RE (update): Johnson Development Attorneys Continue to Challenge Courts Protective Order in Case Filed Against Their Own Residents! (case #05-CV-1441)
Originally on September 14th John Keville, SJD’s Houston attorney, filed an objection to the court protective order that was primarily issued to shield hundreds of homeowners and residents who participated on a local website in protest to the developer’s proposed second grouping of apartments coming to this quiet Missouri City neighborhood (see court connect for verification). This is in addition to an already approved “up to” 900 apartments coming to this area courtesy of SJD.
On October 17th an appeal was filed and challenged once again by SJD/JDC in the SLAPP (Strategic Law Suit Against Public Participation; see Canan & Pring, 1996) suit against Sienna residents here in the 240th district court in Fort Bend county. Several constitutional attorneys are now involved in the case and are continuing their attempts to protect homeowners in the Sienna area who participated on the SiennaTalk.com website. Johnson Development attorney’s are continuing their attempts to access those records and expand the case including this website (http://www.missouricitychatter.blogspot.com).
This case was originally filed after a group of Sienna and Missouri City area residents submitted a petition against the addition of a second grouping of up to 1800 apartments to Missouri City council and the developer backed mayor Allen Owen. This occurred five days after local media reported the campaign contributions list and ethics violations by the mayor during this 6 month long local conflict between residents, the developer and those backed by the SJD corporation on council, namely mayor Owen (see contributions list online at brazosriver.com).
The recent hearing to depose on September 14th allowed the limited depositions of the residents which took place on October 17th & 18th, by SJD attorneys, but a protective order by the court was issued over the website MissouriCityTalk.com (formerly SiennaTalk.com) to protect the free speech rights of hundreds of registered users from any possible retribution by the Sienna developers or exposure of their personal information to the developers who manage their residents association and control their resident’s association board of directors in this community of nearly 10,000 in the ETJ of Missouri City, TX.
Ms. Hermer and Jeff Singer are the attorneys who represent the residents and the website in this case. Ms Hermer, on the law faculty at University of Houston, filed the counter motion against the attempt by JDC attorneys to amend the protective order and has called in additional assistance from several constitutional lawyers. In her response Ms. Hermer states “…because the requested discovery seeks to pierce the anonymity of potentially each and every one of the scores of users of the website in question, First Amendment protections therefore come into play (see Doe v.2TheMart.com, Inc.)…” she goes on to state in her brief that “… the Petitioner (Johnson Development) is precisely the entity from whom many of the users of the website sought protection through anonymity.” If the court goes along with the JDC/SJD attorneys and modifies the court order many residents would be subject to exposure to the developer and potential retribution for their participation in this very public fight against apartments in this community.
Stay tuned for more as we will continue to update this action by the Houston developer building Riverstone and Sienna Plantation subdivisions here in Missouri City, TX. If you want to help then please contact the below to let them know how you feel:
Contact e-mails:
fbeditor@hcnonline.com -- Fort Bend Sun
rick.casey@chron.com. -- The Chronicle
bkcstar@earthlink.net -- Fort Bend Star
Eric.Hansen@chron.com -- The Chronicle
bob@fortbendnow.com -- Fort Bend Now
City council contacts: Mayor@ci.mocity.tx.us; owenwall@wellsfargo.com; Council2@ci.mocity.tx.us; brjimerson@jimerson.net; bburton@ci.mocity.tx.us; Councila@ci.mocity.tx.us; ehrieiter@hal-pc.org; donsmith@ci.mocity.tx.us; Councilb@ci.mocity.tx.us; bkolaja@ci.mocity.tx.us; Council1@ci.mocity.tx.us
Developer contacts: http://www.johnsondevelopment.com/contactus.html --web contact
Larry Johnson-713-960-9977; larry@johnsondev.com
Chad Johnson-713-960-9977; chadj@johnsondev.com
Doug Goff-713-960-9977; dougg@siennaplantation.com
******
Committee for Responsible Development—MoCity Group
Responsible_dvlpmnt@yahoo.com
Missouri City, Texas
posted by responsible_dvlpmnt at Friday, October 21, 2005
34 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
For those waiting on an update regarding the search for an "06 mayoral candidate then stay tuned. We heard another meeting took place and we should have an update on that effort soon!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Building a Better Browser: Flock Has Landed
News, opinion, and links from Editor in Chief Harry McCracken. See all PC World's Techlog ... The Flock folks didn't build a Favorites-synching service of their own--instead, they built a friendly front-end for Del.icio.us , the popular, powerful, but somewhat geeky bookmark-sharing service.
