(10-15-2014 03:31 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The city of Houston has been on a path to financial ruin for years now, all the way back to Lee Brown and ole Bob. This woman won the election because she was able to talk about something other than the impending financial catastrophe. All of this crap is distraction. It's easier to talk transexuals in bathrooms and homosexual stupidity than it is pensions and funding problems.

LOL. Annise Parker is probably the best Mayor in the USA. And she is wildly popular here. She won the REPUBLICAN vote in Houston 2 out of 3 times (including the last election). If she wasn't term limited, she'd win as many terms as she wanted.

As a lawyer, you should know that when you file a lawsuit, that you open yourself up to discovery. Especially if you are an out of town church or political/religious leader engaged in illegal and unlawful petition gathering. I was involved in the passage of HERO. I've seen those petitions. The petition collectors didn't obey the City Charter (laws) when collecting signatures. Even though there is video of the petition collectors instructing workers of the very same laws they broke in the collection of those signatures. They were largely from out of town (The Riggles/Welsh/Perkins) don't appear to be Houston residents (The Riggles and Wilson live in Montgomery County; Perkins lives in the DC area).

The voters of the City of Houston elected 17 City Councilmembers. Eleven of them voted for this ordinance, which is no different than ordinances enacted in literally HUNDREDS of municipalities. Exactly zero of those Councilmembers will lose their seats as a result of their vote in favor of this legislation. At least 2 will lose their seats as a result of voting no on the legislation.

The City Charter rules regarding petition gathering are completely constitutional. There isn't any question as to the fact that the petition signature collectors disobeyed the laws.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/10/16...s-freedom/

HERO will stand. And Annise Parker will finish her term as a very popular Houston Mayor.

If you sue, you get discovery. Its not a violation of anyone's rights for the City to exercise its rights to gain information when sued, especially by a group of outsiders who have a very sketchy case.

(10-17-2014 02:45 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Freedom of speech v feigned equality

Popcorn!!!!

If one of your clients was sued by a church, would you simply forego discovery?

(10-16-2014 06:30 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Why is she only going after Christians?

Isn't Islam 100x more "anti-gay" than Christianity? Aren't gays executed in Islamic countries? If she's serious about this, she needs to investigate some mosques.

She was SUED by a bunch of out of town pastors. If Parker was sued by a bunch of mullahs in Iran, she'd file discovery pleadings against them too.

You can't throw out frivolous lawsuits (which the pastor's lawsuit is) from people who don't even live there and then tell people that you can't defend yourself simply because the people who are suing them call themselves Christians.

Tom, you know as well as I do that the subpoenas went far, far beyond anything that might reasonably be construed as legitimate attempt to discover information bearing any relevance to the matter at hand. And if you don't know that, I would invite your attention to the words of the city attorney admitting precisely that.

Overbroad discovery requests are a fact of life in any litigation. They violate an attorney's ethical duties as an officer of the court. They should be sanctioned more often that they are, the shortfall probably resulting because attorneys don't move for sanctions in fear that they will subject themselves to sanctions should they try the same trick in another matter. When such overbroad requests come from any governmental unit, they should be particularly suspect as harassment and intimidation. Whoever sent these out should spend 60 in the county lockup for abuse of discovery.

(10-17-2014 10:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Tom, you know as well as I do that the subpoenas went far, far beyond anything that might reasonably be construed as legitimate attempt to discover information bearing any relevance to the matter at hand. And if you don't know that, I would invite your attention to the words of the city attorney admitting precisely that.

Overbroad discovery requests are a fact of life in any litigation. They violate an attorney's ethical duties as an officer of the court. They should be sanctioned more often that they are, the shortfall probably resulting because attorneys don't move for sanctions in fear that they will subject themselves to sanctions should they try the same trick in another matter. When such overbroad requests come from any governmental unit, they should be particularly suspect as harassment and intimidation. Whoever sent these out should spend 60 in the county lockup for abuse of discovery.

Riggle and Welsh, and can fight the discovery citations in court. They initiated litigation here, most likely from their mansions outside of the Houston City Limits.

The lawsuit is frivolous. The discovery is valid. The city has a right to establish what communication was going on to the petition gatherers, much of what we already have proof that they KNEW what the rules were before they violated those rules anyway. The City didn't decide to run a petition campaign out of a church and from a pulpit. That communication is valid as a source of discovery.

I don't think you'd like it if Montgomery County decided to not defend itself when sued by a bunch of outsiders.

