Richard Thompson, 610-436-5582, P.O. Box 463, West Chester, PA 19380
In the Twelfth Court of Appeals 1517 W. Front St., Suite 354 Tyler, Texas 75702 Tel 903 593 8471, Fax 903 593 2193
Appeal: 12-15-00226-CV
From: Cause No. 2014-0349-CCL2
Richard Thompson (heir in Estate of Wm. McGeorge)
vs.
Blackberry LC (aka Bob Anderson, Esq.) fax 903 232 1881
Reply to Appellee's Objection to Docketing Statement (revised)
Appellee's objection is moot as appeal is already docketed, properly, from Appellant's succinct petition for reversal, inter alia, and the public record created by the taking of property assessed at $162,000 at less than half value ($75,000); the needless objection to supplemental paper work casts Appellant in false light of being deceptive while divulging the taking was a series of half-truths.
Nonetheless, this court could deem the four page objections as Appellee's Brief, upon which Appellant will respond, point by point:
1. Anderson "is the principal owner of Blackberry LC," accepted , making his investors accomplices.
2. "Echols is lawyer for Receiver Reader," accepted, but both are ultimately agents for Anderson.
3. The admitted purpose of case was to consolidate Anderson's ownership, couched as "partitioning."
There was no Order Directing Sale signed November 21 2014 served on Thompson, this is first notice.
There was an Order for a Final Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 10/23/14, which I moved to rescind, because of PreliminaryObjections to Anderson's Amended Complaint, EXH. A, and Supplemented by fax with actual tax assessments on 10/23/14, EXH. B. The so-called trial remains a reversible error that time cannot validate. Remedy is always available for intentional injury - justice has no statute of limitations.
4. "Notice, type and date of order appealed" is understood and redundant to Appeal filed 9/9/15.
5. Appellant pretends to not know what order is appealed, only August 3, 2015, he wishes Twelfth Court to believe, and that is the only order marked "final" ever served on Thompson, but it is the culmination of "priorjudgments and orders,"... "disposing of all parties and issues," Anderson claims - none of those actions overcame Thompson's claims, they are the marriage of malpractice and malfeasance.
On 10/23/14 Judge Dulweber signed a fallacious Statement of Evidence, prepared by Anderson and endorsed by Ad Litem lawyer Moore, EXH. C, whereafter Defendant/Appellant Thompson filed a Motion to Rescind Judicial Approval of Plaintiffs Statement of Evidence on 11/18/14, EXH D.
"It appears Appellant is attackingparts of Order Directing Sale, 11/21/14 (none seen) and parts of Order Authorizing Sale of Real Property. 4/24/15, (EXH. E,) each of which are final and appealable..." I appealed this later order to the Clerk of Court to reject the order for lack of "fair value" recital (reference to an unserved Receiver's Report is insufficient - it could be deficient, Reader admitted an ethical conflict), inter alia. I had filed a Motion to Reconsider and Rescind Dispensing of Formal Appraisal 2/19/15, which the Judge ignored, EXH. F. Anderson goes on:
"Appellantfiled a document that the trialcourt treated as a Motionfor a New Trial... denied June 5, 2015 (none served);" this proves the collusion, my Praecipe to Strike Ex-Parte Order Authorizing Sale of Property, 5/26/15, EXH. G, was an order to the Clerk to obey the law, the Judge had no subject matter jurisdiction and was wrong to intervene, her duty is to law, not judicial whim.
After 5/26/15 Thompson heard nothing more from anyone until the curious 8/3/15 final Order Discharging Receiver and Granting Attorney Fees and Order Distribution, suggesting that $75,000 had been paid into Court Registry, $23,176.50 paid to lawyers and $51,823.50 held for the account of eleven (11) owners. This was the only "final" order served on Thompson, all others had valid objections ostensibly pending, from Defendant Thompson's point of view - because he was not served they were all ex-pa rte.
If there was a "final" order on 6/5/15, denying a "New Trial," it was withheld and never served - and the reason obvious, receiver and ad litem did not want a stay until they had extracted exorbitant fees.
