Case 3:15-cv-00092-TCB Document 24 Filed 07/17/15 Page 1 of 29

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
NEWNAN DIVISION
_________________________________
JOHN H. MURPHY,
Plaintiff,
v.
MILLARD C. FARMER, JR.,
ALFRED E. KING, JR.,
LARRY KING, P.C.,
DEBORAH L. BEACHAM, and
MY Advocate Center, INC.,
Defendants.
__________________________________)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action File

No. 3:15-CV-00092-TCB

DEFENDANTS DEBORAH L. BEACHAM

AND MY ADVOCATE CENTER, INC.S
MOTION TO DISMISS
COME NOW DEBORAH L. BEACHAM and MY ADVOCATE
CENTER, INC. , named as Defendants in the above-styled action and,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), submit this motion to
dismiss the Complaint against these Defendants, respectfully showing the
Court as follows:
1

Case 3:15-cv-00092-TCB Document 24 Filed 07/17/15 Page 2 of 29

THE COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs 152-page Complaint primarily alleges a racketeering
scheme, led by Defendant Millard C. Farmer, Jr., the lawyer representing
Plaintiffs ex-wife Michelle Murphy in the Child Custody Litigation
concerning Plaintiff and Michelle Murphys two children (the Children).
[Dkt. 1, p. 1-4].
Allegations concerning the Enterprise: Plaintiff alleges that Farmer
is the mastermind of an enterprise that has committed a variety of
criminal acts in order to extort [Plaintiff and his current wife] into
abandoning his claims in the Child Custody litigation and paying
Defendant Farmers demand for attorneys fees. [Dkt. 1, p. 9]. There are
effectively only two other members of the enterprise:

(1) Alfred L.

Larry King, Defendant Farmers co-counsel in the Child Custody

Litigation from 2012 until his withdrawal in September 2014; and (2)
Deborah L. Beacham (Beacham) and My Advocate Center, Inc.
(Advocate Center), who allegedly joined the enterprise at about the
time Mr. King withdrew from the case. [Dkt. 1, pp. 4-5; 66].
2

Case 3:15-cv-00092-TCB Document 24 Filed 07/17/15 Page 3 of 29

Most of the factual allegations and allegations of criminal conduct are

related to Defendant Farmers strategy, both in and out of the courtroom,
in the Child Custody Litigation. [Dkt. 1, pp. 8-65; 67-79; 81-115; 127-132;
133-150]. Defendant King is included in the litigation-related racketeering
allegations from 2012-2014.

[Dkt. 11, pp. 2-8].

Defendant Beacham,

although a full-fledged defendant equal in liability to King, is named

only in a few racketeering allegations, beginning just a few months before
the complaint was filed. There are no allegations of racketeering conduct
that include both King and Beacham.
Factual Allegations involving Beacham/MAC:
There

are

only

handful

of

factual

allegations

against

Beacham/Advocate Center, covering a period of about eight months, from

September 2014 to March 2015:
(1) Beacham went to the Virgin Islands, and conducted a videotaped
interview of Murphys teenage children:
192. In late August or early September of 2014 Defendant
Beacham traveled to St. Thomas, USVI, with the intention
and purpose of kidnapping the Children and then
conducting a clandestine meeting and interview with
3

Case 3:15-cv-00092-TCB Document 24 Filed 07/17/15 Page 4 of 29

them (all without the knowledge or consent of their father

and custodial parent, Mr. Murphy). [Dkt. 1, p. 66-67]
193. To conduct this clandestine interview, Defendant
Beacham enticed the Children to sneak off Mr. Murphys
property and to get into the back seat of a waiting van.
[Dkt. 1, p. 67]
194. Having illegally lured the Children off their parents
property, Defendant Beacham then engaged in a heavilyscripted videotaped interview with the Children. A
review of the videotaped interview released confirms
Defendant Beacham asked the children highly leading
questions[Dkt. 1, p. 67]
(2) Beacham participated in two town hall meetings in September 2014
where the videotaped interview was shown:
196. The Conflictioneering Enterprise thereafter showed
portions of the interview at so-called town hall
meetings organized and conducted in Newnan, Georgia by
Michelle Murphy [and] Defendant Beacham [Dkt. 1, p.
67-68]
222. On September 18, 2014, Defendants Farmer, Beacham,
and My Advocate Center, , conducted their first town
hall meeting in Newnan, Georgia. This event, which was
publicized widely featured numerous false and
misleading statements by Defendants Farmer and
Beacham.[Dkt. 1, p. 74-75]
223. On September 23, 2014, Defendants Farmer, Beacham,
and My Advocate Center, held their second town hall
4

