Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

Answer in

Huston v. Time Warner Entertainment, et.


al.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
William Huston, pro se

Plaintiff,

v.

Time Warner Entertainment -


Advance/Newhouse Partnership d/b/a Time ANSWER TO
Warner Cable, (service to Glenn Britt, CEO) COMPLAINT

Richard Parsons, CEO, AOL/Time Warner (a


general partner in Time Warner Entertainment
- Advance/Newhouse Partnership)
Civil No: 3:03-CV-
Robert J. Miron, CEO, Advance 0633 (TJM)/(DEP)
Communications Corp (a general partner in
Time Warner Entertainment -
Advance/Newhouse Partnership)
Jury Trial
Jon Scott, President, Time Warner Cable, Demanded
Vestal NY Division,

David Whalen, Vice President, Time Warner


Cable, Vestal NY Division,

Andrew Fleming, General Manager, Time


Warner Cable, Vestal NY Division,

Defendants

The defendants, Time Warner Entertainment - Advance/Newhouse


Partnership d/b/a Time Warner Cable, Richard Parsons, CEO,
AOL/Time Warner (a general partner in Time Warner Entertainment -
Advance/Newhouse Partnership), Robert J. Miron, CEO, Advance
Communications Corp (a general partner in Time Warner
Entertainment - Advance/Newhouse Partnership), Jon Scott, President,
Time Warner Cable, Binghamton NY Division, David Whalen, Vice
President, Time Warner Cable, Binghamton NY Division, and Andrew
Fleming, General Manager, Time Warner Cable, Binghamton NY
Division, by their attornys, Coughlin and Gerhart, LLP, for their answer
to the complaint, state as follows:

1. Lack knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as


to the allegations in the paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 15, 19, 20, and
56.

2. Admit the allegations contained in paragraph 60,

3. Deny the allegations contained in paragraphs "Preliminary


Statement", 8, 11, 14, 18, 29, 33, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 48,
50, 51, 55, 61, 62, 68, 72, 74, 75, 81, 82, 86, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97,
and 98.

4. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 16, 23, 24, 25, 26,


27, 28, 34, 36, 37, 39, 46, 47, 49, 52, 53, 54, 57, 58, 59, 63, 64,
65, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 89,
90, 92, and 99 constitute conclusions of law and need not be
admitted or denied; to the extent a response is required, the
allegations are denied,

5. Admit the allegations contained in paragraph 9 except the the


proper address is 290 Harbor Drive, Stamfort Connecticut.

6. Admit the allegations contained in paragraph 10, except that the


proper name is AOL Time Warner Inc., and the proper address
is 290 Harbor Drive, Stamfort Connecticut.

7. Admit the allegations contained in paragraph 12 except that the


proper name is Time Warner Cable - Binghamton Division and
the proper address is 120 Plaza Drive, Vestal New York 13850

8. Admit the allegations contained in paragraph 13 except that the


proper name is Time Warner Cable - Binghamton Division and
the proper address is 120 Plaza Drive, Vestal New York 13850

9. Lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to


the allegations in paragraph 17, except deny any injury or denial
of civil rights by the defendants.

10. Lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to


the allegations in paragraph 21, except deny a lack of response
by defendants.

11. Deny each and every allegation contained in paragraph 22,


except admit receipt of letter.

12. Deny each and every allegation contained in paragraph 30, since
Section 595.4(b) only requires a system with a channel capactity
of 21 or more channels to "designate" (not "provide" as stated in
the complaint) (i) at least one full-time activated channel for
public access use; (ii) at least one full-time activated channel for
educational and governmental use. Time Warner Cable
"designates", as provided by statue, Channel 6 for public access
use and Channel 12 for educational and governmental use.

13. Deny each and every allegation contained in paragraph 31, since
the operator's use of "unused capacity" is allowable by law and
the programming offered is and can be adjusted (cancelled) to
provide any capacity needed for PEG programming.

14. Deny each and every allegation contained in paragraph 32 since


there is no competition for Public Access time. Public Access
Producers are currently providing approximately 7-8 hours per
weekday (with nothing available for cablecast on Saturdays and
Sundays). This is based on the full utilization of all
programming provided by access producers, as well as Time
Warner Cable's own locally originated programming of public
interest. This 7-8 hours is inclusive or repetitve programming.
Since a number of Access Producers do not generate
new/original/local programming on a weekly basis, Time
Warner Cable will repeat Access Shows.

