Wardman Wire Magazine

I hear from Phil Groom that the application to make the UK charity Society of Saint Stephen the Great bankrupt at the United States Bankruptcy Court Southern District of Texas in Houston has been Dismissed with Prejudice:

Thanks to Rigorist for this update, posted August 29, 2008 at 12:11 am:

I just checked the US court system’s PACER service this afternoon (it is still afternoon on this side of the Atlantic). The bankrupcty case was dismissed at today’s hearing on the trustee’s motion.

The actual docket entry is as follows:

“Courtroom Minutes. Time Hearing Held: 11:00 am. Appearances: Mark Brewer for debtor; Randy Williams for Trustee. (Related document(s): 24 Chapter 7 Trustee’s Motion to Dismiss Case). Ellen Hickman present. Mr. Williams addressed the Court regarding the motion to dismiss. Arguments were heard by opposing parties. The Court announced its findings and dismissed the case with prejudice. (rsmi) (Entered: 08/28/2008)”

A written order with more explanation may follow, but as of right now, the bankruptcy case is dismissed.

This means that the Society of Saint Stephen the Great, a UK Charity, has been recognised (at this stage, by this Court) as not being able to be liquidated under US Bankruptcy Laws.

The “With Prejudice” dismissal means that the case is dismissed for good reason and the plaintiff is barred from bringing an action on the same claim. I can’t comment on what is possible in other courts, however.

The Monday Morning Team Meeting at the Lawyers’ Office

Credit: www.weblogcartoons.com

Bearing in mind that we have been visited by M’Learned Friends from bplaw.com, I thought I would help with the research by stating clearly what the policies are here with respect to Cease and Desist letters, and explain how you can question points of fact on this site.

After all, I wouldn’t want to cause excessive expenditure on legal fees - especially if the enquiries ever happen to be paid for from taxpayers’ money.

Our terms and conditions page is here, linked from the top menus of every page on the site to make sure that no one can miss it.

There have been a few posts in a few places over the week about the Dave Walker situation. I thought it would be a good time to remember the objectives as I wrote them down on 25th July:

1 - We wish to make it very clear to Mark Brewer and everybody else that trying to shut down comment, critique and reporting in the way he has is not acceptable, and just will not work. We aim to ensure he gets more publicity than he ever had before this point.

2 - We want to make sure that the material Dave Walker published remains in the public domain, to help address the SPCK case.

3 - We want to try and make sure that the SPCK case is properly documented and investigated.

4 - We wish to strengthen the movement to reform the UK Libel Laws.

I have 2 thoughts for a Sunday morning:

• What is the difference between a Flash Mob and a Lynch Mob?
• Q: What sort of “free, democratic” country is it where political websites (including this one) are hosted abroad - not because that releases us personally from any legal actions (it doesn’t), but because it keeps non-defamatory material available to the public when webhosts in this country may well pre-emptively remove it to “play safe”, just because someone pays a lawyer to write a letter containing an allegation?

  A: One that has become a little tarnished at the edges.

What do you think?