Case 3:15-cv-00092-TCB Document 24 Filed 07/17/15 Page 5 of 29

meeting in Newnan, Georgia. Again, this meeting was

replete with false accusations against Mr. Murphy, his
wife, and others made by Defendants Farmer and
Beacham.[Dkt. 1, p. 75]
(3) Beacham wrote about the child custody case and posted the link to the
video on Advocate Centers website in September 2014 and again in
March 2015:
197. Defendants Beacham and My Advocate Center
also have used portions of the videotaped USVI
interview to attempt to enhance the profile (and media
coverage) of themselves and the advocacy services they
provide to litigants in child custody cases.[Dkt. 1, p. 68]
238. Defendant Beacham, through her front organization
My Advocate Center, attempted to give these spurious
accusations greater credibility by publishing them on My
Advocate Centers website, www.myadvocatecenter.com.
On or about September 7, 2014, for example, Defendant
Beacham posted a story on My Advocate Centers website
regarding the Child Custody Litigation in which she stated
the Children were purchased in Georgia with the help of
certain court professionals. Defendant Beacham further
stated that the Children were silenced by the custody
experts paid to ensure the case turns out a certain way. A
true and correct copy of the September 7, 2014 post is
attached as Exhibit 24. [Dkt. 1, p. 79-80]
239. On or about September 17, 2014, Defendant Beacham
posted another story on My Advocate Centers website
regarding the Child Custody Litigation, in which she
5

Case 3:15-cv-00092-TCB Document 24 Filed 07/17/15 Page 6 of 29

stated that the Children are being held against their will
and that Mr. Murphys wife is actively involved in this
case, and it is apparent that her millions have influence
over these court professionals. A true and correct copy of
the September 17, 2014 post is attached as Exhibit 25.
[Dkt. 1, p. 80]
240. On or about March 13, 2015, Defendant Beacham
posted another story regarding the Child Custody
Litigation on the My Advocate Center website which made
numerous false and defamatory statements regarding Mr.
Murphy, his wife, his attorneys, Judge Baldwin, and other
participants in the Child Custody Litigation. Among other
things, Defendant Beacham stated: (a) This is how family
court professionals engaged in trafficking of children
ensure that their victims are never recovered; (b) Is it
really acceptable to punish attorneys and parents for
standing up to fraud and racketeering practices, fighting to
save children?; (c) if kids are bought and sold, does it
matter what they are used for?; (d) this mess and related
damages could have been avoided if laws were upheld,
ethics rules and judicial canons upheld, and if [J.M.s] and
[T.M.s] needs had been put above the greed of child
custody experts and attorneys involved; (e) when you
force a parent to use only child custody experts who are
known for abandoning abused children, falsifying experts,
committing perjury, and participating in fraud, what do
you expect; (f) the court was using extortion tactics to
force the mother to work with one of these two doctors;
and (g) It is such a big deal to them that they block the
truth from being known that they hired Atlanta law firm
Kilpatrick Townsend Stockton to ensure that the trial
court was not investigated for wrongdoing and that the
higher courts did not get to learn that transcripts were
6

Case 3:15-cv-00092-TCB Document 24 Filed 07/17/15 Page 7 of 29

incomplete and that fraud had occurred. A true and

correct copy of the March 13, 2015 post is attached hereto
as Exhibit 26. [Dkt. 1, p. 80-81]
(4) Beacham discussed the Child Custody Litigation on a radio show in
which she is featured regularly, on two broadcasts in March:
249. In January 2015 Defendant Beacham, through her
front entity, Defendant My Advocate Center, began
disseminating a radio show known as Pro Advocate
Radio. Defendants Beacham and My Advocate Center
paid for distribution of Pro Advocate Radio over at least
one traditional radio station (92.5 The Bear) and over at
least one Internet radio station.[Dkt. 1, p. 84]
250. . [M]ost if not all of the episodes feature Defendant
Beacham as at least one of the guests on the show. [Dkt.
1, p. 84]
251. On March 14 and 21, 2015, Defendants Beacham and
My Advocate Center broadcast two Pro Advocate Radio
shows over 92.5 The Bear that contained numerous
defamatory statements regarding Mr. Murphy, his wife,
Mr. Murphys attorneys, and numerous other participants
in the Child Custody Litigation. [Dkt. 1, p. 85]
252. Many of the defamatory statements broadcast by
Defendants Beacham and My Advocate Center over Pro
Advocate Radio falsely accused Mr. Murphy and others of
participating in criminal acts. Among other defamatory
statements, the March 14 Pro Advocate Radio show (a)
asserted that it was pre-determined that the Children
would go missing and be taken permanently from their
7

