--------------------------------- x	Case No. 97 Civ.0166 (NG)


d/b/a. Woodside International Literary Agency & 
Photo Phoenix International





Plaintiff, pro se, in his countersuit in the above captioned case
hereby alleges: 

Jurisdiction of this Court

1. The above case is before the court since February of 1997. This
   Court has jurisdiction over this action by virtue of 18
   U.S.C. sec. 1964 (c) and 28 U.S.C. sees. 1331,1932

2. Identification and citizenship of plaintiff: Plaintiff, John
   Lawrence, resides in, and is a citizen of, the State of New York.

3. Identification and citizenship of defendant Jayne A. Hitchcock:
   Defendant resides in, and is a citizen of, the State of Maryland.

4. Identification and citizenship of defendant John A. Young:
   Defendant resides in, and is a citizen of, the State of New York.

5. Defendant's lawsuit was started in New York on February. of 1997,


(1) In the beginning of 1996 1 started the Woodside (International)
    Literary Agency, hereafter called (WILA) and in 1997 I started
    Photo Phoenix International, hereafter called (Phoenix). I am the
    sole owner of both agencies.

(2) My certificate number for WILA is 486-30.

(3) My certificate number for PHOENIX is 482-259.

(4) From time to time I advertised on the internet, inviting authors
    and photographers to send samples of their work.

(5) These samples were evaluated for free.

(6) The majority of submitted samples are rejected and returned if
    samples are accompanied by S.A.S.E. (self-addressed, stamped
    envelope). If a sample shows promise, the author/photographer is
    invited to submit a full manuscript/photo portfolio.

(7) At that point the author/photographer is informed in advance that
    there will be a reading and market research/processing fee upon
    submission of manuscript/photo portfolio.

(8) Of those who submit manuscript/photo portfolio, only a few are
    offered a contract.


(9) Sometime in the beginning of 1996, Jayne A. Hitchcock submitted a
    very sexually explicit and perverse synopsis to the agency, called
    "BYTE ME." Since WILA does not handle pornography, her synopsis
    was promptly returned.

(10) According to her own admission in her lawsuit, she then submitted
     a second synopsis for a novel called "When Will I See You Again"
     to WILA. Since there is a market for domestic violence, her
     synopsis, which was sent to us under the name of Anne Doyle (she
     used a different name at that time) was interesting enough for
     WILA to request the entire manuscript accompanied by a $150.00
     reading and market research fee.

(11) Upon information and belief, she called WILA on several occasions
     and asked for a reduction of the fee. That request was
     denied. Thereafter the following reign of revenge upon WILA by
     Jayne A. Hitchcock took place

(12) Jayne A. Hitchcock began warning other writers across the whole
     spectrum of the Internet that "legitimate" agencies do not
     charging reading fees.

(12.a) That WILA was a SCAM operation Ripping Off unsuspected writers.

(12.b) She habitually ignored evidence supplied to her by other
       writers who told her through various postings on the Internet
       that reading fees are quite common in the literary agency
       industry, and continued to proliferate her accusations against
       WILA on a daily basis.

Upon information and belief:

(13) Jayne A. Hitchcock convinced fellow writers "to go after the
     agency and drive it out of business." She and some fellow writers
     created what was called the Internet Posse. This Posse scat in
     some ridiculous writing samples in an attempt to prove that the
     WILA accepts indiscriminately all synopsises in order to get the
     reading fees,

(13.a) That WILA does not represent their client's work to publishers.

(13.b) Through E-mail on the Internet and through other forms of
       communication with various writers/friends, Jayne A. Hitchcock
       had carried out a campaign designed to entrap WILA.

(13.c) Under her guidance one writer submitted a synopsis to WILA
       (which was accepted) but later claimed to have sent in
       something totally different.

(13.d) Jayne A. Hitchcock and some fellow writers/friends initiated a
       vicious, unrestrained harassment campaign against WILA and

(13.e) Jayne A. Hitchcock relentlessly encouraged writers/friends "to
       flood the Better Business Bureau with phony complaints."

