this does not bode well for aaron broussard and danny abel/randall cajun. the jurisdictional forum has been made easier and more available for all other victims of abel’s litigious terrorism to intervene on their individual behalf.
Just picked up your posted comment passablanca … thanks … Broussard, Abel, et al are in my legal crosshairs … so is Laird for that matter … and this Court is the perfect forum to flush out these ‘litigious terrorists’ … Broussard can thank his blow buddy, Danny Abel/Randall Cajun, for his having to spend his time in prison waiting to be served with the NEXT lawsuit … BTW, monetary judgements can be collected by garnishment on a public official’s retirement pension …
As I was dumping a load on the Lodge’s porch, which is part of my families’ historic trail, I noticed the same 2 guys through the window I always see. Huddled together before this small screen. In fact that’s all that I ever see these 2 guys doing. They are probably like most Canadians, weatherized porn addicts. Maybe that’s why these jerk offs do do such dumb things.
Look at Paragraph VII which reads in pertinent part:
“The Plaintiff… allegedly suffered in an amount exceeding $75,000…. The nature of Plaintiff’s claims and statements he has made in pleadings in other cases and over the internet indicates that.”
Because the defendants refer to your statements made “… in pleadings in other cases.. ..” it would be judicially correct for the case to be consolidated with the pending pleadings before the same Honorable Southern District Judge who vacated the defendants’ $400,000 Canadian libel judgment.
In the interest of conservation of District Court time and docket why should the Southern District assign this new case, brought to them solely by the same litigious defendants(i.e. they are removing by claiming your damages over $75,000 which is clearly not in your State Court pleadings), and waste another new District Judge’s time in coming up to speed on the litigious nature of said defendants.
If you deny your damages are $75,000 and since Federal Courts’ dockets and time are precious the Federal Judge may want to send it back down to State Court depending on where Randall lives.
A rule to show cause would be in order, somewhat in the vein of having to set the hearing on an exception filed by your opponent.
Empire: Wonder how many federal judges have seen a petitioned removal case where unnamed John Doe’s voluntarily join themselves in federal court as co-defendants and then claim they allegedly caused the plaintiff damages in excess of $75,000.
If I was judge reading such an insane petition the question I would ask the co-defendants is – “Would it be alright with you good expeditious folks to bypass the trial and lets just brief monetary damages”
You raise the points of insanity:
1. the defs contend subject and personal jurisdiction in order to remove
2. the plaintiff can move to combine or add other causes by amending the petition (complaint in fed practice)
3. which is predicated and supported by (1).
Next in the saga are exceptions and a SJ motion (premature of course before discovery). Would be nice to see if the case scheduling order is on a fast track.
Did these same defendants voluntarily appear in ths US federal court seeking to use the resources of a US court(in Mississippi) to enforce a Canadian judgment?
Does that overcome their “personal jurisdiction” exception?
Empire: Talking about a “fast track” – these goats desire to ride out of State Court as it represents the simplest way of getting to the “goat meat” of the matter
Lock,ging by experience the usual scheduling order for federal court looks at case settlement or trial about one year, in state court take-your-pick. Again, when you pick your poison, you shouldn’t bitch about the resulting rigor mortis. For starters, the Nova Scotia Buggers wil have to mosey down to Doug’s turf and have set off on the wrong foot with any Rule 26 objections on discovery.
Perhaps the Defendants, full of voluntary revelations, will answer these Shakespearean probative questions for you to help determine diversity issue –
Who and Where Art Thou O’ Randall Cajun,My Dearest Love,and Why has Thou Forsaken Me of More Love Blogs
So, the D’Aquila firm shows up to represent Nova Scotia Enterprises with a lawyer not yet authorized to practice in this court?
Is Daniel G. Abel filing his “pleadings” (they really don’t qualify as much more than snivelling rants) via the US mail? Can’t he afford Pacer? How does he practice law like that?
Think curatorships.
And, why do they all need extensions of time to file a memorandum of law on their motions to dismiss?
Does Abel own any of TPL?
Do Perret and/or Leary own any property in Louisiana or Mississippi?
Is Perret licensed to practice law in New York, USA?
Did Perret and Leary assist Abel with his legal filings in Abel v. Handshoe?
Have Abel/Perret/Leary telephoned, texted, emailed or posted each other on an hourly/daily/weekly/monthly/yearly basis in the last 3 years?
Did Leary/Perret and/or TPL manage some rental properties in NS for a Louisiana corporation or LLC?
What was the target market for that rental property?
Did/do they do any business/communications/financial transactions with Louisiana or Mississippi residents?
Did Leary and Perret bill/invoice/collect for the management of the Louisiana-owned rental properties in NS?
Did Leary and Perret and TPL have electronic or US mail communications/transactions with others in the USA, like an attorney looking to insure some property in NS?
Really? Is he getting those from any court in particular?
this does not bode well for aaron broussard and danny abel/randall cajun. the jurisdictional forum has been made easier and more available for all other victims of abel’s litigious terrorism to intervene on their individual behalf.
