LIT COMMENTARY
The Hypocrisy of Ryan Higgins;
“Free speech is one of the most important facets of American democracy, and companies don’t get to use the law to muzzle their critics. We’re proud to have helped our client successfully defend her business and her good name.”
The Unlawful Garnishment After Judgment Case Still blocked by Perverted Judge Sandill – as at Oct 31 Nov. 11, Nov. 30, 2022
Rogue Houston Lawyer Ryan Higgins of Rusty Hardin Case Sealed Coz He Couldn't Take LIT's Critique (19 Sep)
MOTION TO INTERVENE
Mark Burke, Intervenor (“Intervenor”), files this Motion to unseal the whole case and docket, currently marked as:
“The records you have queried are currently CONFIDENTIAL or this case has been SEALED. No further information regarding the below case will be disseminated until such time as the records are no longer confidential.”,
(Neither docket nor navigation is available to view for this lawsuit based on this unlawful “confidential” sealing, screenshot taken Dec. 4, 2022).
for the following reasons:-
THE RECORD ESTABLISHES RULES UNDER 76A WERE NOT FOLLOWED BY THE COURT
It is without doubt; the sealing of the above case violates court procedures in Texas Law. See; Rice v. Lewis Energy Grp., No. 04-19-00234-CV, at *11-13 (Tex. App. Oct. 28, 2020), “the trial court failed to apply the law correctly and it abused its discretion by ordering the permanent sealing of the court records in this case”, citing Clear Channel Commc’ns, 195 S.W.3d at 137 (reversing the trial court’s order sealing court records when the procedures mandated by Rule 76a.3 were not followed); and, Roane v. Dean, No. 03-19-00308-CV, at *4 (Tex. App. Apr. 30, 2020) (“Rule 76a provides the standard for sealing court records and provides that court records “are presumed to be open to the general public.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 76a(1).”).
BACKGROUND
This Application for Writ of Garnishment was filed in Harris County District Court on September 15, 2022.
The Intervenor, a blogger and investigative journalist, published the case on a blog at LawsInTexas.com[1] (“LIT”) on the same day, including a copy of the Application for Writ of Garnishment and supporting Exhibits. (See; EXHIBIT A).
Upon revisiting the court docket on September 19, Intervenor noted the case had been completely sealed. Clearly, the timeline confirms the violation of Rule 76a, as completely sealing the docket after 4 days would not allow for compliance with the rule(s).
The Intervenor’s assumptions and reasoning why this Court decided to seal the case record in its entirety is provided on LIT’s blog ( see Exhibit A). That stated, it is not necessary to expand further in this Motion, as the original Application for Garnishment and Exhibits were filed without being sealed (see Exhibit A).
In other words, this is a question of law, and one which is easily decided. Namely, the Court abused its discretion by sealing the case and not following mandated rules as confirmed by Texas case law, cited above.
ANY PERSON CAN INTERVENE
As governed by Tex. R. Civ. P. 76a (“7.Continuing Jurisdiction. Any person may intervene as a matter of right at any time before or after judgment to seal or unseal court records.”).
STATUS OF THE CASE AND RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
Intervenor and “general member of the public” only seeks to unseal the records and the docket at this time, in part, due to the unlawful “confidential” sealing, as Intervenor is currently unable to ascertain if the case is currently open or closed.
Furthermore, Intervenor cannot review any of the case docket records, to ascertain whether there is an actual sealing Order on the docket, see Roane v. Dean, No. 03-19-00308-CV, at *4 (Tex. App. Apr. 30, 2020) (“Tex. R. Civ. P. 76a(1)(a)-(b). Rule 76a also requires that a motion to seal court records “shall be decided by written order,” and the sealing order shall state “the specific reasons for finding and concluding whether the showing required by paragraph 1, has been made.” Id. R. 76a(6).”).
As such, Intervenor reserves his right to amend his Motion to Intervene as a right, see J. Fuentes Colleyville, L.P. v. A.S., 501 S.W.3d 239, 243 (Tex. App. 2016)), in part; “”Any party may intervene by filing a pleading, subject to being stricken out by the court for sufficient cause on the motion of any party.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 60. Once a motion to strike has been filed, the burden shifts to the intervenor to show a justiciable interest in the lawsuit.”