For Appellee to pretend that not serving prior judgments and orders Appellant rights are waived, is absurd, - if the Aug 3 2015 "final" order is appealable any time fraud discovered - they are all reversible.
6. As to what parts of the record should be forwarded for appeal - all of it. All the Plaintiffs facts and legal authorities, all the Defendant's motions and exhibits, and everything said before the court.
"Reporters record" (Clerk's record?), if delayed, will be the fault of Appellee, who generated vexatious cost as stratagem for partition to his favor, see my letter to Clerk Duncan and Anderson of 11/12/15.
7. General objections are deemed admissions - Appellant knows he must answer appeal; what he is attempting are preliminary objections to forstall the risk of perjury.
The Docketing Statement may appear to offer such opportunity, but where a cogent appeal has been filed it must be disposed of on merit, the docketing statement has been reviewed and any blanks filled in by Appellee, no questions remain. 8. Minutia on service is relevant but immaterial as Appellee has reduced the active parties to two, himself, and me - those interested I have served, those intimidated, or who sold, would waste time and postage. Echols (who represented Receiver Reader who got $12,644 for no appraisal) and Moore (who failed to honor my defense of heirs unknown) have not entered appearances. Tony Rolling defaulted in trial court.
Any specificity he asserts relates only to procedural ephemera, the sale price was his sole and unilateral creation because our Estate Executor relied solely on Anderson's legal advice as a lawyer.
Appellee argues that prior orders were not appealed within 30 days and are thus irrevocable, but none were marked "final," (critical ones not even mailed) while issues were pending appeal was not ripe; Defendant Thompson properly preserved his appellate rights with motions to reconsider on merit; any piecemeal attempt could have been declined by the Twelfth Court as remediable and premature.
Copies of his filings will reveal the dearth of facts upon which the court have granted Anderson ownership for $75,000. The court had to act either sui sponde or ex-parte, or the pouch will contain documents not served on defendants or posted to the public docket.
Every decision must be supported with documentation, a judge is not at liberty to usurp the legal standing of a defendant or put himself in a position of self-defense. The Twelfth Court of Appeals will weigh Anderson's pleadings against the record and find that none of the lower court orders can stand singly, collectively, or in any combination and the share distribution the McGeorge tract is invalid ab initio because of Appellee's self-serving legal advice to owners that their surface rights were meaningless (see my 10/212/15 Memo of Law on Surface Rights).
I hereby certify this reply has been served on Appellee, 11/30/15 by First Class Mail.
Verified true and correct under penalty of law.
Richard Thompson
12/1/15
(Blackberry - Reply to Appellees objection to Docketing Statement 11-30-15) Richard Thompson, 610-436-5582, P.O. Box 463, West Chester, PA 19380
In the County Court at Law #2 Gregg County, Texas
Fax 903 237 2574
Cause No. 2014-0349-CCL2
Blackberry LC (Bob Anderson by Admission) fax 903 232 1881 vs.
Ethelwynn Bowen, et. al. r *..,.,,. !•«•»
Preliminary Objection to Plaintiffs First Amended Petition and Motion to Rescind Order for "Final Non-Jury Trial" scheduled for 10-23-14
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Richard Thompson, 610-436-5582, P.O. Box 463, West Chester, PA 19380
In the Twelfth Court of Appeals 1517 W. Front St., Suite 354 Tyler, Texas 75702 Tel 903 593 8471, Fax 903 593 2193
Appeal: 12-15-00226-CV
From: Cause No. 2014-0349-CCL2
Richard Thompson (heir in Estate of Wm. McGeorge)
vs.
Blackberry LC (aka Bob Anderson, Esq.) fax 903 232 1881
Reply to Appellee's Objection to Docketing Statement (revised)
Appellee's objection is moot as appeal is already docketed, properly, from Appellant's succinct petition for reversal, inter alia, and the public record created by the taking of property assessed at $162,000 at less than half value ($75,000); the needless objection to supplemental paper work casts Appellant in false light of being deceptive while divulging the taking was a series of half-truths.
Nonetheless, this court could deem the four page objections as Appellee's Brief, upon which Appellant will respond, point by point:
1. Anderson "is the principal owner of Blackberry LC," accepted , making his investors accomplices.
2. "Echols is lawyer for Receiver Reader," accepted, but both are ultimately agents for Anderson.