(10-17-2014 11:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 10:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Tom, you know as well as I do that the subpoenas went far, far beyond anything that might reasonably be construed as legitimate attempt to discover information bearing any relevance to the matter at hand. And if you don't know that, I would invite your attention to the words of the city attorney admitting precisely that.

Overbroad discovery requests are a fact of life in any litigation. They violate an attorney's ethical duties as an officer of the court. They should be sanctioned more often that they are, the shortfall probably resulting because attorneys don't move for sanctions in fear that they will subject themselves to sanctions should they try the same trick in another matter. When such overbroad requests come from any governmental unit, they should be particularly suspect as harassment and intimidation. Whoever sent these out should spend 60 in the county lockup for abuse of discovery.

Riggle and Welsh, and can fight the discovery citations in court. They initiated litigation here, most likely from their mansions outside of the Houston City Limits.

The lawsuit is frivolous. The discovery is valid. The city has a right to establish what communication was going on to the petition gatherers, much of what we already have proof that they KNEW what the rules were before they violated those rules anyway. The City didn't decide to run a petition campaign out of a church and from a pulpit. That communication is valid as a source of discovery.

Quick question, how would you have felt if Dr. King had gotten a similarly overbroad subpoena from the City of Montgomery in 1963?

(10-17-2014 11:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 10:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Tom, you know as well as I do that the subpoenas went far, far beyond anything that might reasonably be construed as legitimate attempt to discover information bearing any relevance to the matter at hand. And if you don't know that, I would invite your attention to the words of the city attorney admitting precisely that.

Overbroad discovery requests are a fact of life in any litigation. They violate an attorney's ethical duties as an officer of the court. They should be sanctioned more often that they are, the shortfall probably resulting because attorneys don't move for sanctions in fear that they will subject themselves to sanctions should they try the same trick in another matter. When such overbroad requests come from any governmental unit, they should be particularly suspect as harassment and intimidation. Whoever sent these out should spend 60 in the county lockup for abuse of discovery.

Riggle and Welsh, and can fight the discovery citations in court. They initiated litigation here, most likely from their mansions outside of the Houston City Limits.

The lawsuit is frivolous. The discovery is valid. The city has a right to establish what communication was going on to the petition gatherers, much of what we already have proof that they KNEW what the rules were before they violated those rules anyway. The City didn't decide to run a petition campaign out of a church and from a pulpit. That communication is valid as a source of discovery.

I don't think you'd like it if Montgomery County decided to not defend itself when sued by a bunch of outsiders.

what if the city decided to abolish all gay material, printed and online, withing their city limits?

(10-17-2014 11:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Riggle and Welsh, and can fight the discovery citations in court. They initiated litigation here, most likely from their mansions outside of the Houston City Limits.

The lawsuit is frivolous. The discovery is valid. The city has a right to establish what communication was going on to the petition gatherers, much of what we already have proof that they KNEW what the rules were before they violated those rules anyway. The City didn't decide to run a petition campaign out of a church and from a pulpit. That communication is valid as a source of discovery.

I don't think you'd like it if Montgomery County decided to not defend itself when sued by a bunch of outsiders.

Spare the hyperbole.
The lawsuit is frivolous in your eyes because you are on the other side, and for no other reason.
The original subpoenas were grossly overbroad, that has been admitted.
And no, defending oneself does not require excessive discovery that goes well past the boundaries of harassment and attempted intimidation.

(10-17-2014 11:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 11:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 10:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Tom, you know as well as I do that the subpoenas went far, far beyond anything that might reasonably be construed as legitimate attempt to discover information bearing any relevance to the matter at hand. And if you don't know that, I would invite your attention to the words of the city attorney admitting precisely that.

Overbroad discovery requests are a fact of life in any litigation. They violate an attorney's ethical duties as an officer of the court. They should be sanctioned more often that they are, the shortfall probably resulting because attorneys don't move for sanctions in fear that they will subject themselves to sanctions should they try the same trick in another matter. When such overbroad requests come from any governmental unit, they should be particularly suspect as harassment and intimidation. Whoever sent these out should spend 60 in the county lockup for abuse of discovery.

Riggle and Welsh, and can fight the discovery citations in court. They initiated litigation here, most likely from their mansions outside of the Houston City Limits.

The lawsuit is frivolous. The discovery is valid. The city has a right to establish what communication was going on to the petition gatherers, much of what we already have proof that they KNEW what the rules were before they violated those rules anyway. The City didn't decide to run a petition campaign out of a church and from a pulpit. That communication is valid as a source of discovery.

