Defendants deny each and every matter, allegation and tlting contained in Plaintifs Complaint except as hereinafer specifically admitted, qualifed or otherwise answered. Defndants admit paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5, and 10 of Plaintiffs complaint. As its First Affinnative Defense, Defendant states Plaintifs' complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief c be granted.
Defendants deny each and every matter, allegation and tlting contained in Plaintifs Complaint except as hereinafer specifically admitted, qualifed or otherwise answered. Defndants admit paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5, and 10 of Plaintiffs complaint. As its First Affinnative Defense, Defendant states Plaintifs' complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief c be granted.
Defendants deny each and every matter, allegation and tlting contained in Plaintifs Complaint except as hereinafer specifically admitted, qualifed or otherwise answered. Defndants admit paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5, and 10 of Plaintiffs complaint. As its First Affinnative Defense, Defendant states Plaintifs' complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief c be granted.
Minnesota Corporation, Blois Olson, Plaintiffs, v. DEFENDANTS JOINT ANSWER Michael B. Brodkorb ad w .minnesotademocratsexposed.com, Defendants. TO: THE ABOVE NAMED PLAINTIFF'S A THEIR ATTORNEYS STEVEN H. SILTON A JA B. ROTH, 1700 U.S. BANK PLAZA SOUTH, 220 SOUTH SIXTH STREET, MINEAPOLIS, M 55402-4511. Defndants, as and fr their Answer to Plaintifs Complaint, state: 1. Deny each and every matter, allegation and tlting contained in Plaintif's Complaint except as hereinafer specifically admitted, qualifed or otherwise answered. 2. Defendants admit paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5, and 10 of Plaintiffs complaint. 3. As to the allegations contained in paragraph 2, Defendants admit that Blois Olson is a citizen of the state of Minnesota, but deny that he resides at 2124 University Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota. Upon information and belief, Blois Olson resides 502 Texas A venue North, Hopkins, Minnesota. 4. Defndants are without sufcient information in order to judge the tuth or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 8 and therefore hold the Plaintiffs to the strictest proof tl1ereof. 5. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraphs 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28, and therefore hold the Plaintiffs to the strict proof thereof. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 6 As its First Affinnative Defense, Defendants state Plaintifs' complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief c be granted. 7 As its Second Affirmative Defense, Defendants state insufciency of service of process. WRFOR, Defendants pray that Plaintifs take nothing by its pretended cause of action and that the same be dismissed and that Defndants recover their costs and disbursements herein, attoreys' fees and such other relief as may be just and appropriate. Dated: January 25, 2006 WALSH & GAERTNER, P.A. Gregory J. Walsh Attorney for Defendants 525 Park Street, Suite 230 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55103 ACKNOWLEDGMENT The undersigned hereby acknowledges that he is familiar ith Minn. Stat. 549.21, Subdivision 2, and its efect. ( J o_ Gregory J. Walsh
Dimitrios Spanos, Libellant, and Cross-Appellee v. The Lily and Fortaleza Compagnia Naviera S. A. of Panama, Her Owner, and Cross-Appellants, 261 F.2d 214, 4th Cir. (1958)