Case 3:15-cv-00092-TCB Document 24 Filed 07/17/15 Page 8 of 29

home; (b) asserted that facts are being misrepresented

to the higher courts, to the Court of Appeals and to the
Georgia Supreme Court; (c) asserted that Mr. Murphy
had the Children set up to be taken; (d) asserted that the
two independent psychologists appointed by the state trial
court to serve as custody evaluators were brought into
this case to help traffic these [Children] out of Georgia.; (f)
asserted that the amount of fraud that has been covered
up is significant; and (g) asserted that there are
millions of dollars at stake in taxes that wont have to be
paid if those [Children] are living in the Virgin Islands.
[Dkt. 1, p. 85-86]
Based on these factual allegations, Plaintiff alleges generally that Beacham/
Advocate Center were full participants in the enterprise engaged in
racketeering activity and conspiracy with Farmer and King under the
Georgia (Counts I and II) and federal (Counts III and IV) RICO statutes
[Dkt. 1, pp. 89, 121, 124, 141], and are liable to him for defamation [Dkt. 1,
pp. 143-147], tortious interference with contractual relations [Dkt. 1, pp.
147-149], and intentional infliction of emotional distress [Dkt. 1, pp. 149150].
Alleged Criminal Predicate Acts for Georgia and Federal RICO:
Plaintiff accuses Beacham of only one allegedly criminal transaction,
the videotaped interview of the Children in the Virgin Islands. From that
8

Case 3:15-cv-00092-TCB Document 24 Filed 07/17/15 Page 9 of 29

interview, Plaintiff creates two predicate acts under the Georgia RICO
statute: interference with custody as prohibited by O.C.G.A. 16-5-45 [Dkt.
1, pp. 112-114] and kidnapping for extortion under the law of the Virgin
Islands, 14 V.I.C. 1052 [Dkt. 1, pp. 115-117]. For his federal RICO claims,
Plaintiff alleges that interview constituted the two predicate acts of
kidnapping for extortion under 14 V.I.C. 1052 [Dkt. 1, 132-134], and
interstate travel in aid of racketeering enterprise under 18 U.S.C. 1952
[Dkt. 1, pp. 134-135].
State Law Claims Against Beacham/Advocate Center:
Plaintiff alleges specifically against Beacham/Advocate Center (1) in
Count V, that Beacham/Advocate Center defamed him in the town hall
meetings, website postings and other internet social media, and on the
radio broadcasts [Dkt. 1, pp. 144-147]; and (2) in Count VI, that
Beacham/Advocate Center tortiously interfered with his consulting
contract, without describing how any of Beachams alleged acts had this
effect [Dkt. 1, pp. 147-149]. He also alleges generally that all defendants are
liable to him for intentional infliction of emotional distress, noting
9

Case 3:15-cv-00092-TCB Document 24 Filed 07/17/15 Page 10 of 29

particularly Beachams interview with the children in the Virgin Islands

and her radio broadcasts. [Dkt. 1, pp. 147-149]. As will be shown supra,
Plaintiffs

allegations

fail

to

state

any

cause

of

action

against

Beacham/Advocate Center, and should be dismissed.

PLEADING STANDARD
The Supreme Courts Twombley-Iqbal pleading standard requires that
a complaint plead sufficient factual allegations to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombley, 550 U.S. 544,
5470 (2007) (complaint dismissed where plaintiff failed to allege specific
facts of agreement between defendants in antitrust case). A complaint
which

tenders

naked

assertion[s]

devoid

of

further

factual

enhancement is not sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. Ashcroft v.

Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2007) (allegations that defendants were
architects of incarceration plan were insufficient to plead defendants
intent to discriminate).
Where the plaintiff alleges a civil RICO claim, the standards are quite
specific:
10

Case 3:15-cv-00092-TCB Document 24 Filed 07/17/15 Page 11 of 29

In order to survive a motion to dismiss in a civil RICO case,

a plaintiff must show a pattern of racketeering activity by
alleging that the defendants committed two qualifying
predicate acts. Republic of Panama v. BCCI Holdings, 119 F.3d
935, 94849 (11th Cir.1997). This requires that a plaintiff
allege facts that support each statutory element of a
violation of one of the state or federal laws described in 18
U.S.C. 1961(1).
Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1087 (11th Cir. 2004). Even viewed
in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, his 154-page complaint fails to state
any cause of action against Defendants Beacham and Advocate Center.
ARGUMENT AND CITATION OF AUTHORITY1
For the following reasons, Defendants Beacham and Advocate Center
respectfully request that the Court dismiss all claims against them.
A. Plaintiffs Georgia
unsupportable.

RICO

claims

(Counts

and

II)

are

The Georgia RICO statute, O.C.G.A. 16-14-4, requires pleading and

proof of at least two criminal acts and, if the Complaint fails to allege such
acts, the RICO claim fails. Smith v. Chemtura Corp., 676 S.E.2d 756, 762 (Ga.
App. 2009).

The Complaint alleges that Beacham/Advocate Center

Defendants Beacham and Advocate Center agree with the argument in the Motion to
Dismiss submitted by the King Defendants, and respectfully incorporate by reference
that motions argument and citation to authority. [Dkt. 11, pp. 10-24].
1

11

Case 3:15-cv-00092-TCB Document 24 Filed 07/17/15 Page 12 of 29

joined the enterprise at approximately the same time that Defendant

King withdrew from representing Michelle Murphy.

None of the

allegations of earlier criminal activity involve Beacham/Advocate Center,

and the allegations racketeering activity attributed to her in the
allegations quoted supra are not sufficient to state a Georgia RICO cause of
action.
1. The Complaint Alleges Only One Transaction.
The Georgia RICO statute, O.C.G.A. 16-4-3(8), requires at least two
similar, but separate, criminal acts:
To establish liability for a RICO violation, one must
establish a pattern of racketeering activity. A pattern is
defined as two or more similar incidents of criminal
conduct.
Perimeter Realty v. GAPI, Inc., 533 S.E.2d 136, 144 (Ga. App. 2000). Plaintiffs
Georgia RICO action against Beacham alleges, as Racketeering Act No. 7,
that Beacham violated O.C.G.A. 16-4-45, interference with custody, by
enticing the Children away from their custodial parent, Mr. Murphy,
detaining them while Ms. Beacham used the Children to manufacture false
evidence in the custody case. [Dkt. 1, pp. 112-114]. As Racketeering Act
12

Case 3:15-cv-00092-TCB Document 24 Filed 07/17/15 Page 13 of 29

No. 9, Plaintiff alleges that Beacham violated a Virgin Islands statute, 14

V.I.C. 1052, kidnapping for extortion, by enticing the Children away
from their custodial parent, Mr. Murphy, detaining them while Ms.
Beacham used the Children to manufacture false evidence in the custody
case identical language describing a single transaction. [Dkt. 1, pp. 115117]. A single transaction does not constitute a pattern of racketeering
activity. Id.
2. The Georgia Crime of Interference with Custody Cannot
Constitute a Predicate Act.
Apart from the obvious issue of whether Beacham could be charged
with a Georgia crime based on activity in the Virgin Islands, the allegation
of Racketeering Act No. 7, that Beacham violated the Georgia interference
with custody statute, does not satisfy the predicate act requirement of the
Georgia RICO statute:
The Georgia Supreme Court has held that misdemeanors
are not included in the definition of racketeering
activity: O.C.G.A. 16143(9)(A) meticulously defines
racketeering activity by reference to specific state and
federal statutes. O.C.G.A. 16143(9)(B) provides that
racketeering activity shall also include various crimes
13

Case 3:15-cv-00092-TCB Document 24 Filed 07/17/15 Page 14 of 29

punishable as federal or state crimes by imprisonment for

more than one year.
Byrne v. Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075, 1113 (11th Cir. 2001), quoting Clark v. Security
Life Insur. Co., 509 S.E.2d 602, 605 (Ga. 1998). The Georgia interference with
custody statute, clearly provides that first and second offenses of the
statute are misdemeanors offenses. O.C.G.A. 16-5-45(2).