Hello, you have made yourself a great blog! I'm immediately going to bookmark you!
I have good news at billionaire for you to see. It is showing you a whole lot! You are invited to check it out if you get time :-)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Looks like the commercial ads are picking up on this site. I wonder why?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Recent SLAPP VICTORY in Texas (see below) from http://www.mosesnonprofit.com/lambs.htm :
MEDIA ALERT
Mothers Organized To Stop Environmental Sins
Wasted Babies™ is a Project of M. 0 S. E. S.
13231 WITTMORE CIRCLE - DALLAS, TEXAS 75240 , (972) 960-1421 FAX: 960-8749
CONTACT: Phyllis Glazer, M.O.S.E.S. (972)960-1421
Ross Richard-Crow, Esq., (512)482-0394 or
Chip Babcock or Robert Latham, Esq., 214-953-6000
RACKETEERING SUIT AGAINST CITIZENS DROPPED
NO SILENCING THESE LAMBS
Dallas, Texas - In a victory for free speech and first amendment rights, a large hazardous waste company dropped a lawsuit viewed by activists as an attempt to intimidate and silence citizens fighting corporate polluters. American Ecology Corp. and two of its subsidiaries, American Ecology Environmental Services Corp. and US Ecology, after nearly two years, dropped their suit against grassroots citizens group, Mothers Organized to Stop Environmental Sins (M.O.S.E.S.), its president, Phyllis Glazer, her 77 year-old mother, Glazer's husband and his family business of three generations.
The company challenged the free speech activities of Phyllis Glazer and the grassroots citizen group, M.O.S.E.S., which picketed, commented at public hearings, sent out newsletters and contacted the press regarding their belief that the companys lack of environmental compliance and hundreds of violations to federal and state environmental laws effected their health and endangered their lives. The suit had alleged, among many other things: racketeering activities involving a conspiracy to force the closure of their facility in Winona, Texas, defamation, and business disparagement.
"I believe that the company knew from the start that they could not support any of their allegations in this lawsuit and the purpose was purely to harass, silence and punish me!" Glazer explained. "As we approached a point in the case where the court would have most likely thrown out this egregious SLAPP suit, I believe the company realized that they could have lost the case and then would face our counterclaim against them for bringing a frivolous suit. They were suddenly very eager to get out of their suit."
"SLAPP Suits, by their nature, are an effort to drain citizens of their resources and distract their attention from pursuing their cause," says Chip Babcock, lawyer for the citizens and also attorney for Oprah Winfrey in her famous suit regarding mad cow disease.
SLAPP stands for Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation, named for law suits aimed at those who engage in constitutionally protected activities such as participating in public hearings, signing petitions, sending letters to the editor and other civic activities protected under the U.S. Constitution.
"I cannot understand how a company and its subsidiaries with a history the likes of this one could possibly confuse M.O.S.E.S.' mouseketeers with racketeers. M.O.S.E.S.' members are mommies and grandmas, daddies and grandpas -- not exactly mobster types!" says Glazer. She believes that the company and its subsidiaries were attempting to bring pressure upon her to abandon her right to speak out by creating great anguish in seeing her elderly mother, her husband and his family business consisting of his family members sued. However, in the opinion of many environmental activists, the company found that they had a tiger by the tail. As reported by Dateline NBC, Glazer's father, at the age of nineteen fled Europe during the Holocaust. His family, who could not get out, perished there. Consequently, Glazer felt that she could not leave her friends and neighbors to try to save herself. She could not allow what she refers to as, "the silencing of lambs."
