Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Banned.......Replies to the A@P thread. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Janice Shell who wrote (2412)	1/23/2005 9:51:36 PM
From: olivier asser	Respond to of 5425

That's interesting. The Texas statutes specify that in order to be declared a vexatious litigant you have to have brought quite a few frivolous actions. I think the number is six or seven. They do, however tend to go after plaintiffs who're representing themselves. It was under federal procedure the motion was brought, Rule 11. One reason for sanctions and vexatious litigant determinations is you have your claims judicially determined on the merits and then go right ahead and file them again in another venue, "second bite of the apple" as it's often been called, which I have not done, these claims have yet to be judicially determined in any court. During the December 3 hearing, only one bench order issued and it was this: the motion for injunctive relief barring my filing further lawsuits was denied by Judge Sparks. This, though I agreed to sole Texas jurisdiction before the hearing. Also, Judge Sparks warned that sanctions are guaranteed in this case and the party or parties that incur them won't be in any position to declare bankruptcy in order to evade them.