 |
| THE TRUE STORY BEHIND THE DEVIL IN CONNECTICUT |
| RETURN DATE: MARCH 4, 2008 : SUPERIOR COURT
CARL GLATZEL, JR., ET AL : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY VS.: AT DANBURY GERALD D. BRITTLE, ET AL : JANUARY 24, 2008 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FIRST COUNT: INVASION OF RIGHT TO PRIVACY (CARL GLATZEL, JR. AND DAVID GLATZEL VS. GERALD D. BRITTLE, iUNIVERSE INCORPORATED, JAMES MALLOY, III, JOSHUA SMITH, LORRAINE WARREN AND SETH WIMMER) 1. At all times relevant hereto, the plaintiff, Carl Glatzel, Jr., resided in the town of Brookfield, county of Fairfield, state of Connecticut. 2. At all times relevant hereto, the plaintiff, David Glatzel, resided in the town of Brookfield, county of Fairfield, state of Connecticut. 3. The first named defendant, Gerald Brittle, resides in the town of Richmond, county of Richmond, state of Virginia, and is the author of The Devil in Connecticut (iUniverse 2006). Brittle's acts, as alleged herein, constitute the commission of tortious acts within the state of Connecticut. 4. The defendant, iUniverse Incorporated, is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, with its principle place of business at 2021 Pine Lake Road, Suite 100, Lincoln, NE 68512, and is engaged in the business of publishing books. iUniverse published "The Devil in Connecticut" in 2006. iUniverse Incorporated transacts business within the state of Connecticut. 5. The defendant, James E. Malloy, III, is the president and chief executive officer of Malloy Media Group. His principle place of business is 11664 National Blvd, Suite #322, Los Angeles, CA 90064. Malloy drafted a screen play adaptation of The Devil in Connecticut (iUniverse 2006). Malloy's acts, as alleged herein, constitute the commission of tortious acts within the state of Connecticut. 6. The defendant, Joshua Smith, is a partner in the Malloy Media Group. His principle place of business is 11664 National Blvd, Suite #322, Los Angeles, CA 90064. Smith drafted a screen play adaptation of The Devil in Connecticut (iUniverse 2006). Smith's acts, as alleged herein, constitute the commission of tortious acts within the state of Connecticut. 7. The defendant, Lorraine Warren, resides in the town of Monroe, county of Fairfield, state of Connecticut, and is engaged in the business of paranormal investigations. She investigated the subject matter of The Devil in Connecticut (iUniverse 2006), and her account of events is the basis of that book, as well as the screen play adaptation drafted by Malloy, Smith and Wimmer. 8. The defendant, Seth Wimmer, is a partner in the Malloy Media Group. His principle place of business is 11664 National Blvd, Suite #322, Los Angeles, CA 90064. Wimmer drafted a screen play adaptation of The Devil in Connecticut (iUniverse 2006). Wimmer's acts, as alleged herein, constitute the commission of tortious acts within the state of Connecticut. 9. During his childhood, David Glatzel suffered from behavioral problems and learning disabilities, and may have been mentally ill. From 1979 until 1982, he suffered from several episodes of increased symptoms. 10. Carl Glatzel, Jr., is David Glatzel's older brother, and was present during these episodes. 11. Lorraine Warren investigated David Glatzel's symptoms, speculating that supernatural forces caused the episodes. She published an account of her experience with the Glatzel family to Gerald Brittle for the purposes of contributing to the creation of The Devil in Connecticut (iUniverse 2006). 12. Gerald Brittle is the author of The Devil in Connecticut (iUniverse 2006). This book was initially published by Bantam Books in November of 1983. It was republished in July of 2006 by iUniverse Incorporated. This book incorporated and republished the account of Lorraine Warren, and was sold to readers in the state of Connecticut, and throughout the United States and Europe, after publication in 2006. Said writing contained the following false and defamatory matter: that David Glatzel was possessed by demons and that Carl Glatzel, Jr., was influenced by demonic forces into committing assaults and batteries on members of the Glatzel family and others. 