"The company had no idea what they were in for," states Ralph Nader. A great deal of national media attention focused on this case because, as Nader described the situation, Phyllis Glazer and her family were the first citizens who had the resources to defend against a SLAPP suit of this scale. Because of its high profile, the suit had important implications for first amendment rights, freedom of the press and activists everywhere. Says Nader, "This sends a message that particularly when citizens have the resources to fight back, SLAPPs don't work. However, this suit and others like it demonstrate the need for legislation to protect citizens, especially those of more modest means, from these frivolous SLAPP suits that put a chill on our first amendment rights." Already several states have passed anti-SLAPP legislation, but Texas does not have any such protection for its citizens.
States Glazer, "This company completely backed out after nearly two costly years and dropped a suit they filed. I wonder how they can explain away such a drain on their shareholder's assets. I believe they settled because these polluters did not have a case and never did have a case. Socrates once said, "The charge of "conspiracy" is a tool used by tyrants to silence free thought,"" recites Glazer.
"I was ready to go to court, however, I had to consider saving my elderly mother and other family members from continued anguish over this suit. No gag order was signed as M.O.S.E.S. and I would not agree to be silenced. The settlement was suitable enough for M.O.S.E.S. to drop its counterclaim. The Winona facility is closed and hopefully clean up will be done properly." However, Glazer is saddened by the belief that justice never came to Winona. She says, "Winona became, like so many other poor and/or minority communities, a governmental oubliette -- a forgotten place. But, M.O.S.E.S. and I will go about our business without further interruption by raw intimidation tactics. I truly am the luckiest woman alive to have a supportive family so that I can help protect the lives and health of children across the country. It truly is a wonderful life and a happy life is the best revenge!"
Glazer concludes, "There was and will be no silencing of these lambs, I believe that 'The first and great commandment is, Don't let them scare you."-Elmer Davis.
From what I read in the paper, only 2, possibly 3 residents are involved in the SiennaTalk.com lawsuit because one pretended to be many many different aliases.
I'm really starting to wonder if what I read is true here. Who are you anyhow, admin.? A lot of these comments remind me of that site.
Why are hundreds and scores of residents always mentioned if only 2 or 3 are possibly involved?
I think you miss the point. The builder only knows (or can guess) the identiy of a few users of the website. The purpose of their leagal actions is to find the identiy of each and every user of the site. that means you too if you registered on siennatalk.com.
You can believe whatever you choose to believe. That is your right and what we are fighting for. If you want to verify the 1100+ people who signed on the petition you can even do that. All the data is available through the city by filing a open records request. If you start now maybe you could finish in time for Christmas.--Wish us luck and while you are at it look up some info on SLAPP cases. This procedure of picking out a smaller group or even individuals is a common practice and a majority of the cases are filed by developers. Try it if you don't trust us--then do your own scholarship and wake up!
This one is for our friend John:
O: What word describes a lawyer who doesn’t chase ambulances?
A: Retired.
It would be nice if these claims by the developer had any merit to them. Of course some forget that this is impacting at least 12 residents (men, women and children) who stood up for the rest of the community directly and many more indirectly. Further, it seems just a tad hypocritical to sell someone something and take liberties during those sales and then to turn around and sue them--don't you think?
"frivolous SLAPP suits"
Doesn't TX have a strong frivolous statute and other actions like malicious prosecution, abuse of process, etc. for cases like these?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Q. Doesn't TX have a strong frivolous statute and other actions like malicious prosecution, abuse of process, etc. for cases like these?
A. No.
That's interesting because a friendly lawyer I know said they do have a pretty strong statute for frivolous suits in Texas and he practices here.
Here's one for New York attorneys:
"It's been so cold in New York recently that several lawyers were spotted walking around with their hands in their own pockets."
Regents Properties of Beverly Hills, CA. which has purchased South Sienna this past summer made this article in the Los Angeles Business Journal:
"Demise of Office Project Reflects Changes in Lending - Brief Article
Los Angeles Business Journal, May 8, 2000 by Shelly Garcia
Save a personal copy of this article and quickly find it again with Furl.net. It's free! Save it.
Low vacancy rates usually mean a green light for developers to begin building anew, but as the recent collapse of a major deal in Burbank illustrates, that's starting to change.