3. The admitted purpose of case was to consolidate Anderson's ownership, couched as "partitioning."
There was no Order Directing Sale signed November 21 2014 served on Thompson, this is first notice.
There was an Order for a Final Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 10/23/14, which I moved to rescind, because of PreliminaryObjections to Anderson's Amended Complaint, EXH. A, and Supplemented by fax with actual tax assessments on 10/23/14, EXH. B. The so-called trial remains a reversible error that time cannot validate. Remedy is always available for intentional injury - justice has no statute of limitations.
4. "Notice, type and date of order appealed" is understood and redundant to Appeal filed 9/9/15.
5. Appellant pretends to not know what order is appealed, only August 3, 2015, he wishes Twelfth Court to believe, and that is the only order marked "final" ever served on Thompson, but it is the culmination of "priorjudgments and orders,"... "disposing of all parties and issues," Anderson claims - none of those actions overcame Thompson's claims, they are the marriage of malpractice and malfeasance.
On 10/23/14 Judge Dulweber signed a fallacious Statement of Evidence, prepared by Anderson and endorsed by Ad Litem lawyer Moore, EXH. C, whereafter Defendant/Appellant Thompson filed a Motion to Rescind Judicial Approval of Plaintiffs Statement of Evidence on 11/18/14, EXH D.
"It appears Appellant is attackingparts of Order Directing Sale, 11/21/14 (none seen) and parts of Order Authorizing Sale of Real Property. 4/24/15, (EXH. E,) each of which are final and appealable..." I appealed this later order to the Clerk of Court to reject the order for lack of "fair value" recital (reference to an unserved Receiver's Report is insufficient - it could be deficient, Reader admitted an ethical conflict), inter alia. I had filed a Motion to Reconsider and Rescind Dispensing of Formal Appraisal 2/19/15, which the Judge ignored, EXH. F. Anderson goes on:
"Appellantfiled a document that the trialcourt treated as a Motionfor a New Trial... denied June 5, 2015 (none served);" this proves the collusion, my Praecipe to Strike Ex-Parte Order Authorizing Sale of Property, 5/26/15, EXH. G, was an order to the Clerk to obey the law, the Judge had no subject matter jurisdiction and was wrong to intervene, her duty is to law, not judicial whim.
After 5/26/15 Thompson heard nothing more from anyone until the curious 8/3/15 final Order Discharging Receiver and Granting Attorney Fees and Order Distribution, suggesting that $75,000 had been paid into Court Registry, $23,176.50 paid to lawyers and $51,823.50 held for the account of eleven (11) owners. This was the only "final" order served on Thompson, all others had valid objections ostensibly pending, from Defendant Thompson's point of view - because he was not served they were all ex-pa rte.
If there was a "final" order on 6/5/15, denying a "New Trial," it was withheld and never served - and the reason obvious, receiver and ad litem did not want a stay until they had extracted exorbitant fees.
For Appellee to pretend that not serving prior judgments and orders Appellant rights are waived, is absurd, - if the Aug 3 2015 "final" order is appealable any time fraud discovered - they are all reversible.
6. As to what parts of the record should be forwarded for appeal - all of it. All the Plaintiffs facts and legal authorities, all the Defendant's motions and exhibits, and everything said before the court.
"Reporters record" (Clerk's record?), if delayed, will be the fault of Appellee, who generated vexatious cost as stratagem for partition to his favor, see my letter to Clerk Duncan and Anderson of 11/12/15.
7. General objections are deemed admissions - Appellant knows he must answer appeal; what he is attempting are preliminary objections to forstall the risk of perjury.
The Docketing Statement may appear to offer such opportunity, but where a cogent appeal has been filed it must be disposed of on merit, the docketing statement has been reviewed and any blanks filled in by Appellee, no questions remain. 8. Minutia on service is relevant but immaterial as Appellee has reduced the active parties to two, himself, and me - those interested I have served, those intimidated, or who sold, would waste time and postage. Echols (who represented Receiver Reader who got $12,644 for no appraisal) and Moore (who failed to honor my defense of heirs unknown) have not entered appearances. Tony Rolling defaulted in trial court.
