LIBERI, et al. v BELCHER, et al. (N.D. TX)

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23527

The part of the case transferred to the Western District of TX has been docketed.

Quote:

U.S. District Court [LIVE]
Western District of Texas (San Antonio)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:11-cv-00259-OLG

LIBERI et al v. TAITZ et al
Assigned to: Judge Orlando L. Garcia
Case in other court: Pennsylvania Eastern, 2:09-cv-01898
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Libel,Assault,Slander
Date Filed: 03/29/2011
Jury Demand: Both
Nature of Suit: 320 Assault Libel & Slander
Jurisdiction: Diversity

Quote:

03/31/2011 169 Case transferred in from District of Pennsylvania Eastern; Case Number 2:09-cv-01898. File transmitted electronically via CM/ECF case transfer utility. Clerk verified transfer information with Pennsylvania court/chambers. (Entered: 03/31/2011)

03/31/2011 Case Assigned to Judge Orlando L. Garcia. CM WILL NOW REFLECT THE JUDGE INITIALS AS PART OF THE CASE NUMBER. PLEASE APPEND THESE JUDGE INITIALS TO THE CASE NUMBER ON EACH DOCUMENT THAT YOU FILE IN THIS CASE. {This is an electronic transfer from Pennsylvania Eastern District Court - PAE case number 2:09CV1898) (mo) (Entered: 03/31/2011)

03/31/2011 If ordered by the court, all referrals will be assigned to Magistrate Judge Mathy (mo) (Entered: 03/31/2011)

Although she won't have to go often, that's a long way for Lea to travel.

poutine · **Posted:** Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:09 pm

Quote:

Orlando Luis Garcia (1952) is a former Texas state legislator and a United States federal judge sitting on the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.

Born in Jim Wells County, Texas, Garcia received a B.A. from the University of Texas at Austin in 1975 and a J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law in 1978. He was in private practice in San Antonio, Texas from 1978-1990, and a Texas state representative from 1983-1991. From 1991 to 1992 he was a judge in the Texas Fourth Court of Appeals.
He was nominated by President Bill Clinton on November 19, 1993...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_Luis_Garcia

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23527

New Docket Entry...

Quote:

03/31/2011 Remark - Correspondence forwarded to Philip Berg and [highlight]L. Theodore Hoppe, Jr[/highlight]. regarding admission status for the the Western District of Texas. (kh2) (Entered: 03/31/2011)

IIRC Mr. Hoppe briefly represented the Hales in PA. I'm surprised if he's jumping back into the fray. :-k

Maru · **Posted:** Mon Apr 04, 2011 1:26 pm

realist wrote:

New Docket Entry...

Quote:

03/31/2011 Remark - Correspondence forwarded to Philip Berg and [highlight]L. Theodore Hoppe, Jr[/highlight]. regarding admission status for the the Western District of Texas. (kh2) (Entered: 03/31/2011)

IIRC Mr. Hoppe briefly represented the Hales in PA. I'm surprised if he's jumping back into the fray. :-k

Shouldn't that be Hopping? [-X

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23527

New Docket Entry...

Quote:

04/06/2011 171[RECAP] ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Pamela A. Mathy. Signed by Judge Orlando L. Garcia. Referral Magistrate Judge: Pamela A. Mathy. (tm) (Entered: 04/07/2011)

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23527

New Docket Entries...

Quote:

04/19/2011 CASE NO LONGER REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Pamela A. Mathy. (rf) (Entered: 04/19/2011)

04/19/2011 172[RECAP] ORDER transferring this case to the Northern District of Texas, DENYING as moot 170 MOTION for Leave to File Appedices I through III (Supplement to Appellant's Appendice). Signed by Judge Orlando L. Garcia. (rf) (Entered: 04/19/2011)

I have changed the title of the thread to reflect the Court's transfer of the case to the Northern District of Texas. The Order is an interesting read.

link shortly

RTH10260 · **Posted:** Wed Apr 20, 2011 9:48 am

Not a very friendly reception of the case in TX, and the judge must have been happy to find a reson to hand this s**t off

The recipient cout has been warned by the wording of what to expect ...

Maru · **Posted:** Wed Apr 20, 2011 10:15 am

realist wrote:

New Docket Entries...

