In a surprise move, Range Resources, a publicly listed fracking company notorious for its pychological warfare campaign against grass root opponents to fracking, has announced that the company will be de-listed to become a private company, renounce its claim to corporate personhood and change its name to the asterisk symbol (* ) which is the symbol for a gashole. 
The unorthodox move was announced by their lawyer Willy Frackham IV of the firm of Dewey, Frackham and Howe of Dallas. Frackham explained the move as part of a legal strategy in (*’s ) defamation lawsuit. “It’s almost impossible for us to prove that Range Resources have been defamed as a public figure. Particularly one as notorious as Range Resources, a public company that makes martyrs of fractatvists 24/7. It’s easier to prove that they have been defamed if they are a private entity that no one has ever heard of. So we have advised them to immediately go private, renounce their corporate personhood and change their name to a symbol. They chose the asterisk (*) since that’s how gasholes are shown on topographic maps.”
Frackham took a drag on his Camel, coughed, then chuckled softly to himself, “Who ever believed corporations were people in the first place ?” He added, “The non-entity formerly known as Range certainly know a lot about fracking gasholes, know what I’m sayin’ ? Maybe as much as Aubrey McClendon. So it was a smart move to pretend that they are a private non-person in order to harass fractavists with even more impunity. ”
(*) put the psycho in using psy-ops against grass roots opposition to fracking . But they would not comment on their new strategy to pretend to be a private non-person.
At a press conference to announce the sudden change, a company public relations spokesman dressed entirely in black, who would only give his name as (*# 7), said: “Let me be perfectly clear: I am not a Public Relations spokesman. Don’t call me that or (*) will fracking sue you. I am a Private Relations spokesman for a private non-person known as (*). Do you copy, civilian ?”
http://www.nofrackingway.us/2012/04/26/fox-faucet-flambe-deep-in-the-heart-of-texas/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_Resources
Making martyrs of fractivists earns (*) the kind of publicity that money can’t buy.
http://shaleshock.org/2012/03/range-resources-makes-a-martyr-of-texas-sharon/
If you’re going to sue (*) for damaging your well water, better do it fast, because (*) is about to learn that supply & demand applies to propane, butane, ethane, aka nat gas liquids. Which no longer are in such short supply.
http://energypolicyforum.com/?p=459
Help Sharon fight these gasholes
http://www.nofrackingway.us/2012/05/16/help-texas-sharon-fight-fracking/
(*) could not have found a better judge for their defamation – he’s endorsed by Rush Limbaugh as being “tough on environmentalists” – even ones that happen to have cases pending before his court . . . “Judicial ethics ? Balderdash. We don’t need no judicial ethics around here. “The fracking judge boasts in his campaign ads:
http://parkercountyblog.com/2012/05/22/why-limbaugh-congratulates-judge-loftin/
http://tinyurl.com/trey-loftin-ad1
http://tinyurl.com/trey-loftin-ad2
Which might present some problems for Judge Loftin under Texas law:
Canon 3 B. 10 of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct says: ” A judge shall abstain from public comment about a pending or impending proceeding which may come before the judge’s court in a manner which suggests to a reasonable person the judge’s probable decision on any particular case.”
Texas has the best fracking judges that money can buy :
Bloomberg News
Texas Judge’s Campaign Says He’s Taken on the EPA
By Mark Drajem on May 24, 2012Companies Mentioned
RRC
RANGE RESOURCES CORP
A Texas state judge is promoting his recent decisions favoring a gas driller in its dispute with a local landowner as part of his election campaign, a move some legal scholars say may violate state judicial ethics rules.
With aspects of the case still pending in his courtroom, Judge Trey Loftin sent fliers to voters saying he forced the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to back down.
Loftin, who is campaigning to keep his state judgeship in a county west of Dallas, also sent out materials with the image of talk show host Rush Limbaugh, who credited the judge’s ruling in favor of driller Range Resources Corp. (RRC) (RRC), based in Fort Worth, Texas, for getting the EPA to reverse course.
“The problem of having judges run for office is that sometimes they cross a line in trying to get elected,” James Alfini, a professor of law at South Texas College of Law in Houston and co-author of a book on judicial ethics, said in an interview. “In this case, I think he crossed a line.”
