Liverpool FC Forum

Johnny Boy wrote:This is just stupid we win 2 High Court battles and still we wait, you just know H & G are gonna come up with something else tonight, it's nailed on.

Johnny Boy wrote:

Redangel wrote:Was hoping we could actually seal the deal tonight , just don't want to give them the chance to pull any more stunts !!

Too late they are meeting now doing just that.

The US will court will sympathise, they will come up with another plan and tomorrow we are back at square one.

With a small difference, this time around LFC's Texan Lawyers are in that Dallas court

bigmick wrote:Don't celebrate yet. hem two c...s will have one last dart at it I'm sure of it. As for that Lord Grabbo bloke, he probably earns about a million quid a year but is a rarity in that he's worth every penny. Fair play to the man.

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.

Reg wrote:

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.

Here you go hon:

'The Texan Court injunction is binding on the board et al in the UK, until the injunction there is lifted by the Texan Court. The anti-suit injunction is not an order against the Texan Court itself. Instead, it is effectively an order compelling H&G to apply to the Texan Court to lift the injunction, on the basis that the Texan Court has no jurisdiction to determine this case. H&G therefore face a choice: either they lift the injunction or be in contempt of the English Court anti-suit injunction, the punishment for which can include imprisonment. H&G would most likely not want to return to the UK with contempt proceedings hanging over their heads.'

Steve Crooks wrote:Been refreshing Twitter all afternoon in the hope of getting some juicy info. Ryan Babel in the midst of the court case tweeted a link to a dance nation video..    Says it all really.. Take note Mr. Henry, time for a good clear out and get some passion back in the club.