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

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34513
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

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

#351

Post by realist » Wed Dec 21, 2011 11:40 am

It's not you, mimi, it's Scribd. It is having a fit this morning. The only function working is the ability to download documents to it.All functions working fine from Korea.Hopefully it's all fixed now. It sucked a few hours ago. :D


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14897
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

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

#352

Post by Reality Check » Wed Dec 21, 2011 11:45 am

Still not working for me. The first couple of pages of the document come up but I cannot do anything from there.


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

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

#353

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Wed Dec 21, 2011 11:48 am

Query: Setting aside the accusation of a fraudulent transfer of assets, since there is no judgment in this case, and assuming a discharge in Chapter 7, if a judgment is later entered would/could it include this "potential judgment"? I'd think not, but dunno.A competent lawyer (not Berg) would address the alleged fraudulent conveyance (presumably of a nonexistent farm) in an adversary action within the bankruptcy. A competent bankruptcy lawyer would bring the attention of the bankruptcy court to the existence of a cause of action against the estate, although I don't know the exact mechanics of that. Since the cause of action accrued prior to the date of the bankruptcy, I believe it would be addressed.However, at least some of the torts Berg is claiming are things like defamation, generally considered an intentional tort and not dischargeable in bankruptcy. I'm not sure that it isn't possible in cases where defamation is proved to a negligence standard (such as some defamation against a private person) for it to be discharged, but Berg almost certainly qualifies as at least a limited public figure and defamation against him would have to be proved to an actual malice standard.I really doubt it will matter. It is highly unlikely the bungling fool Berg will prosecute this utter bullshit case to a successful conclusion even against these defendants. If that jerk had even a speck of common sense or even human decency, he'd have dropped a number of these defendants long ago anyway.Also, presumably, at least as to Ed Hale et ux., there is an automatic stay in the proceedings so we won't know what happens with those two defendants for some time (assuming the proper notice is filed in the Berg case).



User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31119
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

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

#354

Post by mimi » Wed Dec 21, 2011 12:08 pm

Still not working for me. The first couple of pages of the document come up but I cannot do anything from there.maybe it's part of their 'stop SOPA' campaign? :-? Though I still think I screwed something up on my computer.



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34513
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

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

#355

Post by realist » Wed Dec 21, 2011 12:12 pm

Still not working for me. The first couple of pages of the document come up but I cannot do anything from there.maybe it's part of their 'stop SOPA' campaign? :-? Though I still think I screwed something up on my computer.Not working properly for me either. The only function properly working is uploading documents. I can not edit a title, add documents to the proper collection, etc.I've reported it but no reply yet.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

Lea
Posts: 583
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 2:20 am

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

#356

Post by Lea » Wed Dec 21, 2011 2:46 pm

I just posted an update in The Lounge. I try to jump on the laptop when I can to read what is happening, but that sometimes is only for a few minutes at a time. Charlene, is staying at our house when we are gone and she jumps on here to read and trys to keep me updated. I am home from Texas until Friday morning and then we head back to Texas and won't be back until just before New Year's.I just saw where there was some activity in the case in Texas and will be talking to Lisa and Phil to make sure that I am in Amarillo when I am suppose to be. Maybe we can get this case over and done with. :hug:'sLea!!! :hug: you're fambly! Always.Thanks Somerset! I appreciate that and feel the same way about you and 99% of the others here! :hug:'s



Somerset
Posts: 3736
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:52 am
Location: Silicon Valley
Occupation: Lab rat

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

#357

Post by Somerset » Wed Dec 21, 2011 4:06 pm

Still not working for me. The first couple of pages of the document come up but I cannot do anything from there.maybe it's part of their 'stop SOPA' campaign? :-? Though I still think I screwed something up on my computer.Not working properly for me either. The only function properly working is uploading documents. I can not edit a title, add documents to the proper collection, etc.I've reported it but no reply yet.It seems to be ok now. I was able to peruse all 28 pages of poo.



User avatar
Estiveo
Posts: 7208
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:31 pm
Location: Trouble's Howse

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

#358

Post by Estiveo » Thu Dec 22, 2011 1:24 am

SRSLY? Ed's middle name is Selmer? :o :lol: =)) Holy schnikies, it's Selmer Fudd, "Shhh...be vewy quiet...I'm hunting big-footed wabbits!"Sorry, I tend to fixate on the oddest things, but that just amused the bejeebus outta me. Carry on.