Any specificity he asserts relates only to procedural ephemera, the sale price was his sole and unilateral creation because our Estate Executor relied solely on Anderson's legal advice as a lawyer.
Appellee argues that prior orders were not appealed within 30 days and are thus irrevocable, but none were marked "final," (critical ones not even mailed) while issues were pending appeal was not ripe; Defendant Thompson properly preserved his appellate rights with motions to reconsider on merit; any piecemeal attempt could have been declined by the Twelfth Court as remediable and premature.
Copies of his filings will reveal the dearth of facts upon which the court have granted Anderson ownership for $75,000. The court had to act either sui sponde or ex-parte, or the pouch will contain documents not served on defendants or posted to the public docket.
Every decision must be supported with documentation, a judge is not at liberty to usurp the legal standing of a defendant or put himself in a position of self-defense. The Twelfth Court of Appeals will weigh Anderson's pleadings against the record and find that none of the lower court orders can stand singly, collectively, or in any combination and the share distribution the McGeorge tract is invalid ab initio because of Appellee's self-serving legal advice to owners that their surface rights were meaningless (see my 10/212/15 Memo of Law on Surface Rights).
I hereby certify this reply has been served on Appellee, 11/30/15 by First Class Mail.
Verified true and correct under penalty of law.
Richard Thompson
12/1/15
(Blackberry - Reply to Appellees objection to Docketing Statement 11-30-15) Richard Thompson, 610-436-5582, P.O. Box 463, West Chester, PA 19380
In the County Court at Law #2 Gregg County, Texas
Fax 903 237 2574
Cause No. 2014-0349-CCL2
Blackberry LC (Bob Anderson by Admission) fax 903 232 1881 vs.
Ethelwynn Bowen, et. al. r *..,.,,. !•«•»
Preliminary Objection to Plaintiffs First Amended Petition and Motion to Rescind Order for "Final Non-Jury Trial" scheduled for 10-23-14
1. Defendant Richard Thompson objects preliminarily to Plaintiffs First Amended Petition as it corrects none of the deficiencies (notably lack of probable cause) of Plaintiffs original petition for which case was dismissed 5/19/14 based on my p.o.'s of 4/15/14 - there is still no offer to buy Defendant's share or proof that he paid the Estate of Wm. McGeorge afair market value for prime commercial property zoned for oil and gas production fronting on the Sabine River. 2. Defendant invokes and adds back all his objections, arguments, motions and admissions by default as valid and germane to this revised petition which boldly seeks repayment of costs assumed by Plaintiff in his land speculation.
3. None of Thompson's subsequent motions have been answered and thus are ripe for judgment in his favor, based on pleadings, by default.
4. A"Final Non-Jury Trial" on 10/23/14,10am) only two days from notification (received today, 10/21/14,11am) violates the time allowance for response to a motion before the court and Defendant respectfully moves for its rescission by return fax or phone call. (Post Office record shows notice only received 10/20/14 while time stamped 10/7/14 by Plaintiffs F&P postage meter - afraud to deny Defendants their day in court.) 5. Because Plaintiff never sought to clear title by purchase from Thompson, his purchase from the Estate is likewise suspect and Thompson's consent to Executor Royal McGeorge invalid for lack of full disclosure as recounted in my filing of 6-5-14, item 1, of my "Argument." Ireiterate that Anderson's claim of 88% is a nullity due to his conflict of interest with the Executor who failed to manage the surface rights and became dependent on his lawyer. This meritless lawsuit bears out the logic of land men to take title by manipulating the court - 6. Therefore, the court can't allow itself to be so ill-used; it must protect the public, defend property rights, and compel discovery, i.e., produce realistic appraisal or dismiss this amended petition and cancel the non-jury set for a day from now.
Aform of order for rescission and dismissal is attached.
Sworn under penalty of law.