Just picked up your posted comment passablanca … thanks … Broussard, Abel, et al are in my legal crosshairs … so is Laird for that matter … and this Court is the perfect forum to flush out these ‘litigious terrorists’ … Broussard can thank his blow buddy, Danny Abel/Randall Cajun, for his having to spend his time in prison waiting to be served with the NEXT lawsuit … BTW, monetary judgements can be collected by garnishment on a public official’s retirement pension …
As I was dumping a load on the Lodge’s porch, which is part of my families’ historic trail, I noticed the same 2 guys through the window I always see. Huddled together before this small screen. In fact that’s all that I ever see these 2 guys doing. They are probably like most Canadians, weatherized porn addicts. Maybe that’s why these jerk offs do do such dumb things.
Look at Paragraph VII which reads in pertinent part:
“The Plaintiff… allegedly suffered in an amount exceeding $75,000…. The nature of Plaintiff’s claims and statements he has made in pleadings in other cases and over the internet indicates that.”
Because the defendants refer to your statements made “… in pleadings in other cases.. ..” it would be judicially correct for the case to be consolidated with the pending pleadings before the same Honorable Southern District Judge who vacated the defendants’ $400,000 Canadian libel judgment.
In the interest of conservation of District Court time and docket why should the Southern District assign this new case, brought to them solely by the same litigious defendants(i.e. they are removing by claiming your damages over $75,000 which is clearly not in your State Court pleadings), and waste another new District Judge’s time in coming up to speed on the litigious nature of said defendants.
If you deny your damages are $75,000 and since Federal Courts’ dockets and time are precious the Federal Judge may want to send it back down to State Court depending on where Randall lives.
A rule to show cause would be in order, somewhat in the vein of having to set the hearing on an exception filed by your opponent.
Empire: Wonder how many federal judges have seen a petitioned removal case where unnamed John Doe’s voluntarily join themselves in federal court as co-defendants and then claim they allegedly caused the plaintiff damages in excess of $75,000.
If I was judge reading such an insane petition the question I would ask the co-defendants is – “Would it be alright with you good expeditious folks to bypass the trial and lets just brief monetary damages”
You raise the points of insanity:
1. the defs contend subject and personal jurisdiction in order to remove
2. the plaintiff can move to combine or add other causes by amending the petition (complaint in fed practice)
3. which is predicated and supported by (1).
Next in the saga are exceptions and a SJ motion (premature of course before discovery). Would be nice to see if the case scheduling order is on a fast track.
Did these same defendants voluntarily appear in ths US federal court seeking to use the resources of a US court(in Mississippi) to enforce a Canadian judgment?
Does that overcome their “personal jurisdiction” exception?
Empire: Talking about a “fast track” – these goats desire to ride out of State Court as it represents the simplest way of getting to the “goat meat” of the matter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TNYP3PfEmQ
Lock,ging by experience the usual scheduling order for federal court looks at case settlement or trial about one year, in state court take-your-pick. Again, when you pick your poison, you shouldn’t bitch about the resulting rigor mortis. For starters, the Nova Scotia Buggers wil have to mosey down to Doug’s turf and have set off on the wrong foot with any Rule 26 objections on discovery.
Perhaps the Defendants, full of voluntary revelations, will answer these Shakespearean probative questions for you to help determine diversity issue –
Who and Where Art Thou O’ Randall Cajun,My Dearest Love,and Why has Thou Forsaken Me of More Love Blogs
Saturday Music?:
http://youtu.be/6dOOwiP9wNM
So, the D’Aquila firm shows up to represent Nova Scotia Enterprises with a lawyer not yet authorized to practice in this court?
Is Daniel G. Abel filing his “pleadings” (they really don’t qualify as much more than snivelling rants) via the US mail? Can’t he afford Pacer? How does he practice law like that?
Think curatorships.
And, why do they all need extensions of time to file a memorandum of law on their motions to dismiss?
Does Abel own any of TPL?
Do Perret and/or Leary own any property in Louisiana or Mississippi?
Is Perret licensed to practice law in New York, USA?
Did Perret and Leary assist Abel with his legal filings in Abel v. Handshoe?
Have Abel/Perret/Leary telephoned, texted, emailed or posted each other on an hourly/daily/weekly/monthly/yearly basis in the last 3 years?
Did Leary/Perret and/or TPL manage some rental properties in NS for a Louisiana corporation or LLC?
What was the target market for that rental property?
Did/do they do any business/communications/financial transactions with Louisiana or Mississippi residents?
Did Leary and Perret bill/invoice/collect for the management of the Louisiana-owned rental properties in NS?
Did Leary and Perret and TPL have electronic or US mail communications/transactions with others in the USA, like an attorney looking to insure some property in NS?
Really? Is he getting those from any court in particular?
http://www.slabbed.org/2012/01/25/aaron-broussard-never-has-any-management-involvement-with-trout-point-lodge-no-siree-you-say-any-different-and-well-sue-your-ass-in-nova-scotia/comment-page-1/#comment-1132
Have you filed your affidavit yet??