Image Image Image Image Image

User avatar
GreatGrey
Posts: 9485
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:06 am
Location: Living in the Anthropocene

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

#359

Post by GreatGrey » Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:20 am

SRSLY? Ed's middle name is Selmer? :o :lol: =)) Holy schnikies, it's Selmer Fudd, "Shhh...be vewy quiet...I'm hunting big-footed wabbits!"Sorry, I tend to fixate on the oddest things, but that just amused the bejeebus outta me. Carry on.Yea, it's Selmer, the Third, You didn't know that? It was on the entrance exam.


I am not "someone upthread".
Trump needs to be smashed into some kind of inedible orange pâté.

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34513
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

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

#360

Post by realist » Fri Dec 23, 2011 5:24 pm

New Docket Entry...





12/23/2011 [link]202,[/link] RESPONSE filed by EVELYN ADAMS, Philip J Berg, GO EXCEL GLOBAL, LISA LIBERI, LISA M. OSTELLA, The Law Offices of Philip J Berg re: 198[RECAP] MOTION to Strike 185[RECAP] Response/Objection, 186[RECAP] MOTION for Protective Order ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities (Brief); Appendix; Proposed Order; and Certificate of Service MOTION for Protective Order ; Memorandum of Points and Authoriti (Attachments: # 1 Table of Contents, # [link]2,[/link] Memorandum of Points and Authorities (Brief), # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Certificate of Service) (Berg, Philip) (Entered: 12/23/2011)5. Further, Plaintiffs are not being served with the Hale Defendants


filings and/or attempted filings as claimed by the Defendants. The Motion to


Dismiss filed by Defendant Edgar Hale on behalf of Defendant Linda Belcher,


Plaintiffs were never served with and [highlight]only learned of it on December 13, 2011,


when this Court issued an Order stating the Court would not consider the Motion[/highlight],


see Docket No. 197. Likewise, Plaintiffs did not receive service, as claimed by the


Hales, of the Hale Defendants Motion to Strike until the Court filed it on the


Docket and Plaintiffs received service through the ECF Federal Filing system.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
GreatGrey
Posts: 9485
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:06 am
Location: Living in the Anthropocene

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

#361

Post by GreatGrey » Fri Dec 23, 2011 11:53 pm

When we last met, the Court had referred this case to non-binding mediation on a very tight and fast-tracked schedule. Now...





OH MY!!!





New Docket Entries...





12/20/2011 [link]201,[/link][RECAP]


I'm not going to download the zibits without a public outcry. :lol:They're up here: [/break1]scribd.com/doc/76249271/Doc-201-2-Liberi-v-Belcher-Plaintiffs-Exhibits-1-Thru-13] ... -1-Thru-13





Ed just flat azz lied to Judge Robinson about Bar H Farms in his May 25th letter. We knew that at the time, but it's just so fucking dumb of him to deny Bar H when Bar H owns his shitbox house.





And Berg isn't gonna get his retirement outta this, Ed's house is valued at less than $30,000.


(I did some looking for houses for sale in Wellington, just to verify the Assessed Value of Ed's house. That's one seriously depressed place)


I am not "someone upthread".
Trump needs to be smashed into some kind of inedible orange pâté.

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

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

#362

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Sat Dec 24, 2011 12:02 am

And Berg isn't gonna get his retirement outta this, Ed's house is valued at less than $30,000.(I did some looking for houses for sale in Wellington, just to verify the Assessed Value of Ed's house. That's one seriously depressed place)I'd make a wild guess that's within the homestead exemption for even the stingiest state. Berg isn't going to get a penny out of this stupid lawsuit.



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

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

#363

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sat Dec 24, 2011 12:05 am

It keeps Lisa Liberi off the streets and practice at writing pleadings and underlining no and not.



User avatar
GreatGrey
Posts: 9485
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:06 am
Location: Living in the Anthropocene

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

#364

Post by GreatGrey » Sat Dec 24, 2011 12:06 am

And Berg isn't gonna get his retirement outta this, Ed's house is valued at less than $30,000.(I did some looking for houses for sale in Wellington, just to verify the Assessed Value of Ed's house. That's one seriously depressed place)I'd make a wild guess that's within the homestead exemption for even the stingiest state. Berg isn't going to get a penny out of this stupid lawsuit.I dunno, Berg makes the point that the Hale's have claimed Homestead on the "farm", yet they haven't done anything required to "homestead" it. Haven't lived there, no improvements, etc.It still isn't worth shit.Oh, and for just $13,500 you can live just 2 blocks from Ed [/break1]chadhollandrealestate.com/Wellington/Texas/Homes/Wellington/Agent/Listing_36325372.html]http://www.chadhollandrealestate.com/We ... 25372.html


I am not "someone upthread".
Trump needs to be smashed into some kind of inedible orange pâté.