In particular, “..a trial court abuses its discretion by striking a plea in intervention if the intervenor (1) could have brought the same action, or any part of it, in its own name or could have defeated recovery, or some part of it, if the action had been brought against it, (2) the intervention would not complicate the case by excessively multiplying the issues, and (3) the intervention is almost essential to effectively protect the intervenor’s interest. Guar. Fed. Sav. Bank, 793 S.W.2d at 657.
Here, Intervenor could repel any attempts by the Court to strike a plea in intervention, however, as the status of the case is unknown until the entire case and docket is unsealed, Intervenor reserves his right to amend his Motion and, if necessary, appeal and expresses so herein; 2027 S. Austin St., LLC v. Latour Condominiums, Inc., No. 07-19-00395-CV, at *19 (Tex. App. Mar. 17, 2021) (“When a party moves for judgment on the verdict without any reservation of rights or objections, the party is affirming that the jury’s findings find support in the evidence. Russell v. Dunn Equipment, Inc., 712 S.W.2d 542, 545 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.). When a party moves for judgment on the jury verdict and the court renders judgment as requested, the party is barred from subsequently complaining on appeal that the jury’s findings have no support in the evidence or are factually insufficient. Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Gammage, 668 S.W.2d 319, 322 (Tex. 1984). If a party desires to obtain a judgment yet reserve the right to complain on appeal, it must expressly say so in its motion. First Nat. Bank of Beeville v. Fojtik, 775 S.W.2d 632, 633 (Tex. 1989).”).
CONCLUSION
In Delaney v. University of Houston, 835 S.W.2d 56, 65 (Tex. 1992) (“Texas Lawyer’s Creed — A Mandate for Professionalism (adopted November 7, 1989), which states:
“Lawyers and judges are equally responsible to protect the dignity and independence of the Court and the profession.””).
The Texas Supreme Court states;
“Members of the legal profession have agreed to live under rules proclaiming that it is “a lawyer’s duty to uphold legal process,” that “[a] lawyer’s conduct should conform to the requirements of the law,” and that “[a] lawyer should demonstrate respect for the legal system and for those who serve it . . . .”
The continued viability of the rule of law depends on the bench and bar adhering faithfully to these obligations. To do otherwise impugns the integrity of our judicial institutions and undermines the public’s trust in their objectivity and reliability.
As judges and lawyers, we bear a sacred obligation to uphold the rule of law even when the law does not conform to what we believe it should be.
That duty includes withstanding the temptation to bend and abuse legal process to collect an earnestly desired result the law simply does not provide.
Those who underhandedly indulge that temptation dishonor both our profession and the rule of law.”
– In re Texas, No. 15-0139, at *5 (Tex. Apr. 15, 2016).
For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff’s Motion should be granted.
RESPECTFULLY submitted this 4th day of December, 2022.
[1] Direct link to blog article URL; https://lawsintexas.com/rusty-hardin-and-ass-files-for-writ-of-garnishment-in-wrong-category-youre-busted/
Returned Reason
Document Addressed to Wrong Clerk/Location
Return Comments
You are filing a document in the wrong court and wrong case number, please double check and re-file in the correct court , if you would like to keep your original file date you have 3 days to make the correction and resubmit. Shannon
After the rejected notices from Shannon North, calls were made to Harris County District Court and after speaking to several people, the call ended up in the hands of Ms. Shirley Bates, who admitted that she was aware of the case and had received an email from Shannon North regarding the intervenor filings.
The quick synopsis is she claims that the 2022 case was created by the Clerks in error, and all the files were mirror transferred to the correct case, the 2018 “A” case.
The erroneously created case, the 2022 case number, was purportedly sealed because of this error.
It was questioned why the court did not indicate this on the ‘confidential and sealed’ docket. In response, it was stated that the IT programming did not currently allow for this to happen.
In an analogy, it was queried how this could be, considering Federal Courts make it clear when a case is consolidated, remanded or whatever in RED.
The state court would have you believe that the following statement should be disregarded as incorrect, when the written word is absolute in law, and this is a court of law’s docket;
“The records you have queried are currently CONFIDENTIAL or this case has been SEALED. No further information regarding the below case will be disseminated until such time as the records are no longer confidential.”