Quote:

04/19/2011 CASE NO LONGER REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Pamela A. Mathy. (rf) (Entered: 04/19/2011)

04/19/2011 172[RECAP] ORDER transferring this case to the Northern District of Texas, DENYING as moot 170 MOTION for Leave to File Appedices I through III (Supplement to Appellant's Appendice). Signed by Judge Orlando L. Garcia. (rf) (Entered: 04/19/2011)

I have changed the title of the thread to reflect the Court's transfer of the case to the Northern District of Texas. The Order is an interesting read.

link shortly

Quote:

The Hales appear unaware that Wellington, Texas is in the Northern Judicial District, not the Western District. This impression is strengthened by a written comment of their former attorney, who wrote

Bwahaha. These legal eagles don't even know what district they are in. Not the best start...

bob · **Posted:** Wed Apr 20, 2011 10:40 am

Over/under on Taitz filing an appeal, despite not even being a party?

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23527

bob wrote:

Over/under on Taitz filing an appeal, despite not even being a party?

I'd say the chances are pretty good.

:lol:

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23527

The case of Liberi, et al. v Belcher, et al. has finally been transferred to the Northern District of TX.

New Docket Entries...

Quote:

05/05/2011 174 New Case Notes: A filing fee has been paid. File to Judge Robinson. Pursuant to Misc. Order 6, Plaintiff is provided the Notice of Right to Consent to Proceed Before A U.S. Magistrate Judge. Clerk to provide copy to plaintiff if not received electronically. (awc) (Entered: 05/05/2011)

05/05/2011 Magistrate Judge Clinton E Averitte no longer assigned to case. (djs) (Entered: 05/05/2011)

05/05/2011 173 Case electronically transferred in from District of Texas Western; Case Number 5:11-cv-00259. [highlight]Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas should seek admission promptly[/highlight]. Forms and Instructions found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov. Copy of NEF to be sent US Mail to parties not electronically noticed. (Entered: 05/05/2011)

Hi, Ed.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23527

New Docket Entries...

05/20/2011 ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:175. Fri May 20 16:59:20 CDT 2011 (crt) (Entered: 05/20/2011)

05/20/2011 175 ORDER for Immediate Response: (Ordered by Judge Mary Lou Robinson on 5/20/2011) (djs) (Entered: 05/20/2011)

Reality Check · **Posted:** Sun May 22, 2011 9:47 am

What's this? We will be deprived of a repeat performance of Ed's infamous Perry Mason imitation? [-(

[Not a good sign for the the boys and girls. It sounds like this judge might actually enforce da rulz for a change.]

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9326

Reality Check wrote:

What's this? We will be deprived of a repeat performance of Ed's infamous Perry Mason imitation? [-(

[Not a good sign for the the boys and girls. It sounds like this judge might actually enforce da rulz for a change.]

Do we actually know what Plains Radio et al actually are? Do they even exist or are they just bogus names Ed uses?

GreatGrey · **Posted:** Sun May 22, 2011 12:28 pm

A Legal Lohengrin wrote:

Reality Check wrote:

What's this? We will be deprived of a repeat performance of Ed's infamous Perry Mason imitation? [-(

[Not a good sign for the the boys and girls. It sounds like this judge might actually enforce da rulz for a change.]

Do we actually know what Plains Radio et al actually are? Do they even exist or are they just bogus names Ed uses?

We determined loooooooong ago that Plains Radio Network and KPRN 1610 AM are indeed fictional. Just as a reminder, Ed holds a FCC Part 15 license for a low power (100 milliwatts or less, same as a kids walkie talkie) community radio station. Part 15 licenses are used many places as information servers, ie "Tune to 1610 for parking garage information". There is no call sign involved with these stations, and they are prohibited from commercial activity.

As I recall, Ellie found out when Ed was offering to sell Plains Radio that he had incorporated in Nevada, but that things had lapsed. As a business, it's totally defunct.

"The rule is "that a corporation as a fictional legal person can only be represented by licensed counsel." "

Hee, Plains Radio Network and KPRN 1610 AM are fictional, so does this become some kind of "double fiction"?

ZekeB · **Posted:** Sun May 22, 2011 12:35 pm

GreatGrey wrote:

Hee, Plains Radio Network and KPRN 1610 AM are fictional, so does this become some kind of "double fiction"?

But what if two fictions equal one real?

verbalobe · **Posted:** Sun May 22, 2011 12:43 pm

GreatGrey wrote:

A Legal Lohengrin wrote:

Reality Check wrote:

What's this? We will be deprived of a repeat performance of Ed's infamous Perry Mason imitation? [-(

[Not a good sign for the the boys and girls. It sounds like this judge might actually enforce da rulz for a change.]