Texas is one of 39 states that select trial court judges by election, and one of eight that do so through partisan elections, according to the American Bar Association. Others chose judges through appointment.
The Texas code of judicial conduct prohibits judges from commenting on pending or impending cases “in a manner which suggests to a reasonable person the judge’s probable decision.” Alfini said that the State Commission on Judicial Conduct should conduct an inquiry.
Commission Reaction
The commission’s executive director, Seana Willing, said it doesn’t disclose whether a complaint has been filed against a judge. Unless a complaint is filed and examined, there is no way to know if a particular campaign statement violates the state code, she said in an e-mail.
Loftin, who is running to retain the post to which he was appointed on the 43rd district court in Parker County, has ruled in favor of Range three times in a legal dispute with landowner Steven Lipsky and consultant Alisa Rich. Lipsky sued Range, accusing it of contaminating his well water. Range, in a countersuit, alleged that Rich and Lipsky conspired to defame the company by getting the Environmental Protection Agency to intervene in the case, which prompted media coverage.
While one decision in the case is under appeal, parts of the case continue to be argued in Loftin’s courtroom. Last week, Loftin ruled that blogger Sharon Wilson must turn over e-mails Range demanded.
“The EPA, using falsified evidence provided by a liberal activist environmental consultant, accused and fined a local gas driller of contaminating wells,” according to a campaign flier for Loftin’s campaign. President Barack “Obama’s EPA backed down only after Judge Trey Loftin ruled that the evidence was ‘deceptive.’”
In Public Record
A message left at Loftin’s office was returned by Craig Murphy, who runs the Austin-based political consulting firm Murphy Turner Associates. Murphy, who said he is a campaign spokesman for Loftin, declined to elaborate on the text in the brochures, or even say whether they referred to this case.
“We were real careful in the mailings to make sure everything in there was appropriate,” he said. “What we’ve done is strictly reprint things that are in the public record.”
Range, Rich and Lipsky aren’t named in either of the two fliers provided to Bloomberg. The news stories and Limbaugh commentaries they cite are about the case.
Loftin’s campaign Facebook page includes a reprinted “morning update” by Limbaugh from April 9, in which he says the judge’s decision in favor of Range in the Lipsky case forced the EPA to backtrack. Loftin’s campaign mailer also credits a story in the Fort-Worth Star Telegram about his decision in the Range case.
Recusal Could be Sought
Even without specific references, the mailer may cause a reasonable person to think Loftin was biased in the case, said Keith Swisher, a professor of law at the Phoenix School of Law and expert on judicial ethics.
“The fact that a specific name wasn’t used doesn’t provide” an out, Swisher said in an interview. The materials could also be used by Lipsky or Rich’s lawyers to get Loftin removed from the case, he said.
Lipsky didn’t return a telephone message seeking comment.
“It would be disturbing to think that there was any association between this mailer and myself,” Rich said in an interview. Rich’s lawyer, George Carlton, said he is reviewing the documents.
“I’ve never run across anything like this before,” he said in an interview. “We’re deciding what, if anything, we need to do.”
Fracker Range Resouces Sues Over YouTube of Burning Well
By Mark Drajem and Mike Lee on May 18, 2012
Steven Lipsky shot video of methane- fueled flames shooting from a hose hooked up to his well in Weatherford, Texas, and sent it to Sharon Wilson, a blogger who posted it on YouTube. And he hired Alisa Rich to test the water in his well and alert the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
For gas-driller Range Resources Corp. — which Lipsky blames for contaminating his water from two wells near his home — those actions amount to a conspiracy to harm its reputation, and it went to state court seeking $3 million in damages from Lipsky and Rich.
Range won one round in its fight this week, when a judge ruled that Wilson had to turn over e-mails she exchanged with the EPA and Lipsky, as she is a “central and recurring character in the conspiracy lawsuit.”
“This has everything to do with Range trying to shut me up, and further intimidate opponents,” Wilson said in an interview. Wilson, who said she didn’t even receive the video of Lipsky’s flaming hose until after the EPA acted, said she fears she may be added to the suit against Lipsky and Rich.
The fight between Range and environmental activists has taken on national import as Republican lawmakers allege the EPA, and especially the regional office in Dallas, has persecuted oil and gas drillers over hydraulic fracturing, with the Fort Worth, Texas-based Range case a primary example. Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, involves pumping water, sand and chemicals underground to free gas.