So, even if

Plaintiffs allegations were sufficient to establish that Beacham committed

the crime, it does not constitute racketeering activity for purposes of the
Georgia RICO statute.
3. The Allegations do not Establish the Crime of Kidnapping for
Extortion.
Plaintiffs allegations of the enticement and detainment of the
Children for the videotaped interview are not sufficient to establish the
crime of kidnapping for extortion under 14 V.I.C. 1052, which provides:
Any person who seizes, confines, inveigles, entices, decoys,
abducts, conceals, kidnaps or carries away any individual
by any means whatsoever with intent to hold or detain, or
who holds or detains, such individual for ransom, reward
or to commit extortion or to exact from any person or
entity any money or valuable thing, or any person who
kidnaps or carries away any individual to commit robbery,
14

Case 3:15-cv-00092-TCB Document 24 Filed 07/17/15 Page 15 of 29

or any person who aids or abets any such act, is guilty of

kidnapping for ransom and shall be imprisoned for life.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has strictly interpreted the statute,
requiring the application of four factors:
(1) the duration of the detention or asportation; (2)
whether the detention or asportation occurred during the
commission of a separate offense; (3) whether the
detention or asportation which occurred is inherent in the
separate offense; and (4) whether the asportation or
detention created a significant danger to the victim
independent of that posed by the separate offense.
Gov't of Virgin Islands v. Berry, 604 F.2d 221, 227 (3d Cir. 1979).

The

allegations in the Complaint do not sufficiently plead a kidnapping for

extortion under the law of the Virgin Islands.
First, the Plaintiff doesnt even know when this event actually
occurred; the Complaint alleges that it happened in late August or early
September. [Dkt. 1, p. 66]. If the Plaintiff didnt even know the Children
had been in the van, it would be impossible for him to prove that they were
held for ransom.

Second, there is only the conclusory allegation that

Beacham enticed and detained the Children so that she could conduct
the videotaped interview; there are no specific factual allegations that she
15

Case 3:15-cv-00092-TCB Document 24 Filed 07/17/15 Page 16 of 29

threatened or used force or violence, or that she kept the Children against
their will. There is no allegation about the length of time the Children
were in the van with Beacham; given that the Plaintiff did not even know
when the event occurred, he obviously didnt miss the children, and only
knew about the kidnapping when the videotaped interview surfaced.
Third, there is no allegation of Beacham committing a separate offense
under Virgin Islands law; only the ridiculous suggestion that she was
violating Georgia law while she was in the Virgin Islands. Finally, there is
no allegation that Beacham held the boys hostage while seeking ransom
from the Plaintiff.
It is indeed ironic that the Plaintiff alleges as RICO violations
frivolous complaints and motions in an ongoing child custody dispute.
The allegations that Beacham/Advocate Center violated the Georgia RICO
statute are beyond frivolous. They are supported by neither fact nor law,
and should be dismissed.
B. Plaintiffs Federal RICO claims (Counts III and IV) are
unsupportable.

16

Case 3:15-cv-00092-TCB Document 24 Filed 07/17/15 Page 17 of 29

Plaintiffs case under the federal RICO statute is similarly flawed. As

noted by the Eleventh Circuit:
Essential to any successful RICO claim are the basic
requirements of establishing a RICO enterprise and a
pattern of racketeering activity. A RICO enterprise
exists where a group of persons associates, formally or
informally, with the purpose of conducting illegal
activity. To successfully allege a pattern of racketeering
activity, plaintiffs must charge that (1) the defendants
committed two or more predicate acts within a ten-year
time span; (2) the predicate acts were related to one
another; and (3) the predicate acts demonstrated criminal
conduct of a continuing nature.
Jackson v, BellSouth Telecomm., Inc., 372 F.3d 1250, 1256 (2004) [citation
omitted] [emphasis in original]. Plaintiffs complaint fails to allege (1)
sufficient facts establishing an enterprise, (2) two predicate acts that will
satisfy the statute, or (3) the continuity of racketeering acts required by
RICO.
1. Plaintiff does not allege an enterprise.
Plaintiff generally avers that the enterprise consisted of all the
defendants Farmer, King, and Beacham/Advocate Center but makes no
allegations that King and Beacham/Advocate Center were part of the
17

Case 3:15-cv-00092-TCB Document 24 Filed 07/17/15 Page 18 of 29

enterprise at the same time. If there was an enterprise, King left it in 2014,
and Beacham/Advocate Center did not join until King left. Plaintiffs
tag-team theory of RICO enterprise is unprecedented and flies in the face
of the continuity requirement.
2. The Allegations do not Sufficiently Plead the Required
Predicate Acts.
Since Beacham/Advocate Center did not join the enterprise until
late August or early September, any acts of the enterprise prior to that
time cannot be attributable to them.