(13.f) Jayne A. Hitchcock encouraged writers/friends to address the
       New York Attorney General's Office with numerous "stories" of
       fictitious complaints, like phone hang-ups, not opening up
       envelopes, etc. One writer/friend communicating with Jayne
       A. Hitchcock on the Internet even suggested "to send WILA bad


(14) Jayne A. Hitchcock's Web-Page on the Internet states,

(14.a) That "somebody" was harassing her.

(14.b) That this harassment "simply must be WILA."

(1 4.c) That in her opinion other people associated with WILA are
        involved in said harassment.

(14.d) That my landlady, who is a retired CSW, lives in and is a
       resident of Florida, is an employee of WILA and is one of the
       people who harassed her.

(15) WILA went on the internet and implored "whoever is doing this
     harassment, to please refrain."

(15.a) Upon information and belief, the postings against Jayne
       A. Hitchcock stopped thereafter.

(16) During the harassment of Jayne A. Hitchcock by parties factually
     unknown, Jayne A. Hitchcock proclaimed on the internet "that she
     was enjoying all the brouhaha she was causing" and the following

(16.a) Jayne A. Hitchcock approached, and solicited any newspaper who
       would write her story.

(16.b) To all reporters, Jayne A. Hitchcock's repeated the so-called
       "offensive text" used against her in the harassment she speaks
       of in her law suit against WILA.

(17) Jayne A. Hitchcock also appeared on "talk shows" and "TV shows"
     like the "Sally show" and "Unresolved Mysteries" where she
     reiterated that it must have been WILA retaliating against her,
     but admitting to her total lack of factual knowledge as to who
     inside or outside the WILA was accountable for the harassment.

(17.a) During Jayne A. Hitchcock's law suit against WILA, she has and
       is profiting from paid speaking tours concerning her law suit
       against WILA, peddling her own and friend's books, and upon
       information and belief she is already writing a book about the

(18) In conjunction with her law suit against WILA, Jayne A. Hitchcock
     and friend Marty Fouts created the "Jayne A. Hitchcock Help Fund"
     which is connected to her personal Web Page on the Internet.

(18.a) Marty Fouts who at first contributed about 60 % of the funds
       (according to his own testimony) later disassociated himself on the
       Internet from Jayne A. Hitchcock. He vehemently objected to Jayne
       A. Hitchcock's harassment of another writer (Mr. Sederial) on the
       Internet. Since then Jayne A. Hitchcock and her "secretaries"
       are maintaining her Web Page.

(18.b) The checks Jayne A. Hitchcock solicited from
       writers/friends/strangers were in the beginning to be made out
       to either Jayne A. Hitchcock, or her attorney, Mr. John Young

(18.c) After one of the defendants in Jayne A. Hitchcock's law suit,
       Mrs. Ursula Sprachman, contacted the FBI and Internet Computer
       Crime Unit in Maryland about the way people were making their
       checks out to Jayne A. Hitchcock and her attorney, Jayne
       A. Hitchcock had to change her practices concerning the
       contributions. Checks are now being made out to the "Help

(19) I have submitted to this Honorable Court a motion for a
     Preliminary Injunction because either Jayne A. Hitchcock herself
     or people who are supposedly "maintaining" the Jayne A. Hitchcock
     Help Fund are misleading the public in order to get

(19.a) For example The text in Jayne A. Hitchcock's Web Page
       concerning the Help Fund reads, "that she needs at least
       $3,000.00 per day" to get "depositions" for 3 defendants who
       are named in her law suit against WILA at this time, when in
       reality the case has not advanced further than the amended
       "motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which
       relief can be granted."

(20) With the combination of:

(a.) having a lawyer who works on contingency.

(b.) a "Jayne A. Hitchcock Help Fund" which energetically solicits
     money (even form people outside the United States) by
     deliberately using untrue statements.

(c.) Continuing to post all over the Internet that my 2 agencies (WILA
     & Phoenix) are total scam agencies.

(21) Jayne A. Hitchcock has perpetrated the following offenses against
     WILA and Phoenix:

(a.) Libel and slander.
(b.) harassment.
(c.) infringement on copyrights (WILA's text of inviting writers was
     copied by her on a continuous basis without consent). 
(d.) interfering with legitimate business.
(e.) entrapment and conspiracy.
(f.) fraud (including collecting funds on the internet under false

(21.a) Jayne A. Hitchcock and Mr. John Young have perpetrated
       malicious prosecution by filing a frivolous Rico claim basing
       their accusations of fraud on mere routine business letters.