15. Deny each and every allegation in paragraph 35. Since the
plaintiff has ocasionally produced a local access program, he
has not been denied use of channel capacity and to the contrary,
has failed to produce new/original/local programming. In fact at
one point in Feb/March 2003, Time Warner Cable repeated the
same show for six (6) weeks, as the plaintiff did not produce
any new programming. Time Warner Cable has designated and
utilized PEG channel capacity. Time Warner Cable does
promote Public Access through through the equipment and
capacity as prescribed by law, as well as by customer
notificattions appearing on its community bulletin board.

16. Deny each and every allegation in paragraph 73 except admit


that Time Warner Cable is a for-profit business and seeks to
operate at a profitable margain, however, the services of Time
Warner Cable to the community include, but are not limited to,
as well as support (in the form of technology) to schools,
libraries, and municipalities, corporate grants and sponsorships
to non-profit organizations and community events the provision
of free advertising to organizations and community events.

17. Deny each and every allegation in the complaint not herein
expressly admitted.

AS AND FOR A FIRST, SEPARATE, AND DISTINCT


AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, THE DEFENDANTS, ALLEGE:

18. That the complaint fails to state a cause of action on which


relief can be granted against defendents, or in the alternative,
fails to state a cause of action,

AS AND FOR A SECOND, SEPARATE, AND DISTINCT


AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, THE DEFENDANTS, ALLEGE:

19. That the plaintiffs claims are barred by the applicable statute of
limitations,

AS AND FOR A THIRD, SEPARATE, AND DISTINCT


AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, THE DEFENDANTS, ALLEGE:

20. The plaintiff is barred from litigating the issues raised in his
complaint due to his failure to exercise and exhaust his
constitutional, administrative, and/or judicial remedies under
federal and state laws and procedures.

AS AND FOR A FOURTH, SEPARATE, AND DISTINCT


AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, THE DEFENDANTS, ALLEGE:

21. The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over certain of the
claims made by the plaintiff,

AS AND FOR A FIFTH, SEPARATE, AND DISTINCT


AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, THE DEFENDANTS, ALLEGE:

22. The damages are unavailable under the applicable statutes,

AS AND FOR A SIXTH, SEPARATE, AND DISTINCT


AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, THE DEFENDANTS, ALLEGE:

23. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his damages,

AS AND FOR A SEVENTH, SEPARATE, AND DISTINCT


AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, THE DEFENDANTS, ALLEGE:

24. The plaintiff is barred from litigating the issues raised in his
complaint due to his failure to excersize and exhaust grievance
procedures.

AS AND FOR A EIGHTH, SEPARATE, AND DISTINCT


AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, THE DEFENDANTS, ALLEGE:

25. The defendants allege that plaintiff has failed to join a party or
parties needed for the adjudication for the plaintiff(s) alleged
claims pursuant to the requirements to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 19
in that the plaintiff has alleged that his causes of action are
predicated on certain actions of the United States (Federal
Communication Commission), State of New York (Public
Service Commission), and the City of Binghamton. Upon
information and belief, each can be made a party to this action
without depriving this court of jurisdiction over the present
parties.

AS AND FOR A NINTH, SEPARATE, AND DISTINCT


AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, THE DEFENDANTS, ALLEGE:

26. The court lacks jurisdiction over claims of individual liability,

AS AND FOR A TENTH, SEPARATE, AND DISTINCT


AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, THE DEFENDANTS, ALLEGE:

27. The relief sought by the plaintiff would not be in the public
interest

AS AND FOR A ELEVENTH, SEPARATE, AND DISTINCT


AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, THE DEFENDANTS, ALLEGE:

28. The plaintiff lacks standing to commence and maintain this


action.

WHEREFORE defendants Time Warner Entertainment -


Advance/Newhouse Partnership d/b/a Time Warner Cable, Richard
Parsons, CEO, AOL/Time Warner (a general partner in Time Warner
Entertainment - Advance/Newhouse Partnership), Robert J. Miron,
CEO, Advance Communications Corp (a general partner in Time
Warner Entertainment - Advance/Newhouse Partnership), Jon Scott,
President, Time Warner Cable, Binghamton NY Division, David
Whalen, Vice President, Time Warner Cable, Binghamton NY
Division, and Andrew Fleming, General Manager, Time Warner
Cable, Binghamton NY Division, demand judgement against the
plaintiff dismissing the complaint, together with the costs and
disbursements of this action and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in
the defense of this action, sanctions, and other further relief as to the
court deems proper under the circumstance.

Dated October 14 2003 <signed>

Gordon E. Thompson, Esq.


COUGHLIN & GERHART, LLP
Attorneys for Defendants
20 Hawley Street
P.O. Box 2039
Binghamton, NY 13902-2039
(607) 723-9511
Federal Bar Roll No. 301432

TO: WILLIAM HUSTON, Pro Se


342 Park Ave
Binghamton, NY 13901
(607) 724-1755