be ascertained by even a lame person, devoted to a very public smear campaign and adhomenen character attack of the Plaintiff. Nolte, and his band of moderators, which include persons all over the United States, have defamed, libeled, and impersonated the Plaintiff in a number of ways. The group has posted ascinine YouTube clips which have nothing to do with Plaintiff’s project and attributed them to the Plaintiff’s project in an effort to make Plaintiff look foolish in front of the general public.

...first of all...it’s layperson...not lame person.

Second...it’s ad hominem...not adhomenen.

Third...it’s asinine...not ascinine.

Fourth...the Plaintiff doesn’t need the help of this board to make himself look foolish in front of the general public.

...owner Dan Nolte has orchestrated the hate mailing of defamatory statements about the Plaintiff to other parties associated with the DeFeo case from Anaheim, California with a Disneyland return address, which is Nolte’s former employee.

...I wonder what proof Ryan has that Dan ever did such a thing?

If he has no proof...then wouldn’t that be a libelous comment?

Speaking of libelous comments...

Discrediting Katzenbach is Nolte’s number one priority as asserted by Plaintiff and he allows anyone on the page who shares his agenda without any sense, as a webmaster, of controlling or mitigating libellous comments.

...this coming from the guy who uses his website and his film’s FB page to threaten people and blackmail people...

Peter: if you keep this up, I am going to post certain details about what you did to your former girlfriend, Melissa.

This is how (Dan) gets away with his irresponsible behavior...by hosting his own website he can say anything he wants. But, it's time for his day in the sun. Enough. He has a choice to make now...he can dissolve the thread on myself and my film and move on in life, or, he can face what is coming. His choice. I don't care either way. But I promise, for sure, it won't be worth it if he elects to cross the German Taurus bull.

[Shawn]

Would trying to intimidate and harass members of this board by RyKat by scaring them with frivolous lawsuits constitute a sue-able offense? It sure sounds a lot like cyber terrorism to me. May even be a criminal act going on there....

Also, would accepting monies for an item, say like a DVD, then threatening those customers with information garnered in such a way be against the law?

I think this can of worms is going to get much bigger.

[msmart112]

From Item 28...

Stephanie and Joe Pisani remain, to this day, in contact. While Geraldine Gates asserts that Ronald DeFeo, Jr. is Stephanie’s biological father, something that Stephanie does not refute or agree with as she seems completely indifferent to who her biological father is, she is very candid in her assertion that she regards Joseph Pisani as her "father" because he helped raise her while her mother was away for extended periods of time in the late 1970’s. Her loyalty and love for Joe Pisani is why she took the Pisani last name.

...wouldn't she have been GIVEN the Pisani last name when she was born...since Joseph Pisani is listed as her father on her birth certificate?

The next thing Plaintiff considered: Geraldine Gates’ asserts that she does not know who DeFendant’s father is as she was having unprotected sexual relations with multiple sex partners during the time that Defendant conceived her bastard child.

So Peter conceived Geraldine’s bastard child?

And isn't Ryan referring to Peter as a bastard child (without any proof to support such a claim) libelous?

Becaue it sure would be if Peter had called Ryan a bastard child.

[msmart112]

From Item 35...

Frist, Katzenbach’s film features a woman, admittedly Pisani’s mother, who is revealing a personal account that happened before Pisani was ever born and therefore, given this, he has no personal knowledge as the events that transpired before his conception and birth and he cannot speak of what he doesn’t know firsthand (emphasis added by Plaintiff).

...but going back to Item 27...

If she is lying about being with DeFeo before the murders, it’s irrelevant asserts plaintiff. The point here is that when her stories are compared to those who factually knew the DeFeos, their accounts match perfectly. Whether she knew them firsthand, or she learned all this information from Ronnie DeFeo during prison visitations or through letters doesn’t matter. She is a viable witness to the story one way or the other.

...again...why would it be OK for Geraldine to talk about things that she doesn’t know firsthand…but not be OK for Peter to do so?

[msmart112]

From Item 45...

The statement "Katzenbach is trying to ruin my credibility" is defamation under Cal. Civ. Code 45(a) as it is libel on its face because it asserts that plaintiff engages in underhanded and ethically-wanting activities to ruin another person’s name.

...this coming from the same guy who had this to say about Dan...