Quick question, how would you have felt if Dr. King had gotten a similarly overbroad subpoena from the City of Montgomery in 1963?

Dr King did go to the courts in several of those cases. As can Riggle and Welsh. But to compare the actions of Riggle and Welsh (who live by you - in Montgomery County - not in Houston) to Dr King is laughable.

Riggle and Welsh cannot shield themselves from discovery simply because they electioneered from a pulpit or from a church. The City is seeking to establish that the "Houston" (not really) Area Pastors Council knew very well what the laws were.

(10-17-2014 11:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 11:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Riggle and Welsh, and can fight the discovery citations in court. They initiated litigation here, most likely from their mansions outside of the Houston City Limits.

The lawsuit is frivolous. The discovery is valid. The city has a right to establish what communication was going on to the petition gatherers, much of what we already have proof that they KNEW what the rules were before they violated those rules anyway. The City didn't decide to run a petition campaign out of a church and from a pulpit. That communication is valid as a source of discovery.

I don't think you'd like it if Montgomery County decided to not defend itself when sued by a bunch of outsiders.

Spare the hyperbole.
The lawsuit is frivolous in your eyes because you are on the other side, and for no other reason.
The original subpoenas were grossly overbroad, that has been admitted.
And no, defending oneself does not require excessive discovery that goes well past the boundaries of harassment and attempted intimidation.

don't even respond. that was off the charts

(10-17-2014 11:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 10:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Tom, you know as well as I do that the subpoenas went far, far beyond anything that might reasonably be construed as legitimate attempt to discover information bearing any relevance to the matter at hand. And if you don't know that, I would invite your attention to the words of the city attorney admitting precisely that.

Overbroad discovery requests are a fact of life in any litigation. They violate an attorney's ethical duties as an officer of the court. They should be sanctioned more often that they are, the shortfall probably resulting because attorneys don't move for sanctions in fear that they will subject themselves to sanctions should they try the same trick in another matter. When such overbroad requests come from any governmental unit, they should be particularly suspect as harassment and intimidation. Whoever sent these out should spend 60 in the county lockup for abuse of discovery.

Riggle and Welsh, and can fight the discovery citations in court. They initiated litigation here, most likely from their mansions outside of the Houston City Limits.

The lawsuit is frivolous. The discovery is valid. The city has a right to establish what communication was going on to the petition gatherers, much of what we already have proof that they KNEW what the rules were before they violated those rules anyway. The City didn't decide to run a petition campaign out of a church and from a pulpit. That communication is valid as a source of discovery.

I don't think you'd like it if Montgomery County decided to not defend itself when sued by a bunch of outsiders.

Feldman should have petitioned the courts relative to the validity of the signatures to place the queer tranny ordinance on the ballot, he didn't. Looking forward to discovery on emails between Parker and Feldman. Black Churches, not a party to this, are all over it.

I have never ever ever heard of a city doing what Houston is doing, ever.

(10-17-2014 11:14 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Dr King did go to the courts in several of those cases. As can Riggle and Welsh. But to compare the actions of Riggle and Welsh (who live by you - in Montgomery County - not in Houston) to Dr King is laughable.

Riggle and Welsh cannot shield themselves from discovery simply because they electioneered from a pulpit or from a church. The City is seeking to establish that the "Houston" (not really) Area Pastors Council knew very well what the laws were.

And the scope of the subpoenas are relevant to that objective exactly how?

Quit acting as if there is any suggestion that the City cannot or should not defend itself. It just needs to play by the rules when doing so. It didn't, and it has admitted that. You seem to be the only person who hasn't figured that out.

(10-17-2014 11:14 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 11:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 11:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 10:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Tom, you know as well as I do that the subpoenas went far, far beyond anything that might reasonably be construed as legitimate attempt to discover information bearing any relevance to the matter at hand. And if you don't know that, I would invite your attention to the words of the city attorney admitting precisely that.

Overbroad discovery requests are a fact of life in any litigation. They violate an attorney's ethical duties as an officer of the court. They should be sanctioned more often that they are, the shortfall probably resulting because attorneys don't move for sanctions in fear that they will subject themselves to sanctions should they try the same trick in another matter. When such overbroad requests come from any governmental unit, they should be particularly suspect as harassment and intimidation. Whoever sent these out should spend 60 in the county lockup for abuse of discovery.

Riggle and Welsh, and can fight the discovery citations in court. They initiated litigation here, most likely from their mansions outside of the Houston City Limits.