(22) Jayne A. Hitchcock and Mr. John Young also incited the Attorney
     General of New York State to file a suit against WILA by saying
     that WILA never represented their clients to publishers or
     producers (The Attorney General's Office was just informed by the
     Court that-there will be a fact-finding conference).

(23) The intentions of Jayne A. Hitchcock became totally clear when
     she included Photo Phoenix International in her complaints to the
     Attorney General Office, before any business was done by Phoenix,
     and before any money had exchanged hands.

(23.a) The Attorney General's Office has since dropped Phoenix from
       the law suit.

(23.b) The law suit is being defended on "documentary evidence" which
       is conclusively negating the accusations.


(24) Jayne A. Hitchcock and Mr. John Young have succeeded to do severe
     and continuous harm to my agencies.

(25) Due to Jayne A. Hitchcock's consistent repetitions that WILA is a
     scam, customers have become nervous and are asking for their
     money back. This ingenious conspiracy has given the Attorney
     General's Office some ammunition to claim that clients feel they
     have been defrauded, when in reality practically all complaints
     read "that Hitchcock has told them so."

(26) As a result of the foregoing, I, the Plaintiff, in this
     counterclaim have suffered devastating financial losses bordering
     on the comprehensive destruction of my agencies.

(27) I am sustaining severe emotional daily strain, particularly
     because being without funds and unable to hire an experienced
     lawyer I had to endure the continuous on the Internet by Jayne
     A. Hitchcock for the last one and a half years since her law suit
     has been started while I have refrained to make any comments
     about it publicly.

(28) Both my personal and business reputation have been irrevocably
     impaired and my co-workers these days spend most of their time
     explaining to misguided and confused clients the difference
     between Jayne A. Hitchcock's false allegations on the Internet
     and the fact that they are diligently represented.

(29) As a consequence of the foregoing, Jayne A. Hitchcock and John A,
     Young in addition to their liablity for their violations of
     Federal Law are liable to Plaintiff under causes of actions
     pursuant to the Laws of the State of New York, including without
     limitations causes of action for:

(a.) defamation.

(b.) Intentional Infliction of emotional distress. Prima Facie Tort,
     or the intentional infliction of harm to Plaintiff without excuse
     or justification..

(c.) Damage to business and property.

(e.) Malicious prosecution.

(30) In addition to violating state law, Jayne A. Hitchcock has
     perpetrated more than 2 predicate acts in RICO transgressions.

(31) She was and is a member of the INTERNET POSSE which at the end of
     1996 was exclusively created to put WILA out of business.

(32) Upon information and belief, the participating members of the
     Miscellaneous Writing Group were:

     Jayne Hitchcock

     Jack Mingo

     Deck Deckert

     Marty Fouts and

     Windy Chatley Green

(33) The Internet Posse which in terms of Rico definition is a loosely
     connected association in fact perpetrated the following acts:

(a.) Jayne A. Hitchcock herself tried to entrap WILA by first sending
     a pornographic synopsis called "BITE ME" which was rejected by WILA.

(b.) After WILA rejected Jayne A. Hitchcock's pornographic submission,
     she sent another synopsis under the name, Anne Doyle.

(34) The entrapment scheme perpetrated by others as well was enacted
     by sending questionable writing samples to see what the agency
     would accept.

(34a.) One writer, Kiki Rothchild, sent in a synopsis which was
       accepted but later filed a completely different text she
       "supposedly" had sent.

(35) Jayne A. Hitchcock was instrumental in convincing writers/friends
     to send dozens of letters to the Better Business Bureau and the
     Attorney General's office.

(35a.) One writer even suggested to send WILA bad checks.

(36) Jayne A. Hitchcock and her attorney John Young were able to
     convince the Attorney General's office that WILA just rakes in
     reading fees but does not represent writers to publishers--a
     total lie.