The real estate market has nowhere to go but down, some experts are concluding, and developers and capital partners don't want to be caught holding the bag when it does.
Burbank's office vacancy rate is only 5 percent, normally a level at which developers are anxious to start building. But lenders are growing increasingly cautious, fearing a downturn is on the way. Those newly emerging dynamics are what led Regent Properties to quash plans to develop a $100 million mixed-use project in the city's downtown core.
Real estate experts say lenders and other capital sources no longer consider vacancy rates alone when assessing development plans.
"In every past cycle, when vacancies got below a certain level, that was the stimulus to do more development," said Jim Shaw, managing director for Cohen Financial, a real estate investment bank. "But success always led to competition, which always led to a collapse in the market, so the capital markets are trying to be a little more disciplined."
On April 24, Regent notified Burbank city officials that it had decided to terminate its development agreement, after months of attempts to redesign the project to meet the changes in Burbank's landscape since Regent inked the development deal about two years ago.
"We will begin immediately looking for a new developer for the project," said Ruth Davidson-Guerra, project manager for the site, bounded by Olive Avenue, San Fernando Boulevard, Angeleno Avenue and Third Street. "I believe we'll try to aim for some sort of mixed-use project."
Unraveling 0f a deal
About two years ago, Regent acquired the three-acre site with plans to construct a complex with 200,000 square feet of office space, a retail component and a hotel. The company had been close to a deal with Marriott International to build a 300-room hotel, and Burbank officials said Marriott is still interested in the site. But the outlook for the other components of the project had been unraveling for some time.
Although the office vacancy levels in Burbank are very low, the demand for that type of space is expected to taper off, and several other projects announced or begun since Regent acquired the site have further dampened the outlook in that sector.
"I think there's a question mark in terms of what the market will absorb and what lending institutions will lend out," said Bud Ovrom, Burbank city manager.
Officials at Regent did not return phone calls, but in a press release, the company's Managing Partner Jeff Dinkin said the developer was unable to obtain financing for the hotel transaction. "We are extremely disappointed that we will be unable to move forward with the project," Dinkin's statement read.
Burbank city officials said the company had been struggling with a way to redesign the project to reflect today's financing and development realities. Under the initial agreement with the redevelopment agency, Regent was to have begun construction on April 1. The company had requested and received several extensions to its contract, the latest of which was due to expire May 10.
Real estate experts say downtown Burbank is especially vulnerable to the new degree of scrutiny from lenders because the potential for development there is considered limited to begin with.
"Downtown Burbank is not the Westside," said Larry Kosmont, president of real estate consultancy Kosmont Partners. "Downtown has never been a prime target for office space."
The size of the project is also a prime consideration for developers and lenders, particularly where speculative projects are concerned. Financial sources have been reluctant to back developments larger than 100,000 square feet unless the developer is able to roll them out in separate stages.
Unlike retail or industrial development, it takes several years before an office building hits the market, and most agree that the demand may not remain at current levels by then.
"Part of it is concern of where we are in the cycle," said Shelly Magoffin, president of commercial mortgage bank Dwyer-Curlett & Co. "(Equity partners) feel we're at the (height of the cycle) and the markets from here will get softer, not stronger, so equity has been getting more difficult to obtain in the past year than it was over the last two years."
Other developments planned and underway are also affecting the outlook. M. David Paul & Associates recently acquired a parcel in the Burbank Media District with plans to develop 575,000 square feet in two phases. And although one of the company's other developments, Media Studios North near the Burbank Airport, is fully leased, about 37 percent of that building has recently landed on the sublease market, promising to offer increased competition to any new developments.
Burbank's retail climate has also changed since Regent first began drawing up its plans. Movie theaters have overbuilt and there are pockets of high retail store vacancies.
"The retail market now is very soft in Burbank," Ovrom said.
The Media City Center, an enclosed mall, has been laboring under an estimated 20 percent vacancy rate, Ovrom said. And Blockbuster Music, Crown Books and Newberry's have all vacated their properties in Burbank Village, leaving about 20,000 square feet of retail space for lease there.