The lawsuit is frivolous. The discovery is valid. The city has a right to establish what communication was going on to the petition gatherers, much of what we already have proof that they KNEW what the rules were before they violated those rules anyway. The City didn't decide to run a petition campaign out of a church and from a pulpit. That communication is valid as a source of discovery.

Quick question, how would you have felt if Dr. King had gotten a similarly overbroad subpoena from the City of Montgomery in 1963?

Dr King did go to the courts in several of those cases. As can Riggle and Welsh. But to compare the actions of Riggle and Welsh (who live by you - in Montgomery County - not in Houston) to Dr King is laughable.

Riggle and Welsh cannot shield themselves from discovery simply because they electioneered from a pulpit or from a church. The City is seeking to establish that the "Houston" (not really) Area Pastors Council knew very well what the laws were.

I'm confused here. was MLK gay?

(10-17-2014 11:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 11:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Riggle and Welsh, and can fight the discovery citations in court. They initiated litigation here, most likely from their mansions outside of the Houston City Limits.

The lawsuit is frivolous. The discovery is valid. The city has a right to establish what communication was going on to the petition gatherers, much of what we already have proof that they KNEW what the rules were before they violated those rules anyway. The City didn't decide to run a petition campaign out of a church and from a pulpit. That communication is valid as a source of discovery.

I don't think you'd like it if Montgomery County decided to not defend itself when sued by a bunch of outsiders.

Spare the hyperbole.
The lawsuit is frivolous in your eyes because you are on the other side, and for no other reason.
The original subpoenas were grossly overbroad, that has been admitted.
And no, defending oneself does not require excessive discovery that goes well past the boundaries of harassment and attempted intimidation.

The lawsuit is frivolous because the other side has no case. The petitions are invalid. The City Charter rules were clear and constitutional. The petitions aren't valid.

I don't have an issue in asking for all communication engaged by those spending a significant amount of time in petition gathering and promotion.

The petitions weren't overbroad, but the City has simply amended its discovery request to cover just about everything that the "Houston" Area Pastors Council did during their attempt to support firing Gay employees and denying Transgender persons access to public bathrooms. I doubt you'll find that Riggle or Ed Young did anything much else during that time except electioneer.

(10-17-2014 11:19 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 11:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 11:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Riggle and Welsh, and can fight the discovery citations in court. They initiated litigation here, most likely from their mansions outside of the Houston City Limits.

The lawsuit is frivolous. The discovery is valid. The city has a right to establish what communication was going on to the petition gatherers, much of what we already have proof that they KNEW what the rules were before they violated those rules anyway. The City didn't decide to run a petition campaign out of a church and from a pulpit. That communication is valid as a source of discovery.

I don't think you'd like it if Montgomery County decided to not defend itself when sued by a bunch of outsiders.

Spare the hyperbole.
The lawsuit is frivolous in your eyes because you are on the other side, and for no other reason.
The original subpoenas were grossly overbroad, that has been admitted.
And no, defending oneself does not require excessive discovery that goes well past the boundaries of harassment and attempted intimidation.

The lawsuit is frivolous because the other side has no case. The petitions are invalid. The City Charter rules were clear and constitutional. The petitions aren't valid.

I don't have an issue in asking for all communication engaged by those spending a significant amount of time in petition gathering and promotion.

The petitions weren't overbroad, but the City has simply amended its discovery request to cover just about everything that the "Houston" Area Pastors Council did during their attempt to support firing Gay employees and denying Transgender persons access to public bathrooms. I doubt you'll find that Riggle or Ed Young did anything much else during that time except electioneer.

Tommy Boy, awful try. 50,000 signatures were gathered to only put a repeal on the ballot for voters and Feldman said no. No is up to a judge, not him. Your spin is only relative to whose dick you are sitting on. Ms Mayor is violating the law. I am sure Tranny freaks use bathrooms all the time.

(10-17-2014 11:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 11:14 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Dr King did go to the courts in several of those cases. As can Riggle and Welsh. But to compare the actions of Riggle and Welsh (who live by you - in Montgomery County - not in Houston) to Dr King is laughable.

Riggle and Welsh cannot shield themselves from discovery simply because they electioneered from a pulpit or from a church. The City is seeking to establish that the "Houston" (not really) Area Pastors Council knew very well what the laws were.

And the scope of the subpoenas are relevant to that objective exactly how?

Quit acting as if there is any suggestion that the City cannot or should not defend itself. It just needs to play by the rules when doing so. It didn't, and it has admitted that. You seem to be the only person who hasn't figured that out.