Ihereby certify that a copy ofthis Preliminary Objection to Plaintiffs First Amended Petition and Motion to Rescind Order for "Final Non-Jury Trial" scheduled for 10-23-14 was sent by fax to attorney Bob Anderson on 10-21-14,
Richard Thompson 10-21-14
(PO and Motto Cancel 10-23-14 Hrg.docx) Richard Thompson, 610-436-5582, P.O. Box 463, West Chester, PA 19380
In the County Court at Law #2 Gregg County, Texas
Cause No. 2014-0349-CCL2
Blackberry LC (aka Bob Anderson)
vs.
Ethelwynn Bowen, et. al.
Order of the Court
And now, this day of 2014, Plaintiff Robert Anderson is hereby ordered to provide to defendants within one week, copies of all the leases, surface agreements, tax assessments and conditions that encumbered the property described in this his First Amended Petition and under which he agreed to pay his then client in 2004, Royal McGeorge II, the executor of the estate of William McGeorge Jr. within one week, failure to do so will result' in dismissal of his amended claim on 10/31/14, with prejudice.
Final Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 10/23/14 at 10:00 a.m. is hereby cancelled.
By order of the court.
Hon. Vincent Dolweber
(PO and Motto Cancel 10-23-14 Hrg.docx) Defendants
Ethelwynn Bowen 1128 Sky Hawk Mountain Road Hiawasee, GA 30546
Thomas Yocum 2142 Pass Creek Roiad Castlegar, British Columbia VIN4S9
Timothy Callahan
Tony Rolling P.O. Box 582 White Oak, TX 75693
Ellen Taylor 26 Brook Bend Way East Bridgewater, MA 02333
Lee Eckenrode 540 Fegleysville Road Perkiomenville, PA 18074-9346
Timothy Eckenrode 709 Wombat Way Kissimmee, FL 34759-4224
Bonnie Gaeth 1397 East Gartner Road Naperville, IL 60540
Lucy Koban 35 Old Sutton Road Bedford, NH 03221
Christina Frank 3848 Anne Street Drexel Hill, PA 19026
Joseph S. Klimczack, Jr. 7921 West Chester Pike, 2nd Fir. Upper Darby, PA 19082
Robert A. Klimczack 57 South Church St. Clifton Heights, PA 19018 l/r
Richard Thompson, 610-436-5582, P.O. Box 463, West Chester, PA 19380
In the County Court at Law #2 fU^sr (+firMJ> bez.iyJg'Q. to Gregg County, Texas T^JbCtf DoLW/eTO^ 1+ltltrOftftTL^ - Fax9032372574 rni*L l* i>(lQ0C^ / ft^ fofj,/^ Cause No. 2014-0349-CCL2 Blackberry LC (Bob Anderson by Admission) fax 903 232 1881
vs.
Ethelwynn Bowen, et. al. &»• 1} Supplement to Defendant Thompson's - Preliminary Objection to Plaintiff's First Amended Petition and Motion to Rescind Order for "Final Non-Jury Trial" scheduled for 10-23-14
1. Defendant Richard Thompson has just discovered that Plaintiffs offers to heirs of $600/acre is below the Gregg County Appraisal District (903-238-8823) assessment as follows
Account No. Acres Assessment Value/Acre
Tract one 23043 49.78 $76,870 $1540
Tract two 23049 112.4 $92,230 $ 840
Total 162.2 $169,100 $1042
2. Description of "rural land," and "minimum use," is out of date and inaccurate, as property has numerous active wells, pumps, tanks, roads and is extensively used for oil and gas production.
3. The property has added value for its water resources and tax assessment values are not true market values -the heirs must be paid full value according to their share, the previous sale must also be opened and recalculated on market value for the use to which it was put.
4. The court erred in scheduling a final non-jury trial the day Plaintiffs First Amended Petition was filed, 10/7/14, it was collusive and unjust; void under the rules of civil procedure.
Copies of this Supplement served by fax today. Sworn under penalty of law.