JUDICIAL RAGE CONFIRMS LIT's ALLEGATIONS ARE TRUE - THE JUDICIARY IS TAINTED BY OUTLAWS IN DIRTY BLACK ROBES
202259087
DUGUE, RENEE vs. J. P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
(Court 127, JUDGE RAVI K. SANDILL)
SEP 15, 2022 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: SEP 15, 2022
INTENTIONALLY Filed under OTHER CIVIL, not GARNISHMENT AFT JUDGMENT
“Engaging in debt collection without filing a bond with the secretary of state is a violation of Chapter 392 and may also be a criminal offense. Tex. Fin. Code § 392.402.”
You are NOT smarter than a 5th Grader, bandit debt collectin’ lawyer RYAN KEES HIGGINS, licensed with the State Bar of Texas since 1998.
No, Ryan Higgins, you are an embarrassment to yourself.
Rusty Hardin & Ass., LLP don’t have a valid, current surety bond filed with the Texas Secretary of State, in violation of Texas law.
Ryan Higgins is a courtroom lawyer and litigator.
Litigation of complex business disputes in courts across the United States representing clients from a wide range of industries is Ryan’s exclusive focus. In his practice Ryan takes cases to trial and prepares each case accordingly from the beginning.
Plaintiffs and defendants such as Fortune 100 companies, oil and gas companies, accounting firms, entrepreneurs, partnerships and groups of individuals work with Ryan on business cases that are involved in litigation and arbitration. This practice is exclusively focused on business disputes. Examples of prior cases handled include breach of contract, partnership disputes, breach of fiduciary duty, antitrust litigation, fraud claims, fraudulent transfer claims, theft of trade secrets and tortious interference claims as well as other causes of action related to business disputes.
Early in his career, Ryan spent six years with a large New York City-based firm, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, focusing on complex commercial litigation. He assisted one of the country’s top lawyers, David Boies, in reaching a successful outcome for clients in a three-month jury trial related to the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center.
In the following cases Ryan worked with a team of fellow partners and associates at Rusty Hardin & Associates:
West Texas jury trial for two weeks representing Houston-based Smith Energy Co. in state court involving breach of contract, fraud, civil theft and breach of fiduciary duty against a working interest partner in the development of oil and gas interests.
New Jersey jury trial in federal court for two weeks representing more than 50 plaintiffs from across the United States and Europe in a breach of contract and fraud case against a Fortune 500 company.
Las Vegas, Nevada state court jury trial representing defendant Las Vegas Sands Corp., the owner of the Venetian Resort Hotel Casino, in Las Vegas and the Venetian Macau Resort Hotel in Macau, China in a case involving alleged damages of close to a billion dollars in a dispute over a finder’s fee as it related to the casino’s operations in Macau, China.
Represented Corpus Christi, Texas based Trigeant Ltd., which is the owner of an asphalt refinery, against allegations that the company acquired the refinery through a fraudulent transfer. Part of team that replaced lead trial counsel of six years just three months before case was set for trial. The case settled for a confidential amount shortly thereafter.
Member of legal team that represented accounting firm Arthur Andersen in securities class actions and in numerous civil suits as part of the multidistrict litigation based in Houston and related to the financial collapse of Enron Corp.
Houston, Texas jury trial representing Texas lawyer in his contract claim against Houston-based oil companies.
Represented entrepreneur against Houston funding company for fraud related to purchase of a manufacturing company.
Represented New York investment and merchant bank in contract disputes pending in New York and Texas over the failure to pay investment banking fees. Confidential settlement reached.
Represented energy trader against antitrust and market manipulation allegations in New York, Chicago and Houston federal courts.
Represented Denver based energy company in arbitration proceeding.
Represented Managing General Agent in contract dispute.
Represented shipping concern in multi-jurisdictional dispute related to oil shipments for the United States government.
In the following cases, Ryan worked with a team of talented lawyers from Boies Schiller Flexner LLP:
World Trade Center Litigation: Worked directly with David Boies in this three-month jury trial resolving a critical legal issue concerning the Sept. 11 attacks.