13. In an attempt to secure funding for a movie project, James Malloy, III, drafted and circulated a screen play based upon The Devil in Connecticut (iUniverse 2006) to potential investors, partners and other diverse persons. Said writing contained the following false and defamatory matter: that David Glatzel was possessed by demons and that Carl Glatzel, Jr., was influenced by demonic forces into committing assaults and batteries on members of the Glatzel family and others. 14. David Glatzel recovered from the episodes he suffered from during his early life. 15. Since that time, Carl Glatzel, Jr., and David Glatzel have lived quietly, assumed respectable roles in society, and made several friends and acquaintances who were not aware of said incidents that David Glatzel suffered from during his early life, or the effects of said incidents on the Glatzel family. 16. During the early 1980s, the defendants Gerald Brittle and Lorraine Warren, without the plaintiffs' prior knowledge or consent, produced and released the book entitled "The Devil in Connecticut," based on a fictionalized account of the plaintiffs' past life. Brittle and Warren advertized said book as an accurate, non-fictional account of Lorraine Warren's observations. 17. Brittle, iUniverse Incorporated and Warren, without the plaintiffs' prior knowledge or consent, republished the book entitled The Devil in Connecticut in 2006. 18. Malloy, Smith and Wimmer, without the plaintiffs' consent, drafted and circulated their screenplay titled The Devil in Connecticut, which was based on the book The Devil in Connecticut (iUniverse 2006). Said screenplay was published to prospective investors and other diverse persons. 19. Brittle, iUniverse, Inc., Malloy, Smith, Warren and Wimmer, without the plaintiffs' prior knowledge or consent, advertised that the plots of The Devil in Connecticut book and screenplay described true and unsavory incidents in the plaintiffs' lives. 20. Brittle, iUniverse, Inc., Malloy, Smith, Warren and Wimmer unreasonably and seriously interfered with the plaintiffs' interest in not having their private affairs known to others. 21. Brittle, iUniverse, Inc., Malloy, Smith, Warren and Wimmer knew or should have known that the plaintiffs did not want their names used in connection with "The Devil in Connecticut." The incidents described therein, and the production, release and advertisement of said book invaded the plaintiffs' right of privacy by specifically identifying them with said unsavory incidents of their past lives. 22. The fictitious account portrayed in "The Devil in Connecticut" is highly offensive to the plaintiffs. Brittle, iUniverse, Inc., Malloy, Smith, Warren and Wimmer knew of, or acted in reckless disregard as to, the falsity of statements made in the book. 23 The statements contained in "The Devil in Connecticut" are false and derogatory to the plaintiffs. 24. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of the defendants, the plaintiffs were subject to ridicule, embarrassment, vexation and humiliation, as well as loss of potential earnings. SECOND COUNT: LIBEL (CARL GLATZEL, JR. AND DAVID GLATZEL VS. GERALD D. BRITTLE, iUNIVERSE INCORPORATED, JAMES MALLOY, III, JOSHUA SMITH, LORRAINE WARREN AND SETH WIMMER) 1-22. Paragraphs one through twenty-two of the first count are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. 23. During the 1982 and 1983, Gerald D. Brittle and Lorraine Warren maliciously prepared and composed, of and concerning the plaintiffs, the following writing: The Devil in Connecticut (iUniverse 2006). Said writing contained the following false and defamatory matter: that David Glatzel was possessed by demons and that Carl Glatzel, Jr., was influenced by demonic forces into committing assaults and batteries on members of the Glatzel family and others. Said defamatory matter was delivered by Gerald Brittle and Lorraine Warren to iUniverse Incorporated, to be read by them. Pursuant to the defendants' malicious intent, said writing was republished in July of 2006, and offered to the public, and was read by divers other persons. 24. James Malloy, III, purchased the option to produce a movie based on The Devil in Connecticut (iUniverse 2006). As part of his production, Malloy, Smith and Wimmer wrote a screen play that depicted David Glatzel as possessed by demons, and Carl Glatzel, Jr., as influenced by demonic forces. 