Armendariz Resignation
At the heart of the complaint by Range, a counterclaim to a suit filed against it by Lipsky, is the allegation that Lipsky and Rich, president of Wolf Eagle Environmental consultants, conspired to persuade the EPA to intervene, working with the EPA regional administrator Al Armendariz.
Armendariz resigned this month after a tape from 2010 emerged in which he compared the agency’s efforts against polluters to Roman conquerors suppressing Turkish towns by crucifying residents. A photo of Armendariz with Wilson is part of Range’s filing with the court. Armendariz didn’t return a telephone message.
“Everyone has a right to petition their government, but there is also a duty and a responsibility to do so truthfully and accurately,” Andrew Sims, an attorney for Range in the case, said in an interview. “The evidence is very convincing and very strong that there was a conspiracy.”
SLAPP Cases
Lawyers for Rich and Lipsky tried to get Judge Trey Loftin in the 43rd district court in Parker County, Texas, to throw out the case, arguing that it violates a Texas law against so-called Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, or SLAPPs. Loftin rejected that argument, and the case was appealed to the Texas Second Court of Appeals in Fort Worth.
Companies file SLAPP cases to try to deter outside critics, said Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University School of Law in Santa Clara, California, who studies the issue.
Appealing to the government for help is a core protection in U.S. law, Goldman said in an interview. Citizens should have wide legal leeway in what they can tell public officials so “the government can make the call,” he said.
While one could argue the Range countersuit was filed to silence criticism, one could also say Lipsky hasn’t been deterred from public speech because he sued the company, said lawyer Douglas E. Mirell of Loeb & Loeb LLP in Los Angeles, who isn’t involved in the litigation.
Question of Law
If the Range counterclaim moves forward, the gas company would have to prove it had been defamed, a question of law that pivots on whether the court deems it to be a public figure, one that willingly thrust itself into the public eye, Mirell said. If Range is ruled public, then it must convince the court that its adversaries made statements they knew were false or with reckless disregard for whether they were true, he said.
“If the corporation is found to be a public figure, then it’s going to be incredibly difficult for a defamation claim to succeed,” he said. Absent such a finding, the defamation standard would be mere negligence, “and that’s a pretty low bar,” he said.
A few facts of the case are not in dispute: Range drilled near Lipsky’s property in Weatherford in 2009, and used hydraulic fracturing. In 2010 Lipsky, who didn’t respond to telephone messages seeking comment, complained about seeing vapors from gas escaping from his drinking well, and called out a service crew because he couldn’t get water from the well.
‘Felt Terrible’
After that it gets contentious.
According to a deposition filed with the Texas Railroad Commission, which regulates oil and gas drilling in the state, Lipsky became concerned about his water quality in 2010, and appealed to the commission and other state regulators asking them to intervene. Lipsky said he felt sick.
“I felt like maybe I was dying of cancer,” he said in the deposition from January 2011. “I’m not sure. I just felt terrible.”
He also sent off the video of flames shooting out of his hose from his well to Wilson, who writes the blog BlueDaze under the moniker TXSharon about the gas industry in Texas, she said. Lipsky hired Rich in August 2010, after state regulators failed to act, Rich said in an interview.
Emissions Testing
Before she took the job, Rich e-mailed Lipsky on Aug. 12, proposing testing emissions in the air five feet from the well.
“I can then contact the EPA and discuss the fact that we have a multi-issue environmental concern, including potential explosion AND impact to human health (especially children) they will be very receptive,” Rich wrote in the e-mail, which is in the court file. “It’s worth every penny if we can get jurisdiction to the EPA.”
That e-mail is at the core of the conspiracy case. “She reached a conclusion about how they can stage this test to get the EPA inflamed over the matter,” Sims said.
Rich says she was responding to what she heard from Lipsky, and said she always “shoots straight” with her tests. And when she took the readings at Lipsky’s house a few days later, she found dangerous methane levels, told Lipsky to move out of his house and contacted the local fire department.
“I was majorly concerned the place would blow up,” Rich said in an interview. Because state officials wouldn’t help, Rich said she also called EPA officials in Dallas later that month when the results came back and asked them to get involved.
‘Classic Runaround’
“There was no other solution, other than to notify the EPA,” Rich said. “He was getting the classic runaround.”