In addition, Zelman Cos. has received approval for a 600,000-square-foot retail power center to house stores such as Staples and Costco when it opens early in 2001.
Burbank officials concede that the economics of developing the downtown parcel have changed since the redevelopment agency first began seeking proposals.
"We will be defining the project parameters based on the economic viability," said Davidson-Guerra. "We started down the road with Regent over two years ago and the economic climate is different now...."
For the rest of this article visit http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m5072/is_19_22/ai_62534737
COPYRIGHT 2000 CBJ, L.P.
According to the original post you all mention the deposition. What type of questions did they ask and how long did it take?
The Monday session lasted 3-4 of the court allowed 6 hours and the Tuesday session lasted 6 hours of the 6 allowed by the judge. During the questioning they were seeking names of those participating on the committee and those participating on the websites, as expected. They also wanted to know who purchased newspaper ads about council members and their voting and they wanted to know if a certain council member was behind the "No More Apts." drive in the community. The attorney for SJD looked for information on who was participating in the campaign for another mayoral candidate and who was involved in that effort. They seemed very interested in the political impact of this whole thing and wanted information on it. No reason was given but they seemed to spend a great deal of time defending their mayor. It was very interesting from my perspective but I wonder how come they are allowed to use the courts in their political fight here?
That's probably all that should be shared for now.--Hope it helps.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
That doesn't "jive" with the personal defamation issue that was a posted on the resident website. I thought that was the reason for the suit. Are there other motives for this deposition do you think?
Sounds like a great question. Does anyone who was present at the depo have an answer for that?
Here's a good TX psych. joke--
The aspiring psychiatrists were attending their first class on emotional extremes. "Just to establish some parameters," said the professor to the student from Arkansas, "What is the opposite of joy?"
"Sadness," said the student.
And the opposite of depression?" he asked of the young lady from Oklahoma.
"Elation," said she.
"And you sir," he said to the young man from Texas, "how about the opposite of woe?"
The Texan replied, "Sir, I believe that would be giddy-up."
The following are motions and counter motions thus far in the battle of the lawyers representing Johnson Development in their SLAPP case against homeowners (former/current customers) and their families here in Sienna Plantation.--If you are following this. You can go to the source at http://courtcn.co.fort-bend.tx.us:80/pls/public/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_frames?backto=P&case_id=05-CV-144185&begin_date=&end_date=
(Former New Yorker and current Houston lawyer John Keville represents the visiting team (JDC/SJD) and Hermer (UoH), Singer (Sugar Land) & Broiles (constitutional attorney) represents the home team--->pardon the metaphor:
Docket Entries
Filing Date Description Name Monetary
03-AUG-2005
01:22 PM NEW DISTRICT CIVIL CASE FILED KEVILLE, JOHN
Entry: none.
03-AUG-2005
01:22 PM STYLE OF CASE KEVILLE, JOHN
Entry: IN RE SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT, PETITIONER.
03-AUG-2005
01:22 PM ORIGINAL CIVIL PETITION KEVILLE, JOHN
Entry: PETITIONER SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT'S VERIFIED PETITION TO TAKE DEPOSITION BEFORE SUIT
03-AUG-2005
01:22 PM ISSUE PROCESS
Entry: none.
03-AUG-2005
01:22 PM CONSTABLE PCT 1 SERVICE
Entry: none.
03-AUG-2005
01:34 PM PAYMENT RECEIVED
Entry: A Payment of -$248.00 was made on receipt DCHC120079.
03-AUG-2005
02:12 PM FAX FORM PRODUCED
Entry: FAXED CIVIL PROCESS FORM TO OFFICE OF ATTORNEY JOHN KEVILLE ATTN BELINDA B MCMAHAN
05-AUG-2005
01:26 PM HEARING REQUESTED
Entry: M/ TO TAKE DEPOSITION
08-AUG-2005
04:13 PM COURT'S DOCKET SHEET GENERATED
Entry: Docket entry for the DOCKET SHEET produced from CDADOCT on 08-AUG-2005 by COKERKIM.
19-AUG-2005
03:59 PM ISSUE PROCESS/2
Entry: none.
