Hohensee v. Watson

188 F. Supp. 941, 1959 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4029, 1959 Trade Cas. (CCH) 69,559
CourtDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
DecidedNovember 11, 1959
DocketCiv. A. No. 6016
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 188 F. Supp. 941 (Hohensee v. Watson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hohensee v. Watson, 188 F. Supp. 941, 1959 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4029, 1959 Trade Cas. (CCH) 69,559 (M.D. Pa. 1959).

Opinion

FOLLMER, District Judge.

The plaintiffs in this action1 are Mildred Hohensee, Richard Roe No. 1 and Richard Roe No. 2. The defendants are listed as follows: Albert L. Watson; American Medical Association, its officers and members, John Doe No. 1 through No. 4; J. Julius Levy; Stephen Teller; George Clark, and John Doe No. 1 through No. 3.

The complaint alleges that the action is brought under 15 U.S.C.A. § 15 2 and in it the plaintiffs seek treble damages in the sum of Ten Million Dollars. The complaint further alleges “The grounds upon which the jurisdiction of this Court depends is that this is an action to protect trade and commerce against restraints and monopolies.”

The complaint is captioned “Conspiracy To Murder Adolphus Hohensee and Waiver of Murder Responsibility.”

[943]*943The complaint further alleges that at all times mentioned in the complaint plaintiffs were engaged in the business of lecturing and selling products in interstate commerce. The complaint further alleges that the conspirators named as defendants in order to destroy and impoverish plaintiff, Mildred Hohensee, have done the unlawful acts therein complained of, namely, doping and drugging Adolphus Hohensee, husband of plaintiff Mildred Hohensee, while serving a sentence in Federal Penitentiary,3 plotting to murder the said Adolphus Hohensee with narcotics; that the conspirators caused the wrongful conviction of said Adolphus Hohensee, resulting in a sentence of one year and one day in a federal penitentiary, for sending pure, wholesome and unadulterated food items such as whole wheat from Scranton, Pennsylvania, to Denver, Colorado; that as a result of said conspiracy in restraint of trade, plaintiff was directly injured and damaged in her business, profession, or otherwise, as follows: cancellation of leases for lectures in various auditoriums, was slandered and defamed, suffered destruction of personal property, suffered physical pain and mental anguish and monetary loss resulting from the physical and mental torture and wrongful confinement of her innocent husband, and other wrongs and injuries done to plaintiff.

American Medical Association was not served with process.

Defendants Albert L. Watson, J. Julius Levy, Stephen Teller and George Clark have filed motions to dismiss on the grounds: (1) lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter; (2) lack of jurisdiction of the persons, and (3) failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.

Defendant Clark also filed motion to strike the complaint on the grounds: (1) allegations of complaint are impertinent and scandalous; (2) allegations of complaint are so absurd and preposterous that they constitute an affront to the dignity of this Court and represent a gross abuse of a plaintiff’s privilege to bring suit in a court of law.

Plaintiff, Mildred Hohensee, filed an affidavit of bias and prejudice against Honorable John W. Murphy, Chief Judge of this Court, whereupon the ease was transferred to the writer of this Memorandum and Order.

For the reasons stated by this Court in Hohensee v. Goon Squad et al., 1959, 171 F.Supp. 562, the motions to dismiss must be granted on the ground that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted.4

I further conclude that the complaint should be stricken from the record as scandalous.5

Motions to dismiss the complaint and to strike it from the record are granted.

A large number of motions were filed by plaintiffs. In the light of the above mentioned Memorandum, most of the motions, in any event, would be moot.6

All motions filed by plaintiffs are denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Carone v. Whalen
121 F.R.D. 231 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1988)
Ex parte Tyler
70 F.R.D. 456 (E.D. Missouri, 1975)
Hohensee v. Watson
283 F.2d 950 (Third Circuit, 1960)
No. 13116
283 F.2d 950 (Third Circuit, 1960)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
188 F. Supp. 941, 1959 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4029, 1959 Trade Cas. (CCH) 69,559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hohensee-v-watson-pamd-1959.