...owner Dan Nolte has orchestrated the hate mailing of defamatory statements about the Plaintiff to other parties associated with the DeFeo case from Anaheim, California with a Disneyland return address, which is Nolte’s former employee.

...with absolutely NOTHING to back-up his claim.

Maybe Dan should sue Ryan?

[msmart112]

From Item 46...

Defendant’s statement that Plaintiff is a "pu**y" is defamtory on its face. Any reasonable person would draw from this that Plaintiff is a whimp or a coward, and this is a direct slur at Katzenbach’s manhood. (As addressed in the Third Cause of Action, these words, and other passages uttered and promoted by the Defendant, are violations of the Federal Fighting Words Doctrine which holds that certain types of free speech are entirely non-productive and enlisted on for the purpose of inciting hate.) Notably to the Court, Defendant would come to defame Plaintiff’s sirname repeatedly, calling him "Katzenbachdouche" or "Katzenpu**y" on open public forums, including the AmityvilleFAQ and on Defendant’s Facebook page repeatedly.

...first of all...it’s surname...not sirname.

As for non-productive free speech enlisted on for the purpose of inciting hate...let’s have a look at the type of comments that Ryan Katzenbach allows to be posted on his film’s public FB page...

[TigresMeow]

Why is the pot calling the kettle black?

Ryan is accusing Peter and does 1-100 of doing things that he himself is guilty of. And I am sure people have screenshots of that also if one wants to get technical about it.

And why would Geraldine be a "viable" witness if she wasn't present or even in DeFeo's life when the murders occurred? Wouldn't that be heresay because she would just be repeating what Ronnie told her? How does that make her viable? By that reasoning wouldn't Tracey be a "viable" witness also?

I admit I do not have a law degree or anything close to it but how can there be fictiously named Defendents? Does that mean they don't exist? Maybe Scipio can help me out with that.

One last thing, who is Howard Gates? Isn't it supposed to be Gerald Gates? Or maybe this Howard Gates is related to Gerald Gates?

There was alot of confusion in what was written and I am far from being a "lame person" (I am a lay person tho) and I am of above average intelligence.

[PeterPisani]

Gerald Howard Gates. Husband of My Mother.

[Shawn]

Max brings up a great point. Calling Peter a "bastard" is very much libelous. And it's actually slanderous as well, given that he has told others in person of his feelings on that.(for those that do not know, libel is written, slander is spoken~but both essentially the same thing. Libel is just easier to prove and imo, Peter has a solid case here)

I have said it before, on this very board, that Ryan is stabbing himself in the ass. This case will be litigated by a Judge that hopefully will see what is really going on. And *if* i was Peter, i would be striking for a counter suit for defamation of character. Plus I would also sue everyone involved including his sisters, mother and anyone else that is lying(all of them).

One thing perplexes me though. If RyKat claims that a crime was committed(LOL), wouldn't one file in the state where the alleged "crime" took place, such as Peter's home state? After all, Peter did not post from California.....

(I already know the answer...just putting it out there.... )

[Shawn]

Gerald Howard Gates. Husband of My Mother.

Ok...i'm lost on this one.

Why was his middle name used? To create confusion? A failure at subterfuge?

[msmart112]

Why is the pot calling the kettle black?

Ryan is accusing Peter and does 1-100 of doing things that he himself is guilty of.

Yeah...Ryan is known for that.

Here’s a great example from Item 90...

Defendant has actively sought, through the California Federal Bankruptcy Court, a copy of a bankruptcy filed (and ultimately discharged) by Plaintiff in January 2005, over seven years ago which was, primarily, a medical bankruptcy. The case is completely irrelevant to any current discussion regarding the Amityville case, yet the Defendant has released information, including part of the Plaintiff’s social security number, about it in various online forums. The fact that Defendant is willing to go so far in his efforts to dig into Plaintiff’s background demonstrates actual malice and a willful intent to destroy the Plaintiff’s credibility.

...yet...back in November.....Ryan posted this on his film's FB page...

In a few weeks, if this website does not cease and desist in their defamation of me, we are going to take a good hard look at an April 2011 Chapter 7 case that was recently discharged.

...evidently...when Ryan Katzenbach digs into someone’s background...it’s perfectly OK...but if someone digs into Ryan Katzenbach’s background...it’s actual malice and willful intent to destroy his credibility.