25. In making said communications, the defendants did intend it to mean that David Glatzel was possessed by demons, and that Carl Glatzel, Jr., was influenced by demons. Said persons to who said defamatory matter was communicated as aforesaid understood said words to have said meaning. 26. Said defamatory matter, communicated as aforesaid, did, and was calculated to, cause great injury to plaintiffs' reputation, in that it associates the plaintiffs with evil, supernatural forces, discloses David Glatzel's behavioral problems, and alleges that Carl Glatzel, Jr., committed abusive and/or criminal acts towards members of his family and others. 27. At the time of said defamatory publication, the defendants knew that said words were untrue. In making said defamatory publication, the defendants acted with malice toward the plaintiffs. 28. Pursuant to General Statutes � 52-237, on August 9, 2007, the plaintiff demanded a retraction, in writing, by Gerald Brittle, Lorraine Warren and iUniverse Incorporated of said defamatory statements. Following receipt of plaintiffs' said demand for a retraction, the defendants did, and continue to, fail and refuse to comply with said demand. 29. As a result of the publication of said defamatory statements, the plaintiffs have suffered damages. THIRD COUNT: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (CARL GLATZEL, JR. AND DAVID GLATZEL VS. GERALD D. BRITTLE, iUNIVERSE INCORPORATED, JAMES MALLOY, III, JOSHUA SMITH, LORRAINE WARREN AND SETH WIMMER) 1-29. Paragraphs one through twenty-nine of the second count are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. 30. In committing the aforementioned acts, the defendants knew or should have known that emotional distress was the likely result of their acts. 31. The defendants' aforementioned acts constitute extreme and outrageous conduct. 32. That the defendants' aforementioned acts caused the plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress. The plaintiff, Carl Glatzel, Jr., and David Glatzel, by: _______________________ Gregory T. Nolan Febbroriello, Conti & Levy 355 Prospect Street Torrington, CT 06790-0239 Juris No. 19202 RETURN DATE: MARCH 4, 2008 : SUPERIOR COURT CARL GLATZEL, JR., ET AL : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY VS. : AT DANBURY GERALD D. BRITTLE, ET AL : JANUARY 24, 2008 CLAIMS FOR RELIEF The plaintiffs claim: 1. Monetary damages; 2. Compensatory damages; 3. An injunction preventing further publication of said defamatory statements; and 4. Such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. The plaintiff, Carl Glatzel, Jr., and David Glatzel, by: _______________________ Gregory T. Nolan Febbroriello, Conti & Levy 355 Prospect Street Torrington, CT 06790-0239 Juris No. 19202 RETURN DATE: MARCH 4, 2008 : SUPERIOR COURT CARL GLATZEL, JR., ET AL : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY VS. : AT DANBURY GERALD D. BRITTLE, ET AL : JANUARY 24, 2008 STATEMENT OF AMOUNT IN DEMAND The plaintiff claim monetary damages against the defendant in excess of FIFTEEN THOUSAND ($15,000.00) DOLLARS, together with interest and costs and such further relief as the Court finds equitable and proper. The plaintiff, Carl Glatzel, Jr., and David Glatzel, by: _______________________ Gregory T. Nolan Febbroriello, Conti & Levy 355 Prospect Street Torrington, CT 06790-0239 Juris No. 19202 RETURN DATE: MARCH 4, 2008 : SUPERIOR COURT CARL GLATZEL, JR., ET AL : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY VS. : AT DANBURY GERALD D. BRITTLE, ET AL : JANUARY 24, 2008 AFFIDAVIT AND VERIFICATION STATE OF CONNECTICUT ) ) ss: TORRINGTON COUNTY OF LITCHFIELD ) The undersigned, being duly sworn, does hereby depose and say: 1. I, Carl Glatzel, Jr., am over the age of 18, and believe in the obligations of an oath. 2. I state under oath that I have read the foregoing compliant, and that all of the factual matters set forth in the Complaint attached hereto are, to the best of my personal knowledge, true and correct. __________________________ Carl Glatzel, Jr. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 21 day of December, 2007. __________________________ Gregory T. Nolan, Esq. Commissioner of the Superior Court |