Do we actually know what Plains Radio et al actually are? Do they even exist or are they just bogus names Ed uses?

We determined loooooooong ago that Plains Radio Network and KPRN 1610 AM are indeed fictional. Just as a reminder, Ed holds a FCC Part 15 license for a low power (100 milliwatts or less, same as a kids walkie talkie) community radio station. Part 15 licenses are used many places as information servers, ie "Tune to 1610 for parking garage information". There is no call sign involved with these stations, and they are prohibited from commercial activity.

As I recall, Ellie found out when Ed was offering to sell Plains Radio that he had incorporated in Nevada, but that things had lapsed. As a business, it's totally defunct.

"The rule is "that a corporation as a fictional legal person can only be represented by licensed counsel." "

Hee, Plains Radio Network and KPRN 1610 AM are fictional, so does this become some kind of "double fiction"?

Wouldn't they just be solely owned proprietorships or 'dba's? And as such, can't the parties proceed pro-se? Or do the 'fictional' entities have to dropped from the suit as plaintiffs/defendants, if they are neither fish nor fowl?

lyssandri · **Posted:** Sun May 22, 2011 12:58 pm

The order says that under the law, even if the proposed pro se defendant is the sole shareholder and president of the company, they still have to have an actual lawyer. It then repeats that a pro se defendant can only appear on his or her own behalf and not on behalf of a "defendant corporation or limited liability corporation.

Since IANAL, I'm not sure if there's a difference between being the "sole shareholder and president" of a company and a solely-owned proprietorship, or if a sole proprietorship is a corporation in any sense or fits into a special "not a corporation" but I thought I'd throw that out there.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Sun May 22, 2011 12:58 pm

Verbie is correct. DBAs or sole proprietorships which can be self represented.

GreatGrey · **Posted:** Sun May 22, 2011 1:45 pm

Ed seems to think there are stockholders (him and Caren). This is from long, long ago, covered in the "Ed Hale Says" thread.

raicha · **Posted:** Sun May 22, 2011 1:48 pm

thorswitch wrote:

The order says that under the law, even if the proposed pro se defendant is the sole shareholder and president of the company, they still have to have an actual lawyer. It then repeats that a pro se defendant can only appear on his or her own behalf and not on behalf of a "defendant corporation or limited liability corporation.

Since IANAL, I'm not sure if there's a difference between being the "sole shareholder and president" of a company and a solely-owned proprietorship, or if a sole proprietorship is a corporation in any sense or fits into a special "not a corporation" but I thought I'd throw that out there.

TW - there is a difference. "sole shareholder" means owning all the issued shares, or stock, of a corporation. A corporation must have a lawyer.

A solely-owned proprietorship is a business run directly by a natural person, without setting up a corporation or limited liability company. So, if Ed Hale did not set up a corporation or "LLC" but ran the radio show himself and simply used a "fictitious business name" to describe his operations, then Ed Hale may be able to represent all of those "fictititious business names" or "dbas" (doing business as) in court.

raicha · **Posted:** Sun May 22, 2011 1:49 pm

GreatGrey wrote:

Ed seems to think there are stockholders (him and Caren). This is from long, long ago, covered in the "Ed Hale Says" thread.

Yeah, no violation of Federal or state securities laws there...

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9326

raicha wrote:

A solely-owned proprietorship is a business run directly by a natural person, without setting up a corporation or limited liability company. So, if Ed Hale did not set up a corporation or "LLC" but ran the radio show himself and simply used a "fictitious business name" to describe his operations, then Ed Hale may be able to represent all of those "fictititious business names" or "dbas" (doing business as) in court.

I would say in that case that he isn't really "representing" anything, because these names do not represent anything with any legal personality separate from Ed Hale himself.

lyssandri · **Posted:** Sun May 22, 2011 7:16 pm

raicha wrote:

thorswitch wrote:

TW - there is a difference. "sole shareholder" means owning all the issued shares, or stock, of a corporation. A corporation must have a lawyer.

Thanks, Raicha!

Butterfly Bilderberg · **Posted:** Mon May 23, 2011 10:15 pm

raicha wrote:

GreatGrey wrote:

Ed seems to think there are stockholders (him and Caren). This is from long, long ago, covered in the "Ed Hale Says" thread.

Yeah, no violation of Federal or state securities laws there...

Plus, it is better to buy the assets than the stock. That way you do not step into the shoes of the corporation and, with it, the legal actions against the entity.

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

LIBERI, et al. v BELCHER, et al. (N.D. TX)

Who is online