The Complaint alleges that

Beacham/Advocate Center committed Racketeering Act No. 3, kidnapping

for extortion under 14 V.I.C. 1052, and Racketeering Act No. 4, Interstate
Travel in Aid of Racketeering Enterprise under 18 U.S.C. 1052. These
allegations do not satisfy the federal RICOs predicate act requirement.
For one thing, there is still only one transaction Beachams
interview of the Children in the Virgin Islands Children - with two alleged
crimes attached, hardly a pattern. Further, Plaintiff does not allege
sufficient facts that demonstrate that Beacham committed either of the
alleged crimes.

As discussed supra, Plaintiffs allegations about the

18

Case 3:15-cv-00092-TCB Document 24 Filed 07/17/15 Page 19 of 29

enticement and detainment of the Children are not sufficient to

establish kidnapping for extortion.
His allegations regarding the interstate travel prohibition [Dkt. 1, pp.
134-135] are no more satisfactory. He alleges that Beachams travel to the
Virgin Islands to interview the Children violated 18 U.S.C. 1952(a):
a) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or
uses the mail or any facility in interstate or foreign
commerce, with intent to
(3) otherwise promote, manage, establish, carry on,
or facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, or
carrying on, of any unlawful activity,
and thereafter performs or attempts to perform
(A) an act described in paragraph (3) shall be
fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or
both.
Subsection (b), unmentioned in the Complaint, actually defines unlawful
activity:
(b) As used in this section (i) unlawful activity means (1)
any business enterprise involving gambling, liquor on
which the Federal excise tax has not been paid, narcotics or
controlled substances (as defined in section 102(6) of the
Controlled Substances Act), or prostitution offenses in
violation of the laws of the State in which they are
committed or of the United States, (2) extortion, bribery, or
arson in violation of the laws of the State in which
committed or of the United States, or (3) any act which is
19

Case 3:15-cv-00092-TCB Document 24 Filed 07/17/15 Page 20 of 29

indictable under subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31,

United States Code, or under section 1956 or 1957 of this
title and (ii) the term State includes a State of the United
States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth,
territory, or possession of the United States.
Plaintiffs allegation that Beachams unlawful activity is the kidnapping
for extortion, does not satisfy 18 U.S.C. 1952(b). Kidnapping is not an
included unlawful activity and the alleged extortion using the
Children to manufacture false evidence in the Child Custody Litigation in
order to intimidate Mr. Murphy in the Child Custody Litigation, to obtain
extortionate payments to members of the Conflictioneering Enterprise or
both - does not satisfy the Supreme Courts analysis of the statutes
requirements:
The Travel Act makes it a crime to travel between states
with the intent to commit specified crimes listed in the
statute. 18 U.S.C. 1952. RICO and the Travel Act require
that a predicate act involving extortion must involve
conduct which is capable of being generically classified as
extortionate. Scheidler v. Nat'l Org. for Women, Inc., 537 U.S.
393, 409, 123 S.Ct. 1057, 154 L.Ed.2d 991 (2003); see also
United States v. Nardello, 393 U.S. 286, 296, 89 S.Ct. 534, 21
L.Ed.2d 487 (1969) (adopting the generic definition of
extortion for Travel Act purposes). Extortion is generically
defined as obtaining something of value from another with
20