Richard Thompson, 10/22/14 FILED OREGO COUNTY, TEXAS
Bob Anderson OCT 2 4 ?0H Smead, Anderson & Dunn 2110 Horseshoe Lane Longview, Texas 75605-5628 Lr.}. i. ^clock ' m Telephone: 903.232.1880 Bf nFPirrv
Facsimile: 903.232.1881 E-mail: banderson@smeadlaw.com
CAUSE NO. 2014-349-CCL2
BLACKBERRY, L C, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff § VS. § § OF § ETHELWYNN BOWEN, THOMAS § YOCOM, TIMOTHY CALLAHAN, TONY § ROLING, RICHARD THOMPSON § TIMOTHY ECKENRODE, CHRISTINA § H^flK; J0SEPH S- KLIMCZACK, JR., § ROBERT A. KLIMCZACK, THE § UNKNOWN HEIRS OF JOHN WILLIAM § SHOEMAKER, THE UNKNOWN HEIRS § OF WILLIAM M. MCGEORGE, JR., THE § UNKNOWN HEIRS OF MARY CLARK § MCGEORGE, AND THE UNKNOWN § HEIRS OF ANY OF THE ABOVE- § NAMED DEFENDANTS WHO ARE § DECEASED § Defendants § GREGG COUNTY, TEXAS
STATEMENT OF EVIDENCF
On this the 23rd day of October, 2014, trial on the merits was held in this cause.
Plaintiff appeared by its company representative and by attorney of record. Defendants ELLEN TAYLOR, LEE ECKENRODE, BONNIE GAETH and LUCIANE S. KOBAN (LUCY KOBAN) were previouslydismissed from this action. Defendants TIMOTHY
STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE F:\Documents\Clients\Blackberry vMcGeorge heirs 6566.001\P Statement of Evidence.wpd Pagel CALLAHAN, THE UNKNOWN HEIRS OF JOHN WILLIAM SHOEMAKER, THE UNKNOWN HEIRS OF WILLIAM M. McGEORGE, JR., THE UNKNOWN HEIRS OF MARY CLARK McGEORGE, AND THE UNKNOWN HEIRS OF ANY OF THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANTS WHO ARE DECEASED who were each cited by publication appeared by attorney ad litem, John W. Moore, and announced ready for trial; Defendants ETHELWYNN BOWEN and RICHARD THOMPSON have heretofore filed answers in this cause but did not appear for trial. Defendant Tony Roling has filed an notice ofappearance and appeared in person.
Bob Anderson, being the first witness, was sworn and the cause proceeded with the following evidence being introduced:
Bob Anderson testified that he is the principal owner and manager of Plaintiff, Blackberry LC; that heis an attorney licensed to practice law in the state of Texas and that for 39 years his practice primarily has been focused on land titles; that several years ago he contracted to buy the land described in Plaintiffs First Amended Original Petition from the heirs of William M. McGeorge, Jr., and Mary Clark McGeorge; that he and individuals with U.S. Title Company have spent considerable time reviewing the title; and that based upon this title review he is of the opinion that the ownership in the tract described in Plaintiff's Amended Original Petition is as stated in the petition. Bob Anderson testified concerning the efforts that he has made to locate the Defendants or their heirs. These efforts include, but are not limited to, telephone and letter communications with other family members and various Internet searches. Bob Anderson testified that he has paid 100% of all property taxes for the years 2012-2014 totaling $3,564.86.
STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE F:\Documents\Clients\Blackberry vMcGeorge heirs 6566.001\P Statement of Evidence.wpd 9S 2 Tom Eberhardt, being the second witness, was sworn with the following evidence being introduced:
Tom Eberhardt testified that he had been on the property and said he had been advised ofthe percentage ownership by the different co-owners, and that it was his opinion that it would be difficult to divide the land in kind among the different owners in accordance with their proportionate shares. No further testimony was introduced. APPROVED this 23rd day of October, 2014.
I have read the foregoing and agree that it accurately represents the evidence introduced at the trial described above.