Lipsky also hired a lawyer, David Ritter, who sent a letter to Range’s general counsel David Poole on Sept. 21, 2010, detailing the level of contaminants found in the water and indoor air. “The Lipskys hope that this situation may be resolved without the need for litigation, especially considering the amount of local, regional and national media attention a case of this type and magnitude may produce,” Ritter said in the letter.
In December 2010 the EPA issued an order that Range’s gas drilling near Lipsky’s home had caused “extremely high levels” of methane, which can be explosive, and the presence of benzene, a carcinogen. The EPA said in a statement that it ordered the company to “stop the contamination immediately.” A month later, the agency filed a lawsuit against Range in U.S. District Court in Dallas asking a judge to compel the company to comply with the order.
Range Not Responsible
The EPA’s December order generated the news headlines Ritter had suggested, and a flurry of actions followed. The Texas Railroad Commission held a hearing, and ruled that Range wasn’t responsible for the contamination. Lipsky sued Range, which had $1.2 billion in revenue in 2011, in district court in Parker County. In July 2011, Range fired back, filing its countersuit against Lipsky and Rich.
“Rich’s scheme was designed to enlist the EPA in pursuing a costly ‘investigation’ against Range, which resulted in significant harm to Range’s well-deserved reputation as a high- quality driller,” the company said in its countersuit.
Loftin ruled that Lipsky had to take his original complaint to state officials, not to the court.
This week, Loftin ruled that Wilson, who now works for the Earthworks’ Oil & Gas Accountability Project, should be afforded no protections as a journalist, and had to turn over e-mails requested by Range.
“The court finds that she is what she holds herself out to be: an activist,” Loftin wrote in his decision on May 15.
The EPA has backed off as well. Even before Armendariz resigned, the agency had settled its case in federal court against Range after the company agreed to test 30 local water wells and turn over relevant testing data to the agency.
Wilson said she fled a 42-acre rural property after gas drillers moved in. Sitting in her home in Allen, a suburb of Dallas, she said that instead of spending millions of dollars on legal fees and investigations of her finances, Range could pursue a much simpler strategy.
“The best way to shut me up is to drill better.”
The EPA case is U.S. v. Range Production Co., 11-cv-00116, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (Dallas). The case in Texas state court is Lipsky v. Durant, 11-cv-0798, 43rd District Court of Texas, Parker County.
To contact the reporters on this story: Mark Drajem in Washington at mdrajem@bloomberg.net; Mike Lee in Dallas at mlee326@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Jon Morgan at jmorgan97@bloomberg.net
See Video Here:
http://www.businessweek.com/videos/2012-05-18/range-resources-sues-homeowner-over-youtube-video
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
I totally laughed my ass off.
as did I…….thanks Chip…..
Dear Friends in Parker County AND those of you with voting friends in Parker County, please read and pass along……………
I am now interested in the Parker County elections, specifically requesting that voters VOTE for CRAIG TOWSON. Please pass this to your friends and voters in Parker County.
I have reason to ask that no one vote for trey loftin. Recently I was co-counsel in a case in front of Loftin. Last Friday I filed my Motion to Withdraw in this case in the 43rd District court but have not heard if that Motion was granted by Loftin.
On April 4, 2012, MY CLIENT SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED MY PRESENCE for a “hearing” in front of Trey Loftin. I did not know that opposing counsel was not going to be present; I did know my co-counsel was not going to be able to be present and I had NO IDEA why Loftin requested that these clients in a divorce case show up in his court. All I knew is that my client was refusing to attend unless I was present. I was not included in the telephonic conference the previous day between Loftin, opposing counsel and my co-counsel, although I had several days previously filed a Notice of Appearance in this divorce case. On the morning of the hearing, Loftin came to the bench and immediately launched into a tirade about my co-counsel being UNETHICAL and ordered me to leave the attorney’s table where I was seated next to my client. When I attempted to point out that I had filed a Notice of Appearance I was threatened by Loftin that if I did not remove myself immediately he would have the bailiff remove me! Loftin then called the parties to the bench and all Loftin did was tell the parties that he was so sorry that their divorce had been ongoing for 10 years and told my client, despite what co-counsel had done, he, Loftin could be fair and impartial in this divorce case.