19-AUG-2005
03:59 PM NOTICE FILED SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP,
Entry: NOTICE OF HEARING ON PETITIONER'S SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT'S PETITION TO TAKE DEPOSITIONS BEFORE SUIT
19-AUG-2005
03:59 PM NOTICE FILED SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP,
Entry: NOTICE OF HEARING ON PETITIONER SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT'S PETITION TO TAKE DEPOSITIONS BEFORE SUIT.
19-AUG-2005
04:10 PM PAYMENT RECEIVED
Entry: A Payment of -$16.00 was made on receipt DCHC122230.
23-AUG-2005
10:27 AM ISSUED PROCESS CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: Docket entry for the 03-GCIT-039478 produced from CDADOCT on 23-AUG-2005 by SALINROS. ROOM 100
23-AUG-2005
10:30 AM ISSUED PROCESS FEINBERG, MATTHEW
Entry: Docket entry for the 05-GCIT-039479 produced from CDADOCT on 23-AUG-2005 by SALINROS. ROOM 100
23-AUG-2005
10:33 AM LETTER PRODUCED
Entry: Docket entry for the ATTACHMENT letter produced from CDADOCT on 23-AUG-2005 by SALINROS.
29-AUG-2005
02:23 PM PAYMENT RECEIVED
Entry: A Payment of -$8.00 was made on receipt DCHC122966.
01-SEP-2005
12:44 PM PROCESS RETURNED FEINBERG, MATTHEW
Entry: SERVED:08-26-05
01-SEP-2005
12:44 PM AFFIDAVIT FILED
Entry: AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE RONALD HARRIS, AFFIANT
01-SEP-2005
12:45 PM PROCESS RETURNED CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: SERVED:08-26-05
01-SEP-2005
12:45 PM AFFIDAVIT FILED
Entry: AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE RONALD HARRIS, AFFIANT
02-SEP-2005
10:56 AM RESET REQUESTED-CASE PENDING
Entry: none.
02-SEP-2005
10:59 AM HEARING REQUESTED
Entry: none.
08-SEP-2005
04:27 PM ORIGINAL ANSWER FILED FEINBERG, MATTHEW
Entry: RESPONSE TO SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENTS VERIFIED PETITION TO TAKE DEPOSITION BEFORE SUIT MOTION TO QUASH AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER WITH CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE AND SERVICE
09-SEP-2005
08:09 AM AMENDED/SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING FEINBERG, MATTHEW
Entry: CORRECTION
13-SEP-2005
11:34 AM RESPONSE FILED CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: CHRIS CALVIN'S RESPONSE TO PETITIONER SIENNE/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT'S VERIFIED PETITION TO TAKE DEPOSITION BEFORE SUIT WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
21-SEP-2005
10:24 AM RESPONSE FILED FEINBERG, MATTHEW
Entry: TO PETITIONERS OBJECTION TO PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
29-SEP-2005
04:25 PM MOTION FILED CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: MOTION TO QUASH AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
07-OCT-2005
12:43 PM AMENDED/SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: FIRST AMENDED MOTION TO QUASH AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
07-OCT-2005
12:43 PM NOTICE FILED CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: NOTICE OF ORAL HEARING WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
11-OCT-2005
10:27 AM MOTION GRANTED SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP,
Entry: PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER 2 PAGES
11-OCT-2005
10:27 AM MOTION GRANTED CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: ORDER 1 PAGE ON MOTON TO QUASH AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
13-OCT-2005
10:29 AM RESPONSE FILED SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP,
Entry: PETITIONER'S REPLY TO RESPONDENT CHRIS CALVIN'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
13-OCT-2005
10:29 AM OBJECTION FILED SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP,
Entry: PETITIONER'S OBJECTION TO RESPONDENT MATTHEW FEINBERG'S PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER
13-OCT-2005
02:34 PM JDG ORDER/NO ACCOMPANYING MTN SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP,
Entry: PROPOSED ORDER ON RESPONDENT MATTHEW FEINBERG'S MOTION TO QUASH 1 PAGE ORDER DENYING MATTHEW FEINBERG'S MOTION TO QUASH
13-OCT-2005
02:40 PM PAYMENT RECEIVED
Entry: A Payment of -$.50 was made on receipt DCHC126648.
