Liverpool FC Forum

by **dawson99** » Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:33 pm

This is starting to get scary now. It is so absurd that i can see something f*cked up happening

by **dawson99** » Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:35 pm

first piece of good karma: Broughtons Dream just won the 15:30 Brighton, 20/1

by **Greavesie** » Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:35 pm

dawson99 wrote:This is starting to get scary now. It is so absurd that i can see something f*cked up happening

like Hicks actually giving up?

by **red till i die!!** » Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:36 pm

this gets more and more ridiculous by the minute:angry:

by **RED BEERGOGGLES** » Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:37 pm

Ciggy wrote:tariqpanja

Hicks and Gillett's Dallas case calls for those at #LFC board meeting to be 'jailed until they purge themselves of any contempt'

I think Hick's thinks he's Dick Dastardly ...straight out of a fucking cartoon this fella :laugh:

No fucker would make a film out of this its too far fetched
:laugh:

by **maypaxvobiscum** » Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:38 pm

Ciggy wrote:In english please Reg.

In Texas Law

RULE 12. ATTORNEY TO SHOW AUTHORITY

A party in a suit or proceeding pending in a court of this state may, by sworn written motion stating
that he believes the suit or proceeding is being prosecuted or defended without authority, cause the
attorney to be cited to appear before the court and show his authority to act. The notice of the motion
shall be served upon the challenged attorney at least ten days before the hearing on the motion. At
the hearing on the motion, the burden of proof shall be upon the challenged attorney to show
sufficient authority to prosecute or defend the suit on behalf of the other party. Upon his failure to
show such authority, the court shall refuse to permit the attorney to appear in the cause, and shall
strike the pleadings if no person who is authorized to prosecute or defend appears. The motion may
be heard and determined at any time before the parties have announced ready for trial, but the trial
shall not be unnecessarily continued or delayed for the hearing.

our lawyers have to go to court to prove that the TRO obtained by Hicks is invalid on the grounds that the British courts have ruled otherwise and even gave a time as to when the meeting regarding the owners have to take place - 8pm. Hicks claims the meeting was illegal but it is not as it was a result of the judgement by Floyd J.

by **Ciggy** » Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:38 pm

RED BEERGOGGLES wrote:
Ciggy wrote:tariqpanja

Hicks and Gillett's Dallas case calls for those at #LFC board meeting to be 'jailed until they purge themselves of any contempt'

I think Hick's thinks he's Dick Dastardly ...straight out of a fucking cartoon this fella
No fucker would make a film out of this its too far fetched

Inbulk at the throw the board in jail :laugh:

tariqpanja Court learns H+G filed for contempt against those at last night's #LFC board meeting, which they claim was illegal. They participated in it too!

by **Greavesie** » Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:39 pm

it brings a whole new meaning to 'sack the board'

by **jacdaniel** » Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:40 pm

This is getting messed up! Which is probably what Hicks wants.
I hope he loses all his money and his son ends up on the street blowing :censored:

faces!

by **Redangel** » Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:40 pm

Pair of idiots they're in contempt twice now !! :;):

by **Ciggy** » Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:41 pm

The Dallas Morning News this morning reports:

Dallas businessman Tom Hicks persuaded a state judge to halt the sale of Liverpool Football Club on Wednesday and may have gained something new in the battle: home field advantage...State District Judge Jim Jordan agreed with the lawsuit's argument that the defendants have done enough business in North Texas to fall under a Dallas court's control.

by **Reg** » Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:41 pm

Ciggy wrote:In english please Reg.

In Texas Law

RULE 12. ATTORNEY TO SHOW AUTHORITY

A party in a suit or proceeding pending in a court of this state may, by sworn written motion stating
that he believes the suit or proceeding is being prosecuted or defended without authority, cause the
attorney to be cited to appear before the court and show his authority to act. The notice of the motion
shall be served upon the challenged attorney at least ten days before the hearing on the motion. At
the hearing on the motion, the burden of proof shall be upon the challenged attorney to show
sufficient authority to prosecute or defend the suit on behalf of the other party. Upon his failure to
show such authority, the court shall refuse to permit the attorney to appear in the cause, and shall
strike the pleadings if no person who is authorized to prosecute or defend appears. The motion may
be heard and determined at any time before the parties have announced ready for trial, but the trial
shall not be unnecessarily continued or delayed for the hearing.

Very straight forward Cigs, its 'establishing jurisdiction' which is the first question addressed at legal hearing whether a case heard in court down to a commercial arbitration. 'Do we have teh right to act, is teh dispute covered by our law and or trade rules and therefore are we authorised to proceed'.

If the defendant can demonstrate the court does not have jurisdiction then it has no right to hear the case and the proceeding is abandoned.

What gets me is 'A party in a suit or proceeding pending in a court of this state' ie Texas... etc... refers to a domesticc hearing under US law and doesn't indicate nor imply to international hearings overseas under foreign law.

In Grabo we trust.

by **mistyred** » Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:43 pm

Wow this whole thing is just of the f uckin chain, i cant believe it i nearly just pi ssed myself with the "Jail them" bit :laugh:

See thats why birth control should be handed out by law stop these kinds of kNob Jockeys from being conceived.

by **maypaxvobiscum** » Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:44 pm

ok guys, whats the deal? pay for my flight, my ammunition, make sure my family is taken care of, i'll fly over and kill em. Greavesie you wanna join me?

by **Redangel** » Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:44 pm

3.40pm: Sachin from outside court 18: It is clarified by the board's legal team that they are looking for an order which lifts the owner's injunction. They also want an order which prevents owners from obtaining another injunction in any country except this one.

Liverpool FC Forum

TAKEOVER COMPLETE - H & G Finally Jibbed!

Who is online