Smead, Anderson & Dunn The Law Office of John W. Moore 2110 Horseshoe Lane 300 N. Green Longview, Texas 75605-5628 P.O. Box 2841 Telephone: 903.232^1880 Longview, TX 75606-2841 Fax: 903.232.188; Telephpne>- 903.236.3500
By: Bob Anderson State Bar Card #01211300 Bar Card #00794327 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF ATTORNEYAD LITEM FOR DEFENDANTS BLACKBERRY, LC TIMOTHY CALLAHAN, THE UNKNOWN HEIRS OF JOHN WILLIAM SHOEMAKER THE UNKNOWN HEIRS OF WILLIAM m' McGEORGE, JR., THE UNKNOWN HEIRS OF MARY CLARK McGEORGE, AND THE UNKNOWN HEIRS OF ANY OF THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANTS WHO ARE DECEASED
STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE F:\Documents\Clients\Blackberry vMcGeorge heirs 6566.001\P Statement of Evidence.wpd Page 3 fc^rr- Richard Thompson, 610-436-5582, P.O. Box 463, West Chester, PA 19380
In the County Court at Law #2 Gregg County, Texas
Fax 903 237 2574
Cause No. 2014-0349-CCL2
Blackberry LC (Bob Anderson by Admission) fax 903 232 1881 vs.
Ethelwynn Bowen, et. al.
Motion to Rescind Judicial Approval of Plaintiffs Statement of Evidence Defendants Richard Thompson and Ethelwynn Bowen, represented by her daughter Jane Cook hereby object to entry of Bob Anderson's 10-24-14 "Statement of Evidence," because it was ' entered prior to entry of the court order and transcript, was approved ex-parte by Judge Dolweber w.thout notice to Defendants, contains misstatements, distorts the record and materially harms rightful ownership ofthe original heirs, to wit:
1. Ethelwynn Bowen (89), did appear, helped by her daughter Jane Cook. 2. The court did not serve Defendants with notice of trial. 3. Richard Thompson had only atwo day notice and thus was barred from attending 4. Tony Roling did not attend or testify. 5. Ad Litem Attorney for non-appearing heirs, John Moore, did not testify or defend. 6. John Moore, objected toJane Cook speaking for her invalid mother. 7. John Moore shut down questioning by Jane Cook. 8. Expert Witness Tom Eberhardt did not testify as to land use, surface rights or value. 9. The court made no inquiry into these questions raised in pleadings by Dft. Thompson. 10. No one but Jane Cook was available to cross examine Eberhardt.
Because Defendant Thompson's preliminary objections and motions to dismiss on grounds of deception and collusion, were ignored, and final trial held in absentia, this proceeding was flawed and the court withdraws its endorsement of Pltfs 'Statement of Evidence," and allows the transcript tospeak for what evidence it did or did not consider. Copies served byfax today. Sworn under penalty of law. Hon. Judge Dulweber
Richard Thompson, 11/18/14 (Motn t0 Rescind Judl Aprv| stmt 0Evjd n.18.14 docx) *""" Electronically Submitted 04-24-2015 12:43 PM Gregg County District Clerk By: Debbie Kinney .deputy
CAUSE NO. 2014-349-CCL2
BLACKBERRY,X.C., .§ 1N.THE-DISIRICT-COURT- § Plaintiff § § VS. § OF § ETHELWYNN BOWEN, THOMAS § YOCOM, TIMOTHY CALLAHAN, TONY § ROLING, RICHARD THOMPSON, § TIMOTHY ECKENRODE,CHRISTINA § FRANK, JOSEPH S. KLIMCZACK, JR., § ROBERT A. KLIMCZACK, THE § UNKNOWNHEIRS OF JOHN WILLIAMS § SHOEMAKER, THE UNKNOWNHEIRS § OF WILLIAMM. MCGEORGE, JR., THE § UNKNOWN HEIRS OF MARY CLARK § MCGEORGE, AND THE UNKNOWN § HEIRS OF ANY OF THE ABOVE- § NAMED DEFENDANTS WHO ARE § DECEASED § § Defendants § GREGG COUNTY, TEXAS
ORDER AUTHORIZING SALE OF REAL PROPERTY
Onthis date the Court considered the Amended Report ofReceiver Regarding Sale ofReal
Property filed on March 26,2015. The Court finds that this sale was incompliance with this Court's
previous Order Directing Sale of Real Property Not Susceptible to Partition in Kind and that the
proposed sale isfor a fair price. The property to besold is described as follows, to-wit:
49.989 acres and 112.12 acres inthe P. McAnally Survey, Ab-257, Gregg County, Texas
IT IS ORDERED that the saledescribed in the report is approved and conveyance of the
property is authorized on compliance by the purchaser with the terms of sale; and That Michael Reader, Receiver, be and is authorized tomake this conveyance and receive payment. _ _____ _ __
SIGNED on April 24 t 2015.