Case 3:15-cv-00092-TCB Document 24 Filed 07/17/15 Page 21 of 29

his consent induced by the wrongful use of force, fear, or

threats. Scheidler, 537 U.S. at 410, 123 S.Ct. 1057.
Cintas Corp. v. Unite Here, 601 F. Supp. 2d 571, 578 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) aff'd, 355
Fed. Appx. 508 (2d Cir. 2009).
Moreover, Beacham/Advocate Centers alleged racketeering activity
does not satisfy the continuity requirement of the federal RICO statute.
The one transaction which constitutes the alleged predicate acts took
place in late August or early September 2014. In essence, Plaintiff alleges
that Beacham committed one racketeering act in her nine-month
membership in the enterprise. The Eleventh Circuit has clearly held that
such allegations do not meet the standard of pleading for a federal RICO
complaint. See Jackson, 372 F.3d 1250, 1267-1268 (11th Cir. 2004).
The federal RICO counts against Beacham and Advocate Center have
no merit, and should be dismissed.
C. The State Claims of Defamation, Tortious Interference with
Existing Contractual Relations, and Intentional Infliction of
Emotional Distress against Beacham and Advocate Center Should
be Dismissed.

21

Case 3:15-cv-00092-TCB Document 24 Filed 07/17/15 Page 22 of 29

The Plaintiffs target in this lawsuit is the litigation strategy of

Defendant Farmer, and the Complaints RICO allegations are its main
thrust. The Complaints tag-team enterprise theory which forms the
basis of the RICO allegations is also the basis for federal question subject
matter jurisdiction in this case. Once the RICO allegations are dismissed,
Plaintiff is left with diversity jurisdiction of three state claims against
Beacham/Advocate Center, which also fail to state a claim for which relief
can be granted.
1. Beachams discussion of the Child Custody Litigation was not
defamatory.
Beachams organization is called My Advocate Center, Inc. The
radio program on which Beacham regularly appears is called Pro
Advocate Radio.

The Complaint alleges that Beacham and Advocate

Center hold themselves out as purported advocates who provide, among

other services, litigation assistance in child custody disputes, even though
Ms. Beacham is not a licensed Georgia attorney. [Dkt. No. 1, p. 66].
Plaintiffs defamation claim alleges that Beacham published numerous
defamatory statements regarding him, his wife, and others associated
22

Case 3:15-cv-00092-TCB Document 24 Filed 07/17/15 Page 23 of 29

with the Child Custody Litigation in the town hall meetings, on the
Advocate Center website, and in the radio broadcasts. Count V is not
specific about these alleged statements, other than making the allegation
that Plaintiff was described by Beacham as stealing the Children. [Dkt. 1,
p. 146].
The Georgia Court of Appeals in Jailett v. Georgia Television Company,
520 S.E.2d 721 (Ga. App. 1999) did a thorough analysis of defamation in the
in non-print media:
Defamation via a radio or television broadcast (or a
defamacast, as it has become generally known) includes
elements of both libel and slander. To be actionable, a
communication must be both false and malicious and
the burden of proving a statements falsity is on the
plaintiff.
520 S.E.2d at 723. Plaintiffs own allegations that Beacham is an advocate
and that she accused him of stealing the Children suggest that
Beacham is stating an opinion which cannot be proven false:
The requirement that, to be actionable, a statement of
opinion must imply an assertion of objective facts about
the plaintiff unquestionably excludes from defamation
liability not only statements of rhetorical hyperbole . . . but
also statements clearly recognizable as pure opinion
23

Case 3:15-cv-00092-TCB Document 24 Filed 07/17/15 Page 24 of 29

because their factual premises are revealed. . . . Both types

of assertions have an identical impact on readers -- neither
reasonably appearing factual -- and hence are protected
equally
Id. See also Barna Log Homes of Georgia, Inc. v. Wischmann, 310 Ga.App. 844
(2011) (statement on website of customer that distributor was grossly
overcharging and did poor work was non-actionable opinion). The
town hall meetings, the website, the radio broadcasts, and social media
outlets are all targeted at audiences who are interested in the particular
point of view of a Michelle Murphy and others who believe that the legal
system does not always work. If the Plaintiffs claim were actionable, Rush
Limbaugh, Jon Stewart, George Will, and all commentators on Court TV
would be defending defamation actions on virtually a daily basis.
Defendants Beacham and Advocate Center respectfully request that
the defamation claims against them be dismissed.
2. Plaintiffs Allegations of Tortious Interference with Existing
Contractual Relations Do Not State an Actionable Claim.
Plaintiffs general allegations in Count VI that do not state a claim:
The elements of tortious interference with contractual
relations, business relations, or potential business relations
24