As for Tray Loftin, I have no respect left for him. I have never ever been threatened by a Judge to have me removed from the courtroom by the bailiff, but Trey Loftin did so threaten me.
When Loftin dismissed the parties he called me to the bench to explain that opposing counsel was livid that I was present with my client. I was not party to the telephonic conversation the previous day; it is like I did not exist even though I had filed my Notice of Appearance. No motions were being heard and no one knew why the parties were told to be in court. My question is HOW DID LOFTIN KNOW THE OPPOSING COUNSEL WAS LIVID, ex parte maybe???
Later, out of the courtroom, in the coordinator’s office, I tried to explain to Loftin that there is NO WAY my co-counsel would ever be unethical. Loftin said he used the wrong word and it was more of an appearance of impropriety. IT WAS NOT. Then Loftin put his arm around my shoulder and gave me a hug. HOW DISRESPECTFUL and DEMEANING to me, as a female attorney. I seriously doubt he would have hugged me had I been a male attorney.
He called my co-counsel UNETHICAL at least 3 times and has ignored what he did to me and has mis-stated what the transcript plainly recorded. He is trying to squiggle out of this mess that he created. He has gotten the little g-o-d complex already. He then wrote a CYA letter to my co-counsel with a cc to me, but it is full of misstatements, etc. and he seems to want to blame me for his fiasco of words and actions.
I have spoken to another Tarrant County atty whose client wanted to fire the atty, so the atty did the correct thing and filed the motion to withdraw and Loftin REFUSED to let him withdraw. Luckily that case settled, but who needs a Judge with such a bad temper and mis-use of the powers of a Judge.
Please VOTE FOR CRAIG TOWSON; he is a gentleman and you can take his word to the bank. He is an honest attorney and will be a fair and impartial Judge.
Rachel Sheeran, RN (Retired) and JD
—
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission may be: (1) subject to
the Attorney-Client Privilege, (2) an attorney work product, or (3) strictly confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you may not disclose, print, copy or disseminate this
information. If you have received this in error, please reply and notify the sender (only) at 817-763-9800 and delete the message.
Unauthorized interception of this e-mail is a violation of federal criminal law. Unless expressly stated in this e-mail, nothing in this message should be construed as a digital or electronic signature.
My neighbors and I spent over 20K in attorney trying to see the books of our HOA. After ten years there was a one week trial and a Parker County jury found the Board of Directors had done many things wrong. The Board was ordered to show their records among other thinks. Parker County District Judge Chrestman oversaw the trial and the preparation of the judgment and Permanent Injunction ordering the Board of Directors to obey a ton of Texas laws they had ignored. Attorney Barton Reeder represented the plaintiffs and they had to bring the Board of Directors back into Judge Chrestman court two times for contempt. The Board simply refused to obey the order. Judge Chrestman retired. Out of money and with no attorney I filed a motion on my own behalf asking the court to enforce the order in Trey Loftin’s courtroom. The attorney for the HOA and his firm were large contributors to Loftin’s campaign fund. Without even hearing me Judge Loftin said I was in contempt of court and practicing law without a license. He refused to enforce a lawful order issued by the 43rd Judicial District Court because he was not the judge who signed the order. He appears to want another trial in front of him. My neighbors and I do not have another $20K for another trial. We have found over $20K in funds were missing and the Board did not pay IRS taxes for 7 years. This is one reason they did not open the books and records to the membership. Now our HOA is for sale at 1/2 price. Is justice for sale in Texas? When a large campaign contributor wins cases without a hearing something smells. I am not an attorney and have never played one on tv. I was present when all of this happened and this is what I saw.
The case was Aguire v Horseshoe Bend Lot Owners Corporation. You cannot see it on line because it was filed around 2002 and hear around 2010.
Last week Judge Loftin laid hands on a 73 year old attorney in his courtroom after making her feel as if he was threatening her. She called me and was very upset. She said in all of her years of practice no judge had ever made threats in the courtroom as Judge Loftin had and no attorney or judge had ever laid hands on her person.
Chuck Bayne
now officially gasholes
Hey, I think you stole that from Kurt Vonnegut
http://disraeli-demon.blogspot.com/2008/09/sketches.html
Sorry, not stole. Since I am presently in a fracas over using copyrighted music in my videos. Let’s say “literary allusion”