17-OCT-2005
08:01 AM APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL FEINBERG, MATTHEW
Entry: NOTICE OF APPEARANCE
17-OCT-2005
08:03 AM MOTION FILED HERMER, LAURA
Entry: PETITION TO TAKE LATE APPEAL
17-OCT-2005
08:03 AM NOTICE OF APPEAL/DC HERMER, LAURA
Entry: RESPONDENT MATTHEW FEINBERG'S NOTICE OF APPEAL AND REQUEST FOR HEARING, AND EMERGENCY REQUEST FOR STAY OF ORDERS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, DEPOSITIONS
17-OCT-2005
08:04 AM MOTION FILED FEINBERG, MATTHEW
Entry: RECORD
17-OCT-2005
08:05 AM MOTION FILED HERMER, LAURA
Entry: MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DECISION
17-OCT-2005
09:43 AM HEARING REQUESTED
Entry: none.
17-OCT-2005
09:56 AM OBJECTION FILED SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP,
Entry: PETITIONER'S OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT MATTHEW FEINBERG'S NOTICE OF APPEAL AND REQUEST FOR HEARING, EMERGENCY REQUEST FOR STAY OF ORDERS, AND PETITION TO TAKE LATE APPEAL WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
17-OCT-2005
11:46 AM AMENDED/SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING RUIZ, PEDRO P.
Entry: ASSOCIATE JUDGE REPORT OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISTRICT COURT WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
19-OCT-2005
10:22 AM PAYMENT RECEIVED
Entry: A Payment of -$1.00 was made on receipt DCHC126986.
19-OCT-2005
03:51 PM AMENDED/SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING HERMER, LAURA
Entry: RESPONDENT FEINBERG'S APPEAL FORM ASSOCIATE JUDGE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISTRICT COURT, AND REQUEST FOR TRIAL DE NOVO SUPPLEMENT TO OCTOBER 17, 2005, NOTICE OF APPEAL
20-OCT-2005
09:47 AM PAYMENT RECEIVED
Entry: A Payment of -$3.00 was made on receipt DCHC127049.
21-OCT-2005
12:13 PM PAYMENT RECEIVED
Entry: A Payment of -$25.00 was made on receipt DCHC127274.
-End
--Wish us luck as this continues!!!--CRD
Warning here's a PG-13 lawyer joke:
Q: What happens when a lawyer takes Viagra?
A: He gets taller.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
The jokes are funny but maybe there should be a thread for these because this is an issue people want to keep up on and the jokes are off topic.
It is funny that they want info on voting issues since residents CAN'T VOTE! Why would it matter to them what is done regarding mayorial issues? Geez, are they trying to take that right (ability to cast a vote as we choose without being subjected to harassment) from us too or are they just flexing a muscle when we do finally get that right?
Gee, I am wondering why soldiers are fighting for these freedoms overseas when we don't have them right here in Sienna.
Here's a repost of another SLAPP article (cited in earlier thread):
Free Speech: Going, Going ...
By Molly Ivins, AlterNet. Posted August 19, 2005.
Corporations' efforts to curb free speech through lawsuits are unfortunately succeeding. Tools
Eternal vigilance is the price of ... um, well, guess we can't say that anymore. We might get sued.
Mostly when we think of threats to free speech, it's government actions or laws we have in mind -- the usual bizarre stuff like veggie libel laws or attempts to keep government actions or meetings secret from the public.
Sometimes you get a political case, like then-Gov. George W. Bush's effort to stop a Bush-parody site on the Internet. The parody, run by a 29-year-old computer programmer in Boston named Zack Exley, annoyed Bush so much that he called Exley "a garbageman" and said, "There ought to be limits to freedom." (That's not a parody -- he actually said that.)
Bush's lawyers warned Exley that he faced a lawsuit. Then they filed a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission demanding that Exley be forced to register his parody site with the FEC and have it regulated as a political committee.
This fits in with the four instances in which faculty members at the Bush School of Government and Public Service in our fair state were reprimanded at the behest of Bush associates for saying less-than-glowing things about our then-governor.