Case 3:15-cv-00092-TCB Document 24 Filed 07/17/15 Page 25 of 29

are: (1) improper action or wrongful conduct by the

defendant without privilege; (2) the defendant acted
purposely and with malice with the intent to injure; (3) the
defendant induced a breach of contractual obligations or
caused a party or third parties to discontinue or fail to
enter into an anticipated business relationship with the
plaintiff; and (4) the defendant's tortious conduct
proximately
caused
damage
to
the
plaintiff.
Dalton Diversified, Inc. v. AmSouth Bank, 605 S.E.2d 892 (Ga. App. 2004).
Plaintiff does not attempt to connect the dots between Beachams alleged
improper actions and any inducement to his employer to discontinue their
relationship. Plaintiff does not allege that Beacham contacted his employer
directly, only that she made statements in a public forum. He does not
allege that he has suffered any actual loss of employment or contractual
relationships, only that his performance of his consulting contract [has
become] more difficult and more expensive. [Dkt. No. 1, p. 148]. His
complaint fails to state a cause of action for tortious interference with
contractual relations, and should be dismissed.
3. Plaintiffs Claim Against Beacham/Advocate Center for
Intentional Infliction of Emotion Distress Fails to State a Claim.

25

Case 3:15-cv-00092-TCB Document 24 Filed 07/17/15 Page 26 of 29

In order to properly allege a claim for intentional infliction of

emotional distress, Plaintiff must plead (1) intentional or reckless conduct;
(2) that was extreme and outrageous and (3) caused severe emotional
distress. Frank v. Fleet Fin., Inc. of Ga., 518 S.E.2d 717, 720 (Ga. App. 1999).
Plaintiffs claim against Beacham/Advocate Center does not state a claim.
Plaintiffs allegations of outrageous conduct on the part of Beacham
and Advocate Center are the interview of the children in the Virgin Islands
and the alleged defamacasts over the radio station in Atlanta. These
actions were not outrageous. Plaintiff never alleges that Beacham held the
Children against their will or that the Children were coerced into giving
the interview. Further, as noted supra, the alleged defamacasts were
statements of Beachams opinion in a public forum. Finally, Beachams
general allegation that Beachams conduct caused severe emotional
distress is nothing more than a naked assertion devoid of further
factual enhancement, which does not meet the pleading standards of
Rule 8. Defendants Beacham and Advocate Center therefore respectfully
request that the Court dismiss this claim as well.
26

Case 3:15-cv-00092-TCB Document 24 Filed 07/17/15 Page 27 of 29

CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs effort to create a racketeering enterprise on the litigation
strategy of counsel for his ex-wife, and his targeting of Beacham and
Advocate Center as co-conspirators, should be rejected by this Court.
Defendants Beacham and Advocate Center are neither racketeers nor
kidnappers, and Beachams expression of opinion about ongoing litigation
in a public forum is neither defamation nor outrageous conduct.
Defendants Beacham and My Advocate Center, Inc. respectfully request
that the Court dismiss all claims against them.

27

Case 3:15-cv-00092-TCB Document 24 Filed 07/17/15 Page 28 of 29

This 17th day of July, 2015.

Respectfully submitted,
/S Mary Helen Moses
Mary Helen Moses, Ga. Bar No. 437900
Mary Helen Moses, Esq., LLC
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS
DEBORAH L. BEACHAM and
MY ADVOCATE CENTER, INC.
P. O. Box 20673
St. Simons Island, Georgia 31522
(912) 634-8550 FAX (912) 348-0107
maryhelenmoses@yahoo.com
CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL
I certify that this pleading meets all requirements of the Local Rules
of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
regarding margins, line spacing and that a 14 point, Book Antiqua Font
was used.
This 17th day of July, 2015.

/s/Mary Helen Moses

Mary Helen Moses, Ga. Bar 437900
28

Case 3:15-cv-00092-TCB Document 24 Filed 07/17/15 Page 29 of 29

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been
filed with the U.S. District Courts CM/ECF System and that pursuant
thereto, a copy of this pleading has been served upon the following
persons by electronic mail:
Wilmer Parker
parker@mjplawyers.com

Johannes S. Kingma
jkingma@carlockcopeland.com

Millard Farmer
millardfarmer@millardfarmer.com

John C. Rogers
jrogers@carlockcopeland.com

This 17th day of July, 2015.

/s/ Mary Helen Moses

Mary Helen Moses, Ga. Bar 437900

29