Calvin Klein v. Warnaco: Part of trial team with David Boies in licensing dispute representing plaintiff Calvin Klein.
In re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation: Led on argument of motions in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in an antitrust matter which was part of an MDL proceeding.
United States v. Microsoft: Interviewed employees, assisted in preparing witnesses and drafted portions of a Tunney Act filing objecting to the settlement between Microsoft and the United States Department of Justice.
Assisted in representing a class of plaintiffs against a brand name prescription drug manufacturer for violation of antitrust laws in cases pending in Florida and New York.
Part of a team representing American Express in an antitrust case against Visa and MasterCard in which the client obtained a $4 billion settlement.
Part of team representing fiction author in litigation against a publisher in a federal case in California in a breach of contract case.
Part of team representing independent pharmacies in multi-district antitrust litigation against prescription drug manufacturers. Resulted in multiple confidential settlements.
Reginald C. Adams LLC, is a Public Art & Design firm based in Houston, Texas. Nestled in the heart of downtown Houston, his 3,000 sq.ft. studio produces large scale site specific mosaic tile murals, sculptures, and functional artwork. Reginald C. Adams leads art-based team building workshops as a tool to connect clients, stakeholders, city government, and private/corporations in the creative process.
Texas’ Highest Court Declines to Review $300K in Sanctions, Fees Against ‘FasciaBlaster’ Inventors in Anti-SLAPP Case
HOUSTON, Sept. 6, 2022 /PRNewswire/
The Texas Supreme Court has closed the books on a defamation case that received national attention, declining to review $300,000 in sanctions and legal fees against the inventor of a consumer health product that sought to muzzle online critics.
Karen Wallace, the owner of Journeyz Spa in Corpus Christi, was sued in 2017 for defamation after posting negative comments on social media about a consumer product known as the FasciaBlaster. Ms. Wallace wrote on a Facebook post that she experienced several unpleasant side effects, including loosened skin and weight gain, after using the FasciaBlaster, a popular massage tool that claims to reduce cellulite and improve joint and circulatory function.
Ms. Wallace’s attorney, Ryan Higgins with Rusty Hardin & Associates, LLP, won at the trial court and successfully argued on appeal that her comments were a warning to the public and protected free speech under the Texas Citizens Participation Act, a law designed protect free speech and public discourse by deterring so-called strategic lawsuits against public participation, also known as the anti-SLAPP law.
By declining to review an earlier appellate ruling, the action by the Texas Supreme Court upholds an award of roughly $300,000 in sanctions and attorneys’ fees secured by the Hardin team against ADB Interests LLC and Ashley Black, the inventors of the FasciaBlaster.
“The courts in this case have ruled repeatedly that Karen Wallace did nothing illegal or wrong, and this is further evidence of that,”
said Mr. Higgins.
“Free speech is one of the most important facets of American democracy, and companies don’t get to use the law to muzzle their critics. We’re proud to have helped our client successfully defend her business and her good name.”
The case is ADB Interest, LLC and Ashley Black v. Karen Wallace and D/B/A/ Journeyz Spa & Products, No. 01-18-00210 in the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas.
SOURCE Rusty Hardin & Associates, LLP
Howdy Judge @MikeEngelhart
Here’s a heads up to your judicial colleague Sandill, re another LIT article which will immediately demand a sealing of all court records as confidential
First Portfolio Ventures I and Javitch Block LLChttps://t.co/WSgMuatlz0@TXsecofstate #txlege
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) September 29, 2022
Foreclosure Defense Lawyer Erick Delarue’s Now Familiar Federal Exit Highlighted in Aggieland II
LIT’s analysis confirms the repeated agreed stipulation of dismissal upon snap removal to federal court is prevalent in his baseless cases.
Bank Claims Lawyer Anthony S Muharib’s 2023 Range Rover Behind Gate at 4723 Ivanhoe St Residence
There’s quite an uptick in lawyers’ with addresses at Ivanhoe Street attending court cases about debts owed as highlighted on LIT.
She’s Cancerous: Why Outlaw State Judge Tami Craft Should Be Disqualified and Removed from the Bench
Judge Tami Craft’s colorful past and present conduct is disqualifying in nature according to the rules of judicial conduct.