But this is petty stuff compared to corporate efforts to curb free speech.
SLAPP suits (for "strategic lawsuits against public participation") are a serious menace to free speech. The latest example is a real prize: The Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports, has already spent $10 million defending itself against a lawsuit filed by Isuzu Motors Ltd. because, eight years earlier, Consumer Reports rated the Isuzu Trooper "not acceptable" for safety reasons. And the case has not yet reached trial.
And that is the real menace of SLAPP suits. It's not that corporations win them, but that they cost critics so much money that the critics are silenced -- and so is everyone else who even thinks about raising some question about a corporate product or practice.
Isuzu claims that CU's reports are "not scientific or credible," but the company's internal memos state that the "lawsuit is a PR tool" and "when attacked, CU will probably shut up." According to a study by two University of Denver law professors, "Americans by the thousands are being sued, simply for exercising the right to speak out on public issues, such as health and safety."
New York Supreme Court Judge J. Nicholas Cobella told PR Watch in Madison, Wis.: "The longer the litigation can be stretched out ... the closer the SLAPP filer moves to success. Those who lack the financial resources and emotional stamina to play out the 'game' face the difficult choice of defaulting despite meritorious defenses or being brought to their knees to settle. ... Short of a gun to the head, a greater threat to First Amendment expression can scarcely be imagined."
PR Watch also quoted George Pring and Penelope Canan, authors of the 1996 book "SLAPPs: Getting Sued for Speaking Out."
"Initially, we saw such suits as attacks on traditional 'free speech' and regarded them as just 'intimidation lawsuits,'" the two authors say. "As we studied them further, an even more significant linkage emerged: The defendants had been speaking out in government hearings, to government officials or about government actions. ... This was not just free speech under attack. It was that other and older and even more central part of our Constitution: the right to petition government for redress of grievances, the 'Petition Clause' of the First Amendment."
Some examples of SLAPP suits from PR Watch:
* In Las Vegas, a local doctor was sued for his allegation that a city hospital violated the state's cost-containment law.
* In Baltimore, members of a community group faced a $252 million lawsuit after circulating a letter questioning the property-buying practices of a local housing developer.
* In West Virginia, an environmental activist was sued for $200,000 for criticizing a coal-mining company for activities that were poisoning a local river.
* In Pennsylvania, a farmer was sued after testifying to his township supervisors that a low-flying helicopter owned by a local landfill operator caused a stampede that killed several of his cows.
* In Washington state, a homeowner found that she couldn't get a mortgage because her real-estate company had failed to pay taxes owed on her house. She uncovered hundreds of similar cases, and the company was forced to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in back taxes. In retaliation, it sued the woman for slander and dragged her through six years of legal harassment before a jury found her innocent.
* In Missouri, a high-school English teacher was sued for $1 million after complaining to a weekly newspaper that an incinerator burning hospital waste was a health hazard.
Unlike the average citizen, Consumers Union has the resources to defend itself against the Isuzu suit. It's a nonprofit organization, and Consumer Reports accepts no advertising, lest there be any appearance of bias, and never grants permission for any commercial use of its name or test results.
It accepts no contributions from corporations or law firms or even individuals if the check bears a business imprint. The 60-year-old magazine is supported by the generations of smart consumers who always consult Consumer Reports before making any major purchases.
As we have seen with tort deform, it is not difficult to close off access to the courts for certain kinds of lawsuits. I can't think of a more meritorious and constitutional cause.
Molly Ivins writes about politics, Texas and other bizarre happenings.
Read this one all--
Q. Why are scientists now using lawyers in laboratory experiments instead of rats?
A. Three reasons: 1) lawyers are more plentiful than rats; 2) there is no danger the scientists will become attached to the lawyers; and 3) there are some things rats just won't do.
(Mind you, the scientists are finding it difficult to extrapolate the results of the experiments to human beings.). . . ;-)
yeezy boost 350 v2
yeezy boost 350 v2
longchamp
jordans
nike max
cheap jordans
supreme
jordan shoes
jordan shoes
golden goose outlet
Post a Comment
<< Home