(37) Jayne A. Hitchcock then perpetrated the following RICO Infractions:

(37a.) She initiated and participated in phone harassment of WILA, and
       according to her own newspaper articles the building where the
       agency resides was stalked at all times of the day.

(37b.) Evidence that an "enterprise existed" is clearly on the
       internet, and her infractions satisfy the elements according to
       Paragraph, 1962 b, that the enterprise affected interstate
       commerce (WILA's interaction with its clients was severely

(37c.) That the defendant derived income from a pattern of
       racketeering activity (she set up in the beginning a Help Fund
       for herself and her attorney John Young personally).

(37d.) That she gives paid interviews and is on paid speaking tours.

(37e.) That she peddles her and her companion's books on the internet.

(37f.) That instead of suffering injuries she has made quite a profit
       as a result of her law suit against WILA.

(37g.) That she lies to people on her Web Page about the status of her
       lawsuit with WILA in order to get more contributions, and at
       least "part of that income" was used to operate the

(38) It is clear that Jayne A. Hitchcock has an "existence apart from
     the enterprise" (the Internet Posse)

(39) More than two, most likely dozens of racketeering acts were
     connected by the "common scheme" to take revenge on WILA and put
     it out of business

(40) The means by which she achieved this included mail fraud, since
     upon information and belief she communicated through E-mail as
     well as the US mail, reiterating again and again that WILA was a
     scam outfit.

(41) The acts alleged above were "continuous in nature." They started
     in March of 1996 and have continued until today.

(42) That Jayne A. Hitchcock's actions fall into the definition of a
     RICO perpetrator is clear from the fact that she advertises
     herself to be available for speaking engagements where "half of
     the income goes to the Prosecution Help Fund, and 1/2 to
     herself. Therefore part of the income was used to "operate the

(43) Interstate commerce was affected by Jayne A. Hitchcock in a
     substantial way:

(43a.) Through her internet postings--that WILA and PHOENIX are scam
       outfits--she reached practically all of the United States, and
       most of the world..

(44) Equally certain is the fact that the acts of racketeering had a
     relationship to each other,

(a.) The entrapment scheme of flooding the Attorney General's office
     with complaints, almost all of which were solicited by her or her
     attorney, John Young.

(b,) The money-making business that ensued shortly after--all are

(c.) Likewise there is a meaningful relationship between the
     defendant's illegal act and the affairs of the enterprise--the
     Internet Posse.

(45) Even if she personally had not committed some of the
     entrapments--which she has-she certainly has confirmed time and
     time again that she was one of the conspirators to put WILA and
     Phoenix out of business.

(46) By posting literally hundred of messages, that WILA does not
     represent customers and is a scam, she has exceeded the actions
     of other conspirators by a large margin.

(46a.) As to specific damages:

Because of the above, I have been and still am under treatment by a
New York State licensed psychologist. Furthermore, the financial
destruction of my agencies is ongoing and damages are claimed for
past, and present income loses, as well as future earning

(47) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands Judgment against Jayne A. Hitchcock
     and Mr. John A. Young. awarding Plantiff in this countersuit:

(a.) Injunctive relief prohibiting defendants from any further conduct
     which would harass Plaintiff and prohibiting both defendants to
     collect money for her Prosecution Help Fund through

(b.) Threefold the compensatory damages determined by the tier of fact

(c.) Punitive damages on $20,000,000.00.

(d.) Costs and disbursements herein, including reasonable attorney's

(e.) Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and
     proper in the premises.

New York, June 29,1998

John Lawrence


Plaintiff, pro se
33-29-58 Street.
Woodside, New York 11377
Tel & Fax No. 718-651-8145 or 518-494-5563

Copy to: Mr. John Young, attorney at law 
and Stephen Weingrad, attorney for defendants Ursula Sprachman 
and James Leonard.

Under penalty of perjury I declare that I have sent an overnight
letter of this countersuit to the attorney for Jayne A. Hitchcock:
Mr. John Young, 22 Wyckoff Street. Brooklyn, New York, 11201

(There is a second signature and the handwritten note "SECOND SERVICE BY PROFESSIONAL PAD(illegible) SERVER")

Return to Abuse of Usenet Story