The Goat Forges Ahead With Defamation Case Against Larry Noodles

The Goat Forges Ahead With Defamation Case Against Larry Noodles

Spread the love

On the date of July 19, 2016 the Goat filed a two count civil lawsuit against me for information that I “published on the internet under the name of Larry Noodles.”  The Goat claimed in his lawsuit that on the date of April 14, 2016, I “falsely reported a claim of sexual molestation.”  Attorney Willie the Ward filed this lawsuit on behalf of his Goat client.

On the date of March 16, 2017 I filed a countersuit against the Goat after he physically attacked me on the Sabbath for entering into a Jewish house of worship known as the Yeshiva of New Haven, AKA The Gan School, AKA The Torah Center, AKA The School of Sodom.  In any event, I was physically kicked out of a public house of worship by a member of a non-profit organization for no reason whatsoever.

On the date of July 13, 2017 attorney David Grudberg filed paperwork indicating that he would also be representing the Goat in addition to Willie the Ward.  My attorney Joseph Merly is now outnumbered. One lawyer wasn’t good enough for the Goat.  The Goat has money to spend on two lawyers, but has no money to give to his rape victims.

On the date of June 21, 2017 the Superior Court of New Haven issued the following order in the case of Goat v. Noodles:


On the date of July 28th my attorney appeared at the Superior Court to see what was going on. The Clerk of the Court indicated that nobody from the Goat’s wet dream team of attorneys showed up.  The Clerk also mentioned that Willie the Ward had filed a Motion to Exempt the Goat case from the dismissal order on July 27th. Ward wrote in his motion: “the parties agreed to suspend action on this case until a District Court trial concluded.”  Neither me nor my attorney ever agreed to suspend the Goat case until the rape trial concluded.  In any event the rape trial had already concluded when Ward filed his motion asking for additional time until “the District Court trial concluded.”  This is the same Willie the Ward who notarized the Goat’s bogus restraining order application, which was never granted.  Ward handed the meaningless stack of restraining order paperwork to Judge Shea in an attempt to get me kicked out of the Federal courthouse.  Judge Shea rebuked Ward for such unethical behavior.

Judge Abrams granted Ward’s motion to exempt the Goat case from dismissal based on Ward’s misrepresentation to the Court.  Judge Abrams issued the following order:  07/27/2017  PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXEMPT FROM DOCKET MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Result: Granted  07/27/2017  HON JAMES ABRAMS

At this point I am going to have to file a Motion to Dismiss the Goat’s defamation case.  The Goats claim against me for defamation has become moot.  The Goat was hit with a $21 million verdict in a Federal child rape case and the Goat was recently arrested for child rape.  How could I have possibly caused the Goat more damage to his reputation that he didn’t already cause to himself.  But the Goat’s reputation with his Ewe still remains intact.  The Ewe still stays by the side of her ornery Goat, and is seen arm and arm with the Goat walking around the compound.

The Connecticut Bar Association should revoke Ward’s law license for his complete disregard for the ethical of attorney behavior and moral laws of society.  If it was up to me I wouldn’t even let Ward have a drivers license.  You know the standards for lawyer competence and ethics have reached rock bottom when four attorneys, ie., Nugent, Ward, Grudberg and Greer cannot read a simple restraining order.  The only lawyer who was able to read the restraining order and explain it to Judge Shea was convict attorney Larry Noodles who is still on probation, with the Feds breathing down his neck trying to send him back to Federal prison.

Even if Willie the Ward handed Judge Shea a valid restraining order, my First Amendment constitutional right of public access to the courts would override the restraining order.  This is established constitutional law that the Goat’s three attorneys never mentioned to Judge Shea. The Second Circuit case of Huminski sets forth its principals:  “The law plays a pervasive role in our society, and the trial is its most visible manifestation. Where for lawyers the law is found in the reporters, treatises, and statutes, for the public the epitome of legal drama is the trial. Celebrated trials compete for space in the newspapers, inspiring countless repetitions and revisions in novels, on television, and in the movies. For the general public it is in these cases … that the law itself is on trial, quite as much as the cause which is to be decided. Holding court in public thus assumes a unique significance in a society that commits itself to the rule of law… there is a strong societal interest in public trials. Openness in court proceedings may improve the quality of testimony, induce unknown witnesses to come forward with relevant testimony, cause all trial participants to perform their duties more conscientiously, and generally give the public an opportunity to observe the judicial system. A result considered untoward may undermine public confidence, and where the trial has been concealed from public view an unexpected outcome can cause a reaction that the system at best has failed and at worst has been corrupted. To work effectively, it is important that society’s judicial process satisfy the appearance of justice, and the appearance of justice can best be provided by allowing people to observe it…. A person singled out for exclusion from the courtroom, who is thereby barred from first-hand knowledge of what is happening there, moreover, is placed at an extraordinary disadvantage in his or her attempt to compete in the marketplace of ideas about the conduct of judges and the judicial system.”

The Goat’s wet dream team of attorneys have no respect for the First Amendment Constitutional right of public access to the courts.  They might as well burn an American flag in the compound.  But they respect the grunting sounds of their Goat client when he hands them a bogus restraining order. These attorneys need to read Rule 1.16 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which states: “A lawyer shall not represent a client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client if: The representation will result in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.  A lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if the client persists in a course of action involving the lawyer’s services that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent, the client has used the lawyer’s services to perpetrate a crime or fraud, or the client insists upon taking action that the lawyer considers repugnant or with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement.”


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.