JUDGE PRESIDING
-2- \A^ 02/19/2015 16:45 6106968519 STAPLES &WEST CHESTER P46E. LfiZ&4 GREGG COUNTY. T1XA8 IT~^
% 1 ^-,^ f FEB 2 4 2015 %, ^ i I Richard Thompson, 610-436-5582, P.O. Box 463, West Chester, PA 19380 BAI
In the County Court arts. Gregg County, Texas Fax 903 237 2574
Cause No. 2014-0349-CCL2
Blackberry LC (aka, Bob Anderson) fax903 2321881
vs.
Ethelwynn Bowen,et. a
Motion to Reconsider and Rescind Dispensing of Formal Appraisal
Defendant and Heir, Richard Thompson, appearing for himself and all others similarly situated, moves the court to reconsider and rescind its order of 1/26/15 dispensing with formal appraisal as it isex-parte andthus invalid byignoring my timely objection filed byfax 1/24/15, EXH. A.
The order is further invalidated and rendered moot as Plaintiff has failed to refute the logic and reasonableness of my appraisal of $507,300 based on the property'scurrent tax assessment, usage, and valuable water resources.
In the absence of anyevidence or argument to the contrary, my appraisal stands as the law of the case, not merely by default, but byCounty assessment and Plaintiffs admissions of use for oil and gas production.
The sui-sponde order did not absolve the Receiverof his obligation to defend his reluctance to appraise, especially when he admits to an ethical conflict.
Copiesserved byfax and mail, 2/19/15 (Boon Shaver Echols Coleman &Goolsby, 903 759 3306)
Sworn under penalty of law.
(Ia1cJL«u^JI '^M^^Ur^--^ Richard Thompson 2/19/15 02/19/2015 16:46 6106968519 STAPLES WEST CHESTER PAGE 02/04
Richard Thompson, 610-436-5582, P.O. Box 463, West Chester, PA 19380
In the County Court at Law#2 Gregg County, Texas
Cause No. 2014-0349-CCL2
Blackberry LC
vs.
Ethelwynn Bowen, et. al.
Order of the Court
And now,this. .day of. 201S, in view of Defendant Thompson's timely objection of 1/24/15, myorder of 1/26/15 dispensing with a formal appraisal is rescinded.
By order of the court.
Hon. Judge Dulweber Richard Thompson, 610-436-5582, P.O. Box 463, West Chester, PA 19380
In the County Court at Law #2 Gregg County, Texas Fax 903 237 2574
Cause No. 2014-0349-CCL2
Blackberry LC (aka, BobAnderson) fax 903 232 1881
vs.
Ethelwynn Bowen, et. al.
Praecipe to Strike Ex-Parte Order AuthorizingSale of Property
Defendant and Heir, Richard Thompson, appearing for himself and all others similarly situated, hereby directs the Clerk of Court to Strike the order of 4/24/15 as void for collusion, and want' of proper legal procedure, specifically:
1. No service of an answer, if any, to my 2/19/15 Motion to Reconsider and Rescind Dispensing of Formal Appraisal. 2. No service of a Formal Appraisal, if any. 3. No serviceof a "Court Order Directing Sale of Real Property not Susceptible to Partition in Kind."
4. No service of "Amended Report of Receiver Regarding Sale of Real Property" 5. No service of a "Report of Receiver Regarding Sale of Real Property" 6. No rebuttal to my appraisal of 1/24/15 7. No notice of a "proposed sale," by whom or to whom. 8. No substantiation of what constitutes a "fair price." 9. Conflict of interest compounded as Plaintiff Anderson was lawyer for Defendants. 10. No docket copy despite numerous requests.
This praecipe does not require Plaintiff to plead, please docket immediately and mail me a copy Copies served by mail, 5/26/15 (Boon Shaver Echols Coleman &Goolsby, fax 903 759 3306)
Sworn under penalty of law.
Richard Thompson 5/26/15