Actually, the city knows its going to win the case anyway, so there's no issue with amending the discovery petition to really ask for the same thing anyway, which will probably cover a lot of sermons.

What are the rules? That a grifter like Ed Young or Steve Riggle can do whatever they want from their mega churches and then avoid discovery when filing frivolous lawsuits?

(10-17-2014 11:25 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 11:19 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 11:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 11:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Riggle and Welsh, and can fight the discovery citations in court. They initiated litigation here, most likely from their mansions outside of the Houston City Limits.

The lawsuit is frivolous. The discovery is valid. The city has a right to establish what communication was going on to the petition gatherers, much of what we already have proof that they KNEW what the rules were before they violated those rules anyway. The City didn't decide to run a petition campaign out of a church and from a pulpit. That communication is valid as a source of discovery.

I don't think you'd like it if Montgomery County decided to not defend itself when sued by a bunch of outsiders.

Spare the hyperbole.
The lawsuit is frivolous in your eyes because you are on the other side, and for no other reason.
The original subpoenas were grossly overbroad, that has been admitted.
And no, defending oneself does not require excessive discovery that goes well past the boundaries of harassment and attempted intimidation.

The lawsuit is frivolous because the other side has no case. The petitions are invalid. The City Charter rules were clear and constitutional. The petitions aren't valid.

I don't have an issue in asking for all communication engaged by those spending a significant amount of time in petition gathering and promotion.

The petitions weren't overbroad, but the City has simply amended its discovery request to cover just about everything that the "Houston" Area Pastors Council did during their attempt to support firing Gay employees and denying Transgender persons access to public bathrooms. I doubt you'll find that Riggle or Ed Young did anything much else during that time except electioneer.

Tommy Boy, awful try. 50,000 signatures were gathered to only put a repeal on the ballot for voters and Feldman said no. No is up to a judge, not him. Your spin is only relative to whose dick you are sitting on. Ms Mayor is violating the law. I am sure Tranny freaks use bathrooms all the time.

Actually, they said they submitted 50,000. They actually submitted less than 30,000. Yes, they lied in the press conference. Personal favorite was all the boxes sent to the City. Many of them were empty. Of those 30,000, well over 12,000 were invalid, many obviously so. Of the 17,000 signatures that might be Houston voters, several thousand were collected by ineligible petition collectors.

People living in Boisser City Louisiana aren't valid signatures.

Its not up to people outside of Houston to make us vote on things we don't need to vote on. We already voted for a City Council. Elections cost money. There is a clear procedure for forcing a vote. It has rules that are consistently applied and transparent and have been in place for decades. It allows for less than 1% of Houston residents to force a vote on an issue so long as the petitions are collected correctly. Welsh is on video instructing the collectors of the specific rules violated by the petition collectors.

Riggle couldn't find 1% of Houston residents to be valid voters and sign the petition. There's no need for us to spend 5 million bucks on a vote.

(10-17-2014 11:26 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 11:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 11:14 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Dr King did go to the courts in several of those cases. As can Riggle and Welsh. But to compare the actions of Riggle and Welsh (who live by you - in Montgomery County - not in Houston) to Dr King is laughable.

Riggle and Welsh cannot shield themselves from discovery simply because they electioneered from a pulpit or from a church. The City is seeking to establish that the "Houston" (not really) Area Pastors Council knew very well what the laws were.

And the scope of the subpoenas are relevant to that objective exactly how?

Quit acting as if there is any suggestion that the City cannot or should not defend itself. It just needs to play by the rules when doing so. It didn't, and it has admitted that. You seem to be the only person who hasn't figured that out.

Actually, the city knows its going to win the case anyway, so there's no issue with amending the discovery petition to really ask for the same thing anyway, which will probably cover a lot of sermons.

What are the rules? That a grifter like Ed Young or Steve Riggle can do whatever they want from their mega churches and then avoid discovery when filing frivolous lawsuits?

The law says 17,000 signatures needed to put the tranny ordinance on the ballot. 50,000 signatures were delivered. The validity is determined by the board of elections or a judge not Feldman. WTF don't you understand?

Tom, quit claiming that this is about preventing discovery. You know that you are lying by trying to mischaracterize it that way.

You can conduct discovery when you sue or are sued. There are rules to prevent that discovery process from being abused for the purposes of harassment and intimidation. The city attorney has admitted that those subpoenas broke those rules. What part of that do you not get?

Discovery? Can't wait for FOIA on public employee emails between Parker and Feldman.