User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 14636
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Northwest part of Semi Blue State

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

#365

Post by ZekeB » Sat Dec 24, 2011 12:52 am

I dunno, Berg makes the point that the Hale's have claimed Homestead on the "farm", yet they haven't done anything required to "homestead" it. Haven't lived there, no improvements, etc.I think Homestead in this case refers to a tax exemption. Sometimes certain states give a homestead exemption to certain classes of people. This could be based on income or certain other things, like having veteran status. Ed is an ex-Colonel, ya know.


Ano, jsou opravdové. - Stormy Daniels

Nech mě domluvit! - Orly Taitz

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

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

#366

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Sat Dec 24, 2011 1:04 am

I dunno, Berg makes the point that the Hale's have claimed Homestead on the "farm", yet they haven't done anything required to "homestead" it. Haven't lived there, no improvements, etc.I think Homestead in this case refers to a tax exemption. Sometimes certain states give a homestead exemption to certain classes of people. This could be based on income or certain other things, like having veteran status. Ed is an ex-Colonel, ya know.I meant what they can't take in a bankruptcy. I was of the (apparently incorrect) belief we were discussing the Hales' home and that it was the same as the "farm."



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34513
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

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

#367

Post by realist » Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:48 pm

New Docket Entry...





12/30/2011 [link]203,[/link][RECAP] PLAINTIFFS SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATUS REPORT, ALL DEFENDANTS REFUSED TO COOPERATE AND/OR ABIDE BY THE COURT'S DECEMBER 13, 2011 ORDER - PLAINTIFFS SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE REPORT filed by EVELYN ADAMS, Philip J Berg, GO EXCEL GLOBAL, LISA LIBERI, LISA M. OSTELLA, The Law Offices of Philip J Berg. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (Berg, Philip) (Entered: 12/30/2011)


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

tjh
Posts: 2929
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:18 pm

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

#368

Post by tjh » Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:57 pm

Do you think Berg would settle for $499,999.99 (each defendant) ?



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34513
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

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

#369

Post by realist » Fri Dec 30, 2011 7:52 pm

Do you think Berg would settle for $499,999.99 (each defendant) ?Heck, no. Gotta stick to your guns on this settlement stuff.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
verbalobe
Posts: 8511
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm

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

#370

Post by verbalobe » Fri Dec 30, 2011 8:16 pm

I notice on page 8 in the 'Statement of the Case' section, there's a rundown of the lisaliberi.com incident, and the name Geoff Staples makes an appearance. But I thought all that happened long after the case was enjoined -- after multiple Amended Complaints, etc., etc. No? If so, what's it doing in there?I know, I know. But seriously... is it part of "the case," in any sense?



neonzx
Posts: 4413
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am

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

#371

Post by neonzx » Fri Dec 30, 2011 8:42 pm

YOu have jsut voliated Federal bankruptcy law. I will do what I can to see that you get jail time for this. Ed HaleGo Ed! :-bd



User avatar
GreatGrey
Posts: 9485
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:06 am
Location: Living in the Anthropocene

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

#372

Post by GreatGrey » Fri Dec 30, 2011 10:30 pm

How did I miss this earlier?





When Ed first sent his "Screw you Phil, I'm bankrupt" email, I noticed but never followed up on Ed's new email address, [/break1]com]ed@agnewsusa.com





Ed has a new domain, and it's a doozey. [/break1]agnewsusa.com]http://www.agnewsusa.com





Auctions, flaming neon graphics, we're back to the good old HCSFJM days again.





...Why didn't Ed list all of his intertube domains as assets in his Chapter 7 paperwork?


I am not "someone upthread".
Trump needs to be smashed into some kind of inedible orange pâté.

User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 14636
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Northwest part of Semi Blue State

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

#373

Post by ZekeB » Fri Dec 30, 2011 10:51 pm

...Why didn't Ed list all of his intertube domains as assets in his Chapter 7 paperwork?Ya. There's a lot of goodwill in there.


Ano, jsou opravdové. - Stormy Daniels

Nech mě domluvit! - Orly Taitz

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

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

#374

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri Dec 30, 2011 10:53 pm

Maybe Ed thought that when you file for bankruptcy you just move all your assets over to a new business and give yourself a fresh start without the need for further court assistance.



neonzx
Posts: 4413
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am

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

#375

Post by neonzx » Fri Dec 30, 2011 11:05 pm

Maybe Ed thought that when you file for bankruptcy you just move all your assets over to a new business and give yourself a fresh start without the need for further court assistance.Or maybe thought he finally "GOT HIS ASS", or someone's, even if not Obama's. I've met Berg, and, physical revulsions aside, I wouldn't want in on getting any part of that crazy, ass or other.





:-$ Let's not let Ed in on the punch line just yet, K? :-








Post Reply

Return to “Phil Berg”